This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:47, 10 January 2011 (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive96.). 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

Ctpnono Continues to Buyllyedit

Cptono Continues to Bully Edit the Beck Page and to post things on my discussion page== I am having serious problems with user Cptnono. He is controlling the glenn beck page, lawyering on the wikiguidelines to eliminate legit. content, and basically assuming control as the managing editor of the page. Further he keeps posting things on my discussion page. I do not want this editor posting on my discussion page, and I would like for someone to investigate his behavior on the Glenn Beck page. I have made a number of complaints and no one has done anything.

He is misusing consensus and applying other policies where they are not actually applicable. If he acted like an equal editor among many, it wouldn't be so bad, but he treats other editors like they are below him, like he has special authority on wikipedia.

Plus he gave me a warning that was unwarranted on my discussion page. I did not violate the policy he cited. And I happen to know that edit disputes are not grounds for a warning. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks since being warned. You however have just made another one. Do not comment on contributors like this. An admin already warned you and I warned you since I did not want to drag it to ANI. But you cannot be disruptive on a BLP and you cannot attack other editors. You can open an RFC or (even better) try working on a paragraph regarding his views on Muslims as I have suggested. The edit has more than one editor objecting and you did not make the edit in accordance with the one editor who agreed with you.Cptnono (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullyediting isn't about personal attacks. It is about enforcing your will onto a page by beating other people over the head with policy guidelines.

You know full well the other objections by editors were little more than "Muslims should be happy to be called terrorists because that is what they are." (I am paraphrasing of course). I looked up the guidelines. My entry cites reliable sources and is neutral and relevant. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What is more, though you redacted my claim, I think it is well founded. YOur behavior is absolutely bullyediting. And users on the page have basically expressed their support for beck or his ideas and then gone on to attack including the entry. I don't see the big deal with mentioning that, if people have explicitly come out in support of beck's statements. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It was explained to you already by an admin. I have also tried explaining it. You have been provided all of the necessary links and advice. I have also brought this to the edit warring board for the reverts on the BLP.Cptnono (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No you are the only person who has been explaining your position. And you know perfectly well that isn't warranted. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the only other person continuing to discuss it. I suppose I could just stop responding as others already have.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could. Again, we should enter into mediation, as the dispute appears to be between you and me at this point. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to start understanding the comments left to you by others. You have been warned by an admin for attacking other users (yet you continue) and you have had another explain why mediation is not yet appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been warned as far as I know Cptnono. But its fair to point out, you've been warned more than me about these matters. Mediation is absolutely appropriate, since no valid reason for blocking the material has been provided. Again, I believe this is a misapplication of consensus according to my understanding of the policy (which I've read several times. You simply keep asserting things. But you and are both equal editors on wikiepdia. I feel like you are using a lot of imperatives and acting as though you have more authority than others. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already told you that I do not have any authority. You were warned on your talk page by an admin:Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Then please stop acting like you have authority. You make me very, very uncomfortable. I feel like I am being bullied by you, and that you revertin content that legimately belongs on the page. I received one warning. You have received multiple warnings and complaints. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice to anyone following. I have filed an ANI for attempted outing.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And I didn;t do anything of the sort. I woke up today to a warning saying I violated your privacy, and that I had threatened to do so previously. However I was unable to view the content where I supposedly did this. Let me be clear here: I did no such thing. As far as I can figure I was, at most, a little rude, by referring to him using a slang term for "buddy" or "guy", that also happens to be a proper name. I would like to challenge this warning. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

YOU FUCKING WIN. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This editor continues to push me and others around. He uses wikipedia policy to boss around editors. If you look at his statements on the Glenn Beck Discussion page, he talks as if he is the page supervisory and we are his employees. I know I've overeacted to him significantly in recent days, but I do hope people will see that this didn't occur in a vacuum. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who is bullied by Ctpnono particularly in relation to the various Vancouver Whitecaps articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the input Walter. This is my point. It is part of a pattern of behavior. Again, I don't know if he just doesn't realize it, but debating Cptnono on an article is like being chewed out by an abusive boss. I would like for him to understand, he doesn't have any more or any less authority than the rest of us. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Griswaldo on Talk:Involuntary_committal_of_Victor_Győry

• Griswaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Involuntary committal of Victor_Győry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ok, this is not a very serious case but in my opinion it needs a few eyes on. There is a pretty heated discussion about sources on Talk:Involuntary_committal_of_Victor_Győry. Griswaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly accusing me of being disruptive because I added a couple of sources that I didn't verify myself but that were clearly verified by the admin User:NuclearWarfare when he nominated the article at AfD (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Victor Győry nomination, where the sources are listed including the number of paragraphs covering the subject). While I understand the whole issue is contentious, I've never heard that adding sources verified by another editor (a quite respected admin, by the way) was "disruptive", and in my opinion it is quite an attack. Can someone uninvolved weigh on the issue? Thanks a lot. --Cyclopia 16:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - The sources were not "verified" by another editor as pertaining to the entry contents. They were simply listed as the only sources that pertained to the topic at all that could be found by that editor. Mind you the same editor nominated the page for deletion because it lacked adequate sourcing. Given that fact it is truly hard to understand how Cyclopia would believe that the sources were "verified" to support the exact content of the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo is correct. I commented further on this here. NW (Talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. On the talk page you said: I skimmed the contents, but didn't really try to verify anything specific. - That you didn't verify anything specific is OK, but you had a look at the contents and you did verify that they talked about the article subject (as they in fact perfectly do, as verified personally now that Jayen466 sent us copies of the articles), so it seems to me that my WP:AGF on your source listing was correct (and in any case didn't deserve to be repeatedly called disruptive, quite a serious allegation here). --Cyclopia 02:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"The sources were not "verified" by another editor as pertaining to the entry contents."  True "They were simply listed as the only sources that pertained to the topic at all that could be found by that editor."  True "Mind you the same editor nominated the page for deletion because it lacked adequate sourcing."  True NW (Talk) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response by Griswaldo

Cyclopia de-Proded the entry and in doing so added two incomplete news references based upon their mention in the PROD rationale, along with a third complete reference to a book titled Mental Illness, based on its mention in the PROD rationale as well. Another user removed the incomplete references since they didn't actually cite any information. Cyclopia, edit warred (, ) to keep them in despite admitting on the talk page to have never accessed or verified these sources. In doing so he also edit warred to keep in the citation to Mental Illness, which I had separately removed due to it's misuse. I also started a talk page discussion about the poor source, but Cyclopia chose not to engage it before reverting my removal. He now appears to agree with my removal but has not explained why he added it in the first place, or even admitted to making a mistake. I believe he is acting disruptively because during an active AfD discussion he's puffing the entry up with sources that do not belong, or that he has not bothered to verify and is edit warring to keep the puffery in. Telling him that this is disruptive is not, in my view, a breach of etiquette, but I'm open to feedback.Griswaldo (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not "agree with your concerns"; I understand them -quite a different thing. I still think that the source makes sense and explained that on the talk page. And I read it before adding it -so much that in fact I added it inline. I am also not puffying; I removed a couple of unreliable sources as well. In any case the point here is not what do we think of sources, but your calling me repeatedly "disruptive" or rebuking my comments with "BS" for a mere technical disagreement -something that I see as a violation of civility. --Cyclopia 16:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Calling people uncivil for questioning his long-standing reckless attitude to BLPs is rather typical of the myopic rule-gaming that Cyclopia engages in. He doesn't seem to see that how we treat articles on living people outweighs the in-house niceties. Given the long-standing and vexatious nature of this, I'm wondering whether a BLP-related topic ban would be in order.--Scott Mac 16:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)
    1. Not the right venue. Open a RfC/U is that is your concern.
    2. I invite you to find proper BLP violations on my part justifying a topic ban (possibly in the abovementioned RfC/U). Otherwise what you're proposing is just a threat of silencing who happens not to share your point of view on the issue. --Cyclopia 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Edit warring to keep in unverified and fallacious citations to BLP information after repeated explanations of the problem is indeed a BLP violation and you did it more than once.Griswaldo (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Not unverified: NuclearWarfare verified them. Do you really trust me more than him? And they didn't cite direct BLP information, they were further reading. About the "fallacious" one, that's your opinion, which I disagree on. Again, please learn that we can agree to disagree, but disagreement is not a reason to attack people or call them disruptive, least to topic ban them (again, if that's your idea, WP:RFC/U is that a-way). --Cyclopia 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Please quote the statement by NW that lead you to believe that he had "verified" the sources, or the policy that allows you to add sources to any entry without verifying them yourself first, particularly to information that pertains to a living subject, as all the information in this entry does? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is not the right venue for such discussions. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but defending myself from his accusations is absolutely appropriate in this venue. Regarding your general involvement here please see my comment below.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Just so that there is no confusion, you mean a topic ban of Cyclopia, right?Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • yes, long overdue imo.--Scott Mac 17:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Diffs please, per WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:TROUT all around. Cyclopia, Off2riorob, and Griswaldo need to simply focus on content and follow WP:TALK better. At least Off2riorob chose to step away...

It looks like Off2riorob and Griswaldo understandably lost their patience trying to determine the rationale for Cyclopia's editing. Off2riorob lost his cool 15:32, Cyclopia took offense at the incivility , and the Off2riorob escalated the situation further 15:42, before leaving the discussions.

Griswaldo then jumps in to escalate the problems further, again and again. 15:52 16:08 16:11 16:12 16:14 16:14 Cyclopia eventually gets tired of pointing out the problems and brings the complaints to a proper forum here. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

When someone acts disruptively, again and again, asking them to stop acting disruptively each time is not "escalating" anything. Cyclopia escalated by bringing the situation here. Now that it is turning on him you want it to stop? Why is that Ronz? The only time you and I have interacted here I seem to recall being highly critical of your own behavior. I also seem to recall that so many people were critical of you that you threatened to retire. Now if you think that my behavior towards you then is pertinent to this discussion then by all means bring it forth (I'm open to criticism), but I think it is highly dubious of you to show up as if you are disinterested third party commenting on what you see. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlike others here, I simply looked at the civility concerns, and provided diffs. The diffs show an escalation of incivility. No one has yet contested the facts of the situation, only tried to justify their behavior because of other concerns, or find ways to attack editors as a way to dismiss their arguments. Ironic. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlike others here you have prior involvement with me of a negative nature. I don't see any personal attacks anywhere, so please stop repeating that claim. The diffs you provided are not of escalating incivility. There is nothing escalating about them. I'm just telling him repeatedly how disruptive he's being because he's being repeatedly disruptive. Ronz, can you please do me the favor of not commenting here given our history? I can't see how it is productive in its present form. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. That is the problem here. Personalizing disputes only hinders resolving them.

If the content dispute is a part of reoccurring problems with Cyclopia, no one has provided diffs, so such comments look like personal attacks.

You shouldn't have repeatedly told him he was being disruptive, per WP:FOC, WP:AVOIDYOU, and WP:TALK. Yes, Cyclopia caused some disruption. Your response was to cause further disruption.

In contrast, Off2riorob made a few inflammatory comments then left the discussions. It would have been better if you had you been able to do the same. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I provided diffs of his disruption above (edit warring to maintain unverified, partial citations as well as a fallacious one in an entry about a living person). Please stop with the patronizing lecturing. I will not respond to you anymore Ronz as I'm well aware of where that leads from our last encounter, which is why you're clearly here in the first place. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear. Both Off2riorob (18:47) and Scott Mac (16:57) make reference to other disputes. Griswaldo (17:08) asked for clarification on what action should be taken because of those other disputes. Yet no diffs or other information has been provided on such disputes. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My position is that I see the repeated support of content of little note that is uncited and often without any attempt to improve it as extremely detrimental to the project, I see Cyclopia doing this often. I would really like to clear this up with him. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the content dispute was a mess. If this is a reoccurring problem, provide some diffs for context. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence that Cyclopia is a recurring problem? That's easy. I have trouble finding the school article talk page where Cyclopia inisted on listing children attending the school just because they are children of celebrities, but while looking for it (I thought I had mentioned it on Jimbo's talk page at some point) I found this discussion: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 57#Eric Ely AfD. In it, Cyclopia tried to defend a BLP violating article that was ultimately SNOW deleted against Jimbo. Hans Adler 09:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So, Hans Adler, let me get it right: is disagreeing with you equal to "being a problem"? In that AfD there are other 4 "keep" !votes apart from mine (e.g. Bearian, DGG): are these people "problems"? Are you people accustomed to free and frank dialogue or do you live in a walled garden of people all thinking the same? --Cyclopia 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagreeing with me is not a problem. I said you are a problem. That's because you are wasting the time of more serious editors with your immature behaviour:

• Disagreeing with fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages such as WP:BLP, and being very obstinate about that even when you clearly have no chance to change anything.
• Trying to change the inclusion criteria for an online encyclopedia against overwhelming resistance, while not having a clue of what an encyclopedia is and what kind of information does, or does not, belong in it.

Hans Adler 13:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, so you're evidently talking about another editor, because:

• I don't disagree at all with WP:BLP. I disagree with crying "BLP!" when it is not necessarily appropriate or when actions go beyond policy.
• I never tried to change inclusion criteria (even less so "against overwhelming resistance") the closest I went I can remember was a suggestion to change the wording of WP:CORP to remove the limitation against the use of local sources a couple of times, but this was all in the normal day-to-day discussion of guidelines that is made 24/7 on WP; I don't remember having attempted to change WP:GNG or the like: I simply ask that guidelines are being respected and I tend to favour a slightly inclusive interpretation of them (like many others, and symmetrically with others that favour exclusive interpretations).

I hope it's clearer now. --Cyclopia 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of your peculiar debating technique. It's the same you employed at Talk:Brentwood School (Los Angeles, California)#"Arnold Schwarzenegger's daughter" when you were trying to defend the following sentence which you had introduced in the article in an new section: "As of November 2008, the children of governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oliver Stone and Jack Nicholson attend the school." In that discussion you claimed that understanding a source and distinguishing between its main message and any inconsequential fluff it also contains is "POV". Apparently you have a similar approach to our policies and guidelines, pushing for random misunderstandings that make superficial sense based on reading the words in isolation from all other guidelines and established practice. I don't know if this is intentional trolling or just reading incompetence, but this disruptive pattern falls under WP:Wikilawyering and is not allowed. Hans Adler 14:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation of that thread apart (here is what I said: The fact that the information in the source is a "journalistic trick" is your POV. We're not here to question the motivations that made them report the information.), can you 1)point me in detail which "misunderstandings that make superficial sense" I am guilty of and 2)explain me how your rant above rebukes or is in any way relevant to what said before? --Cyclopia 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well. I don't think Cyclopia would dispute that he votes keep for just about everything, or the he often supports articles with uncited content and makes no attempts to improve them, I have little time to scour his contributions but this is the type of thing that I have seen: - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/A Sailor Went to Sea - where he adds some claimed references to the AFD discussion and supports and is then supported keep as per cyclopia by an IP:70.27.31.10 in its first and only edit! and and another rescue group member adds - keep - not a good article at present but I think notability can be established??? and none of them made a single edit to the article which still now is uncited and looks like this A Sailor Went to Sea - wikipedia should be so improved. The articles creator said on the talkpage - It is quite clear to me why it has been proposed that the article be deleted:It lacks content,but unfortunately I do not have the knowledge needed to contribute..... So I hope that someone will try to improve the article in order for it to be considered of quality good enough for wikipedia and the deletion proposal be cancelled. - Well no one did improve it, they just voted keep. Off2riorob (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This comment is totally offtopic, but I answer the same. It is difficult to improve something if that something is erased, isn't it? That is why keeping articles (on notable subjects) is, in my view, the priority. We don't have a deadline and what can be solved by editing is not a reason to delete. Therefore yes, I agree that it would have been better if I also made an effort to improve the article, but better have improveable content than no content at all to improve. My pattern at AfD is to vote mostly keep simply because usually most articles that really need deletion already pile-up lots of delete !votes and there is no need of adding to those. I tend to concentrate on cases where arguments and sources may make a difference. --Cyclopia 11:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not off topic, its my issue with your editing, ignore it if you like, but I see such contributions as I have highlighted here as detrimental to the wikipedia. Can you please make some effort to actually improve such rubbish rather than just voting to keep it? Also, I asked you only the other day to please stop linking me to to essays that have no authority. As for the one that is part of deletion policy, you repeatedly link to it but you don't actually do it. As you are repeatedly supporting keep and people are apparently following your lead can you please at least make a commitment to attempt to improve articles you are voting keep in? What I have seen of your editing pattern, if as in the example there , three keep votes, you the ip and the other rescue member - no danger of deletion so you didn't attempt to improve it. In cases where it is looking like there may be a deletion you move to actually add some cites in an attempt to move the AFD in the direction of keep, that is fine but I would just like to request that in the cases like the one I have presented that you also make a commitment to attempt to add cites to uncited content in similar cases also and not just walk away when it is kept without any improvement at all.Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Off2riorob, I want to make a few things very clear:

1. Your personal issues with my editing are off topic here on WQA. You are welcome to discuss them on my talk page, or to post a RfC/U if you are truly concerned and you want community advice.
2. You see such contributions as "detrimental". Well, I find that removing notable and verifiable content much more detrimental instead -not counting the fact that deletion policy is on my side. So what? We agree to disagree and move on.
3. You're not going to tell me what essays/guidelines/policies I may link or not in my comments. If you don't want to read them it's up to you but this is a public discussion and if I link to essays as a shortcut to explain my point of view, that's absolutely within my rights and I'll continue to do so.
4. I see no reason to "make a commitment" -even if it would be very nice to do so, it is not the priority. The priority is having something that can be later improved, by me or someone else: if (notable, verifiable and otherwise policy-compliant) content is deleted, there remains nothing to improve. Therefore to help such content being kept (within policies and consensus, of course: you'll notice that I very rarely send stuff to DRV for example, even if I truly disagreed with deletion, because I value the community consensus) is my priority. Also in many cases I can find sources for notability but I am not necessarily the most skilled person to actually use them to improve the article. I agree that I could do more to actually source such articles and I'll try to do but -again- I can't "commit". I sourced the article you pointed out now.

Please come to my talk page if you want to further discuss. I welcome constructive criticism. --Cyclopia 11:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Ok, thanks for your comments, it is a talkpage issue I agree and if I have any future points I will discus them with you there, your comment " I'll try to do but -again- I can't commit" is at least some meeting point. I see you have added some cites to the article Cyclopia, thank you I really appreciate that, if I see more of that I am more likely to be giving you barnstars than nagging..not that I am stalking your edits because I am not, regards. Off2riorob (talk)

Cyclopia, the problem is that you, and editors who think like you, often show up to save articles that have been tagged with numerous problems for years, and then after they are "rescued" you do little to nothing to make them worthy entries. When we keep entries like that around we're not doing a service to the spread of knowledge, we are doing a detriment to it. Why doesn't the article rescue squadron rescue articles in need before they go to AfD? Why don't you find bad articles that are on notable topics and make them into good ones? You claim that what you are doing is saving them so that others can come around to make them into good articles. When those others don't come around what then? We have junk information lying around under the banner of Misplaced Pages that is often too partial to be useful, misleading or flat out wrong ... or worse, in the BLP cases, harmful. If you believe so strongly in keeping useful information in the encyclopedia you ought to 1) work to improve the entries you want to save and 2) have a better sense of what is actually worth saving. It's like you're trying to stop every garbage truck before it hits the land fill and asking them to unload all the rubbish because possible some of it can be recycled. If you want to recycle responsibly you need to do it right, and from what you're saying yourself above you're simply not discriminating. In terms of the situation that got us here, you're also going about it in a manner that at times simply violates policy (e.g. adding unverified and fallacious references to BLP information). I can respect the fact that while I find your general approach detrimental it isn't against policy, however when you start slashing the tires of the dump trucks at night so that they can't make it to the landfill, then there is a real problem. This episode, in other words, is a real problem and it is beyond simply being unhelpful, it is disruptive and against policy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite sad that we're arrived to the point that one has to justify himself for being an inclusionist like it was a crime, however here we go:

1. and then after they are "rescued" you do little to nothing to make them worthy entries.: An entry on a notable subject, provided it doesn't violate our basic policies, is a worthy entry. It may be an ugly duckling, but it is worth saving nonethless. Yes, I could go and improve every article on WP, but this is, you know, a collaborative project. It seems clear to me that you cannot improve stuff if such stuff is erased. So I took this as a priority. Other people, more skilled on the subjects, may then go and improve them.
2. Why doesn't the article rescue squadron rescue articles in need before they go to AfD?: Ask them. I'm not exactly an active ARS member. I think however the reason is that AfD puts the articles in danger, and if an editor believes the article can show evidence of being notable, asking for help for finding such evidence is only natural.
3. Why don't you find bad articles that are on notable topics and make them into good ones?: See above. I think that saving content is a much more crucial priority than making it less ugly.
4. When those others don't come around what then? : We have no deadline. If they will come, good. If they won't come, nothing bad happens -we have a poor entry but that's it.
5. have a better sense of what is actually worth saving. : My sense of what is worth saving is usually supported by guidelines and policies -I don't attempt to save article on non-notable college bands or madeup stuff.
6. In terms of the situation that got us here, you're also going about it in a manner that at times simply violates policy (e.g. adding unverified and fallacious references to BLP information). : I reject this accusation entirely. You received, like me, copies of such articles from User:Jayen466 and you have surely verified yourself as well that they were, in the end, entirely appropriate as further reading for the article. If anything, it is perplexing that NW first brings out a reference in his AfD nomination and then claims not to have verified it. I assumed good faith and evidently I was wrong in doing so. I can agree, for the sake of being paranoid, to be less good-faith assuming and I'll double check such stuff by myself, but in the end the references are good and reliable. Therefore I completely reject your description of my actions as "disruptive and against policy" as a disingenous personal attack. --Cyclopia 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And did the Mental Illness reference verify after the fact like the references sent out by Jayen? No it didn't. In fact by adding it you unwittingly added a reference to word for word reproduction of a blurb from a Scientology publication, something even you had agreed rather specifically was not usable in the entry because Scientology was not a reliable source. Why did you add it, to BLP information no less? Clearly you either 1) did not bother to read the reference you added or 2) willfully mislead us. I believe #1 was the case, but that is clearly disruptive and against policy as well. The fact that the other two unverified references, were verified after the fact, does not change what you did. When you added them they were not verified. Case closed. We judge actions by the context of those actions and not by future contexts. If you broke into someone's house and stole a lawfully owned gun from them claiming, "that gun will likely harm someone in the future" and you were convicted of theft you would not all of a sudden be pardoned because that same gun harmed someone in the future. Misplaced Pages does not source entries on the wishful hunches of editors. You may wish to see where that type of behavior inevitably leads after it exhausts the community's patience -- Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the repeated claims you have made that your own WP:AGF led you to believe that NW had verified the sources are outright baffling. 1) There is no evidence that he did so, and he has verified that he didn't and that no such evidence exists. 2) Even if he flat out said ... these sources relate to the entry contents as they stand, it would still be up to you to verify them before adding them. We don't edit by proxy here. You are culpable for what you add to the encyclopedia. Case closed.Griswaldo (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Case not closed at all.

1. The Mental Illness reference is still good in my opinion. I read the reference before adding it obviously. But one thing is using a Scientology blurb per se, a completely different thing if is a book takes it and quotes it in context. I understand this can be a matter of editorial opinion, and that's why I "understand your concerns", but it looks far from being as clear cut as you want it to be.
2. You are culpable for what you add to the encyclopedia. : I didn't invent these sources out of the blue. They were brought on the table by NW and I trusted his judgement. Was I wrong a priori in trusting his judgement? Perhaps, but then we should question why NW brings evidence of sourcing in a nomination (even if claiming they are not enough for notability) without actually verifying them, not me trusting him being a trustworthy editor. Was I wrong, in the end, in trusting that judgement? Not at all, as you have verified yourself. Notice also that such sources were not used to reference any specific bit of information -they were just added as "further reading". So, in the end, who was trying to remove proper RS from an article?
3. Again, if you truly want to submit a WP:RFC/U on me, you're welcome to do so. Otherwise yours are just vague threats. --Cyclopia 13:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I spend almost my entire time on Misplaced Pages searching for, finding, and removing material that is either libellous, unfair, or otherwise violates our neutrality policy. Occasionally, I bring stinking, marginally notable messes, to AFD: often where they've been toxic and unmaintained for years. You ignore the wider problem, wikilawyer about GNG, and resit deletion at almost all costs because "I think that saving content is a much more crucial priority than making it less ugly." You don't see a problem? "Less ugly" is here a euphemism for potentially harmful, unscrutinised, long-term messes - of which we have thousands of festering unnoticed and unmaintained. Sheeesh. You wonder why I see you people like you as part of the moral hazard of Misplaced Pages?--Scott Mac 13:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC) You wonder why I see you people like you as part of the moral hazard of Misplaced Pages?

I spend almost my entire time on Misplaced Pages searching for, finding, and removing material that is either libellous, unfair, or otherwise violates our neutrality policy. : That's excellent and I praise you for doing so.

Occasionally, I bring stinking, marginally notable messes, to AFD: often where they've been toxic and unmaintained for years.: What do you mean by "toxic", "stinking", "marginally notable" and "messes"? It's a really honest question -they seem to me vague and subjective concepts and I can't figure out what you precisely mean.

You ignore the wider problem: I don't ignore it at all. Removing libel and unsourced negative statements to protect living people is all jolly good. I only try to argument when I see such actions being unhelpful for the encyclopedia (for example when fully sourced information compliant with BLP policy is nonetheless challenged).

"Less ugly" is here a euphemism for potentially harmful, unscrutinised, long-term messes : Then scrutinize and de-mess them. Why simply slashing them? Can't you use a more constructive approach? I keep practically all articles I deprod or discussed at AfD in my watchlist and regularly scrutinize them for vandalism and the like. Is that a bad thing?

You wonder why I see you people like you as part of the moral hazard of Misplaced Pages? : Frankly no, I am not especially concerned about your moral judgement on me. That said, the point is that I fully agree with BLP policy; I disagree when we step beyond it and begin to remove fully sourced, verifiable content, actually violating it and hurting the encyclopedia. --Cyclopia 13:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Scott I fear that what you do takes work -- finding these entries and doing the background research to realize where the problems lie and to determine if the entries can be saved within our policies or not. What someone like Cyclopia does takes next to no work -- voting "keep" and then possibly copy pasting references from Google, or from some list on a talk page to make the entry look more keep worthy. Go figure that every time I ask why the ARS doesn't preemptively act to find and rescue article content by adequately researching the topic and writing a policy compliant entry before it goes to AfD I'm simply met with evasion. The answer is perhaps that doing so takes too much work.Griswaldo (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

...and nominating articles for deletion/PROD and even avoiding taking the time to check for sources takes even less work. --Cyclopia 12:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who you are directing that too. Finding only inadequate or irrelevant sources like those that aren't really about the subject or don't qualify as RS should lead to the conclusion that the sourcing is not there. That is quite different from not doing the research which I certainly do, to the best of my abilities before nominating anything for deletion. On the other hand you have clearly shown that you do not bother to read sources before adding them to create the appearance of sourcing. I'm not sure there is much more to say about this at this point. I hope you feel the WQA was worth the time, because it appears to have accomplished zilch. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Finding only inadequate or irrelevant sources like those that aren't really about the subject or don't qualify as RS : Which sources were inadequate? Which sources were irrelevant? Which sources didn't qualify as RS? Which sources weren't really about the subject? You're just throwing out accusations at random. Diffs please.

On the other hand you have clearly shown that you do not bother to read sources before adding them to create the appearance of sourcing. : I did not bother to read only sources that I thought someone else has read, since he cited them, and that proved completely relevant. I assumed good faith. What a deadly sin.

I hope you feel the WQA was worth the time, because it appears to have accomplished zilch. : Well, if anything for me it has accomplished to know better what kind of people I have to deal with. It's infinitely sad that persons unable to handle a discussion between diverging point of views without resorting to attacks and false accusations are drawn to work in a collaborative project but well, we're all human beings I guess. --Cyclopia 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution

This appears to be part of a larger personal battle. I'm sorry to have gotten involved. That said, if either Griswaldo or Cyclopia had simply followed the appropriate behavioral policies/guidelines, none of this mess would have happened:

• WP:DR: Focus on content, disengage to stay cool, and stay focused on the task at hand.
• WP:CIVIL: Be understanding and non-retaliatory
• WP:NPA: Comments should not be personalized, use appropriate forums for discussions of editor conduct rather than article talk pages
• WP:TALK, especially WP:TPG#YES: Comment on content, not on the contributor; be concise; keep discussions focused.

--Ronz (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User: NinaGreen

• NinaGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shakespeare authorship question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NinaGreen is an editor whose remarks at the Talk:Shakespeare authorship question mainly consist of hectoring, badgering and personal attacks on editors and admins. The section headings at her talk page pretty much tell the story of her relatively short Misplaced Pages editing career, with clashes between editors and admins both. She has been blocked once for disruptive editing when she used an IP address. Lately she has concentrated her attention on me, making aspersions and accusations and causing disruptions on the page. Her constant badgering and hectoring and inappropriate accusations of impropriety has contributed to an extremely toxic editing environment.

Diffs:

accusations of collusion to hide biased editing,

accusations of dishonesty

false complaints of my “ownership” of the article

accusations of misusing policy

accuses other editors of collusion to turn the page over to me

says editors should recuse themselves from editing because of their bias and open flouting of policy

accuses editors of collusion and that I edit to my personal beliefs

more hectoring and accusations of stonewalling

Skipping many similar rants to these:

accusing admins of colluding with me to keep control of the page

started a section entitled “Tom’s Censorship of the Peer Review Page” after I removed her inappropriate attack on the peer review page, which she promptly restored.

I myself have lost my temper and have had to apologise and retract some remarks. No such self-awareness has been forthcoming from her. Any remonstrations from editors or admins are taken by her as a personal attack.

My hope is that she will take notice of any admonishments from the editors here and modify her editing style to conform to Misplaced Pages standards for collegial editing.

Tom Reedy (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not an etiquette issue or an issue of 'editing style'. It concerns Tom Reedy's admitted bias and his complete control of the SAQ article which I raised on the Peer Review page today in the comments below. These comments were twice censored by Tom Reedy, who removed deleted them from the Peer Review page so that the editors doing the peer review of the SAQ article could not see them.

I've placed this comment on the Talk page for the SAQ article, and I'm placing it here as well so that peer reviewers will be aware of the restrictions which, contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, have been placed on any editing of the SAQ article to improve it. I've made many attempts to improve the article on a number of fronts including lack of neutrality, presence of synthesis and original research, excessive length, excessive use of footnotes which almost equal the length the article etc. etc., and in every case I've either been prevented from editing at all by Tom's demand that consensus be reached on the Talk page before any editing by me can be done (an impossibility), or Tom or one of his close associates has instantly reverted my edits before anyone can even look at them or consider them, even though I've placed the edits up for discussion on the Talk page. This is all completely contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, and no article should be even considered for Peer Review when this sort of strong-arming of any opposition is going on. Here's what I wrote to Tom on the subject on the Talk page:

Tom, I can't recall a single topic which has been brought up on this Talk page to any purpose. The reason for that is that you control the article, contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, and you will not allow a syllable of it to be altered without your express consent, which you never grant. Nor will you allow a single edit by anyone other than yourself to stand without instantly reverting it. You have admitted that you are biased, and have even gone so far as to claim that your bias brings a useful perspective to the article. No editor of this page who is among your close group of associates has ever objected in the slightest to any of this, and no administrator has intervened in any way to prevent it from continuing. That's an objective view of the status quo with respect to the SAQ article. It is far from Misplaced Pages's intent and Misplaced Pages's policies.

It is quite true, as Tom admits, that he has made completely inappropriate personal attacks on me, only one of which he has apologized for. But i addition to Tom Reedy's unrelenting personal attacks, the principal issues are Tom's admitted bias (of which details are available on the SAQ talk page), and his complete control of the editing of the SAQ article, of which not a single syllable can be altered without Tom's express permission, completely contrary to Misplaced Pages's policy that no editor owns a Misplaced Pages article. It seems beyond dispute that no article should be put forward for peer review by an editor who has admitted bias concerning the topic of the article and who completely controls the editing of every syllable of the article and purports to 'own' the article.NinaGreen (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide diffs to prove the dozen offhand generalizations critical of Reedy. That is all that independent minds here care to look at. Expressions of opinion are neither here nor there. In fact, in the absence of such diffs, your repeating here the phrasing 'unrelenting personal attacks' just documents what Reedy is complaining of, and in itself, since you,ve repeated it dozens of times all over wikipedia, grounds enough to suggest his complaint is justified.Nishidani (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, anyone who goes to the SAQ Talk page can find the passages in which Tom has admitted bias concerning the subject of the SAQ article and has even gone so far as to claim that his bias provides a useful perspective to the article! Similarly, anyone who goes to the SAQ Talk page can see the instantaneous reverts of any edits I've made, and the stonewalling of discussion on the Talk page of any edits I've suggested, and Tom's insistence that the smallest edit to the SAQ article must be approved by him, evidencing his attitude that he 'owns' the article, in which you have throughout aided and abetted him. In the same vein, anyone who goes to the SAQ Talk page can see for him/herself Tom's personal attacks on me. The facts speak for themselves. It is time this violation of Misplaced Pages policies came to an end. And the idea that the SAQ article has been put up for Peer Review while this sort of abuse of Misplaced Pages policy is going on is a travesty.NinaGreen (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't operate like that here. Accept advice, obtain diffs. You said the attacks made against you by Reedy are 'legion', and yet fail to provide even one diff. You appear to know, despite several months of editing, nothing of policy, cannot collaborate, turn a deaf ear to polite advice, and call those who won't accept your opinions at face value relentless violators of wiki policy engaged in personal attacks against you. Now the encyclopedia's normative modes of work are a 'travesty'. It looks to me like you wish to be banned, and are taunting the patience of everyone in order to suffer that sanction. Why one should do this is a mystery, except if . . .Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani (and, in other places, Tom, too), I understand your frustration, but I don't think it's appropriate to keep nagging Nina about providing diffs, without showing her how she can do it. She is still a pretty new editor and is clearly doing her best to refer to edits in other places. Even if her method takes a lot of space, please help rather than cavil. Nina, diffs are very useful. I have written a help page about them for new editors, which I tried to make as clear and simple as possible: Simple diff and link guide. It tells you both how diffs can make your posts more effective, and, in simple steps, how to produce them. Please check it out. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Okay. Didn't think of that. If she had asked me to clarify, I would have shown her. My problem is, I have read a huge volume of complaint, and the lengthy threads in which Tom has engaged with Nina, and, perhaps it is my bias or ageing memory, simply cannot square this with her assertion that his attacks on her are 'legion'. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Time_Will_Say_Nothing

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

During NPP, I stumbled on The Teetotaller and it appeared to be an excerpt from a book. The article had already been marked for speedy deletion by another user (sorry, I didn't track who before it was delete) and then it was changed to a redirect. The article creater undid the redirect and restored his article. I restored the redirect and then left a message on the creator's talk page. I immediately was accused of coordinated harrassment. I tried talking to the user the explain the problem and help them understand. The user continued to make bad faith comments about me here. He also made similar comments on another user's talk page here and here. Finally, a third user posted a PROD on the user's talk page and immediately he this editor of harrassment too here. Request someone not involved help.--v/r - TP 03:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The page The Teetotaller no longer exists, so the reasons for this post are unclear! The above post does not accurately or fully represent what has occurred. However, it is helpful to have the issue aired. I am having to deal with a wide variety of edits by people many of whom have obviously not bothered to understand or even read the material properly before editing, or else edits where one editor simply repeats an edit or tag without noticing that it has already been discussed, or else edits where editors contradict each other, or else edits that are simply ludicrous in the sense that they misdescribe or misrepresent or misinterpret, or else ego-driven edits, or else edits by editors maliciously belittling the content, or even edits by editors who can't even spell! Not all of these apply to TP by any means. I made it clear that the allegation of harrassment was not directed at him exclusively. I have no wish to fall out with anyone but I am being repeatedly placed in a position of having to defend what I am doing robustly and from people, some of whom who are plainly and persistently determined to find reasons to challenge it at all cost. There is a fundamental issue with the competence and integrity of certain editors. There is also an issue with multiple editors piling in one after the other to defend each other, which can legitimately be described as harrassment. There seems to be no co-ordination between editors, nor any policy that prevents one editor from changing, on a whim, the outcome of a conversation with another editor. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I may be missing something but how is Up to Now (autobiography) not a copyright violation ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was published in 1929, so it's in the public domain. I think you're right. I thought it was in public domain at first, but according to , works whose authors died in 1939 on are still protected. Feezo (Talk) 04:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the discussions with previous editors, you would know the answer to that question. You are indeed missing something. This is what I mean by harrassment. Editors making wrong or incompetent comments without taking due care or without realising that the issue has already been dealt with. I OWN THE COPYRIGHT Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Without a link I don't know what discussions you are referring to. If you own the copyright and you wish to donate it to Misplaced Pages you need to read and follow the instructions at WP:IOWN and Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. Have you done that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by incompetence and harrassment. I am not donating the copyright to Misplaced Pages. I am simply placing some content on Misplaced Pages. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the links I provided ? You said that you own the copyright to the material. You said the issue of you adding copyrighted material has already been dealt with. Where was it dealt with ? What have you done to ensure that there isn't a copyright violation ? Please explain and/or provide links to the discussions. Misplaced Pages violating copyright is a serious matter so please try to respond in a way that is appropriate to the issue and stop commenting on editors. I'm not interested in what you think, I'm only interested in what you have done to avoid copyright violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have done is: a) not violate copyright, b) put a copyright notice on the page concerned, as you would have seen if you had taken the trouble to look. This is a clear example of the problem here - slapdash editing. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have a similar report; I PRODed Meeting Strindberg with the comment "Misplaced Pages is not a travel blog", later clarified to travelogue (I thought it was historical fiction at first) and was immediately accused of harassment . Feezo (Talk) 04:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, taken collectively, the multiple edits on my work as described above, most of which are quite wrong like yours, amount to harrassment. Thank you for admitting that you got your edit wrong. If you had looked into what you were doing properly BEFORE editing, rather than steaming in without taking due care, you would have got it right, which is to say you would not have edited it at all, which would have been helpful and constructive and, yes, competent. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I included one of those diffs in my initial report.--v/r - TP 04:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All this reflects very little credit on the editors concerned. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are the citations for this article, Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs)? That one source, without page numbers or anything? If you made this article up: it's original research. If you "lifted" content from a reliable source without credit: that's even worse. See WP:BURDEN, WP:COPYVIO... and WP:CIVIL as well. We don't cut-and-paste (without appropriate "footnote" references) around here: it's bad. Doc talk 10:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You could easily find the answer to that yourself, if you were genuinely interested in doing so. You are the editor. Why should I do your work for you? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I doesn't work that way. WP:BURDEN: the burden is on you (the including editor) to prove it, and not for others to do your work for you. Otherwise, it will be removed without anyone losing a second of sleep out of guilt. Trust me on this one... Doc talk 12:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have provided the answer to at least one editor. It is pure harrassment to "require" proof that has already been provided. Also, please note Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Trust you? I don't think so! Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That hole you're digging is getting deeper... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TWSN:That's smart, in a way: trust no one. But, if you think my advice is harassment... oh, boy. Fine. Stay the course you're on and I'll send you my best wishes. Never seen this kind of thing before: it's totally unique! Good luck with the revolution :> Doc talk 12:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the personal attacks are growing.--v/r - TP 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They continue this morning. I am beginning to think that this editor is too attached (WP:OWN)to articles concerning the Shaw family to be able to edit them collaboratively. He's heading for another block (he was blocked last night) if he continues in this vein, but a topic ban might be a better alternative. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Coptic101 and Lihaas

• Coptic101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2011 Alexandria bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, if you look at the talk page and read the last two edits you will see quite quickly the situation. I'd like a neutral 3rd party to mediate this. Coptic101 is a good faith editor, who was badly effected by the event the article is about. He or she is a highly valued Wikipedian in that he or she speaks both Arabic and English fluently. He or she also seems willing to work with the community to try to resolve conflicts. He or she is however new to wikipedia and still struggling to fit in, does not understand WP:COI, WP:RS, or WP:OWNERSHIP. Lihaas is more experienced and is trying to do some WP:NPOV work and some copy editing. Maybe Lihaas has been rude to Coptic101, I'll leave that up to you. Thank you much! Tim.thelion (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT? I have had NO WAR with coptic whatsoever, he reverted me i walked away from that page. the admin on the edit war page that i reported with an ip said it was NOT A war with the IP so i returned. You can see his talk page that MANY other editors warned his "npov"

you can also note, that coptic correspondence with me entailed "Please next time before making nonsense edits like this one" that is civil and IM being rude? Im ultimately baffled by this sulkign to the admins from an editor who also recommended it should be page protected when i posted on that page!

lets not forget that weve tried to explained to him the concepts to read and it doesnt matter to him. (a possible sock)

But of course now the admins will resort to a 1-sided block. (Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).

No where in this did I sugest you be blocked or say anything against you. Indeed, that's not what this page is for. At the top of the page it reads "Avoid filing a report if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced." I just asked for a neutral 3rd party. Though I'm really not convinced you where polite when you posted this to my talk page. Tim.thelion (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Then whats with the acquisition of a "wikiquette alert"Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there something unsightly and taboo about doing what I did? I don't understand why I made you so upset. I didn't say you did anything wrong, I just asked for a 3rd party help you two sort things out :( :( :( Tim.thelion (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

i also said im taking leave of absence from the page. why the complaint? i asked on talk page i discussed, i was re-reverted, i left. simple!Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyclopia

• Cyclopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DMSBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ejaculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:EAR (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I went to ask a question ] regarding deleting the photos on the ejaculation article as being from unreliable source, a porn site. It is now unclear that they were on that porn site before they came into wiki-commons. Cyclopia stalked me to the page where I was asking the question, set up a link to my question on the ejaculation page. He then proceded to undermine me as he had been doing on the article talk page, by telling others not to listen to me, and refering to me as lonely and attention seeking, in reference to my attempts at advancing a new consensus. He also claims I am "forum shopping" something ARBCOM firmly rejected as an accusation against me when I filed with them (at that time I had not taken the time to study all of the info about ARBCOM before filing and I thought they dealt with content, not just conduct). I have admittedly somewhat persistently argued for removal of certain content on the ejaculation article, primarily the four-plate photos there. I have been met with very little graciousness from Cyclopia in the course of the discussion in which he has frequently refered to me as trolling for continuing to press for a new consensus. I do repeat the same reasons at times, as I thought that was how to keep the issue from fading and becuase they are IMO good reasons, and I feel that with greater support such reasons could advance a new consensus, and there is currently at best a very weak consensus there. one other editor whom I regard as astute in his comments on the page (User:Bdell555) said on the talk page there was just a status quo on the images. Cyclopia has misrepresented the strength of the consensus calling it firm when the closing editor of the last RFC held on the issue said that "he would hestitate to say there was a consensus" and felt wider input was necessary. This is another reason I remain within the discusion as the strength of any consensus is often over-stated. There have been a few further objections since then, but I have not bothered to set up an RFC on it again as yet. My difficulty with Cyclopia is that he insists there is a consensus firmer than it is, he tells others not to listen to me, and he has started to stalk me, and undermine me when I seek further advice about grounds for deletion of the aforementioned images. DMSBel (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had actually explained why you thought the source was unreliable when you asked the question at EA/R, rather than asking "can such content be deleted as unreliable" it might have made things simpler. Frankly though, I think it is apparent that this question about sourcing was just being used as an excuse to raise the issue of whether the article need include such images. If you wish to discuss article content, this isn't the way to go about it. I'll not comment about what has occurred between Cyclopia and you, as I've not been involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I did state so very early on. Are you saying I am not allowed to check grounds on which an image can be deleted? If there are grounds an experienced editor should state them freely when asked for assistance. Sorry That is not meant to sound like you withheld anything, but there is more than one possible ground for deletion .There have been other editors when I asked about the images who have said to me unreliable source perhaps. Thats why I asked. Am I not allowed to ask these questions? I have been discussing it on an off for months with many other editors agreeing over that time with deletion. There is nothing complicated here, I was stalked to the page and undermined by Cyclopia. What's complicated, I had presented my reasons before cyclopia joined about why I thought it was unreliable. DMSBel (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you could have avoided a lot of drama if you had told Cyclopia you were going to bring this to a noticeboard (I'd actually expect it if I were in a discussion with you). If you had, he User:Nigelj wouldn't have thought you tried to forum-shop. From the article talk history it seems that you two have been discussing this for some months now, so I don't think trying to get the photo deleted was a clever move, nor was trying it without saying so on the ejaculation-talk. Our contributions are out there in the open, and as long as it's relvant to the discussion two editors are having I wouldn't call checking the contribs stalking (or did Cyclopia start editing other articles you've been working on? that might be stalking, depending on how he edits those pages). I don't really think this is a wikiquette issue, perhaps you should try getting a third opinion or start a new request for comment. --Six words (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have told Cyclopia, as soon as feasibily possible, comments started coming in here quite early. I could not post a link till it was set up. Any more comments inserted inbetween existing ones may get missed as yours nearly did here. Please post at the end as I dont want to have to re-scan the whole thread all the time. Whether you think trying to get the photo deleted was a "clever move" is absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. "Without saying it on the ejaculation talk page" - oh please, I have said it over and over, The photos should go. There was no attempt being made to delete it without mentioning it on the talk page, I would have presented that as a ground for deletion if an experienced editor had told me it was on the page. I did not realise there was a policy that I had to link to a question I was asking relevant to the page, somewhere else on wikipedia. You are not even asking questions of me, you are attributing to me what you think are my motives as though they are in fact my motives. DMSBel (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to keep threaded discussions together, so I'll answer here and take the risk that you won't read this. With “bringing it to a noticeboard” I wasn't refering to the wikiquette alert, I was talking about your question at WP:EAR, and judging from your initial complaint (you said Cyclopia was stalking you because he commented there) you didn't plan on telling him you had posted a request there. If you check the timeline you'll also find that I didn't bring up anything that was answered already. You came here for comments, you got comments. While you're free to ignore them you cannot tell me what to bring up and what not. --Six words (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry misunderstood there about were you meant. thanks for clarifying. I think it was becuase you said "bring this". That is why I thought you had asked a question I had already answered. Apologies. (I have taken that out but can't remember at moment how to do strikethough). Back to the linking from ejaculation to editor assistance. As I said I was not aware of the policy about linking when asking a question elsewhere (but related to that page). No the reason I called it stalking which Cyclopia has now told me he was not doing was because of the tone of his post, after my question. If he had just simply linked I would not have thought of him as stalking, I'd have wondered about the link because I did not know about that policy of linking to assistance questions related to the article. I apologise for any slip-up there, but I can assure you it was not done intentionally. Any deletion reason would have been posted back to the thread. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You were not stalked to the page. Anyone can check your user contributions for any reason whatsoever. It's a public display of all of your edits. As it was, you were forum shopping, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. Cyclopedia did the correct thing and notified involved users via the talk page for ejaculation. You may be uncomfortable with that, but that does not mean it is stalking, nor does that mean they have done anything wrong. While I think Cyclopedia could probably be a bit more calm and less abrasive when dealing with you, your misunderstanding of many policies on Misplaced Pages and continued attempts to push your own POV can make their reaction a bit more understandable. --13 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry who is authorised to respond here? Outside of me and and Cyclopia. I expected Admin who are not involved, or have any POV. 13 sqrd is an involved editor. Is it just anyone?DMSBel (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Every editor is allowed to respond, even your opponent(s). --Six words (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I know Cyclopia can, I sent him a message. Ok I leave it open till someone closes it.

To 13 - I was not "Forum Shopping" which is daft, for an RFC would serve me better if I wanted more people to join in. I went there solely to find out about whether porn websites are considered unreliable as a source. DMSBel (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your actions can be seen as forum shopping. You ask the same kind of questions at different forums when previous discussions did not support you. Then when the new discussion is linked from the page in question you object to that. This can make it look like you don't what people who have been involved in the past to be involved in the new discussion. This might not have been your intention that is how it looks to me. ~~ GB fan ~~ 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What they can be seen as and what they are are two totally different things. I know why I went there, to ask a question. Cyclopia should remember from the ARBCOM that they affirmed my reasons (albeit I misunderstood ARBCOMs purpose) as genuine, that was a previous occasion he tried to pin "forum shopping" on me, thats if he read what they all said. This is not about me!!! Let Cyclopia file one on me if he wants i'll answer there. Unbelievable do you guys think you can just turn round my own complaint on me and no-one notice. If anyone has complaint file it and i'll answer it!!!!!!! DMSBel (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You start a thread about Cyclopia. Did you think no one would than check your contributions out as well? They are quite relevant to the topic at hand. Garion96 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You should read over the section titled "there is no "immunity" for reporters" at WP:SHOT. Your edits aren't immune to scrutiny just because you're reporting someone else (and I should know; I ended up in a similar situation a few years ago). --13 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope you foot is better now. I think I have remained as civil as reasonably can be expected in this dispute, and correctly interpreted policy. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No this isn't about you it is about your complaint. Part of your complaint was that you were accused of forum shopping and I tried to explain how someone might interpret your actions as forum shopping. I don't think anything has been done that requires anyone to be reported for anything. ~~ GB fan ~~ 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered that. Twice now. Anything else to ask? I will be asking ARBCOM to check on this too, if necessary. DMSBel (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom is the last step when everything else has failed - and they (just as the volunteers answering here) will also review your conduct. I'd advise you not to go to ArbCom. --Six words (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)when I say that I don't mean to say “never go to ArbCom”, but I doubt it's a good idea in this case and it's definitely a bad idea as long as you haven't tried everything else first.

Ok lets see how this goes. I have already answered the same question twice, does Cyclopia have to put in an appearance at any time?DMSBel (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have to. If you want him to comment here, you could (politely) ask him to do so on his talk. --Six words (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, did that as soon as I could after posting my alert. DMSBel (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be an admin, and you can take it from me that admins have no privileged role in these discussions. They are only empowered to carry out the communities consensus. No, Cyclopedia is free to comment here, or to refrain from commenting. And we are free to draw our conclusions in either case. And while you can certainly take this to ArbCom, I second Six words. The case would almost certainly be rejected as a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks helps to know how this works, I'd have thought a facilator would have been involved, but anyway. If we try to understand each other it should get sorted fairly quickly. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better not to prempt either their accepting of it or any ruling they would take. Perhaps we can resolve the matter sooner. DMSBel (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessively rude behavior and personal attacks by User:Exxess

• Exxess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User_talk:Piotrus (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While User:Exxess deleted their grossly offensive commentary, per this diff here, that does not excuse their conduct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all about a single AfD discussion . Ignore and forget. Biophys (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone can't deal with people not agreeing they ought not edit in a venue where there is no (by design) ownership of content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by Xebulon

• Xebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• History of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uncivil comment Other examples of uncivil behaviour: , I think somebody must stop it. Quantum666 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution