This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conte di Cavour (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 24 May 2011 (→Uncivil conduct by User:Conte di Cavour). 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

Persistent personal attacks by Mbz1

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mbz1 and I edit in some of the same areas, including DYK and (formerly, before she was topic-banned) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today, as part of a run through DYK, I reviewed and declined an article she had created and nominated. Some changes were thereafter made to the article, but I did not think that they had corrected the problems I had noticed previously, and so, explaining my reasoning, I again declined the nomination. What followed was a vitriolic personal attack, a selection from which is "...user:Roscelese who is very much involved with me over content dispute, who hates me personally, who is now angrier than ever with me because her bad faith AfD of my other article is failing desperately..."

This is only the latest in a string of attacks on me by this user. A limited selection:

• "I do not consider your involvement in my new articles to be one of a good faith attempt to improve wikipedia"
• "I said you do not like me, and your 'editing' on the last 2 articles I wrote was made with the only reason - to make a point of your disliking of me personally. But I see talking to you is useless. You are the one, who likes to create wp:dramas..."
• "Your 'editing' of my articles is a different story. You are doing this to make a point, a point that my articles are bad"
• "your dislike of me personally got to a new high to say the least"
• "you had not a slightest idea what you were doing" (and again)
• "Overall I see in very much involved user:Roscelese's post much more anger toward me personally than the differences that would support her claim to topic ban me"

Mbz1's personal attacks on other users were a large part of what led to her topic ban, so she's clearly aware of Misplaced Pages's NPA policy if she wasn't before. This latest comment, as well as a frivolous WQA report she filed after I declined her DYK, show that it is a continuing problem.

I'd like to have Mbz1 cautioned against personal attacks and reminded to assume good faith. I understand that it's disappointing to have a DYK declined, or to have someone disagree with you in a particularly contentious topic area, but it's something plenty of users experience and somehow manage to avoid going nuclear on other users. Fewer personal attacks make Misplaced Pages a safer environment for everyone.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

While the content above is reasonable, this isn't the best place. WQA (which admittedly we do a poor job of explaining) is best suited to peaceable, mutually agreeable resolution of specific incidents between editors. You (Rosecelese) could draw up a WP:RFCU using the available information. And you certainly have every right to respond to comments about you. However, my advice would be to totally ignore all invalid statements (and refrain from long back and forth threads, as above). Personally, I find it to be far less work and aggravation. Gerardw (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's antics are far, far past the point where the largely-ineffective WQA process could be of any use. RfC/U is pretty much a necessity by now. Tarc (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What can I tell? This entire page, Wikiquette alerts, should be deleted as only inflaming unnecessary passions, and RFCU do not serve any purpose except creating battlegrounds. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is actually quite unbelievable.The user retaliated to my post above by filing a bogus request with the differences taken from more than a months, and with some that have been already used against me in AE case.

Than a user, who is involved with me adds "stuck" for this bogus request that was clearly made in retaliation.

It would have been even funny, if it were not so sad, but of course it my bad. I forgot who frequents such boards.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you already know it, WP:RFC/U is an ugly ritual when people through dirt on each other and make irresponsible statements to collect materials for a future arbitration. My best advice for everyone: do not file RFC/U requests and do not comment at such requests. If someone filed such request about you, make a short statement admitting your fault (there is always your fault if someone submitted such request), promise to improve, and indeed improve your behavior. However, never even mention other users in your response. That's the key.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, which tag would you like put on the alert? Gerardw (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to put the tag that the filer is warned against failing WQA in order to retaliate. It is the only tag that belongs to this bogus request. After all this board name include the word "alerts". "Alerts" should be filed about something that is happening now, and not about something that happened more than a month ago! It is very sad that nobody sees how sickening this request is.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That some people do not share your personal definition of "involvement", or indeed "sickening" is not entirely unpredictable. This dispute was stuck because there has been no resolution, and until now, nobody mentioned anything about the diffs being stale up until you actually responded. Using your words, some might say that you're too "involved" to be remotely impartial on your roles in these disputes, that you should make a greater effort to appreciate what others have been trying to tell you, and avoid engaging in the behavior that others find so "sickening" (to the point that people aren't willing to attempt to resolve your disputes in the early steps in DR). Maybe...just maybe...you should take the hint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, no, this wasn't retaliatory; after gently warning the user against making personal attacks at the time she made this one, I suggested dealing with it in the report above since we were already at WQA, but since she declined to do so, I filed my own report. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• ncmvocalist , your closure of this request that was made with the only purpose to retaliate, that was made from the differences collected from more than a month ago with some of them that were used at AE request against me already is disgusting! Your restoring of your first disgusting closure is even more so. You are not the right user to comment on this board. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It appears the filer has responded to your assumption of bad faith; that you exacerbate the concern by continuing with this rhetoric is exactly why this is a wikiquette issue, and it leaves this to go one way or another way - stuck or stale. Even though your comments remain unsubstantiated (specifically, no diffs to support: (1) that the only purpose of this thread was to retaliate, (2) the evidence was already used at AE, and (3) that the closure was not in accordance with the other comments int his thread), I tend to think stale is more appropriate in light of the status of the diffs. But you can certainly convince enough users that stuck is more appropriate by being more disruptive so that the filer can escalate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

    Only an user, who completely lost a self respect could have requested the differences to prove that this request was made in retaliation, especially after that very user frivolously closed this request.

    But let's forget about retaliation for a moment and about the same differences that were used against me in AE thread. Let's look at this request as at independent request that is not connected to this request. The user who filed this request is not new to this board. She knows what Wikiquette alerts are for. Isn't this a "Frivolous waste of time" to file a request with the differences taken from more than a month ago? Would you,ncmvocalist, close this request the way you did, if it was not filed against me? Not to say that the user (ncmvocalist) who is involved with me should not have closed any of the request concerning me at all.

    I could only repeat what I said: Your closure of both requests this one and that one is disgusting.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

    • No, I would have made the same closing if another user was involved. I don't consider this WQA a mere frivolous time because this was 4 days ago (where similar unwarranted allegations were made) and has been cited at the beginning of this WQA. Other diffs from March are merely showing a pattern of behavior over an extended period of time which you apparently fail to acknowledge as problematic. Your continued failure to produce evidence to substantiate your allegations (in line with my most recent comment in this thread) and your continued use of this inappropriate rhetoric seems to be an indication that this dispute is ongoing, with further unwarranted allegations likely to be made in the future. Consequently, in line with my previous comment, I have marked this as stuck and should the filer encounter any further behavior of the nature cited in this thread, the parties know which step of dispute resolution to escalate to as this venue is clearly unable to address it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

      So you see your purpose here as houndindg an editor contributions that were not even reported here by the filer, take them out of content, and bring them to justify your disgusting closure? Guess what you did not hound my contributions good enough. For example you've missed on this one, in which I myself removed my statement you are not happy about. Disgusting!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

      People don't get a pat on the back for removing personal attacks that they should not have made in the first place, sorry. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's last set of inappropriate allegations/remarks here @ 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC) included: "So you see your purpose here as houndindg an editor contributions that were not even reported here by the filer, take them out of content, and bring them to justify your disgusting closure? Guess what you did not hound my contributions good enough...Disgusting!" Had Mbz1 absorbed what was written in this WQA, she may have avoided furthering the concerns about her conduct/interactions, as the contributions were reported by the filer from the third line of the complaint onwards here @ 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC): "What followed was a vitriolic personal attack...." Ncmvocalist (talk)

I apologized to Ncmvocalist for mistakenly accusing him of hounding my contributions. I did not see the difference user:Roscelese presented outside of the list, but my opinion about closing of this WQA and WQA the same stays the same: Both wqa itself and its closing are disgusting:

1. WQA was clearly filed as retaliation. No reasonable person could deny this fact.
2. All but one differences are more than a month old, with some of them that were used against me in AE case.user:Roscelese is well aware about this because she commented on this AE case.
3. The only new difference presented here was removed by me before this post was made, and should not have been reported here.
4. user:Roscelese is being disingenuousness, when she claims I made DYK comment in response to her second decline of my absolutely valid hook. I made my comment because of the way she declined it. In her decline she made an absolutely unwarranted and absolutely false accusation:"Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that.".BTW the article was not "severely flawed". As a matter of fact it was not "flawed" at all.

And here's the difference between user:Roscelese and me. When I realised Ncmvocalist did not hound my contributions, I apologized to the user.user:Roscelese not only never apologized, but she removed a more than polite message, in which the editor explained to her why they are not my "buddy" with edit summary "rv harassment", and then she reported me on WQA. Disgusting!--Mbz1 (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Aquib american muslim

• Aquib american muslim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been various troubles in the past (Aquib was disappointed by arbcom ) but is the current problem: accusations of vandalism, sneaky vandalism, etc etc. Oh, and Changing the definition of Allahu akbar from God is greatest to God is great, as you well know, is to demean God in the eyes of those with Islamic beliefs. It is also a change you came upon by reviewing my edit history. In other words, you have been stalking me and attempting to provoke me. I imagine you are also insulting and provoking other muslims with your action as well. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Response

Dear editors: Please note these sequences of edits on William M. Connolley's talk page.

April 3, warning to Connolley regarding uncivil behavior

• I create a new section warning the other editor.
• Followed by a clever and entertaining retort by user:Short Brigade Harvester Boris.
• And another by user:Stephan Schulz suggesting bad faith on my part.
• To both of which I respond. Notably, I ask for clarification regarding Schulz's remarks.
• Next, user:Cla68 steps in to agree WMC has been uncivil and explain the actions of Boris and Schulz. Thankfully, before I can respond to Schulz's provocation. .
• Cla68 corrects a typo.
• I thank Cla68.
• Connolley shows up and deletes the portion of the exchange between Cla68 and myself, leaving the rest.
• And inserts in its place his own reply.
• At which point, the discussion proceeds as if nothing has happened.
• An event I note with some dismay.

May 14, warning to Connolley regarding sneaky vandalism

• I create a new section warning the other editor.
• Followed by a blast from user:Stephan Schulz .
• And another by user:Short Brigade Harvester Boris explaining Connolley's actions.
• With a slight correction.
• To which I reply, noting the April 3 incident.
• A couple of other editors chime in expressing concern or confusion regarding the quality of my April 3 diff.
• Connolley steps in to delete my reply and subsequent discussion.
• Next he inserts his own reply.
• Leaving this tidied up discussion for us to see

Conclusion

1. Connolley routinely employs deceptive practices on his talk page, which is guarded by Boris and Schulz. When you challenge Connolley's actions, you are first attacked by these other two editors, then Connolley comes in to slant the discussion to his advantage by means of selective editing. This approach to discussion undermines the principles under which we operate, leading to the intimidation of other editors who wish to discuss issues on his talk page, and the eventual abandonment of attempts at discussion. It is an elaborate defense mechanism constructed in order to undermine the operation of our policies.
2. Connolley has been sanctioned in the past,, and identified as the perpetrator of acts such as posting the home addresses of other editors on the Internet. He has been identified as a member of a tag team which has colluded in order to control articles. He has been confirmed as having perpetrated multiple acts on incivility.
3. As demonstrated above, he continues to employ deceptive practices in order to attain his objectives. He has not turned over a new leaf, he has simply continued to hone his skills and turned his attention away from Climate change (where he is banned), and towards Islam.
4. There is no presumption of good faith. For Connolley, appearances are sufficient evidence in and of themselves. Sneaky vandalism. For the matter at hand, I stand behind my statements on his talk page. He needs to be banned from Misplaced Pages.

Aquib (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I admit that it's impossible to see my edit here as anything other than aggressively uncivil. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my unintentional wording regarding your reply on May 14. Your response on April 3, however, speaks for itself.

Aquib, there's only one conclusion here: you need to back off. Seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

FPS, please elaborate. -Aquib (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Spurious vandalism allegations continue William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just gave him an alert on his talkpage here about that. To be fair, at least one of your postings could use a little bit more...tact though. For example, saying you don't want the template because it is green or ugly (it might be there is some special significance attached to the color and why it was selected for the template or why it appears that way, so that could be viewed as offensive, particularly if an user does not have the strongest grasp of what it is you hopefully intended by that message). Instead, if you said it's redundant due to the other template, the green adds no further value to the article, that template is unnecessary for every article in the topic, and it doesn't improve the appearance of the article (in your view), I suspect nafSadh may have responded a little more positively, even in the face of disagreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just have a thought, “When I'm editing some religion related article, I shall be more careful and less nosy”. I think, my fellow, William M. Connolley may think in the same way. While talking, Aquib can think about being bit less rude as well (be careful while calling some edit vandalism). Let us just be cool. All we care most is about improving WP.--is nafSadh nosy? 15:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Spurious assertions of "attacks on the Islamic religion" continue . Do you think that is acceptable? Is it OK for Aquib to retreat behind the shield of "Respekt Mah Religion" every tmie someone makes an edit he doesn't like? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain this one, then, Connolley. After you were warned. -Aquib (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this one is abusive edit --is nafSadh nosy? 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to grow a thicker skin. I'm sure if you politely point William to Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents, he'll stick to it. I assume that you are aware that this capitalization rule is by no means universal, and that it's quite common to spell adjectives like hristian, uddhist, and uslim in lower case? See WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, as far as I could see, "Muslim" isn't a proper noun so doesn't get a capital. Which the edit summary explains, in abbreviated form. Happily, the next edit in the sequence corrects me. Nafsadh: if you wondered, why didn't you ask? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

According to dictionaries in my hand (Oxford ALD 5/e, Longman DoCE 5/e etc.) Muslim is n and adj spelled as Muslim (M in caps); and they capitalize only when proper.

May be “it's quite common to spell adjectives like hristian, uddhist, and uslim in lower case” but it is standard to use caps. And why shall we edit Buddhist → buddhist? not to mention: default Firefox always forces me to capitalize them

Dear, Connolley I mentioned (or asked) here.

I DEMAND THAT MY NAME IS SPELLED CORRECTLY. I CONSIDER IGNORING ENDING ‘H’ FROM MY NAME AS PROFANE. (yes I'm yelling) and prefer it to be written as nafSadh - ‘n’ in lower case and ‘S’ in cap --is nafSadh nosy? 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; I've added the h I missed. In turn, I would ask you to read this William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies too, Dr Connolley. I did not know that, where your come from, referring to someone by their surname only is impolite and thought that using surname only (as I did not know your title) is OK. Later, I'll try to mention you as WMC or Dr Connolley. Thanks for the ‘h’ ;-) --is nafSadh nosy? 07:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aquib: Vandalism is the deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages by blanking of a page, or insertion of obscenities or patent nonsense. Good faith attempts to improve an article - even if wrong - should never be labeled as vandalism. Please don't make accusations of vandalism unless you're sure it qualifies. I didn't examine each diff carefully, but what I did see did not qualify as vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

AQFK thank you for your comment. I agree the term vandalism does not specifically apply. My claim is the edits in question are examples of Sneaky vandalism. If you would review the edits in question, by Connelly, including this one which was executed after he was warned, I would be interested in hearing your opinion. -Aquib (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to provide a diff of the "warning"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. I believe you have seen it before. -Aquib (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. Let's just say that it does not look like a warning to me, nor does it point out any problem with capitalisation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As to whether that is a warning or not; I will let others be the judge, if you don't mind. As to the capitalization incident not being included in the warning, that incident occurred after the warning. -Aquib (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it highly uncivil to make such a fuss about the correct spelling of your own user name (which was clearly an error) and then to apparently deliberately ignore William M. Connolley's request about the use of his user name. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe if you review the discussion, you will find I have made no fuss at all over the spelling of my name. Nor am I certain what to make of the op's request. I am an American. My president is often referred to by his last name. Nor does my country bestow titles. Nor would any public figure in my country raise such a question in public discourse. Nor does this request conform to WP:MOS. -Aquib (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While we are having this nice discussion, here is an example of what Connolley has been doing. Emptying the links out of the Hadith template. This would be funny if it weren't so sad. -Aquib (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that he cleaned up the template by removing redundant links that all lead to the same page? This is what we do in a Wiki, editing pages to improve them. We don't always all agree which way is better - that's when we start discussing things in good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you or Connelley understand there used to be articles for these hadith terminology? For instance, there was an article for Mursal hadith, and the template pointed to it. Then someone came along and redirected the article. Badly. Then Connolley came through and deleted the link because it was redundant. So now, all the information on hadith sciences in that template is lost. The clues that I followed to find this fact are lost. There is no indication it might once have pointed to a freestanding article. So all that work by all those people has been swept under the rug with a few strokes of the keyboard, when someone who actually cared about the material might have someday figured out it was originally bungled or vandalized and recovered it. That is what we do here? No. Perhaps that is what you and Connolley do here, but it is not what we do here. -Aquib (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Another example of Connolley's work on Islamic articles today. Takes Hadith of Umar's ban on hadith from 12k to 5 k. Must not have been important. -Aquib (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As a case in point, that seems absolutely fine. It's a very poor article as it is with a lot of unsourced opnion and unencyclopedic phraseology ("Abu Hurayra was a very gregarious and a garrulous man"). Most of what he took out were lengthy quotes from the hadith. Quoting like that is contrary to WP:LONGQUOTE. Your objections, particularly the baseless accusations of vandalism, suggest you are not familiar enough with Misplaced Pages policies. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct on both counts. First, I should have looked at this Hadith of Umar's ban on hadith article before I listed it. It needed trimming. Second, I am not very familiar with Misplaced Pages policies.

On the other hand, for example, I have clearly demonstrated that Connolley edits conversations on his talk page to put himself in a better light. I have pointed out the obvious, that he decapitalized one occurrence of the word Muslim in the Muslim article. So I have proven my claims about Connolley's deceptive practices and sneaky vandalism.

Aquib (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aquib, you've been told numerous times that your charge of "vandalism" is bogus. Continuing to make this charge is a personal attack. If I hear you using the term "sneaky vandalism" once more, you're blocked. Have I made myself clear? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Changing "Muslim" to "muslim" is wrong, but it's not vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not even wrong, it's a matter of style. Misplaced Pages's style is to capitalize adjectives derived from the names of major religions, but that's not universal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you went to school, but here in the US we're taught that proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized, and judging from the articles I've read from new webs sites from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc., this seems to be universal across English-speaking cultures. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I went to school in Germany, where we capitalize all nouns and only nouns (and the first word of a sentence). However, "Muslim" in the context in question was used as an adjective, not as a noun, and hence also not as a proper noun. Hence the general rule for proper nouns did not apply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems I have come to the end of my road here in one regard. However, I have not heard any comments on my claim of deceptive practices employed by Connolley on his talk page. -Aquib (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WMC is entitled to delete material from his talk page whenever he wants. It is, frankly, none of your business. Also, you have been repeatedly asked to stop referring to him by his last name alone, which, in English, comes across as quite impolite. You seem to be doing it on purpose in order to provoke. Stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I was edit conflicted making much the same response. I would add that accusing a user of "deception" is a strong personal attack and wrong in this case. You've admitted that you are not familar enough with policies. IMHO this thread shows that your biggest omission is WP:Assume good faith which you should read carefully. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, you are correct again. Good Faith is the central question, as I stated in my original response. -Aquib (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aquib: AFAIK, users are allowed a great deal of latitude in controlling their own talk pages. So, I don't think that WMC has violated any rules as far as his talk page goes. However, this isn't WP:ANI, it's WP:Wikiquette alerts (Note: I have no idea why this is appearing in bold-face. I enclosed it in square brackets so it should appear as a WikiLink.) I guess if there's something on this page Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, it would be within this board's remit to examine it. However, the easiest course of action is one of these two:

a) Learn to live with the fact that WMC may remove any post to his talk page that he wants.

b) Don't post to his talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

AQFK, thank you for your suggestions. They have merit. Unfortunately, it seems many, or most, of our procedures for the resolution of disputes require the use of other editor's talk pages. -Aquib (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I will now bandage my numerous wounds, and consider the possibility of an appeal. An appeal regarding the question of user conduct on talk pages, and its role in the assumption of good faith. There is an elephant in our collective living room. I am not certain whether I am prepared to bring a step ladder with me, every time I come and go, in order to climb over it - while pretending it is not there.

Aquib (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no appeal. This isn't a place to obtain sanctions/punishment against a user - see top of the page. There are other places for that such as AN/I or a RfC/U. This is a just place to get comment/input/advice from the community - not action. DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some might view it differently. -Aquib (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well...they would be wrong. NW (Talk) 01:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we mark this one as resolved. I don't think it is, truely - I doubt anyone reading AAM's comment of 15:33, 17 May 2011 could - but at the same time its got about as far as it is going to go, and in particular FPAS's comment of 12:10, 17 May 2011 is adequate to resolve the immediate problem William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

False and disruptive allegations at AfD

• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers)

Casliber (talk · contribs) seems to have decided to assume without any basis that I nominated an article for deletion having only spent 4 seconds checking out potential sources. (I should point out that WP:NPA specifically identifies "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" as personal attacks.) I then provided a polite and detailed summary of the research I'd done before initiating the AfD, and this was met with this bizarre non-sequitur repetition of the attack from Casliber, again repeating the un-necessary and untrue allegation. The fact that he was deploying these accusations in order to mask his own WP:ITSNOTABLE response doesn't seem to me to help matters.
I have twice asked him to retract the comment(s) and he has declined, so I thought I'd seek an outside view on whether his comments in the diffs I've highlighed above were (a) appropriate, (b) constructive and (c) necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

a) I don't know if they were appropriate, but they were certainly allowable and understandable in response to a contribution being characterized as "seemingly random" ]

b) Probably not, but not especially destructive, either.

c) No, but that's a tautology. Misplaced Pages itself isn't necessary, therefore no comment on it can be considered necessary. Gerardw (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The response I called "random" was demonstratably so, having no basis in fact which Casliber could cite – I did ask him to back it up with a source, and he failed to do so. However, since it is simply untrue to say that I spent less than 5 seconds, 5 minutes, whatever, researching the article, that constitutes a personal attack in my view. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 08:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• The article in question should not have been taken to AFD per the emphatic advice of WP:BEFORE that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Normal editing in this case might have been to merge the article with the article about the actor Brian Hall as this was his most famous role. Failure to follow this sensible advice to search for a compromise position tends to make even sweet-natured editors tetchy and so Casliber's irritation is understandable. TreasuryTag often exaggerates his case — see Keep Young and Beautiful for another recent example. Editors who cry wolf too often will tend to be ignored or disparaged. TreasuryTag should please dial down his strident zeal as this is uncivil, generating unnecessary strife such as we see here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think we were talking about the merits of the article in question, I think we were discussing Casliber's behaviour. And I wonder why multiple editors have argued to delete the page if its position is as clear-cut as you seem to think? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 08:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the thread there. You are being agressive in your commentary, Treasury. Of course it isn't polite for people to snap at you, but you are doing your part to provoke these responses. I'm going to close this and suggest both of you work on keeping your cool, and Treasury, please remember that although you are often just on the technical side of being correct, your personality lends itself to more conflict than the average person.

• 10:20 Casliber - My "keep" vote is on the premise that they exist
• 10:25 Treasury - Could you maybe provide links to or ISBNs of reliable sources
• 10:40 Casliber - Possibly within seven days
• 10:54 Treasury - Well if you can't back up your guess...
• 11:24 Casliber - (smart alec remark)
• 11:39 Treasury - (touchy remark)

etc etc etc

In less than an hour's time, you were backing Casliber into a corner, despite their promise to provide references within the alloted time for an AfD discussion (7 days, aka 168 hours). Something like .5 percent of the overall time and you wanted their final responses. It is certainly a type of response that would make someone touchy. I'm closing this now. -- Avanu (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and attacks from User:Bryonmorrigan

• Bryonmorrigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Barton (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reposting from WP:ANI since that was not the appropriate venue and adding another diff.

I am usually civil on here, but it's editors like User:Bryonmorrigan that bring out the worst in me. There is a relatively minor dispute at David Barton (author) as to whether he should be labeled a legitimate historian or not. I'll admit I may have egged him on, but Bryonmorrigan has repeatedly made uncivil and/or POV-motivated comments on the talk page here:

• "I personally feel that he should be treated like a Holocaust Denier, but I've been able to reign in my personal feelings enough to just put, "writer, activist" instead of "flagrant propagandist liar" or something...and the Christian Nationalists making these edits should attempt to keep a similar amount of neutrality when editing."
• Says I am a POV-pusher because of the userboxes on my page when he has just as many controversial userboxes on his page.
• "his 'theories' are just as absurd and based on half-truths and deliberate distortions." May or may not be true, but he doesn't have anything to back it up.
• Says I am a "Christian nationalist" and am thereby discredited - "Finally, your own profile "outs" you as a "Christian Nationalist," so the shoe fits."
• Then, he linked to the subsection on Christian nationalism - I didn't know what it was - and said "tell me I'm wrong" that I, myself, am one. Since this was inappropriate for the article talk page, I responded on his page here saying I suppose I do agree with this Christian nationalism, but asking him not to use it to discredit me.
• After I did so, he wrote on the article talk page, "And I see now that a Right-Wing Extremist editor is going to try and delete all criticism. Charming." This is not only uncivil and uncalled for ("right wing extremist"), but flat out wrong - I have only made a handful of edits to the article, and they were either fixing words to avoid as per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch), fixing references, adding a source calling him a historian, and reverting Bryonmorrigan's reversions.
• In perhaps the most outrageous instance, he compares another user to the Ku Klux Klan.

I'm not the innocent victim here, but I just felt the need to call attention to this before it goes any further. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And as I already pointed out at the other venue:

1.) My point in regards to bringing up my own "bias" regarding Barton, and pointing out that you have just as much, was to say simply that, "If I were making a POV edit, I would have done something far more inflammatory than simply changing historian to writer, activist." You seem unable to understand this simple concept.

2.) Everyone has biases...which was my point in bringing up userboxes. The idea that anyone is dispassionate, especially regarding a controversial, Right-Wing extremist personality like Barton, is absurd.

3.) As I pointed out on the other page, the comment about the person deleting all criticism of Barton was not aimed at you, but instead was directed at Lionel, who had (moments before my comment) deleted the entire section labeled "Critics." You have already been informed of this , so why you would make this claim a second time is beyond me.

4.) Finally, you last comment, claiming that I compared another editor to the KKK...is hilarious. That editor tried to make the claim that he was a "registered Democrat" and therefore not a "Right-Wing Extremist," (even though his edits prove otherwise) and I pointed out that Right-Wing Extremists have existed in the Democratic Party since its inception, then used the KKK as an example of this Right-Wing Extremism. Frankly, your assertion that I compared him to the KKK is far more inflammatory and offensive than anything that you accuse me of doing, and your repeated attempts at smearing me are becoming tiresome. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Commenting about an editor is not the Misplaced Pages way. Just focus on contributions they make. The statement you made here, You seem unable to understand this simple concept, is itself not very civil. Gerardw (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

True. Bryon, you and I both edit a lot at Christian terrorism, where I very frequently agree with you about content decisions, and I sincerely appreciate your work at tracking down useful references. But I would actually find it easier to back you up if you steered clear of commenting personally about the editors who disagree with us. Not that you are the worst in that talk. It's (not surprisingly) a pretty heated talk page, and some pretty objectionable stuff has been directed at you. But it's still better to stick to the content and stay away from trying to characterize other editors' motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivil edit summaries from User:Varlaam

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

Hi,

User:Varlaam edited Meryn Cadell to describe Cadell as a woman. I reverted Varlaam's edit, citing WP:NPOV. Admittedly, I could have given a more detailed edit summary and/or explained the edit on the article talk page. Varlaam went ahead and reverted my edit, this time with an edit summary reflecting that they are editing in order to push a particular POV. After that, I went ahead and reworded the article once more to eliminate implication that Cadell was a woman before he came out publicly as a trans man. I also included an explanation on the article talk page of why, in order to be NPOV, we need to not push a particular point of view that says that trans people are the gender they were assigned at birth.

Varlaam ignored the talk page discussion and made a second revert, this time with a dismissive and hostile edit summary as well.

I'm posting here to ask for help. I would like it if User:Varlaam would discuss the conflict rather than just reverting unilaterally, but they have ignored what I felt to be a clear request to do so. From the block log, I see that this user has been blocked five times before, mostly for WP:CIVIL violations.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. SparsityProblem (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any significant incivility, more like edit warring. I'll watch the page for awhile and see if it continues. Gerardw (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Alphathon

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

While there doesn't seem to be that much activity on the Article page, the talk page linked above is where I am referring to. No one is disputing edits, but rather this goes into personal attacks. If I was adding my own references in, I could see where that would be valid as something I am doing wrong, but I am only trying to use these links that I put to my site as example that something did happen because I was there, not source/fact -- and I don't even exactly want them in the article either so I don't care. I have asked this editor to recently "STOP" with simply prefixing it with WP:CTDAPE. I don't want to answer all of this persons questions about what my plans are because in doing so I would both spend time and relinquish that idea prematurely. I have already personally Been Bold and made a few changes so that the attacks/outages/failures of the devices are more easily found which I'm sure will not get little if no objections over thanks to this user's help. I just feel like he may be crossing a line. Someone neutral needs to give this article a look over anyway just to help in keeping it just that. Mnemnoch (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Two editors, Alphathon and Escape Orbit, have told you on the talk page that your contributions are hard to follow. Additionally, I'm not following what you're saying above... I don't want to answer all of this persons questions about what my plans are because in doing so I would both spend time and relinquish that idea prematurely.? I don't know what that means. Furthermore, accusing another editor of WP:CTDAPE shows a lack of good faith. If there are specific statements your consider incivil, please use WP:DIFFs. My advice is to continue discussing on the talk page and use short, simple sentences. Finally, reminder that bold is good but it's only the beginning of WP:BRD -- if another editor has questions about an editors bold edits, they have an obligation to discuss before proceeding. Gerardw (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain what I mean by that statement. I mean that I'll come back to it at a later time, when I have time, to write out the explanations, guidelines, etc, to finish what my idea is and put it into motion. At the moment, it's a raw idea I have, I've barely begun documenting it and I just simply can't give him the answer he wants. I acknowledged his initial remarks about my idea, but then attacked me in detail for not giving him more than a 10 word reply -- What have you done before? I hope you don't mean you have "created a sorting method for X" because if you did, to put it simply, you were in violation of Misplaced Pages's no original research policy and would be again if you did so now. I haven't stated what I did because I don't want to. The response for this was uncalled for.

Yes, I acknowledge that some of my commentary is difficult for most to follow. It's with good intentions. When I get remarks like, Either you are making no sense or your choice of words is appalling, because what you have written is as clear as mud. as well as remarks such as, The very fact you are using your own company's blog as evidence for something that is counter to the official position and what is reported by various reliable sources (and so is likely to fall under WP:Fringe) is astounding, but to then turn round and call the PS blog "unverifiable"… there are just no words., it's very discouraging to even discuss, let alone edit an article, regardless if I enjoy the product or not.

Staying on point for both replies to this so far, I already stated I'm not trying to get my work added. I don't care about that. It was just simply used as a point to show that it did happen and I personally documented it during the event occurring.

I do hope with this clarification you can see why I feel like specifically out of WP:CTDAPE, when you interpret it read as act counter to policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles...that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles. I really don't mind contributing, and you'll see I've contributed a lot to this particular article. But the personal attacks are trying my patience and should not have ventured into professional life in any way whatsoever. Mnemnoch (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This also falls in-line with Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely. -- This clearly has happened in this talk page when he begins to explain the nature of business. Mnemnoch (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If you feel you have been outed in some way follow the procedure at WP:OUTING. Gerardw (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Mnemnoch (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into what I said; none of what I said was an intended as an attack and nor is it directed at you personally - everything said is directed at your posts and/or arguments, not you.

In the first case, you were pretty ambiguous as to what you goal was, so I was just trying to say that if you were planning to assign values to something that isn't based on a source, it would be OR, and so shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. (Specifically I think this would be synthesis.) I don't really care what it is you specifically plan to do, and I didn't ask for specifics, it's just that if your plan involves creating a sorting method or metric or whatever, then it's probably OR. I just don't want you to be violating policy (the policy is there for a reason).

I can see how you might think that my "clear as mud" comment was also an attack, and I apologise for how I worded it. I posted that reply at ≈5:20am (my time, UTC+1), so my writing head probably wasn't performing at its best.

With regard to the sources comment, the way you worded the bit I was replying to it made it seem as if you were discounting my argument based on the fact it was from the PS blog. That post (from the PS blog) was a reply to your post where you try to back up your interpretation by quoting your own blog, (as I said, based on your comments it seems that you were the author of the post). As such, I think pointing that out is entirely justified. Again, perhaps I worded it poorly, but my intention was for you to provide a better source for your argument, not discourage you from editing.

You certainly seem to be acting in good faith and I have no desire to drive away anyone who wants to aid Misplaced Pages. I am simply trying to show you that, as far as I can tell, you are mistaken, and why I think that is the case. If you can show me that you are right, I will concede, but when your only source seems to be your blog, you cannot do that.

"I already stated I'm not trying to get my work added." What you said on the talk page implied heavily that you wanted to either create an overarching article about "all" PSN outages to make them easier to find, or convert the existing one to that end. In order for this to happen, theret has to have been more than one outage, which, as far as I can tell, isn't the case. All I am asking is that you provide some evidence for your position that the 2010 thing was an outage. Otherwise, there is only one to document and so such an overview article would be pointless.

"But the personal attacks are trying my patience and should not have ventured into professional life in any way whatsoever."

I haven't once attacked you personally, and didn't venture into your professional life. The only reason your profession (not the same as your professional life) is mentioned is because you used your company's blog as a source to back up your interpretation. If I had used your profession to suggest that you were wrong, that would have been personal attack, but I didn't do that. I said that:

• your company's blog is not a news site, be it mainstream, gaming or technology based, and isn't part of the gaming industry, so is not a valid source to back up your claims. Likewise, my site (I work in the photography industry mostly) wouldn't be either. This is neither an attack on you or your company, it is just a fact. However, if what you were talking about was web design, that might have been a valid site to quote (if it weren't yours).
• you cannot back up your argument by quoting yourself (unless your argument is about what you said) - quoting your company blog is essentially that.

The way you linked to it to begin with was fine (although to try to use it to prove that it happened is a bit iffy) - the problem arose when you quoted the blog in order to back up your view. To put it simply, when you did that you essentially seemed to be saying "I'm right because I held the same view in the past". Even if you hadn't done that though, I use the same metric to determine what is a valid source in discussions as Misplaced Pages does for articles. If your source isn't any good for the article, it shouldn't be used to defend your view on the talk page (with some exceptions). If you can't find another source, maybe you're wrong.

I can understand why you might think I was attacking you, but I can assure you I was not. All I did was say you are unclear, and point out that your argument for the 2010 "outage" was flawed and not backed up by the evidence, neither of which is a personal attack. Perhaps if I hadn't replied at 5:20am I would have worded it better, and I accept that both "appalling" and "clear as mud" may not be the most neutral words to have used, for which I apologise.

You might want to read WP:NPA#WHATIS before proceeding, as that outlines what is considered a personal attack, which, as far as I can tell, I have not done. The only thing I can possibly think of is "outing", but WP:OUTING clearly states that it does not apply because you voluntarily posted the info on your user page (I wasn't outing the info merely talking about it). Likewise, if someone were to mention that I am Scottish or am from Elgin, that wouldn't be outing, since I have freely posted the info on my user page.

Incidentally, this is the third reply I have tried to make to this - both previous times I was met with an edit conflict, so had to re-jig my reply to fit the new text. As such, if I seem to be referencing something that I haven't said or am a little incoherent please don't hesitate to point it out (not that you should anyway).

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/  00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Corporation's nature of business other than "technology" has not ever been released on Misplaced Pages until you documented it. I release that and only that on my talk page as of today but I'm sorry to say anything beyond "technology", be it a term, phrase, et al., is strictly confidential unless you are a client. You taking reliance upon anything that's written on the website is at your own risk, as stated in the Terms of Use for even getting on the website...and then it continues as most of the unbridled commentary I have received from Alphathon does.

I asked you a question in the beginning of our dialogue that you never answered. "Should I create a sandbox for references and point to that when in discussion instead?" If you didn't understand me, you could have asked. Instead, I receive seemingly extremely critical remarks towards statements I've made in the same manner you've done them on this very page, nitpicking what I've said and wasting time on minute details, now yourself bordering on WP:TLDR. I've had enough. This is not about what any subject, context, dialogue is about, it's about the etiquette. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm afraid the Corporation's nature of business other than "technology" has not ever been released on Misplaced Pages until you documented it."

Perhaps, but stating info about a company is in no way the same as outing of personal info, especially when that info is "what the company does". At a stretch it could be considered private company data, but that is certainly not the same thing as personal info. Incidentally, would you consider it outing if someone posted it on a Misplaced Pages article about the company (with your website as the source) or someone was talking about the company independently of you (i.e. you were not involved in the conversation)? Apart from anything else, the way in which I used it had nothing to do with you personally - I was using it to show that the site couldn't be considered reliable source for what you were claiming. If you really care about it that much though I'm willing to remove it regardless of "outing" status (see below).

"I asked you a question in the beginning of our dialogue that you never answered. "Should I create a sandbox for references and point to that when in discussion instead?""

I do not recall seeing that, so I may have missed it/skimmed over it/whatever. Maybe I was busy at the time, I don't know. In all likelihood I skimmed over it and only replied to what I felt was important at the time, but forgot about it later. Looking at it now though I don't think it would have made a difference. If you wanted to do so you could have done, you didn't need my permission. Likewise you could have simply posted links on the talk page - where they were doesn't really matter.

"Instead, I receive seemingly extremely critical remarks towards statements I've made in the same manner you've done them on this very page, nitpicking what I've said and wasting time on minute details,"

Sorry, but I like to be thorough and I would hardly call what I have said nitpicking. Also, being critical is a vital part of Misplaced Pages and life in general - without it things become biased and false info creeps in. Being critical of someone's posts does not constitute an attack and certainly not a personal one (not that your post says that, but to me that appears to be what your issue is - you are seeing me as being "overly critical" and are reading that as attacks towards you. If I have misinterpreted the situation I apologise). If I were critical for the sake of it, then maybe I could understand it, but as far as I'm concerned everything I said was valid criticism.

"…now yourself bordering on WP:TLDR"

OK, just to clarify, when I used it before, I was more meaning that what you posted was so dense that it was hard to read; I simply used that as short hand as it is a pretty similar idea. I understand that my post is long, but I had a lot to say.

"This is not about what any subject, context, dialogue is about, it's about the etiquette."

If you are going to accuse me of personal attacks and trying to drive you off Misplaced Pages, then I will defend myself, and I'm not going to leave out stuff just to make the post shorter.

Anyway, I have no personal quarrel with you. I think you are wrong regarding the interpretation of the "ApocalyPS3", and I don't think it is appropriate to quote your own blog as evidence, but neither of those things means I want to attack you personally in anyway, or attack your company. Likewise, concern of possible OR following the vague description of your "plan" is concern about the "plan" itself and in no way reflects upon you. The closest I got to a personal attack as far as I can tell was using slightly exaggeratory words, which is pretty far removed from an attack, personal or otherwise. "Either you are making no sense or your choice of words is appalling, because what you have written is as clear as mud" could easily be changed to, for example, "Either what you are saying doesn't make sense or you really aren't explaining it very well, because what you have written is really not very clear" and it would mean exactly the same thing. If I had been more awake at the time I'd probably have written something more along those lines. Everything in that sentence is a statement about what you posted, nothing more, and certainly does not comment about you as a person.

In your post below, you say "Please remove . And the tone you use in even bringing up is considered as if it is an attack."

It is considered by whom to be an attack? From what I have read certainly not Misplaced Pages, so I would assume you mean yourself. Nothing in there was attacking to either you or your company. The worst things said in there were "astounding" and "… there are just no words", both of which merely indicate disbelief. If you feel it is an attack, then that is you prerogative, but it certainly wasn't intended that way, and I see no reason why it would or should be considered as such. If you really want me to remove the statement about what your company does, then I will regardless of its "outing" status" - it doesn't really matter that much - but how would you have me re-word it such that it was still relevant?

There's probably something I've missed, but it'll have to wait - it's far too late.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/  04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Network outage -- This is the same link, the very same one, that the PlayStation Network article leads off of when it says "offline". Please read it before trying to dig any more holes in my logic. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

WQA isn't really the place to continue the content discussion. That's best kept at the article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, if simply posting the nature of the company you work for is considered outing when you yourself link to your company's website (which states what the company does) on you user page, then rest assured it was unintentional. Also, I only ever mentioned your company's "nature" (can't think of a better word) in relation to using your links as sources. As such, even if this is considered outing, it would likely covered by either "Unless unintentional and non-malicious" or "once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums" as outlined at WP:OUTING. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/  01:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remove it. And the tone you use in even bringing it up is considered as if it is an attack. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied to in above post. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/  04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not much to add rather than to confirm that I have found it difficult to follow Mnemnoch's line of reasoning in discussions, to the extent that I often do not know what he is proposing, and what he is complaining about. The chief problem is his habit of heatedly jumping off in three directions at once, rather than address the subject in hand. I have absolutely no doubt of the good faith of all editors involved in the recent discussions, although ideas may differ, and disagree strongly anyone is being disruptive. But if Mnemnoch could calm down and focus his discussion on one subject at a time it would be less confusing to all. --Escape Orbit 21:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you even here EscapeOrbit? I didn't notify you. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

] Gerardw (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I've said more than enough here. I don't want this user talking to me anymore. It's clear that he is combative and has absolutely no regard for his tone towards others. He's beyond annoying me now and I'm not reading everything he has to say because I don't want to, it's too long and I have better things to work on. I bring this attention to the matter of the Wikiquette alerts section because I was following guidelines. Regardless of what I say, he's going to pick apart whatever I say and convolute it to a point where even I don't understand. Why bother? Please escalate this to an Admin. Mnemnoch (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing on Alphathon's part, and they've been more than cooperative in discussing the issue and apologizing for any poor word choices. Posting your company info on your user page User:Mnemnoch#About_Me and calling a reference to it OUTING is unreasonable. If you wish to escalate this to WP:ANI, you can, but I don't think it will be received well there. Gerardw (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is mainly for the record, since Mnemnoch has clearly stated that he doesn't intned to read what I write. Any discussion where one party is unwilling to listen to another is doomed to failure.

Mnemnoch has made several serious allegations against me, namely WP:CTDAPE, WP:NPA and WP:OUTING which are completely unsubstantiated. This could be construed as a personal attack on me by Mnemnoch and this seemingly has far more basis than his allegations. However, I believe that Mnemnoch is acting in good faith and is not intentionally attacking me, but simply misunderstands what constitutes a personal attack and outing (I'm not sure about CTDAPE though, since it hasn't really been discussed at length).

Mnemnoch seems to be offended by me being critical of his posts, which while not unusual and totally their prerogative, is an essential part of both Misplaced Pages and life in general and certainly does not constitute an attack. I have apologised for any poorly chosen words that may have been misconstrued as attacks or even if they are considered rude, and as a show of good faith I have agreed to remove the company's "nature" if Mnemnoch is willing to discuss how to do so effectively (or even if I can figure it out on my own), regardless of its "outing" status.

I really don't know what else I can say, so I wish you all well (Mnemnoch included) and hope no one else falls foul of something like this in the future (from anyone, not just Mnemnoch).

^† per WP:NPA#WHATIS, quote: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/  17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct by User:Conte di Cavour

• Conte di Cavour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

General note: CrimsonBlack (signature) and GustoBLSJP (old username) are both User:CrimsonSabbath. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Conte di Cavour labeled my edits as "vandalism" and made personal attacks on his User talk:Conte di Cavour, even with my sourced, well discussed and impersonal arguments on Talk:Italy.

diffs

diffs Talk: Italy

CrimsonBlack 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As for what I remember, I only reverted some deletions by GuboBLSJP, because the user insisted to delete parts that are supplied with reliable sources. I never reverted the contributions of this user, nor made personal attacks. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am GustoBLSJP. I only deleted the redundancies and kept most of the text. Before my contribution, i stated on the talk page of the article various times. The idea proposed was not the appropriate. The data must be neutral. I always showed the sources.

CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonSabbath (talk • contribs)

I'm not asking for any kind of penalty for this User. I just want that my future contributions be respected, and the deletion of the talk i had with the cited User, on his "Talk page". I don't want any kind of association with such User.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User:Conte di Cavour and User:Brutaldeluxe seem justified in undoing at least some of your edits. For example, in this edit, you removed sourced information citing "it's harmful to the NPOV". But, WP:NPOV tells us that to "avoid stating opinions as facts," and the text you deleted did not state, "Italy is the 'sick man of Europe'". No, it simply pointed out that it has been referred to as the "sick man of Europe", and there are references for proof. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). To quote Conte di Cavour, "You have deleted a lot of parts just because you didn't agree with them, but in case of sourced statements you simply can't do it". Guoguo12--Talk--  19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not protesting for the edits of the article. I had insert parts with sources, discussed the subjects and helped to turn the article more Neutral. I really think the article could be improved, as i stated.

User:Conte di Cavour misunderstood my edits as vandalism, maybe for not reading my inserts on Talk: Italy.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See "Economy section rationalization" on Talk: Italy. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) I realize that you are trying to improve the article and I thank you for your contributions. I also acknowledge that Conte di Cavour is reacting to your edits in an uncivil manner (swearing, shouting, etc., see user talk) and that considering your good faith edits vandalism are violations of WP:AGF. Even edit warring is not vandalism. However, you must understand that neutral does not mean unbiased. It means that all verifiable viewpoints are fairly represented. "Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say" (WP:V). However, calling your edits "vandalism" is certainly incorrect. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and opinion, Guoguo12.

This section must be ended, to not get tiresome.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I have sent Conte di Cavour a follow-up message summarizing this discussion. I hope that both you and Conte di Cavour will continue to edit and improve this encyclopedia. I especially hope that you will remain undaunted by your recent conflicts and I thank you for keeping cool and remaining civil. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize with Crimson/Gusto for having exaggerated. I hope that now everything is settled. Thanks a lot to Guoguo12.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try to control more my edits and discuss more on the subjects.

Thank you, Guoguo12. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi

• Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Avicennism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a dispute at Avicennism about whether the article should be redirected or not. The problems are similar to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Aquib_american_muslim and indeed partly stem from the same Jagged85 issues. In particular there are the same spurious claims of vandalism and we also have good-faith attempts to discuss the issues on the talk page dismissed as "ranting" .

I have notified Al-A of the problems but judging by , a happy response is unlikely. There is also some canvassing and a bad-faith attempt to mislead (you'll see that the redirect is indeed open for discussion, contrary to Al-A's claims).

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

ps: in the light of the previous report on AAM, some somewhat surreal comments by him might be worth scrutiny William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivil conduct by William M. Connolley's Racial remarks

• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Qur'an and Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Connolley seems to reverting all of my hard work even if it is right. He is not contributing rather inputung WP:RSN which is not a reliable source. Currently my reverted amazon book isnt in Quran and science. I dont want to edit war.please look at the logic behind this revert

Allegations against Connolley

i) Racial Remarks againt me - "... I suspect he isn't an native speaker"

ii) Connolley has been sanctioned in the past,, and identified as the perpetrator of acts such as posting the home addresses of other editors on the Internet. He has been identified as a member of a tag team which has colluded in order to control articles. He has been confirmed as having perpetrated multiple acts on incivility. As demonstrated above, he continues to employ deceptive practices in order to attain his objectives. He has not changed his behaivior, he has continued to sharpened his skills and turned his attention away from Climate change (where he is banned), and towards Islam. This proves that he doenst have good faith. I recommend him to be banned from Islam related articles.

As we would all agree it takes lot of hard work and time to research and produce an article. Please add your remarks regarding my concern. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

While WMC has had some difficulties here, I just don't see his wondering if English is your first language as an insult in any way. Perhaps in reviewing your sentence structure and syntax he simply wondered if a language other than English was your native tongue? I don't wish to put words in anyone's mouth, I'm simply suggesting one possible rationale here. I'm sorry, but I simply don't see anything worthy of sanction here. Perhaps it would be best to discuss any changes on the article talk page(s) and attempt to find a consensus for any proposed changes. That is the first step in resolving any disputes in what should and should not be changed on an article. I seriously doubt in reading the thread that any slight or insult was intended here. Best of luck in your future endeavors. — Ched :  ?  03:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ched. The problem is that it is a delicate issue. If he says he can't understand you because of how you're typing, then that could be offensive to people who don't speak English very well, and really are trying their best (I actually don't know if you do, so that might be you). It's hard to bring up, really. Maybe it could have been mentioned in a little better way, but not much. It's a difficult situation. I would say to try talking to him, and see if you can resolve it on Talk pages. If it escalates, bring it back here.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) Language ≠ race. Conflating the two is not helpful at all.

(ii) Seriously? WMC has been "identified as the perpetrator of acts such as posting the home addresses of other editors on the Internet"? By Arbcom even? (You are not saying this explicitly, but it's implied by the link that you are providing.) I could find no proof of this very serious accusation anywhere in the Arbcom case to which you linked. To quote WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." If this wasn't a lie, I expect to see a proof for this claim.

In general, see WP:BOOMERANG. Hans Adler 04:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever WMC may or may not have done in the past, he has no case to answer here. As for the edits you are trying to insert you really need to read and understand WP:RS, because it does not seem that you have a very good grip of the principle here. Had I been following the article in question I would have reverted you for the same reasons WMC did. It does not matter how much work you put into it, it does not matter what you think is "right", on Misplaced Pages we only care what the sources say. - Nick Thorne 05:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the various replies. I'd just add that I haven't got a clue what identified as the perpetrator of acts such as posting the home addresses of other editors on the Internet is supposed to mean (I understand the accusation, of course, but not why anyone would think I would be guilty of it). If any o you folk who have posted in this section would care to address the section above, that would be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Absurd as it may seem, I think this will become the standard denialist interpretation of pointing to the SEPP tax form (that showed the NIPCC report to be written by SEPP) which contained Singer's address. Of course, as far as I know, Singer is not a Misplaced Pages editor, and the document is in the public domain anyways, but them's the breaks.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tauhidaerospace tries hard but I believe needs mentoring. He uses talk pages but then, even though several editors have explained our policies and guidelines to him, ignores them and continues to revert/insert text that doesn't meet our guidelines and policies. Unfortunately sooner or later if this continues I think he will end up blocked, indeed I may end up requesting a block for editwarring if no other solutions presents itself - perhaps an RfC? He doesn't understand that he needs to get consensus, not just post to article and editor's talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I count at least 6 editors reverting him. If he doesn't agree to abide by consensus and not to insert text without consensus, I will report him. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So, we have 7 editors edit-warring? Is that ideal conduct? If you report Tauhidaerospace, please be sure to report any other prolific edit warriors.

Also, if this goes to ANI, I'd like to be notified of the discussion on my talk page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Milowent

• Milowent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pig_slaughter (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I entered a discussion on the AfD for Pig Slaughter. User has been aggressive, insulting, and made patently false accusations with no evidence.

His first comment was prior to mine, upon another user deleting his account. Diff:

He remained out of the discussion for a while after that. His next contribution was to accuse me of WP:SOCK with no evidence. I removed the comment from the page per WP:PERSONAL. Diff:

I posted a message on his talk page, telling him that I did not appreciate the unfounded accusation. I will admit that I was not very polite in the message. Diff:

He responded by stating it was justified since I was being extremely uncivil in the discussion on the AfD. When I said that was not sufficient reason, and asked for an example, he stated that he did not need to give one. Diff:

This was especially confusing, given his previous statement on another user's talk page. Diff:

His next comment made an attempt to veil his attack on me, and criticised me for citings policies, guidelines, and essays. Diff:

I asked him again, on his talk page, to please refrain from making personal attacks, and asked him to review WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL, and that if he could not stop, I would have to escalate the issue. I also attempted to allay his concerns regarding policies, with the hope that he would stop. Diff:

This seemed to be it for a while. He made constructive, and civil comments on the AfD ,

However, my hopes were dashed by the most recent edit seemed to drop all pretext of civility.

I could not go to WP:RfC/U since nobody else seems to have asked him to stop, and it certainly is not severe enough for WP:ANI.

My hope here is to help him realize that such behaviour is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages, or failing that, to escalate the issue to WP:RfC/U.

Homo Logica (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. HL's own incivility is the only cause of my comments, but in the interest of avoiding wiki-drama, I will refrain from any further discussion regarding HL's comments on that AfD. I would appreciate knowing HL's prior account name, however.--Milowent • 02:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I have not had any previous accounts. Continuing to accuse me of WP:SOCK while stating that you will be civil and assume good faith, is problematic, at best.

Homo Logica (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Milowent should drop the sock accusations, implicit or explicit. On the other hand, in a single delete discussion, HL's replies to Joy, Carrite, Dreamfocus, and Qrsdogg (and maybe more) strike me as unnecessarily snippy; additionally I find repeated references to an insignificant essay tendentious. I'd suggest dialing it down. Gerardw (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivil edit summary by User:Tbhotch

Following his reassessment of the Pawn Stars article, I tried to start a discussion with User:Tbhotch on his Talk Page, asking him in what way he felt the article did not reasonably cover the topic, or contains obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

I questioned or disagreed with his rationale, pointing out inconsistencies with other articles that he pointed to for comparison, and that some of his assertions about the Pawn Stars article were untrue as a question of fact. He reversed his reassessment, but with the following incivil edit summary: "Because harassing admin (yes YOU) apparently won't stop this". If someone could politely remind Tbhotch of both WP:CIV and WP:EDITSUM, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you start the discussion on his talk page instead of the article page? Gerardw (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution