Revision as of 06:42, 24 March 2008

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

Active alerts

User:David Gerard

The recent comments of David Gerard (talk · contribs) in AFD discussions have been drenched in incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Just a few examples, all made in the last hour:

• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Beatnigs: "jawdroppingly ignorant nomination demonstrating a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator. Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD, and possible removal of any other nominations for wasting AFD time with silliness like this." (nom was User:Coredesat)
• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KIDPOWER: "as discussion shows, woefully inadequate nomination that brings the nominator's (sincere, but clearly not up to the task) judgement into strong question and suggests any other present and future nominations should be closely examined for possible removal as wastes of AFD time" (nom was me)
• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Loughborough Students' Union (2nd nomination): "sincere but pretty blatantly ill-judged nomination that suggests the nominator's other nominations should be removed as wastes of AFD time" (nom was User:Knock-Off Nigel)
• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations: "Nominator needs to learn to edit articles rather than reach straight for AFD. Other nominations from this nominator need to be examined and possibly removed as wastes of AFD time" (nom was User:Collectonian)
• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Valina: "nomination from personal ignorance" (nom was User:Undead warrior)
• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cleaning validation: "nominator's other nominations should be examined and likely removed" (nom was User:Oo7565
• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Styleslut: "ignorant nomination" (nom was User:Seicer)
• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OMA Device Management: "wasting AFD time like this is antisocial" (nom was User:Viewplain1990)
• From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Canon Rock (music): "clearly ignorant nominator" (nom was User:DannyDaWriter)

David Gerard appears to have the habit of commenting on the nominator instead of the article. This is not the first time this has happened. See for instance User talk:David Gerard#Your comments on AfDs (David Gerard later apologized for this at User talk:David Gerard#Apology to Cirt. Aecis 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add this AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matt Boyd (wrestler). There he states "Nominator may have nominated in all sincerity, but appears not to have read their own cited sources properly" about me, the nominator. While nicer than his other comments, I still believe that this isn't a greatly appropriate AFD connent, especially when not backed up with what he feels I read improperly. As a respected part of the community, I think that he should be well aware of the need to talk about the articles and their merits and not the nominators. Metros (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate no-one likes having their judgement questioned. However, when you are talking about removing a topic from the encyclopedia in its entirety, it's a relevant question and one that you must be able to deal with having brought up. Note that bad judgement does not imply insincerity or bad faith - and that your conflation of the two itself is prima facie evidence of defective judgement.

When a nominator's judgement is clearly problematic and a waste of valuable AFD time ... what wording would you suggest? - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not that. And consider yourself warned. You are clearly assuming bad faith when you state that a user's AfD was out of ignorance (mine) or when the nominator was being "anti social." Comments like that are not constructive, and as an editor from 2004, you should know how to craft replies that don't step on other people's toes. seicer | talk | contribs 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Keep, the subject is notable because ...". Aecis 00:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And I get this laughable automated message. seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you, a regular, get templated not to template a regular? Aecis 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And it's pointing towards an opinionated essay, not policy. Perhaps David should read the latter of what he crafted, "Reading the discussion in question is also helpful and makes the quality of one's judgement evident." :P seicer | talk | contribs 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

David, if your time is so particularly "valuable", then perhaps it would be better spent creating new FA content and leaving the contention-prone AFD process to others who might be individually more mediocre than thou but succeed in being more sedate and focused on the content of such AFD proposals rather than on the authors of such proposals. Since your are so intensely talented and destined for ever-greater attributions of glorious productivity, you should redirect yourself to a higher plane of thought. There is more than adequate labour and sound judgment available in toto in the AFD pool already and wasting your fine qualities on contentious matters merely obscures the depth and clarity of your greatness. Go forth and collaborate and single-handedly get us to WP:100K by the end of this year. Perhaps you could start by expanding on the pantheon of Scientology which the project currently has woeful coverage of outside of your sole surviving FA. If not for the Project, then do it for your sole surviving, precious, innocent daughter so as to make her proud you.--76.220.203.121 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example of incivility: calling Bradv15 (talk · contribs) a "fool". Aecis 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

These actions are still continuing. David's arguing that he's not assuming bad faith, but just calling people's judgments poor. Metros (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I received "mass ignorant nomination" and "silly" on three of my AfD noms as well, on subjects which I am certain David has neither expertise nor interest. My opinion is that there's a larger issue here (either with AfD process or WP in general) that is being worked out through AfD flames. MSJapan (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See the mailing list archives for March, particularly the threads " How to do something about AFD" and " The Economist on "notability"" and " What is happening to the community". -- Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the aggressive attitudes of various editors who seem to subscribe to extreme m:immediatism and m:exclusionism and m:deletionism at AfD, I can't say I blame him for being blunt. (A loaded and old and insanely-complex topic, obviously ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling poor judgment poor judgment is not an assumption of bad faith. Criticizing another Misplaced Pages participant's actions or judgment is quite acceptable. David is a blunt speaker and does not necessarily sugar-coat his opinions; however, I find his level of civility here on par with many other contributors to AFD.

Moreover, poor judgment on the part of AFD nominators can materially damage Misplaced Pages, both in deleting valid content and in offending contributors new and old. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves the accusations of ignorance made towards Coredesat, Undead warrior, Seicer and DannyDaWriter. And what about David telling Coredesat to " articles before going anywhere near AFD"? Coredesat has been with us for over two years, has written a lot of articles, and has been an admin for a year and a half now. Treating him like a noob who's just made his first edit is absolutely uncalled for. Aecis 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Morven, I hope that "on par with many other contributors" doesn't mean that just because a fraction of AfD contributors are unacceptably uncivil, it is acceptable to be that uncivil? Because that's not a sensible approach.

Oh, and "poor judgment on the part of AfD nominators" is indeed irritating. How about - theoretically - poor judgment in assessing whether a nom is made using poor judgment? Relata refero (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whichever way we use to call this, AfDs brought up as these were, are as irritating. Maybe a kinder way should be found to clue these people in, but the concerns brought in thse AfDs are valid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all. Styleslut was originally CSDed for having a lack of notability established, and the only sources or links were personal blogs or non-notable clue-ins. I reinstated it when I was given a message on my talk page that had listed some other sources, and decided to put it to AfD upon the learning of some new information. I still can't find it to be all that notable, hence why I nominated it for deletion. WP has way too many articles that will never be completed, or are entirely unsourced, or are referenced with just personal blogs and web-sites, or are just unencyclopedic. If some had their way, we would be rid of AfD and CSD, which of course would pose so many issues.

You know how many are up for speedy delete per day? Over a hundred on good days. Out of those, 90% are speedy delete quality. Many are patent nonsense, wholly non-notable, or are copyright violations. You know how many are up for AfD? Not nearly as much. I don't see how we are entirely deleting[REDACTED] by deletionist standards, which I feel that David is falling under. Let the process work itself out. If the AfD was in bad faith, then it's in bad faith. But there was no pattern, no rationale except to be pointy, which is why he has had numerous questions raised about his editing practice left on his talk page in the last day. seicer | talk | contribs 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone comes across an article that doesn't make clear why it belongs on Misplaced Pages, and is not able to find any information that would warrant an article about the subject, he or she is well within his rights to nominate the article for deletion. Maybe another user can make the case for the article to be kept, that is part of what AFD is for. That can all be expected. But when established editors nominate articles for deletion with valid concerns, David Gerard is well out of bounds telling such users off in such a standoffish way. As Ozgod said on his talk page, "the whole purpose of an AFD is to gauge community consensus as to whether or not a particular article is appropriate/notable/relevant/etc. or not for Misplaced Pages; not an area to air your opinions about other editors." Wanting to stem the rising tide of AFD nominations is one thing, incivility and assuming bad faith is another. Aecis 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's within anybody's right to nominate anything for deletion, whether or not they're capable of intelligent judgement. The impression that I have of AFD is that it's for anything but intelligent discussion. Somebody has the POV that an article should be deleted and proceeds to enforce it, and fails to realize that his primary product is drama. Or they get into some self-righteous campaign that whole classes of useful information should be deleted because they like to extrapolate their narrow view of notability to the point where it becomes imposed on the entire community. They expand their wholly frivolous notion of notability to the point that expect others to engage in the game of adding spurious assertions of notability. Sure it's within their right, but how often do they try to fix the apparent deficiencies in the article? How often to they start a talk-page discussion? How often do they try to negotiate a solution with the article's authors? It seems that they want to aim for the jugular first. Often the people who did do something constructive with the article are no longer around to complain, or they may be faced with a large swath of articles to defend at the same time. The nominators must certainly know that their deletions will be more efficient if the contributors have minimal chance to defend themselves. As for the pompous belief that this process is somehow improving Misplaced Pages, that's bullshit. Rather these antics are just turning the whole project into a laughing stock.

I think David is right with his comments. If a handful of thin-skinned people find them too harsh, too bad. Maybe they should stop whining and start using our time more constructively. Eclecticology (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So AFD should only be used for open and shut cases, where it's clear that the article should be deleted and will be deleted? Isn't that what we have CSD and prod for? Or do you see AFD as simply going through the motions, process for the sake of process? And if you feel that AFD is such a mockery as you make it out to be, why not MFD the lot and get it over with? Aecis 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on my previous comment, let's use Coredesat's nomination of The Beatnigs as an example. Coredesat (talk · contribs) had initially speedied the article for WP:CSD#A7. When Pete.Hurd (talk · contribs) contacted Coredesat about this on his talk page (User talk:Coredesat#The Beatnigs) and made a case for the notability of the subject, Coredesat made the excellent decision to undelete the article. He then sent it to AFD, because "I'm not 100% convinced of this band's notability, so I have brought this here for discussion. The only reference is a very short All Music article." In other words, 'there is a sufficient claim to notability to avoid A7, but I'm not sure it's enough to keep the article.' That's where AFD comes into play. As WP:CSD#A7 itself says, "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." The deletion discussion discussed the notability of the subject and the merits of the article, all things that AFD was set out to do. And then David Gerard comes along, calling the nomination "jawdroppingly ignorant", demonstrating "a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator." And as if that is not enough, David decides to tell an editor for two years and an admin for a year and a half to " articles before going anywhere near AFD." Coredesat did nothing to deserve being talked down to as if he was a toddler. Aecis 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find your strange notion that nominators have no obligation to know anything about the subject area of the nomination slightly boggling, especially considering the noted (in third-party reliable sources, no less) hostility of AFD to even comments from casual Misplaced Pages editors. An appallingly bad nomination is an appallingly bad nomination, whether with bureaucracy as a reason or not - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you've lost me: where have I said, or even implied, something like that? Secondly, this is the third or fourth time that you've referred to coverage of AFD in the media. Which coverage are you talking about? The article in The Economist? And if so, how does that warrant the incivility and the assumptions of bad faith you've displayed? Aecis 11:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things: I have to agree with David that people should think several times about nominating for deletion things wildly outside their area of experience. That is what prods are for. If prods are removed, then taking it to AfD can be done in a suitable objective manner, as a removed prod should wind up at AfD. I personally get really, really irritated at people who, for example, nominate Indian high court judges, Islamic religious scholars or large mosques in Africa for deletion saying "doesn't sound notable to me, practically no ghits. WP:BIAS should be required reading, as well as a minimal understanding that spelling is variable in translations.

That being said, even if people are being silly, try to avoid saying it. DG may not "sugar-coat" things, but he damn well should try doing it. Though nowhere in attacking people's judgment did he imply that they were acting in bad faith, only that they were not helping the project. As has been pointed out already. Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, nobody seems to pay attention if you don't say something forcefully enough.

For example, I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to correct the admin that nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of films, without being ignored again. This admin didn't make a comment on the talkpage, and didn't contact me when I removed the prod (and he filed the afd within 5 minutes using twinkle, whilst I was still typing the responses), and didn't even propose that the page be moved somewhere potentially-useful instead (like to projectspace). That's a really fscking bad attitude. But I'm so used to being ignored every time I offer gentle feedback, that I'm constantly tempted to either be loud and blunt to make myself heard, or just give up on influencing anyone. (or so it often feels).

If silly behavior isn't corrected, it both continues AND propagates. Especially when it's an admin setting the bad example. (yes, that goes for both sides, in this discussion. DF and DG) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But the question is: what is silly behaviour that needs correcting, and what isn't? What is poor judgement and what is simply a different judgement? Do you treat fellow editors as fellow editors, or as children? Do you talk to them, or do you talk down to them? Please read what I wrote about Coredesat's AFD as an example. Coredesat showed excellent judgement in the AFD, nothing that would warrant David Gerard's incivility. Aecis 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And if an editor consistently shows poor judgment, is an AFD discussion the proper venue to talk about that? David, nobody is questioning your right to have an opinion and argue it. Even though I disagree with you on a lot of these AfDs, you have a right to say what you think. However, this is not the issue. You don't have to be abrasive and rude to express yourself clearly. Clearly I am not the only one that thinks this, as the presence of a number of editors in good standing here who are as concerned as I indicates. I am just not sure how constructive questioning people's judgement and belittling them is, compared to making a strong and straightforward "Keep" rationalisation. If the nomination is bollocks, as you are arguing they are, the article will be kept regardless of any undiplomatic statements.

I have a lot of respect for you and the work that you do, but being "blunt" is no excuse for rudeness and bad manners. Please try to be more considerate in the future Lankiveil 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

It appears that David is canvassing for like-minded individuals to overrun the AfD discussions and make sure they're closed the way he wants them to be closed. See and subsequent responses. Corvus cornix_talk

Well, wider participation is always valuable. That message was posted on WikiEN-l, where deletion-minded people are also to be found, not sent to a elected list of inclusionists. I think that's a reasonable approach and not canvassing. DGG (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't a valid objection at all. Now, if he had sent it to a group of inclusionists and only ccd it to the mailing list by mistake..... not that things like that ever happen.... Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

or for that matter the reverse. I too think it possible that people have been known to tell each other off-wiki about things they notice on-wiki. :) DGG (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD is routinely drenched in deep-seated idiocy. There are few ways to cut through it. I would suggest, in the end, that opening this process was a far more hostile move than anything David did. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which process? Starting this discussion? How is that more hostile than calling User:DannyDaWriter ignorant? How is it more hostile than calling User:Viewplain1990's AFD "antisocial"? How is it more hostile than belittling Coredesat? And how does it compare to casting AFD !votes without bothering to read? Aecis 11:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that taking this to an informal discussion page like this was the least hostile course of action, compared to dragging David in front of an RfC or ArbCom or something. I also question whether incivility is ever the best way to "cut through", despite any "deep-seated idiocy" that may be perceived to exist in a particular process. Lankiveil 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

While an RfC or request for arbitration would have been more hostile, that does not mean that this was appropriate. To stress, David did nothing whatsoever wrong here. Your phrasing is breathtakingly weaselly here. Let's take Canon Rock - an article that was nominated for deletion with a four word nomination that was flat-out untrue. Or Cleaning validation, which the nominator referred to as an "individual," which gives a good sense of exactly how much care and thought was put into the nomination. To be wholly blunt here, nominations like these, the latter of which came from a serial nominator, are a major problem. It is not inappropriate to note the stunning lack of judgment, awareness, or engagement involved in these nominations and to raise the larger problem, which is that nominations like these are common and nominators who exercise no judgment or awareness nominate routinely. Any policy that is being construed as forbidding the observation that a nomination was done with stunningly poor judgment and awareness of the situation and that the nomination itself harms Misplaced Pages is being misconstrued. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David did nothing wrong? Then how do you explain his !votes and comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kozioł, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Max Pawlus and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Beatnigs? And how do you justify calling Bradv15 (talk · contribs) a "fool"? Maybe there's a problem at AFD. But is it urgent enough to warrant David's incivility, confrontational attitude and flat out contempt of others? Aecis 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "fool" comment is the first thing you've found that is even remotely problematic. Your continued insistence on ignoring the issue at hand and hiding behind the incivility club is most disheartening. Look at David's comments again. Consider the point he is making - that people are trying to permanently remove topics from the project without engaging in a modicum of basic research. Then explain, exactly, using, say, The Beatnigs as an example, what he should have done differently to point out this problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to refer to my earlier comment on the AFD for The Beatnigs. David should have checked the context of the AFD before making a blanket accusation of poor judgment. If he had checked the context, he would have found that Coredesat actually showed excellent judgment. But even if Coredesat had shown poor judgment, that would never warrant the contempt and belittlement David showed as if Coredesat was a confused noob. Aecis 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, your earlier comment doesn't get at the point David was making at all. David's point was not merely that the article should be kept - it was that Coredesat should not have nominated it at all. Again - what is the better wording that expresses "Not only is this notable, but the nomination was irresponsible." Because unless you propose wording that actually makes the point David was trying to make, your alternate wording doesn't cut it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything but "Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD." How would you justify belittling an admin like this? How would you justify this contempt? Aecis 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're dodging the question. What wording should he have used? When you finish that one, please move on to Cleaning validation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not dodging the question at all, it's a direct answer to your question. David may or may not have a valid complaint about AFD, I'm not discussing that, but the way he chooses to get that point across is absolutely inappropriate. Would you disagree? And for that matter, would you please answer my question? How would you justify the belittlement and contempt of Coredesat? Aecis 09:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is "What alternate wording could David have used in those two AfDs that still communicated his point." An answer that does not contain alternate wording does not answer the question, pretty much by definition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you bother to read my answer? I said: "Anything but "Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD." " There's the answer to your question. Maybe not the answer you were looking for, but an answer nonetheless. Now back to you. How would you justify such a comment? Aecis 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not an answer. The issue is that there is not a way to say "This nomination shows a startling lack of judgment" without commenting on, well, the nominator's judgment. Your answer "something besides what he said" does not address this issue at all. Now. One more time. What wording should he have used. I want actual words he should have said. In quotation marks, if you will. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an answer, but if you want an example of "anything", fine. How about "Nom should have researched better before deciding to go to AFD." How about that? On topic, gets the point across, and is civil. Now it's your turn. How would you justify "Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD"? Aecis 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. I have no problem whatsoever with the point that David was making - the problem is with the way he was making it. I accept that David might honestly not have meant any personal offense in what he said, but the fact of the matter is that a small swarm of editors saw it and interpreted it as a personal attack. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, etc etc.

With that said, I note that there's been no further incidents of this type from this user, so if future AfD discussion remains civil, I personally happy for the matter to end here. Lankiveil 11:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC).

I think its obvious that while many people hear David Gerard's comments, few are listening. Yes, we can argue over whether his tone is appropriate, & yes he can ignore the comments here & continue posting in the same tone -- but isn't the point in commenting at WP:AfD to persuade? A message is received far more efficiently when the audience doesn't find offense in it. -- llywrch (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This begs the question of whether the failure to communicate comes on David's part or on the audience's. This entire process inclines me towards the latter explanation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So David decides to be confrontational and incivil, and it's somehow the fault of those he decides to be confrontational and incivil to? Please enlighten me. Aecis 09:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not assent to the premise of that question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly, Sandifer. Anyone who reads these comments for the first time, without knowledge of who David Gerard is, & finds fault in them has a communication problem? Economy of effort would dictate that when several people object to one person's mode of communication, the easiest solution would either be for the one person to change that behavior -- or for the larger group to ignore him. I'd comment on my position further, but this discussion has degraded into a shouting match between two people, neither of whom is David Gerard. I think the horse is dead. -- llywrch (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus

The editor Eusebeus has repeatedly insulted me by referring to me as "Pixieface" and "Pixie" . He's called me a "neophyte" and ignorant. He's also talked about being "part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists", said other editors were "bitching", said "That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining[REDACTED] for everybody.", mentioned "useless detritus that proliferates here thanks to determined cruftmongers", refers to the "abominably low standards induced by the bleating querulousness & rampant fractiousness of User:White Cat", uses the word "bullshit", said "As a loyal chort, let me state: what a load of rubbish from an editor, long on highly disagreeable and querulous engagement, short on credibility. This editor exults in the shrill insistence of their own rectitude and, in frequent descents into personal attacks and vicious parley - well documented on their talk page, becomes too tedious to bear. Ah dear Vivian, I now await your smears, but alas your many attacks against fellow editors means you have no probity left. Maybe you should change your username again and start over.", and said "Vivian is unusually nasty and vicious", etc. Could someone please inform this user of our civility policy? --Pixelface (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would step in, but I have had issues of this nature (sans most of the incivility) with the editor in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Long-standing disputes should not be brought to an "informal" dispute resolution forum. This is not likely to be resolved here. R. Baley (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOUP

I have been accused of WP:SOUP by an editor repeatedly over the last few days. Personally, I take offense at this accusation . Also, I find this ad hominem distraction as disruptive to our ability to keep cool heads and focus on what should be the editing of articles.

Of course this has not occurred in vacuum, see also. As you can see, this is in context of a particularly difficult and ongoing edit negotiation.

I am curious to hear a neutral third party opinion, and guidance, about WP:Civility in this instance. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a deal of justification to that description, but User:Yaf looks equally guilty of it. I think the whole discussion at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has collapsed into a porridge of quasi-legal bickering. It would be better if you both took a break and let the article be edited by Tibetans, Icelanders, Martians or anyone else who can take a clean and detached external view of this Big-Ender vs Little-Ender debate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Lowering the wikistress level sounds like a good idea. One thing is obvious: myself and User:Yaf butting heads does get much accomplished. So, I can try to butt heads less. Hopefully help may from come a mediator. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation sounds good. It looks like one of those situations where no-one's wildly *wrong*, but the discussion has just got bogged down in meta-topics (i.e. discussion of how to conduct the discussion) and editors' own interpretations of sources (which really should be avoided per WP:PSTS). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

After having a few hours to think about this, it occurred to me... What does WP:Civility teach about how to deal with WP:SOUP'ers? As you point out, in this case, there is one editor who is dealing with me being WP:SOUP'ed up. Eleven messages accusing me of WP:SOUP, intermixed with commentary "...right pain in the arse", "..i'd rather slam my hand in the door", etc.. And, it didn't work. And, the flip side of the coin, I am dealing with User:Yaf who "looks equally guilty" of WP:SOUP. My reaction, when faced with intransigence is to try to remain civil: Rephrase the question; wait for answer; answer doesn't come, repeat...over and over, far too many times. And, that didn't work either. What does work? 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

it would have been nice to be alerted to this discussion, as the instructions advise one to do. i did it when i brought a matter here with another user previously. that said, the reality is that there's very little accusation at work, and a lot more description. we have an article being held hostage by one editor, who purposely engaged in an editor war so that he could request the page be protected, in order to prevent edits he took offense to. the reason i say "purposely" is because this precise set of steps has been repeated before on the article in question, and other articles. i stand by my characterization that he is gaming the system - an activity to which i take offense, as it's violating the spirit of the rules, while engaging them in the letter. i consider that an incivility, far more than calling a spade a spade. but, do carry on as if i'm not here. Anastrophe (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of "gaming the system", is an accusation that I am acting with bad faith. I object to this false accusation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i'm well aware that you don't like it. your actions are self-evident, however. Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an insidious claim, against my good faith. I follow the 'rules', to the letter, you say. Yet, my bad intent is somehow "self evident". My intent is plain on its face: I am trying to help the project and to follow WP:Policy in the process, both letter and spirit. I admit having been overly wordy on a talk page; in those circumstances it was hard to avoid, yet I am sorry for it. But to insinuate I have bad intent, that is just wrong. And your accusation is certainly "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." Tell me: Have your personal attacks on my good faith accomplish anything constructive? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

is holding an article hostage constructive? WP is supposed to be a collaborative editing environment, but you've turned the article in question into a no editing environment, by gaming the system to prevent any editors from editing the article in any way. One editor is demanding all other editors bend to his demands before he'll "allow" editing to resume on the article. When you don't like how other editors are editing the article, you engage in edit warring, then run to the page protection noticeboard and request protection due to "edit warring". How much clearer can it be? it's one thing to collaborate and make a case for your point of view on the talk page, it's entirely another to game the system to prevent other editors from editing. as i said before, i find it offensive to prevent editors from doing what we are all here for - editing. Anastrophe (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not "holding the article hostage". Rather, I am working to resolve our differences. Let us disclose that you and I have editorial disagreements about that article and neither you nor I are impartial observers. I think it is constructive that we have agreed to seek mediation to resolve our differences, thank you. It is impossible to know for sure, but an agreement to mediate our disagreement unlikely to have been reached without the 'cool down period' that the page protection has allowed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lehoiberri

Lehoiberri has writen this sentence for me during a discussion in the article Italian settlement in Argentina:

"Since you tell me to read a Argentinian History book, why don't you watch those travel shows about Argentina. I am also ending my discussion here because I am talking to a JACKASS!!!!"

This is a violent personal attack. I hope some administrator can do something about it. Opinoso (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A notice has already been filed. seicer | talk | contribs 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Censorship by Anastrophe

→ See also: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Saul Tillich section above. — Athaenara ✉ 08:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe is now engaging in censorship of discussion on the Paul Tillich article’s Talk page. Granted, he is free to delete (“edit mercilessly”) material he considers false in the article itself. But Talk discussion is something else. Unlike article revisions and edits, Talk comments are not subject to editing by others. Indeed, Anastrophe himself complained vigorously when I (1) “edited” a comment of his that I was quoting by correcting a typo -– capitalizing his lower-cased first letter of a sentence -– and, later, when I (2) inserted a reply at the end of a mid-commentary paragraph of his instead (newsgroup style) of putting my reply at the very end of his commentary. (Others have more recently used approach (2) with me without my complaining.)

Yet on March 11, Anastrophe performed not just an innocuous edit but a complete deletion of a commentary I posted less than two hours earlier (posted 02:22; deleted 04:00). His excuse was that he was archiving, implicitly not “deleting.” But since all deleted material gets archived, that is a semantic distinction without substance. For all practical purposes, it was an act of censorship. Had archiving old material been his real aim, he might have archived all material more than a month old. But instead, in order to prevent others from reading material that challenged his own views (found in the article), he chose to delete fresh material. Here is the “diff” link:

Truth be told, Anastrophe did have one other excuse for censoring me. He called my comments a “screed.” He prefers to engage in name-calling rather than intelligent refutation of arguments he disagrees with. By his rules, he is entitled to delete anything he chooses to call a “screed.” His arrogant behavior is intolerable (please look up the word “arrogate” if you think I too am employing name-calling), and it is completely beyond the pale of propriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Tillich (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

there is an "archive" box on the talk page. it has two entries, clearly labeled. the most recently archived discussion is available there. this complaint is nonsensical. there has been no censorship (never mind the gross abuse of the meaning of the term "censorship"). Anastrophe (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding an archive box to the talk page in no way changes the fact that my contributions to Talk were immediately deleted -- as were my next two contributions. Persons who visit the Tillich article to learn about Tillich would rarely, if ever, go to either the history page or the archives to see what has been deleted. And if that did, they would run into the same dead end I ran into when I clicked on the Archive image -- three tabs with long lists that don't even mention the Tillich page. Deleting material one doesn't want others to read is the essence of censorship. From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference whether the deleting is done with black ink in a letter or document or electronically on a web page. The effect is the same: preventing others from reading what you don't want read.

In his reply to someone else under the SOUP heading, above on this page, Anastrophe wrote this: "it's one thing to collaborate and make a case for your point of view on the talk page, it's entirely another to game the system to prevent other editors from editing. as i said before, i find it offensive to prevent editors from doing what we are all here for - editing. Anastrophe (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet, having himself done what he claims to find "offensive" -- preventing others from editing the article itself -- Anastrophe has also denied me the opportunity to "make a case for your point of view on the talk page" (quoted from the Anastrophe comment immediately above). He is systematically deleting everything I put on the Talk page, because he and his colleague Jonalexdeval regard my opinions as a "screed" and "crap."Saul Tillich (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly, by a number of editors, that your arguments are original research: your own synthesis of primary material. To keep reposting variants of the same - at such excessive length - is doing nothing but making it impossible for others to collaborate on developing the article. It's hard to take these contributions as anything but tendentious and disruptive editing, and it's well justifiable to remove them as misuse of Talk pages per WP:TALK. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And you have been told repeatedly that my arguments and analysis are not original, that they come from (1) Wheat (1970), whose book has been around for 38 years, and from (2) Kaufmann (1961), whose two books on theology have been around for 47 years. You are aware of this, but to justify your censorship in the eyes of other readers you keep repeating your false claim.

In doing so, you are trying to rationalize an article that, instead of representing all POVs regarding Tillich's theology (theist, atheistic pantheist, atheistic mystic, atheistic nonsupernaturalist) represents only the first POV -- theist. Only about one-fourth of Tillich's interpreters uphold your Tillich-is-a-theist POV; the other three-fourths (15 of 20 that I have identified) say Tillich is an atheist. (Most say Tillich is a pantheist, which is a form of atheism; even Wiki's original Tillich article called Tillich a pantheist -- which makes your effort to hide all POVs except theism doubly reprehensible.)

Tillich himself, in THE COURAGE TO BE (1951) repudiated theism and called for allegiance to a different God, "the God above the God of theism." Who or what this God is irrelevant to the issue of representing all POVs. What is relevant is that you and Jonalexdeval have repeatedly edited out references to Tillich's God above God. Why don't you want Wiki's readers to know that Tillich endorsed a God who replaces the God of theism? Saul Tillich (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Only about one-fourth of Tillich's interpreters uphold your Tillich-is-a-theist POV; the other three-fourths (15 of 20 that I have identified) say Tillich is an atheist. (Most say Tillich is a pantheist, which is a form of atheism

And is that the general view of the nature of pantheism? No. GIGO. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You write, "And is THAT the general view . . ."? I'm not sure what your pronoun "that" refers to, but I'll assume you are referring to the idea that pantheism is a form of atheism. Tillich observes that there are two forms of pantheism (ST, v. 1, p. 237): (1) the "naturalistic" pantheism of Spinoza and (2) the "idealistic" pantheism of Hegel. Both forms postulate the existence of a "universal essence" - invisible, noncorporeal, impersonal, mindless -- within everything in nature, including man. The difference is that Hegel's pantheism puts the universal essence in not only natural objects but man-made objects as well (houses, wagons, shoes, cups, etc.).

Both types of pantheism are forms of atheism, because atheism is any doctrine relating to God or gods that isn't theism. Atheism includes deism (because deism's impersonal god is not the God of theism), pantheism, eastern type mysticism, and undiluted antisupernaturalism. The Routledge Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy says “theism is the belief that there is a God and that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, distinct from the universe which he has created and in which he intervenes.” You can find similar definitions of theism in any dictionary. (Take away and and you have deism; also take away , , , and , then add man participates in – is part of – God, and you have pantheism.) Tillich has repeatedly rejected the God of theism.

Gordon, I have repeatedly noticed that you like to raise vague objections (a simple "No" in the present instance) to definitions of theism, pantheism, and the like but lack the courage to put your own definition on the table, where it can be criticized. If you think pantheism, atheism, or theism is something other than described above, tell us exactly what you think these terms mean. Saul Tillich (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Mythdon

I made an edit to Power Rangers, which lead to a discussion between Mythdon and I across talk pages regarding various verification issues and overall ettiquette (as this user had repeated deleted my attempts to discuss the change on the article's talk page (). At some point, this user took it upon themself to update my User page to redirect to my talk page. I undid it, including a request to not do it again. I made an edit to the same article nearly a week or so later, and sure enough... The summary cites WP:OWN as basis. However I have a feeling that does not expand to user pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I should specify that the application of WP:OWN doesn't seem to apply in this situation: As the change was done without my knowledge or permission, and was repeated after a revert and request to not do so. Also, Mythdon has yet to provide an explanation as to why they felt the change was neccesary. TRTX (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since your Talk:Power Rangers post was directed specifically at a user, you should have discussed it on the user you're specifically referring to's user talk page. But,I think that Mythdon should not have edited your user page. I don't think a user can be violating WP:OWN by trying to control their own userpage. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso

Since Opinoso likes to make himself innocent, he started the attack read the article well on his last post. He called me racist, and that is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policy. I was wrong to insult Opinoso, and I am sorry, but I don't deserve all the blame. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Davidson

I am requesting assistance on these edits by Floyd Davidson to Eskimo: and . In the first, he reverted changes I made (as an IP user), without comment. In the second, he removed "failed verification" tags and "verify credibility" tags I placed next to references for the assertion that the word Eskimo is considered offensive in Greenland. The first two sources do not expressly state that it is considered offensive there (one does say that Inuit is "preferred"), the third is a Wikitravel page, and the fourth is the website for a hotel. I believe he cannot simply remove these tags on the grounds that I'm "being absurd" (as he said in his edit summary). Whynot77 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Please respond at Talk:Eskimo#Is Eskimo considered pejorative in Greenland?. Whynot77 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Whynot77's view that there's a problem. I agree about the iffiness of some of the sources. Wikitravel, as an open wiki, especially. But this editor appears to have a strong view that personal knowledge over-rides WP:RS and WP:V. And SHOUTS a lot. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried discussing it further on the talk page, but Floyd Davidson seems to feel he is entitled to remove dispute tags simply because he claims he's right and I'm wrong. Whynot77 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:JoshuaJude

I'm not sure if this is the right page to ask but perhaps someone can also check the contributions of User:JoshuaJude. He's adding links to personal sites/projects and before I hit the WP:3RR, it's better to notify it here ;-) - Simeon87 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaJude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <- Convenience. seicer | talk | contribs 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Vsmith

Something needs to be done about this "admin". He continually abuses his power by rapidly deleting any contributions made by other editors to pages that he has evidently deemed "his". No matter what content was added, it is always reverted back to HIS version, with the excuse of "spam", & he often then bans the person, so they can't even discuss the matter with him.

A short look at his talk page will reveal that he has done this to numerous other editors, particuraly on geology related pages. Several people who have had their content deleted by Vsmith has attempted to have him justify the reason, only to be answered by another deletion, a smart remark, or another ban. This is a SEVERE abuse of the trust that has been given to him by Wiki & completely defeats the very purpose of the site, as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".

This has happened, among several others, on pages dealing with Global Warming, Enviromentality, Prem Rawat, Society of Vacuum Coaters, The Washington Times Foundation, & Steggles. This is only a VERY small selection of the articles which Vsmith has deleted other people's contributions to.

He has also been guilty more than a few times of answering others questions with insults and/or smart remarks. I'm not going as far to suggest a course of action. I don't know what would be appropriate & will leave that to other more knowledgable ones. But I will state one more time that this user is VASTLY abusing his authority & needs to be dealt with before the reputation of Wiki becomes tarnished by ones like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a bad faith nomination. It's probably about Vsmith's reversion of 67.14.215.240's repeated attempts to add links to a personal website - www.magnetcoverocks.com - to articles related to Magnet Cove, Arkansas. It appears to be irrelevant: just the label Magnet Cove Rocks stuck on a picturebook of minerals of unproven provenance and image source. The view that it's an inappropriate link has been endorsed by (at a glance) at least two other editors. See ) and User talk:67.14.215.240. Gordonofcartoon (talk 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gordon. Even if there were an issue with Vsmith's removal of your links, which I don't think there is, Wikiquette is not it. Aecis 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me pile on the agreement by stating that if the link is added on future pages, it will be submitted for blacklisting. Per policy, your web-site is nothing more than spam. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do either of you see anything at all about the Magnet Cove incident in the above alert?? If so, then please point it out to me. If you can't find it, then please stop trying to add something that is not there. I nominated him for bad Wikiquette for very specific reasons which are fully explained in the above message, along with numerous examples. Do you want more?? I can supply them. They are easy to find.

This will be a good example for others to see exactly how Wiki operates. I'm curious also, especially after these few remarks. Is this truly an encyclopedia for "everyone"....or is it a clique of only a few selected individuals who others will protect by any method. Saddly....it's appearingrapidly that the latter will turn out to be the case.

But maybe you'll prove me wrong. Once again, I've provided the reasons for the nomination & have provided numerous examples....none of which involve the one that you seem to be hung up on for some reason. And once again also, if more are needed, more can be provided. They aren't difficult to find. So my alert about this editor stands.

P.S. Nice completely off-topic remark there at the end Seicer. What relevance does your comment have on this nomination?? THAT is a perfect example of off-topic material that SHOULD be deleted from Wiki....it has absolutely zero relation to the subject. I'll leave it around though. I'm just curious if someone will clean it up or not.

Do either of you see anything at all about the Magnet Cove incident in the above alert??

No, but we're not stupid: you've been kvetching about the removal of magnetcoverocks.com since Feb 28. Looking at previous discussions at User talk:Vsmith, all I can see is removal of links for perfectly valid reasons, such as obviously promotional intent. Please don't portray this as some kind of clique closing ranks: Misplaced Pages being for "everyone" to edit doesn't imply it has to accept every kind of content or links indiscriminately. See WP:LINKS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My alert about this user still stands, regardless of the off-topic chatter added evidently in an attempt to divert attention away from the initial post. Very interesting that OBVIOUSLY unrelated remarks on the subject seem to be just fine here, but not when an editor tries to add them to a content page. I'm not sure if it's considered polite to remove this type of trash from this particular page, so will let that decision be made by someone else who knows the system better than I do. Once again, I'd like one of you to show me where this alert has ANYTHING to do with what you are claiming. I presented numerous valid examples to back this up...not one of them is anything related to what you've been harping about. With that said, I'll ask you to kindly remove the unnecessary trash from this post.....or is posting completely off-topic material completely acceptable to this particular part of Wiki?? If so, please show me that also....as soon as you can show me that your chatter above has anything to do with this particular alert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk • contribs)

As Gordonofcartoon said above, the regulars here are not stupid. And I will add that we are a bit more experienced with Misplaced Pages than you are, so trying to make points on procedural matters is not a good idea. Vsmith is doing a lot of work related to removing inappropriate external links from article space. (See WP:LINKSPAM for some information related to this.) Now when someone comes to this (Misplaced Pages space) page to make vague accusations about him, then there are obviously two things we need to do: 1. Check whether the accusations are justified. 2. Check whether this is an attempt at retaliation from a link spammer.

1: I only see the normal kind of conflicts for someone working on this, and I get a generally very good impression of Vsmith's conflict resolution skills. 2: Just two pieces of advice, in case they apply. When in a hole, stop digging. Read WP:COI to see if it applies to you. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Context always comes under consideration. If it's specific opinion 67.14.215.240 wants, though, here goes:

Global warming - semi-protection during sockpuppet attack and a supposedly new IP user appears, does a few token edits, then starts instigating complaints procedures about the semi-protection . Reasonable to conclude it's another sock.

Environmentality - removal of a link and a book reference where an editor was making repeated attempts (under his own account and various IP addresses) to add to various environmental pages his own book (against WP:COI) and a blog of no known authority (against WP:LINKS).

Prem Rawat - a block on an editor (who has previously been blocked by others from the same thing) for disruptive editing at this article.

Society of Vacuum Coaters - reasonable deletion of links and references added with a clear conflict of interest (a situation that could have resolved if the editor concerned hadn't taken offence and taken his ball home).

Washington Times Foundation OK, I accept that one as an example: reasonable redirect, with a mildly snarky edit summary

Steggles - reasonable call on speedy deletion of an article that appears to have made no assertion of notability and contained vanity elements.

We can add a couple you forgot:

Thunderegg (COI again - someone adding a mass of links to their own personal and semi-commercial website). And of course Magnet Cove (personal website with no proven authority). Conclusion: nothing to see. And besides, nobody is stopping these editors for going through normal COI procedure and suggesting their links on the associated talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it then. You just proved explicitly exactly what I suspected anyway....Wiki is a clique organization with no real interest in fulfilling it's stated goal, of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". The reputation that is has gotten on the internet lately is evidently 100% correct....2% of the people do 90% of the edits. The reason is clear & has been made even more so by the response to this very post....if you aren't part of the clique, then we don't want your contributions. If you try to add content, we'll delete it, label it spam, ban you, & then swear up & down that we're the ONLY correct opinion here. Good job guys. I'll use this very thread as a reference when telling anyone just how reliable Wiki is for information.....basically, if you want to trust the opinions of a very limited clique, then go for it. Extremely sad that the place has devolved into this. So, since every action that Vsmith performs is evidently perfect, I'll withdraw my alert. He's the greatest admin that the internet has ever known. Nothing he does is wrong. I'll let someone else delete this, maybe the very person who is the subject of the matter...he LOVES deleting material added by others. It's obviously now of no use at all....didn't think it would be, but thought I'd at least SEE if Wiki took authority abuse seriously. I received the answer to that very quickly. Have a nice day & go on doing what you do best....taking care of the select few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User flat out refuses to communicate let alone attempt to cooperate

The user Perspicacite has been reverting a large amount of constructive changes I made to the Aging of Europe article over the past few days (grammar fixes, POV improvements, accuracy to sources, additional content, removal of completely off topic content), with absolutely no justified reason. My edits were done in a series of 5 or 6 seperate edits, yet he reverts them all to make matters even more confusing. His only two posts in discussion amounted to "I don't like your edits so I don't have to give a reason", and his edit summaries are no better. I've tried my best to get him to discuss the matter with me, but to no avail. To make matters worse, another user who's been stalking me decided to randomly show up (to an article he's never edited on before) and start reverting my changes as well, again with no justified reason. He seems to have stopped though.

I'm not really sure what to do at this point. I certainly don't want to have to sustain an ongoing edit war day after day, that's not how the wiki community should ever have to function. How do you deal with a situation like this? I really would love to know what he doesn't like about my edits so I can cooperate with him and improve the article, but that doesn't seem possible. Any ideas? I guess I'll just sleep on it for now. Krawndawg (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that given Perspicacite's previous edits, his attitude and the amount of blocks that he has already received - a permanent or 1 year block from editing might be a good idea. I don't really care about the content, there are content disputes that are dealt with every day, however his attitude is poor, and despite receiving many many temp blocks, his attitude towards edits/reverts/summaries/other editors does not change. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can not agree with that. This is a content dispute. The large-scale edits of Krawndawg are highly questionable to tell this politely. The inserted text blames certain Russian demographers of a scientific fraud based on a highly questionable source (a publication by Russian fascist-type party "Rodina" - "The Fatherland"). I asked Kwandang to start from the older version, to make one small edit at a time, and discuss each change with Perspicacite, but he refused. Instead of looking for consensus, Krawndawg decided to complain in WP:ANI and here. In this particular episode, Perspicacite enforces WP standards in my opinion.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey look the stalker's back! The inserted text doesn't "blame" anyone, it's a response to a claim. There is no policy against posting responses, and you calling them "fascist" only shows your blatant ignorance and obvious bias (they're leftists for crying out loud). I'm curious as to why you're speaking on behalf of the user in question here though, is he incapable of defending himself? This dispute has absolutely nothing to do with content, it has to do with an uncooperative[REDACTED] editor who hasn't even said what his problem is. Your claims of "pov" are irrelevant to this discussion. If Perspicacite wants to come here and defend himself, I more than welcome him.

I'm going to ask you politely to stop following me around and harassing my every edit. Further, please familiarize yourself with[REDACTED] policy, and in the mean time, refrain from accusing people of making "pov" posts when they're doing the opposite (I've looked at your other edits and you do the same thing to other people constantly. Note: Edits that you don't agree with are not automatically "pov".) Krawndawg (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has an obligation to come here and "defend himself". It is my good will that I discuss this. Calling me "a stalker" is a great example of an Wikiquette problem.Biophys (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling you a stalker is a good example of factual information. Otherwise you wouldn't have followed me to articles that you've never edited before on the basis of "suspicion", in your own words. Your good will is based on an assumption of bad faith. The fact that you continually revert my edits and falsely accuse me of breaking[REDACTED] policy is only proof of your bias against me as an editor, so I must say that your so called "good will" here is largely unappreciated. Krawndawg (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So, not only I am a stalker, but also "assume bad faith". No, I never did. This is also an example of a completely meaningless discussion. Bye.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone "suspicious" is assuming bad faith. There is no way around that. And yes, this discussion certainly is meaningless, which leads me to wonder why you followed me here in the fist place if not to simply stir up more trouble. Krawndawg (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim

This user is persistently abrasive and rude, particularly to those of us who choose not to register and contribute anonymously. I've had the misfortune to stumble upon his particularly shotgun-like problem resolution strategy at the Inchkeith article, which contains material which is sourced, but the sources for which Deacon seems hellbent on a personal vendetta against, removing material with a persistent refusal to discuss his edits reasonably, and in a disconcertingly bully-like fashion. More recently, he's been made an admin (worryingly!). Ironically, his peculiarly aggressive and insulting edits to the article Inchkeith were brought up as justification for an oppose in the RfA.

In yet another attempt to communicate reasonably with this editor and let them reach their potential, I've made (yet more) attempts to reach out to the user on their talk page, expressing a little concern regarding his attitude, but out of a genuine wish to be productive, and with a (sincere!) congratulatory tone. These have not only resulted in the user deleting my remarks, but now protecting their page(!), all without so much as an "I'd rather you not post to my talk page, thanks". Could someone please open this user's eyes to the productiveness of being polite and at least /attempting/ to communicate and work constructively with other users, since I'm now apparently unable to communicate the user at his own behest? It'd be lovely to be able to work together with this obviously passionate and knowledgable user, if only he'd let me. 82.35.210.119 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I've had no interaction with user recently save having my talk page trolled. I have refrained from feeding the IP, but have resurrected the discussion at Inchkeith having been inadvertently reminded of it. To 82.35.210.119, further trolling of my talk page will lead to nothing. If you actually wish to have a discussion, please go to Talk:Inchkeith and when there please do your best to refrain from harassing and trolling behaviour. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll recall I encountered you In January, and attempted to discuss this issue on the article's talk page then, but was ignored. Since then, I've made a number of posts to your user page in all sincerity, as I've again pointed out. As you can see from my edit history, I'm not at all averse to discussing issues productively with other editors wherever possible, and that's really all I'm trying to do here. As I pointed out on your talk page (only to be censored, repeatedly), I'm disconcerted that it took posting here to finally acknowledge this is disputed material in the article itself, after - having looked at the article's edit history - what's evidently a dispute you started nine months ago. 82.35.210.119 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Insults and edit warring by IP, how to handle?

I am new to WP and don't know what the proper procedure is for handling this sort of thing by an unregistered IP. I don't want to waste my time debating such a person since it is a troll and quite possibly a sock puppet for another user that has admitted to following my edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Menemen_massacre

Hı, youre the sort of person ı truly despise seeing in this place

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_press_headlines_relevant_to_the_Pontic_Greek_Genocide

How old are you ten?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/88.243.216.236

I already left a message at the IP's talk page but to no avail. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:88.243.216.236

This is probably the IP of already banned user:Laertes d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenovatis (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott—personal abuse and obstruction of copy-editing

Location: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Rationale_edits

Background:

• I copy-edited the opening of the project page here.
• This was promptly reverted by user Ned Scott, who appears to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues with the page. No substantive reason was provided for the revert; the edit summary for the revert was "a lot of rewording there for a very controversial policy. Best to discuss this first". On his second revert, having provided no reasons on the talk page, he accused me (not himself) of engaging in an edit war, and of going on an "ego trip", in his edit summary.
• He subsequently provided incomprehensible reasoning for the reversion. "This might seem minor to some, but "enhances the quality" gives the impression that the content itself is of sufficient quality without the non-free media."
• After two days of fragmented comments (he places some of his entries out of chronological order) he has launched a personal attack, accusing me of being a "spaz", "elitist asshole", "childish", "little kid".
• In further stalling tactics, he has lodged an RfC (policy, not personal) for this spurious issue, despite writing "I read responses from a few people, and while I'd like more responses, they were all users who said they were fine with the wording," and still providing no logical argument for the reverts. Tony (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to get more involved with this right now, but here is a general remark: Anything other than trivial layout changes is very likely to be controversial on a policy page. I don't know if we have a written rule requiring that such changes should be discussed on the talk page first, but it seems to me that that is obviously the right thing to do. This doesn't necessarily excuse Ned's reactions (I didn't even look at them), but my guess is that it at least explains them. Your choice of title ("obstruction of copy-editing") seems to indicate that you are still not aware of the problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While Ned Scott's recent language is clearly unacceptable, two observations about the complainant's behavior are in order:

• Tony was the first to start shouting about the relevant difference of opinion--and he did so in edit summary, where such expression is particularly discouraged: "Do NOT revert a copy-edit (which made NO substantive change in meaning) just because you think it's a lot of rewording. There's NOTHING controversial about this fix." (See edit summary at top of diff.)
• Tony was the first to make the debate personal and uncivil with this entry on Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content: "What a senseless revert. Don't waste my time, your time and that of everyone else with your 'just to be safe' incantations. Look carefully at the changes and determine what on earth was controversial, what meanings were substantively changed. Jeeesh." (See diff).

Ned Scott's improper charge in edit summary that Tony is on an "ego trip" (see diff) came only afterward. While, again, such language should be avoided, especially in edit summary, it is fair to say that Tony initiated the unpleasant turn that this exchange took. (As an aside, I take exception to Tony's claims that Ned Scott has provided only "incomprehensible reasoning" and no "logical argument" for the revert. While anyone is, of course, free to disagree with Ned Scott's argument, it strikes me as quite comprehensible and logical. Whether it is convincing or not is a distinct matter.) I suggest both parties reflect on their own actions, "shake hands," and agree to proceed in a more gentlemanly fashion.—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've just lost all confidence in a process that is clearly biassed towards your friend. "Doesn't necessarily excuse Ned's reactions,... but explains them." (My emphasis). Right, so calling someone an asshole and a spaz, etc, seems to be quite OK. They're "explained" (= justified?) in the context. So you don't mind if I go back there and announce that he's a snivelling little cunt, do you? I'm sure I could find a way of "explaining" that.

In fact, all commentary on Scott's personal attacks is couched in language that seems to cast it as minor or inconsequential—to excuse or even approve it ("such language should be avoided", was the most that Geist has said, while Adler didn't even look at the personal attacks)—while focussing on my initial objection to an unexplained revert. My initial posting may have been intemperate, but it was not obscene and insulting. So we have "came only afterward" ... "Tony ... initiated", "Tony was the first to make the debate personal ...".

Geist completely misses the incomprehensibility of Scott's attempt to explain just why the new wording is an issue—it's in the diff above. If he thinks that is clear and logical, I give up.

I was seeking balanced comments, not heavily slanted POV; the process is making it far less likely that people will just "shake hands" and move on. On the contrary, it's likely to poison the page. Tony (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, I realise only now that we just had interactions in two different places. That's quite unfortunate and wasn't my intention at all.

As I said, I wasn't going to invest much time into this, and so I just mentioned one thing that jumped out at me: That it seemed to start with you editing a policy page as if it was an ordinary article; perhaps you can avoid future conflicts by showing more restraint in that respect.

Ned Scott is not my "friend". I know nothing about him and have no opinion about him, whatsoever. That said, now that you have tried to turn this into a personal thing between you and me I have a convenient excuse to withdraw from this case anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a classic case of escalation. Both parties did things to contribute to this, and kept making it worse. Tony -- you need to realize that policy pages in general are a good place to be a bit more cautious. I agree that Ned didn't clearly lay out his concerns when he first reverted, and he should have. But you had already sensed that you might have been changing the meaning of the third bullet point; you alluded to it in your initial talk page comment. Your response after Ned's revert, which was a reasonable action, was starting to make things pretty personal. "Such a senseless revert", "don't waste my time" and so on are very aggressive and not WP:CIVIL. A simple, polite question about what was objectionable in the change would have been sufficient. However, Ned was incivil right back with the "ego trip" comment and the "think yourself so perfect" comment, and it went downhill from there. I think clearly the worst of this came from Ned, though: calling someone a "spaz" or an "elitist asshole" is simply unacceptable in any situation on Misplaced Pages. In the future: Tony - don't be surprised when you're reverted on a policy page; you should expect it. Wording issues can be very sensitive. And while Ned didn't explain his objection very well, you never explained why you changed the third rationale, either. Both of you should remember that whole reverts aren't always necessary. Ned - your behavior was unacceptable here. Although Tony might have "started it", that is no excuse for your behavior: you repeatedly responded with more and more inflammatory comments. Mangojuice 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was doing pretty good (not perfect) up until the comment where I called him an asshole. It was a moment of weakness, and had I not done so I would be in a much better position to address Tony's continued rudeness in this entire situation (which still continues). I don't even understand it, since I'm pretty sure I've gotten along with him in the past. Tony was waling into me way before I made a single "confrontational" comment. I should have responded with a cooler head, but I'm not convinced that would have changed any of Tony's responses. -- Ned Scott 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Asshole and what about the other things you said? You weren't doing well (not "good") at all, in fact, until that posting; and you haven't since. Tony (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, both of you go to your respective corners and stop badgering each other for now. It's obvious that you're both mad at each other, but continuing to bicker at each other here is only going to make things worse. The edit history shows inappropriate behavior on both sides of this dispute, and really the best way to resolve this is for both of you to cool off and stop attacking each other. Refrain from editing the article/policy page for a little while until you're both ready to come back to the table and work constructively.

Tony: To reiterate what was said above: When editing policy pages, be sure that if you're doing more than just fixing a spelling or grammar issue, that you have consensus on the change before making it. It's okay to be bold about it, but especially with policies, you should be prepared for others to revert your changes and ask you to discuss it on Talk first - I think Ned's original response regarding this was appropriate in the given context. Discussions don't necessarily need to be long, drawn-out processes - even just a little discussion can go a long way toward explaining your reasoning for the changes.

I feel it's also worth mentioning that, while he hasn't really apologized for his outburst yet, Ned's comment above came across to me (at least) as an acknowledgement that he didn't handle the situation well. I take that as an encouraging sign that he's willing to deal with this situation constructively, and frankly, I think your response to him was unduly harsh. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, an apology would have been nice. No, I won't be going into any corners, thank you very much. And merely repeating what was said above about the sanctity of policy pages (twice or three times?) is likely to irritate me and others, as well as wasting our time. I'm afraid that this episode has ruined any chance of a working relationship with this character; this is a pity, since the NFC page needs textual scrutiny, and I'm not about to kow-tow to those who see themselves as guardians of the page, yet have little linguistic understanding. I do concede, however, that his doubt about the wording of the third point has played out, although he was incapable of grasping exactly what was wrong with both the existing and the new version. I have nothing but contempt for the way in which he expressed his doubt. Tony (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• You have every right to the way you feel. But this is probably as resolved as it's going to be, so I'm going to mark this thread as resolved. Mangojuice 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• • No offense, Mango, but I overrode your "resolved" with a "stale" tag - I think that more accurately reflects the state of this discussion, such as it is. It's clear that Tony is unwilling to budge on this issue - I wouldn't consider that resolved. :/ — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pages against[REDACTED] policy

The User Nyttend is deleting pages without consensus as per[REDACTED] policy. Please can someone look into this?

Page in question: User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin

--Bleveret (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/

• Might I recommend WP:DRV for a second opinion. Gtstricky 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it is already there Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 17. Gtstricky 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the actions taken by admins regarding this case to be rather inappropriate. Enigma 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Referred elsewhere? Anyway, the user this mainly concerned has apparently quit. Enigma 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, referred to WP:DRV. Although the original DRV has been closed, DRV is still the proper venue for this. Mangojuice 04:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The content of this particular userbox sounded like an attack on User:Betacommand. It should not be a shock that the DRV wanted to get rid of it. Arguments against policies are OK; arguments against users, not so good. See also the preceding MfD, and for a perspective on how painful these issues are, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The second deletion of the box was on a box was deleting a different userbox that did not mention Betacommand or his bot. Please read up on the issue before commenting. Enigma 04:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by hAl

During a (long) discussion to try to resolve an original research problem user hAl has started a section on the page user:Kilz misbehaviour. This is a personal attack in my opinion and does not assume good faith WP:AGF. Kilz (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it's a personal attack. It's a comment on the contributions you've made, not on you. But OTOH, this is clearly an escalation of a dispute, and I hope it doesn't go any further. HAl: you aren't going to accomplish much with that section. The dispute going on there is not a conduct issue, it's a content issue and needs wider input. It may be that this particular aspect of the subject can't be covered without delving into WP:OR, which means it should probably be removed altogether. Mangojuice 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mangojuice, Are you going to post this or something else on the Talk:Office_Open_XML page? Kilz (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would join the debate if I had a clear idea of what should be done with the content but I'm not really up on it. It's probably best to keep discussion of behavior issues over here. Mangojuice 22:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice can you refer me to another place that could help us solve the content issues? Kilz (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get more voices involved, WP:3O would be appropriate if it's (basically) just you and HAl going back and forth on the issue and you want one more opinion. If there are already multiple users involved you could go to WP:RFC. If the problem isn't breaking a deadlock but having a chance to discuss through the differences (which might be the case here), I might suggest WP:RFM. Mangojuice 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about more users, and it would help a lot if both editors in this dispute backed off and let someone else disentangle it. Even accepting that this is a specialist subject, the discussion has descended into jargon-ridden wrangling where it's become near-impossible to tell what points either of the disputants are trying to make. It's like reading Lorem ipsum with OOXML, OSP, OSS, SFLC etc embedded at random. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mayby people here should also read : Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz_(2nd)#User:Kilz as it seems quite relevant as background on how it would be easy to get into a conflict with user:Kilz. hAl (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hal is continuing edit warring and removing fact tags. He is bringing up old edit wars in an attempt to say I used sockpuppets. Kilz (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not the one that has reported you for using sockpuppets at all. If there wasn't such a backlog there I imagine your account would have been removed by now. Especially sinse it is already your second time around as well. hAl (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Electrobe

Hi. I (and I imagine at least one other user, User:Philip Stevens) would appreciate some assistance with this user with regard to the following pages and and their recent histories (i.e. the past few days):

• User talk:Electrobe#Template:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
  and User talk:Electrobe#.7B.7BGreat_Offices_of_State.7D.7D
• Template:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
• Template:Chancellors of the Exchequer
• Template:Great Offices of State

I hope the problem is readily apparent, but if any elaboration is needed, I can try to write something here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Electrobe has engaged in almost no discussion whatsoever and seems to be making mistakes in some cases, and then reverting to those mistakes. That's bad. However, those reverting him are often also not explaining themselves and not making good attempts at describing the problem. You all need to try harder to communicate. Electrobe hasn't used edit summaries enough, but edit summaries aren't sufficient discussion anyway: after one revert, a discussion should start on the template talk page. Mangojuice 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've converted my note about here left on Electrobe's talkpage to this. (Since there's more than one template involved, I'm guessing it's better to centralize the discussion there.) Thanks for your input. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User:RobJ1981, continual tenditiousness

RobJ1981 has been involved in continual bad faith towards me since the beginning of March, stemming from a dispute over the state of the List of characters in Bully article. The major issue is a continuing, unrelenting assumption of bad faith on his part. He then proceeds to act on those assumptions of bad faith.

(All mentions of "the article" refer to List of characters in Bully unless otherwise specified)

Things started when Rob posted that the article needed cleanup on the Wikiproject Videogames discussion page . I then suggested on the article's talk page that people who were stopping by to criticize the article should help improve it rather than simply criticize from a distance. Nothing was really changed in the article, as Rob did not actually state what his issue with the article was nor make any effort to improve it or even to advise people who wanted to. The issue dropped.

Rob did, however, nominate a different article I created, Vicious and Delicious, for deletion, right after the discussion over the article ended. On the deletion discussion, Rob accused me of using Dan the Man1983 as a meatpuppet.

About a month later, Rob re-listed the article on Wikiproject Videogames. . This time, he accused myself and the other user heavily involved in editing the article, User:Dan the Man1983, of violating WP:OWN and acting in bad faith. Although I refuted being designated a bad faith editor in violation of WP:OWN, he continued with the accusations throughout the discussion on the talk page.

This time, the article was massively cleaned up and rewritten, thanks to the efforts of User:Masem in giving me some guidelines to work with and a FA article to use as an example.

Rob, however, continued to continually accuse myself and User:Dan the Man1983 of violating WP:OWN. He decided to start a revert war over a very small edit on the page, the changing of one word in the article. As seen in this edit , while not fully accusing me of WP:OWN again, is a case of attacking the editor not the edit. I reverted his change, explaining myself. A few days later, he . When Dan the Man1983 made a topic on the discussion page, Rob AGAIN accused us of bad faith and WP:OWN .

Following WP procedure identified on WP:DISPUTE, I left a message on his talk page. He responded on mine in the same way he has been throughout the process, with accusations of bad faith, of violating WP:OWN. He refers to the edit war over the single word as me "making a big deal out of nothing", even though he is the one that provoked the discussion. Lastly, he threatens to go to an administrator.

At this point, attempts to communicate and negotiate with RobJ1981 have failed. He continues to be single mindedly hostile, admittedly in a low-key fashion, and over time it has become apparent that he is more concerned with lambasting myself and Dan the Man1983 than he is with actually improving wikipedia. I am posting this here in hopes that informal dispute resolution will make administrative intervention unnecessary. McJeff (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The villain / nemesis disagreement is particularly pointless. From what I looked at, I think Rob reinstated the change to "villain" mainly to make a point about ownership. I'm not sure that conflict is really continuing, and I hope it doesn't: neither version is much better than the other and it's an awfully fine point to actually care about. Only assuming that Rob cares a lot about the villain/nemesis issue allows me to escape the conclusion that he was shaking things up to make a point. So Rob -- I'm sure if you want to improve the article in substantive ways, McJeff and Dan will not stand in your way simply because you aren't one of them. I don't think there's a major ownership issue here. However, McJeff - when you removed the {{listcruft}} tag earlier, that was inappropriate, and your comments on the talk page don't justify it. Yes, cleanup tags are ugly. However, they should not simply be removed because they are placed on the article by outsiders -- clearly the concern in that case was justified, so the tag should have remained in place until the cleanup was done. That incident does cross the line a bit into WP:OWN territory. I'm not a big fan of drive-by tagging either, but tags do serve their purpose. Mangojuice 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag thing is what concerns me the most about McJeff and Dan. This section: Talk:List_of_characters_in_Bully#New_People_stopping_by_to_edit_.28February_2008.29 explains it more in detail. This should also be noted: . McJeff brought things out of the archive (which hadn't been commented in for a bit if I recall correctly), just to show people what's been going on. People can easily view the archive, so I see this as counter-productive and simply a sign McJeff is against archiving. Both McJeff and Dan need to settle down a bit, especially about things as minor as one word (the villain/nemesis nonsense). RobJ1981 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Against archiving? What would be the point of that in Misplaced Pages? EVERYTHING gets archived. For some reason that particular discussion got clipped when someone else archived the talk page, so I went into the article history and reposted it. That's all. But it's a good example of how Rob manages to twist everything that I do into a malicious act in bad faith. It's damn well annoying. McJeff (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not too mention the countless claims of WP:OWN. That has what has annoyed me the most about this issue.

Okay in the past I've done a lot of work on the article, But I do not own the article, I have never claimed to own it, I just work on it a lot. I care about the quality of the article and if someone comes along and edit's something silly, vandalizes it, or makes an edit that was deleted countless times before(all this has happened before), then yes I will revert the edit because I care about the high standards of the article. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Rob, enough. The villain/nemesis business was a WP:POINT-y argument that you started. Even the tag business is pretty minor; no one restored the tag afterwards, and in the end they did clean up the article just like the tag requested. Bringing things out of the archives -- who cares? Personally, I'd just put up a bunch of links. Ownership of articles only becomes a real problem if the "owners" are incivil to new editors or edit war with such editors based on them not being part of the accepted group. Nothing I've seen comes anywhere close to this. However, you keep telling these users they need to change their approach, which is not only wrong as far as I can see, it's also needlessly confrontational, and it is violating WP:AGF. I'm sure they've heard your concerns, but they're doing good work and I don't see them trying to keep others out. So let them get on with their business, and you get on with yours. Mangojuice 05:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will drop the issue with them for now, once this is dealt with: User:McJeff/Sandbox. McJeff didn't need to place the same thing twice (here and on there). It appears to be bad faith and uncivil in my view. Any further poor behavior by either editor will be reported to admins and/or admin notice boards. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, familiar with the concept of a wiki sandbox? It is a place you go to test an edit. In particular, I chose to put my writeup on my personal sandbox where it would be out of the public eye, but that I could make sure it was written properly and Dan the Man1983 could see it and add anything he wanted to to it. Posting it there before posting it here (check the time stamps) was neither bad faith nor out of line. I resent your implications and your continual bad faith even after being reprimanded in informal mediation, and the next time it happens, it goes to an administrator. McJeff (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, in any case you don't need the sandbox draft now that this has been posted, so I'm just going to blank it, ok? Mangojuice 13:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. McJeff (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to deleting the listcruft tag, at the time it was thrown up, I honestly did not think it was justified at the time. No one had linked me to WP:INDISCRIMINATE until User:Masem did. A few people, Rob included, linked to WP:NOT, but WP:NOT is a huge article and not really much help without some specific info on what part of it is being violated given. Plus, WP:SAL made me think the article was in fine shape. I admit I could have handled it a little better, maybe left the tag-adding user a message, but I don't think I acted in bad faith or in violation of WP:OWN removing the tag. It was just a mistake on my part. McJeff (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jewishnsbmfan's barnstars

User:Jewishnsbmfan has awarded himself two barnstars. When I explained to him that barnstars (with the exception of service awards) are not meant to be self-awarded, he told me that he gave them to himself because he "deserved" them, despite having made less than ten edits. Can someone please talk to him and get him to take them down? Having a user display unearned awards cheapens the barnstar system and fosters resentment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asarelah (talk • contribs)

This is a non-issue and really doesn't warrant any investigation at WQA. If he wishes to award himself a barnstar, then let him. No harm comes from doing so. seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If he/she starts awarding them in the name of other editors then perhaps it would be a problem. Otherwise it's pretty obvious where the award is "coming" from. Anynobody 05:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution