This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LevenBoy (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 26 April 2011 (→User Snowded using "SPA" in a perjorative manner). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Active alerts

Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

This stems from a series of thirteen deletions for electronics component articles. A convenient list is here. The disparaging comments are Wtshymanski's.

These were PROD'ed, rejected, than AfD'ed. For the purpose of WQA it's not just the behaviour to this point that is at issue, but behaviour since. This has been an unusually ill-tempered (and single-handedly so) set of AfDs with a tenacious amount of flogging a dead horse afterwards.

The basic premise behind these deletions is that, "parts list articles are not notable". These components are all real electronic components, with a huge range of references behind them from any number of standard parts handboooks. Yet this does not, allegedly, confer notability. The problem is some variant of WP:MILL: simply existing and being recorded as such is not notable, in the way that a phone number is not notable, despite being well catalogued. Only components with some real claim to distinctive novelty could be said to be "noteworthy", and thus considered WP:Notable.

The strange part is that no-one, even at the AfDs, seems to disagree with this principle. The dissent is that these components are, by and large, reckoned to be that handful of components that do meet the more stringent criteria for being noteworthy.

AfDs

Most of the debate seemed to take place on this AfD, the rest being somewhat repetitive.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2N3055

These in turn gave rise to a centralised discussion

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Mass_deletion_of_electronic_components

Behaviour during this AfD was far from ideal. In particular, I don't believe that AGF extends to comparing other editors to a psychotic murderer.

Talk page comments from other editors, re behaviour

• User_talk:Wtshymanski#2N3055
• User_talk:Wtshymanski#transistors_and_stuff
• User_talk:Wtshymanski#Component_article_deletion
• User_talk:Wtshymanski#Voicing_concern (another electronics article, an undiscussed redirect)

Some rare support:

• User_talk:Wtshymanski#Thank_you
• User_talk:Wtshymanski#Group_behavior

The AfDs have now mostly closed as keeps. There is some support for deleting a couple where it's agreed that they are indeed just "parts list" items.

So far, process seems to have worked just as it ought and an excess of zeal by one editor has been compensated for. However behaviour since really is getting beyond a joke. They seem incapbable of making any comment without a sarcastic edit summary, they refuse to recognise that there is any other valid viewpoint:

• Just not notable
• Ambles off, humming Every Sperm is Sacred
• Nothing is constructive here, if you get right down to it.
• Meanwhile, the guys in the Spock ears are saying "Get a life!"
• Let's mention that they are usually black, and have wire leads while we're at it.
• Fraudulent excuse of an item that pertends to be an article

Shortly after one AfD closed as keep, they re-tagged it for notability - yet isn't this what was just discussed?

• Tagging BC548 for notability

This is an editor who refuses to respect consensus, or that he might be "right yet outvoted", and that in the interests of the encyclopedia it's time to put the stick down and leave the horse be.

This is not the working atmosphere we're supposed to have to put up with. This editor's behaviour is intolerable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad articles need to be improved. Un-notable topics need to be removed. The edit summaries are my relief from endlessly typing "rv v" and help to remind me later what the nature of the edit was. And I'm not plural, there's only one of me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the "rvv" thing. I do a lot of that myself, it's not a good atmosphere to work in because first you start to see every anon IP as a vandal, then every editor, then every edit. It's all too easy to forget that some edits to WP are actually constructive and that not every editor is a poo-obsessed twelve year old.

However the edits here are not vandalism. It is wrong of you to approach them in that way. Leave the vandal patrol be for a day or two if you have to and work on the good stuff instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the notability tagging; I do that somethings on articles that are kept after AfD, to remind editors that evidence of notability still needs to be cited. The problem is just that Wtshymanski won't lose the attitude. His calling everything a "parts list item", "Radio Shack catalog", and such is just pouring on negativity, where forward progress is possible. If he can't accept the decision, it would be best to just walk away from these articles. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're either writing an encyclopedia, or something else. If the only substantial facts in an article are breakdown voltage and current rating, and the JEDEC package number, coupled with some praise words and ad talk from some hobby magazine or TAB book, then it's a parts list entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article. I'm not calling everything a parts list entry, I'm calling these rather useless items parts list entries. Forward progress is not possible, sources either don't exist or are unsuitable for Misplaced Pages usage, and all we've got is repeated appearances in parts lists. If there were sources, they would have turned up before or during this Article Improvement Drive. If you were grading an assignment on, oh, say, "Silicon diodes" or "electronics" or "The Semiconductor Industry", you'd have to give a failing grade to this sorry collection of inaccurately copied data sheet parameters. This is aside from the rather undignified obsession with minutia that so characterizes many Misplaced Pages topics; learn all about the printing of menus in the dining car, but nothing about the railway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not writing an encyclopedia — at least I'm not — instead I'm sat here with the IEEE paper on the 2N3055 in one hand (a very good read) and thinking that I should be writing an encyclopedia, but then I think "What's the point?" because someone is being such a persistent negative jerk about these same articles. Your attitude is a major disincentive to anyone bothering to do the very fixes you claim to be wanting done. You're not doing it (you're too busy carping), I'm not doing it because I don't want to work on articles under those conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tragic. Then let's delete the rubbish until someone more resolute feels moved to properly write an article. That should happen, oh, say, around 2037 or so if we're lucky, based on zero progress in 3 years and 1 sourced fact added this month. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The good news is, no one was working on these articles before the AfDs, either, so at least the situation is no worse. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been concerned about the pattern of Wtshymanski's edits and talk page comments ever since I first saw the behavior pattern on List of 7400 series integrated circuits. There appears to be on ongoing pattern WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:CIVIL problems. Especially troubling was his response when I expressed the above concerns on his talk page: "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."

Also see:
Search Wikiquette alerts:Wtshymanski
User:Wtshymanski/parts
Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski
User:Wtshymanski/Griping
Search Administrators' noticeboard: Wtshymanski
Guy Macon (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Still is editing against consensus (See WP:MOSNUM), and Still being reverted Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I recently decided to bookmark Wtshymanski's contributions page and review them every so often. This was not to stalk or harass, but because he is a rare combination of (1) Being interested in the same sort of technology articles I am - I already run into him again and again as I edit. (2) Personally likable (you know how some people just annoy you? For me, he is the opposite.) (3) Makes many edits and comments I strongly disagree with. (4) Makes many edits and comments I strongly agree with. (5) Rock solid technical contributions.

My observation from this is that he is following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines a lot better, and that he appears to respond well to criticism or warnings that are backed up by citations to policy. There is far less sarcasm and baiting in his talk page and edit comments, and he appears to be rapidly improving in the area of choosing what to nominate for deletion - he has been finding some real stinkers that other editors missed. In my opinion, this is a good example of the old saying "It is easier to teach a smart person to be nice than it is to teach a nice person to be smart."

Because of what I have observed, in my opinion this Wikiquette alert should be closed. If it is closed, I advise any editors who have a problem with him to put a polite warning on his talk page - but please be 100% sure that the warning is valid, and pay attention if he says it isn't, because there is a high probability that he is right. Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Awww. It's like having my very own hall monitor following me around and handing out smiley face stickers for not running in the halls. I really haven't reformed, you know, and parts list items must die. Luckily the last couple I've nominated for deletion haven't had a legion of fans to defend them. Some day the Misplaced Pages will be parts-list-entry free, perhaps. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need another time-out for this one. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is about content. The above comment "I really haven't reformed, you know, and parts list items must die." shows me that Wtshymanski thinks that I am talking about his views concerning content. Wikiquette alerts are about behavior. I am talking about behavior. I still believe that I am seeing improved civility. I have no problem with him trying to mold Misplaced Pages into what he thinks it should be as long as he does so while following the standard of behavior we are all required to follow.

As for the edit Dicklyon cites. There is a proper way to handle content disputes of this nature. First Wtshymanski should have been politely informed that another editor disagrees with him on content and invited to discuss the matter on the article talk page. If his edit removed recently introduced material, keep it out while discussing. If the material had been in for a while, revert and keep it in while discussing. Seek consensus on the talk page, and if anyone involved in the content dispute edits against consensus, apply user warning on the editor's talk page. If the behavior persists, walk your way up the steps clearly explained in the dispute resolution process.

Again I must emphasize that it's perfectly OK for Wtshymanski to think that Misplaced Pages is too much like a random collection of non-notable parts and to advocate that view. The only issue is that he behaves properly while trying to get those parts off of Misplaced Pages. If he doesn't behave properly, the correct response is to follow the steps listed in dispute resolution, starting with polite requests to be civil and seek consensus on his talk page and in edit comments, and ending (after all other steps have failed) with a topic ban or a total ban. But I don't think it will come to that. Ignoring all warnings and ending up blocked is something that happens to stupid editors, and Wtshymanski is not stupid. Guy Macon (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

He can think what he wants, but his actions are continuing to be obnoxious, to the point where it's difficult to WP:AGF. His removal of material from 2N7000, and his proposal to merge it out of existence, into an article that it has nothing to do with, are not appropriate reactions to his AfD failing. He should just leave it for a while and let his emotional reaction against "parts list" articles die down a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know which parts should be included in the rather long and rambling list at 2N7000. What is the criterion for inclusion in that article? I was told it was supported by a reference, but when I check the reference I see a number of other parts that aren't included in the 2N7000 article. I'm told we can have an article called 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes because they are related parts. Obviously my respected co-editor has extremely precise notions on which parts go into which parts list entries on the Misplaced Pages. I'd like to see the definition so that other editors have a guideline. Where do I put the 1N914? Does it go in with 2N7000, with 1N4148, with 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes? I'm editing articles, why is this suddenly considered obnoxious? This particular emperor is looking rather chilly. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, obnoxious. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

These edits, to D Battery and N Battery, after seeking, and failing to get, consensus for merge () are extremely problematic. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; and his non-constructive discussion and pushing to do away with articles that he lost the AfDs on already is just tiresome, and brings out the worst in me. I've admitted to no longer being able to assume good faith with guy; I've called him xenophobic; I've used words like "crazy," "lame," and "fuckage" in my edit summaries; I'll take the heat for that, but can someone help this guy understand that his attention would be better directed at something more constructive than tearing down articles just because they're not as solid as he likes? Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, are you sure that you didn't mean to write "with the guy" instead of "with guy?" Like another well loved entity who has a three-letter name starting with G, I don't want my name taken in vain (big smile). Guy Macon (talk)

Umm, yes, sorry, that is what I meant. In your case, I assume good faith, in spite of how annoying I find you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I may have to re-evaluate my opinion. Those are obnoxious. So, what should we do about this? Guy Macon (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:AN/I is the next logical step, to get Admin involvement. I considered it when the above redirs of the battery articles occurred but still hoped some amicable resolution could be reached before it came to that. Unfortunately their reponse to my note on their talk page suggests no change of position. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You ever have an editor you really liked but makes you a little embarrassed for having publicly supported him when he turns out to have a tenuous grasp on WP:CIVIL? Yeah, that basically happened to me with this editor. I think his heart is in the right place, but, he's gotten ruder and ruder. That said I can understand some of it. I wish I could assume more good faith, because I understand his frustration. We have WP:GNG but then we establish project essays and sub-categories that seem to disregard WP:RS WP:N WP:V and WP:GNG. It can be frustrating to take clear cases to AfD only to have them defended against all policy by fans. On the other hand he made many mistakes, including many cases of nominating before even a cursory attempt to look for sources (yes most transistors are not notable, but some of the first, most popular, ect. are very notable). I think he needs to be helped and warned because his viewpoint is a valuable one: an editor that favors strong inclusion criteria even within their area of fandom/expertise. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, he needs to learn to understand collaboration and compromise. When he got the pushback on the multiple transistors AfD, and I did everything I could to be constructive by sourcing stuff that could be found about the notable ones and merging some of the more minor ones, he could have found a way to get a partial victory in that. Instead, he chose to keep beating all the dead horses from the last battle. It's just a weird way to be. I don't think there's really much to be done, though, and I've seldom seen complaints at AN/I come to any good in such situations, just like this wikiquette thing is just wasted hot air; I expect he'll find a better path. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess my take-away from this all is how disappointed I am not to actually learn anything about these parts. Instead I'm getting refrences to the same hobby books that I can read for myself, all of which have the same incidental, anecdotal, and windy assertions about the "popularity" of a part without one documented number to back them up. We still know virtually nothing substantial from these articles that we don't get from the Radio Shack parts catalog. As I mentioned before, it's like opening an encyclopedia, turning to the article on Napoleon, and only reading about his hat size. I'm flabbergasted that "parts list" entries get defended as encyclopedia articles when they say nothing encyclopediac about the part (and when they CAN'T say anything encyclopediac about the part). At some random place on the Misplaced Pages in the last week or so I read a comment that an encyclopedia is supposed to condense knowldege, not puff it up.

I think the other take-away is just how frail the Misplaced Pages editing model is. This whole tempest is contained in a teapot of no more than 0.25% of highly active editors ( and probably 0.0025% of editors who've made 5 edits in the last month). A dissenting voice is not welcome, and the personal attacks start if someone has courage of his convictions and is unimpressed by references that amount to rack-filler TAB books or similar low-grade material.

I'm mystified by the personal attacks and generally bad language I've gotten. These are weak articles, everyone seems to agree a parts list entry is a weak excuse for an encyclopedia article, and yet I get pilloried when I try to use the rather feeble mechanisms Misplaced Pages has to purge poor articles from the system. I've never singled out any other editor for ridicule and yet I get called a dumb Polack because of the last syllable of my user ID. This says more about the illusory nature of the editing "community" than it says about me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can find any excuse to complain, you clearly have far more time to spend typing than I do, so why are you so reluctant to fix the issues you complain of? No one disputes the issue, merely whether deletion is necessary. Take the 2N2222 - there's a good history linked from it, that design was an important first step in the development of epitaxy for silicon transistors, so who's going to sit down to the legwork and actually do something useful? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't in good conscience advocate on behalf of articles on individial semiconductor types; I still don't believe they are individually notable, and any article under one part number is going to have to give so much common background that it might be better to have a single "Development of silicon transistors" article instead. However, since these parts have such a large contingent of interested and motivated authors, I don't doubt these references of which you speak will shortly be turned into brilliant prose. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lists are often recommended as a way of handling entries that are not individually notable, but that collectively are. Alas, you oppose lists of parts too. BTW, there was an RFC on this question: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, if someone keeps trying SPEEDY before PROD or AFD and keeps getting shot down by the admin who evaluates the speedy, the possibility of forum shopping should be considered. A history of trying to get things deleted any way he can rather than embracing the idea of consensus adds weight to the possibility. Nominated, Declined, AFD.

Here he does it again: Nominated for SPEEDY -- Admin Declines SPEEDY -- Nominates for PROD -- PROD Removed The behavior of trying a speedy and seeing if it sticks is a blatant waste of the speedy reviewing admin's time. The behavior of trying a prod and seeing if it sticks is a blatant waste of the prod reviewers time.

Gentlemen, this has gone far enough. Reluctantly, I am forced to conclude that is right (see his comments earlier in the thread). WP:AN/I is the next logical step, to get Admin involvement. Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A speedy or a PROD is a lightweight way of deleting an article instead of the cumbersome machinery of AfD, thereby presumably saving time for all parties. I'm having some agreement with DB and PROD nominations, so I don't honestly believe I'm out to lunch nominating articles for PROD. In at least some cases the entity removing the PROD nomination has suggested moving the discussion to AfD, which I have done. The last argument for keeping Melisande of Tripoli revolved around what she "might" have done had she gotten married instead of going into a convent; this, to me, sounds pretty crystal-ball-ish and speculative unless there's a lot of sources arguing that this is somehow significant. And observe I haven't put DERI into the AfD hopper, since I've now read enough citations on Google Books that indicate there's a whole lot of publications crediting it, which makes it unlikely to pass an AfD deletion. Isn't WP:N still the important principle for justifying an encyclopedia article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to progressing through speedy and PROD nominations before AfD. It is the AfDs that consume the time; anyone can trivially object to the others. On the other hand, this is a repeat of the battery-redirect problem mentioned above and I'm afraid this should go to AN/I. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, his request for evidence of notability on that one went unanswered. There was one content-free oppose to his merge proposal, and that's it. At least in the transistors, we added refs to reliable sources on articles that we wanted to keep. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion initiated at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively RichardOSmith (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Abusive, edit-warring DeadSend4

• DeadSend4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Tenebrae#Your continous attempts at blocking my edits for no reason other than having no life? Or your personal distaste for Kidman? (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Though multiple editors including myself, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, User:Nymf, and User:Crohnie have reverted his edits at Nicole Kidman, he continued to edit war, just narrowly avoiding 3RR, and as you can see by the subhead of a post he left on my talk page ("Your continous attempts at blocking my edits for no reason other than having no life? Or your personal distaste for Kidman"), he is being uncivil and abusive toward other editors.

As you can see by his talk page, he has been blocked in the past, and is currently causing the same commotion at Cate Blanchett and possibly other articles. I implore you to intervene.Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He has just made a second insulting and abusive comment on my talk page, dated 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC). --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And here is a third abusive post, in which he now threatens to harass me and exhibits WP:OWN:

Then leave me and my edits alone, in fact don't visit Nicole's page since all you're going to do is whine about me, like you're doing now. Again, YOU'RE COMING AT ME, so if you post on my page I'm only gonna come back and make you whine again. ENOUGH! DeadSend4 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor hasn't been rude to me but the comments to Tenebrae are definitely rude and violate civil and no personal attacks. The problem I have is that this editor is rewriting multiple articles. With having a low edit count and the mistakes being made s/he needs to slow down and not make such big edits. The Cate Blanchett article has a lot of mistakes in it. From overlinking to the articles not saying what the sources say, this is a major problem and a major clean up esp. if this needs to be done at multiple articles. The threatening posts to Tenebrae should bring a block for being uncivil. Also the editor usually signs first and then makes their comment (see my talk page). The comment on my talk page shows the lack of assuming good faith. I'm sorry DeadSend4 but you have a lot to learn here and you could learn a lot from Tenebrae which would be better than picking an argument with him/her. Please, slow down and don't rewrite articles. Also, notability is important for things along with biographies of a living person plus other core policies that you are not applying or do not know. Either way it can't continue the way you have been. More later if needed, I'm going ofline for now so ping me if I'm needed. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 23:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that DeadSend4 and his socks/IPs aren't going to reason with us, considering that he has been owning/edit warring the article for well over 5 months. ANI next? Nymf _hideliho! 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, as I said - won't reason. Nymf _hideliho! 19:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing pretty much with all of the above. This is an aggressive editor who appears to insist that all of his/her changes must stand absent an overwhelming consensus, if not more, that they are unacceptable. With the exception, perhaps, of the edits regarding Ghost, none of the edits appear to involve policy or guideline, but are style and emphasis choices, where no more than simple consensus is required. If DeadSend4 were making a case relating to accuracy, NPOV, OR, or some other BLP-rooted matters, some level of aggressiveness might be justified, but I see virtually nothing here beyond a refusal to deal with a contrary consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree since I just got another message telling me to read what he is doing instead of seeing he is going against consensus that others have said. He's made another dozen edits or so the Kidman article again. I'm going offline but ping me on my page if this goes to AN/i please. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 23:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I just blocked DeadSend for 48 hours for edit warring. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To other admins and users:It may be worth talking to this user on his/her talk page, as he/she does not get the concept of edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have tried to explain all of this to this user, yet he keeps insisting we didn't read his edits and (supposedly) that justifies his edit warring. I don't think a block extension is necessary, but, after trying repeatedly to explain things, it may be necessary.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - User has made a legal threat. Reported at WP:ANI. CycloneGU (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Revan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Revan ltrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Led Zeppelin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Revan was previously blocked for personal attacks and uncivil behavior. When his block ended, we was instructed to stay away from me. We had interacted almost exclusively through the article on Led Zeppelin. After his block expired, he came back to the Led Zeppelin board and continued to levy personal attacks against me (like calling me biased and a fanboy, among others). I decided to try and wait him out and hope that he would demonstrate some more maturity with his posts. He has not. Most recently, he stated that another editor and I have "no credibility", accuses me of bias and drops an F-bomb while telling me that I am obsessively preaching and condescending .

I would merely like the terms of his initial blocking enforced, and have him stay away from me in general.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this for an Admin, but having looked over the thread I see that both users have issues with each other and USER:LedRush is also capable of personalizing comments to USER:Revan.("Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either") but he seems to be showing more restraint than Revan. Neither of them have recently made what I would call a personal attack just yet, but Revan is getting close with the F word and since he has a prior block and instruction to stay away from LedRush, a warning may be appropriate.In general I would suggest to both of them that they take this and future disputes to RfC as soon as it is clear they are not making progress and let go of the personal stuff.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Keithbob's analysis. He used the quote, "Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either" to substantiate a personal comment by LedRush. But I fail to see how this is personal. Telling someone that they're inserting original research is not personal; it's directly addressing the information being presented. At the same time, though, I don't agree with all the examples LedRush posted. Saying someone is biased is not a personal attack; it would be perfectly true and legitimate for me to say that LedRush is biased in this dispute since it has affected him. There is no personal attack there. Also, saying that someone has no credibility is not necessarily a personal attack, either. The reason for lack of credibility would determine if it's personal. If he said you had no credibility because you smelled, then that's personal because it's being based on a personal reason. However, if a person vandalized a page repeatedly then they could be said to have no credibility and that would be perfectly fair and on-topic. So we need more context to establish what whether it was proper or not. But the swearing by Revan is surely out of line.Ultimahero (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush has on numerous occasions unfairly accused me of attacking him. You've seen an example here. He has also, after my block, provoked me by bringing up the now dead issue that I was blocked. He has posted on my talk page many times after I've told him explicitly not to post on my talk page. He has erased a post I made on the Led Zeppelin discussion page. And now I log on and see that I'm reported. I've made no attack but merely stated what I observed. I can't adjust my attitude according to everyone's sensibility's fragility. You might want to consider blocking him for a few hours, since I've felt hounded by him, having him over my shoulder every time I write a word here on wikipedia, hounding me even on my talk page after I've, both before and after my block, told him not to do it. I was instructed by a biased admin to "stay away" from LedRush so I don't write on his talk page. But you can see that he feels that the Led Zeppelin article is his backyard that I should stay away from. He's being unreasonable in so many ways. Blocked, warned or not, I feel hounded by this user. Revan (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: An IP address called LedRush a "fanboy". Is he blaming me for attacking him anonymously? Revan (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that before, but Revan is right. It does seem that LedRush is being very liberal in the citations he uses. LedRush did not call him a fanboy, he simply said that fanboys will hypothetically engage in a particular practice. That's not calling him anything and is not a personal attack. Revan did call him biased, however, his reason was that LedRush was, "driven by making Zeppelin look as awesome as possible". That's specifically related to the article and I don't think it constitutes as a personal attack. (As opposed to something like name calling.) LeadRush quoted Revan in citation 52 as saying he had, "no credibility". However, I do not see that anywhere in the citation. In 53 Revan does NOT call LeadRush biased; he points out that others have accused him of that. Again, the cursing is the only thing that I find inappropriate.

One of LeadRush's biggest arguments is that Revan was blocked and instructed to "stay away" from Revan. However, in checking edit histories I noticed something interesting. Revan was indeed blocked on March 4th, specifically for edits made to Judas Priest and LeadRush's talk page. After March 4th, however, Revan never again edits LeadRush's talk page. LeadRush, on the other hand, has edited Revan's talk several times since that block (March 24th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and April 19th to be exact). I bring this up because LeadRush has clearly interpreted the instruction for Revan to "stay away" from him to mean that they should not even edit the same pages. (This is obvious from this very page where he says Revan was instructed to stay away, but then says that Revan returned to Led Zeppelin, implying that by continuing to edit Led Zeppelin Revan was violating the "stay away" order). However, if that's how LeadRush interprets the order, then why does he continue to edit Revan's talk page? By LeadRush's own standard Revan would not be allowed to reply on his own page, lest he violate "staying away". Should Revan stop using his own page to ensure he won't run into LeadRush? Obviously, LeadRush is using a double standard (criticizing Revan for editing the Led Zeppelin page while at the same time intentionally seeking Revan out to edit his page).

Thus, given the frivolous citations brought up by LeadRush (except for the swearing) and the ridiculous double standard being employed, it seems to me Revan is being unfairly lampooned.Ultimahero (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of statements and opinions here which I don't quite understand, so let me tackle them one at a time:

1. When Revan states that only fanboys can have a position that he has accused me of having, he is obviously calling me a fanboy, and claiming otherwise seems disingenuous to me.

2. Regarding the biased statement, he has accused me of being biased in the past, and his extremely thinly veiled accusation of bias is again an uncivil personal attack. The reason he called me biased: because I don't agree with his argument regarding a genre and I had asked for reliable sources? That is an unacceptable reason, but it still isn't the real reason. The real thing he is saying is a rehash of old accusations of bias because we disagreed on the sales numbers.

3. Yes, I edited Revan's page in response to personal attacks made by him either on the Led Zeppelin page or on his talk page.

4. I am perplexed by Ultimatehero's accusation of a double standard. Revan was blocked for uncivil personal attacks and harassment. When he began to engage in this behavior again, I warned him to stop on his talk page. This is not me seeking him out. This is him disobeying an Admin's directions by not only reengaging in the very same article and discussion which led to his block, but doing so in an uncivil way. He sought me out in the only place we had ever interacted. That same admin recognized that Revan wasn't doing what he was supposed to, but suggested that I just try and relax and hope the attacks stop. They didn't. Particularly odd is Ultimatehero's assumption that I would consider it a violation of the "stay away" order if Revan responded to my posts about his personal attacks on his talk page. I never stated this, and I definitely don't believe it. However, I do interpret the stay away order to mean that he should not go back to the very same article on which he levied many personal attacks which led to his block.

5. Regarding the "no real credibility" statement: I accidentally put in the wrong diff. Here is the real one

In the end, we are left with Revan clearly disobeying an Admin's direction while continuing to fight old battles in clearly uncivil ways. Ultimatehero's point about context is true in the abstract, but is clearly not the case here. Unsubstantiated claims of bias are uncivil. Swearing at someone is uncivil. Calling someone a fanboy (or that having a view that that person has is a view of fanboys) is a personal attack. Saying that a person has "no real credibility" and giving them advice for their real lives is not civil. Are these the worst statement ever? Of course not. But they are part of a pattern that has continued despite repeated warnings and despite a block.

Furthermore, Revan accuses a completely uninvolved admin as being biased right on this page. He has absolute no proof to back this up, and absolutely no context in which to make that accusation. But I guess we can just add this to his growing list of uncivil acts.LedRush (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

1. No, he is not. You are inferring that he is speaking about you, but he does not call you that. The obvious subject of his statement is the average reader. You shouldn't mix contexts, infer, and assume bad faith.

2. No, it is not. Saying someone is biased is not a personal attack. I can say you are biased in this discussion because it has affected you. Does that mean I am attacking you personally? No, it simply means that it will be very difficult for you to objective, or that you have not shown objectivity. It is addressing your actions toward the article, not you as a person.

3. If they were on the Zeppelin page, you could have simply told him there. No need to go to his page.

4. According to what you linked to, he was blocked for editing Judas Priest and your page, not Zeppelin. That's what the blocking admin cited. If you say he sought you out to harass you then prove it. Link to it, don't just assert it. My point was that you clearly interpret "stay away" as not to edit the pages you frequent. So why do you go to his page intentionally? Again, you could simply warn him at the Zeppelin page. But no, you make the effort to tell him on his talk page, even though by the standard you established he shouldn't even be able to respond or else he wouldn't be staying away. And he did not "go back to the very same article on which he levied many personal attacks which led to his block" because Zeppelin was no cited by the blocking admin.

5. I don't see how it's a personal attack. It's about your edit history and your ability to fairly interact with the articles. It's not about you as a person.

You have not demonstrated that his calling you biased in unsubstantiated. All you have shown is that he called you biased. Prove he's wrong. Even if he is, though, it's not a personal attack because it is not about you as a person. I don't think you understand what personal attacks are. He did not call you a fanboy; you're assuming bad faith. It's not a personal attack to say someone lacks credibility because it's not about them as a person. How did he give you advice for your real life? I don't see that anywhere in that last link. Are you talking about this: "Of course, having endless discussions about some mere sub-genres in a box is also ridiculous when taking a step back and reflecting"? Because that would seem to apply to him as well since you're both discussing it. I think you have a persecution complex. You have not shown anything that constitutes as "personal attacks".Ultimahero (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I find your positions very difficult to defend and difficult to justify. A personal attack is a statement about an editor which can insult or belittle the opponent . When an editor drops F-bombs, calls you biased (without any substantiation), implies that you are a fanboy, says that you have no credibility to discuss the topic and gives you advice on how to gain such credibility in your real life, he is engaging in personal attacks. And even if you can contort his statement not to be be personal attacks under WP policy, they are still clearly uncivil. You have repeatedly assumed bad faith about me, attributing wild opinions to me which I don't hold and have never intimated. Your fixation with how I would warn him about his personal attacks on his talk page is odd; that's what you're supposed to do (and you're assertion that he wouldn't be "staying away" if he responded is even odder - I've never stated that opinion and it is obviously not true. If someone posts on your wall, of course you can respond. Why continually bring up this red herring?)

Furthermore, you have ignored his unfounded and unsubstantiated claim that the Admin was also biased. It is simply uncivil to go around calling all the editors you meet biased. It is simply uncivil to drop F-bombs when people are trying to explain WP policy to you. It is simply unacceptable to continually make arguments about the editor (biased, fanboy, no credibility) and not the edits, but it is even worse when you have been blocked for doing the very same thing in the very same context.

However, it clear that I will get no joy here with you, so I suggest we close this topic and hope that Revan can began to follow WP policy and address arguments, not editors.LedRush (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, you're claim that I need to prove past harassment is odd. He was blocked for harassing me. . An Admin has looked at the issue and decided what he was engaging in harassment, and asked Revan to stay away from me and not engage in the harassment. Continuing to swear and make uncivil adhominem arguments on virtually the only page you both have edited is not staying away. It's engaging in the very same behavior which got him blocked the last time. However, I didn't seek another block here, I merely wanted him to receive a warning about WP policy. Unfortunately, I fear that the arguments here will do nothing but embolden Revan to engage even more flagrantly in the actions which led to his block.LedRush (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

When an admin answers in this way: "After your block expires, I suggest you make it a point to forget LedRush even exists", after I fairly tried to defend myself against the block, I call that admin biased. Not objective. Perhaps that word isn't such an insult you believe it to be. This report didn't really do what you wanted it to. But I'll remember to revise what I write before I post in order to avoid the f-word as much as possible. Revan (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush: First of all, he did not call you a fanboy, and you have to assume bad faith to sustain that he did. I explained that clearly in my last post and you completely ignored it. Secondly, calling someone biased or saying they don't hold credibility are not personal attacks. A bias is not saying that you are dumb or anything of the sort; it's simply saying that you're edits are not being objective. It's not personal because it addresses the content of the article. If I wrote,"Clearly, Led Zeppelin is the worst band in the history of the universe", then by the standard you are putting forward you could not call me biased because you would be attacking me personally, even though the hypothetical edit clearly would be biased. You standard is ridiculous. Claiming the bias is influencing edits is not an attack on the person. Again, saying you're biased in regards to this issue would be be very true and is not an attack on you. Also, I asked you before how he gave you personal advice, and you clearly avoided that as well. When you make claims, I challenge them, and then you ignore the challenge and simply repeat the claim, then it doesn't reflect well on you. (And I've said several times that the cursing was clearly inappropriate.)

You say that calling someone biased is uncivil. Perhaps it could be, if it was an unfair accusation. However, you missed my entire argument when you said this: "Also, you're claim that I need to prove past harassment is odd." But that's not what I said. I never said that you need to prove harassment in the past because I know he was blocked. What I actually said was this: "You have not demonstrated that his calling you biased is unsubstantiated. All you have shown is that he called you biased. Prove he's wrong." Don't prove harassment, prove his claims of bias are, as you stated, "without substantiation". So far all you've done is come here and say, "He called me biased, he needs to be punished". If you are making fair, constructive edits and he calls you biased then that would be uncivil. But you have to prove it. You can't simply throw out the claim.

I would agree that the admin was biased, or at the completely overstepped his bounds. Telling Revan not to go to you're talk page is one thing, but to say "forget he exists" would mean, among other things, ignoring you entirely, even on matters of productive conversation. It would mean that by definition he couldn't respond to you if you post on his talk page. After all, if he's to view you as not existing, then how can he answer you posts? So I do think that admin went to far. Simply telling him to not post on your page would suffice.

I'm not "fixated" on you posting on his page, I simply believe it's hypocritical on your part. You act as though you are the victim of abuse; that Revan has maliciously sought you out, even after his block, to harass you. But what I see is that after being blocked Revan never again posted on your page. You, on the other hand, have frequently and intentionally sought HIM out. I don't find that fair. If you want him to "stay away" yet you continue to frequent his page? That makes no sense.Ultimahero (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is obviously going nowhere. I feel that I have already addressed the recent statements made by Ultimatehero above, and believe it unfruitful to rehash them. Let's just close this as unresolved.LedRush (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Ultimahero, here, on at least two points. First, on reading the "fanboys" comment, it seems pretty clear to me that was aimed at LedRush, while trying to skate under the radar. I think it qualifies as uncivil. Second, on the bias issue, my read of Ultimahero's opinion on this is that LedRush is biased in the conflict between himself and Revan, because LedRush is affected by the conflict, so Revan saying he is biased is okay. If that were how Revan was calling him biased, I would agree with Ultimahero, but that is not how Revan was leveling the accusation of bias. He specifically said that LedRush was biased about "trying to make Led Zepplin as awesome as possible" - basically accusing LedRush of not having a neutral point of view on Led Zepplin at all. That is uncivil. And overall, I simply don't swallow the defense of "I'm not calling you , I am just pointing out that others are have called you that." To me that is trying to game the system, trying to get away with making an uncivil comment by saying you're just mentioning that others have said it. It's clear his intent was to level that accusation at him, and that is the same thing as saying it yourself. Normally, such behavior would not (imo) merit needing to officially warn someone here, but when Revan has just come off a block for similar (though higher magnitude) behavior, it's clear the block did not help him back up and cool off and reevaluate his behavior. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything wrong with saying someone is biased on an issue. As I said above, if I wrote, "Led Zeppelin is the greatest band ever", that would obviously be biased. I don't think it would be wrong for someone to say, "You're clearly biased." I don't see that as uncivil. My point was that LedRush needs to prove that the "bias" claim was untrue. All he has done is prove that he was called biased, but as I said, I don't see a problem with that in and of itself. To bring this up here would put the burden of proof on LedRush to back up his claim.

And the "fanboy" comment was about the average reader of the article. It's possible that it was an under the radar attack, but you have to assume bad faith to substantiate that.

Finally, Revan is not commenting on LedRush's page. He is not seeking LedRush out, so it's unfair to say to say that Revan wasn't changed by the block. Revan was banned for attacking LedRush on his page, and he has since then not commented on LedRush a single time.Ultimahero (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, LedRush doesn't need to prove that the bias claim was untrue. On the contrary, the principle of assume good faith would dictate that everyone assume there is no bias unless bias is proven. That puts the burden on Revan. Simply being a fan of a band doesn't mean you are incapable of fairly criticizing them. "Fanboy" itself is a derogatory comment, so using it, whether leveled at LedRush or the average reader of the article, is evidence of bad faith, and WP:AGF does not require us to assume good faith when bad faith is evident. Taken in isolation, it would not be the worst thing in the world, but given other comments and Revan's recent history with LedRush, that is all reasonable enough evidence that at least some of that bad faith was meant for LedRush. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding, Ultimahero. Sometimes, administrative back-up is needed in order to prove a point. The fan boy comment is closer to a fact than an "under the radar" insult; I was not in any way directing it towards LedRush. I was merely stating an example in direct relation to the article. You'd have to assume really bad faith (making you biased) in order believe that it was directed to a specific person, and on top of it, it's not really possible to prove, either. It surprises me that another admin really interprets this as an insult. But no, it was not in any way directed to LedRush. That this was one of his main points only enforces my opinion that he's hounding me. I'm not an absolutist like the biased admin who instructed me to erase some of my own memories, but I don't want him writing on my talk page unnecessarily, provoking me by reminding me of my recent block, accusing me of attacking him when I'm not, or reporting me when he shouldn't. Revan (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity, Revan, I don't believe either Ultimatehero or Mmyers are Admins. Also, I have agreed not to edit your talk page unless you engage in more personal attacks about me (despite Ultimatehero's belief, the talk page is the only place to address personal attacks without brining a case on either this board or AN/I) or to answer specific questions or accusations made against me on your talk page . I have stated this clearly before, and I have not edited your talk page for over 3 weeks, except to warn you of this action as I am required to do.LedRush (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, but that doesn't change the fact that you're being unreasonable. Both I and Ultimahero have explained why. Revan (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Revan. This is silly. Mmyers1976: You didn't address my example. I wrote, "I don't think that there is anything wrong with saying someone is biased on an issue. As I said above, if I wrote, "Led Zeppelin is the greatest band ever", that would obviously be biased. I don't think it would be wrong for someone to say, "You're clearly biased." I don't see that as uncivil." In that example, would it be fair to say someone is biased? If not, then how do make corrections? You could say the edits are biased, but it seems superficial to me to try and distinguish between incredibly biased edits and a biased editor. If an editor continues to make biased edits then it seems fair to conclude he is, in fact, biased. Again, the only way to solve that problem would be for LedRush to prove he is not biased (And again, he is making accusations here so the burden of proof is on him) and thus prove the Revan is attacking him unfairly. But if he cannot, or refusing to, then there is no grounds to say that Revan is not acting proper.

Assuming good faith doesn't mean that you don't point out bias. Assuming good faith would mean not assuming another editor is attacking you. Like, oh, i don't know.... when an editor is talking about the average person that comes along to read Misplaced Pages as opposed to assuming that he secretly means you personally. "Taken in isolation, it would not be the worst thing in the world, but given other comments and Revan's recent history with LedRush, that is all reasonable enough evidence that at least some of that bad faith was meant for LedRush." So, even though he didn't actually say anything about LedRush we're just going to assume he was insulting him because they've had problems before? Sir, THAT'S assuming bad faith. The only one who knows his intentions is Revan, and unless he directly calls LedRush something then you can't attribute malicious intent to him.Ultimahero (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimahero – no, the burden to prove bias was on Revan when he called LedRush biased. Pure and simple. Your attempts to argue to the contrary change nothing. He didn’t do that. Since calling someone biased without proof is a prima facie insult, all LedRush had to do was bring the insult, with the diffs, here, which he did.

Did LedRush in fact say anything like "Led Zepplin is the greatest band ever" in ArticleSpace? If not, then your example simply is not worth addressing. Let's not make this about silly hypotheticals, let's keep this about actual comments we can observe in diffs.

Yes, you can point out bias, but where Revan went wrong was that he outright called LedRush biased and made his comment about LedRush doing everything to make Zeppelin look as awesome as possible. That was unnecessarily snarky. Remember – “comment on the edits, not the editor”. When you comment on the edits, not the editor, not only are you making it less personal, but commenting on the edits provides built-in evidence of the accusation of bias. Maybe LedRush is biased, maybe he isn’t but had Revan commented on the edits, not the editor, we wouldn’t be here today. Wikiquette and civility is all about choosing the right words and right phrasing, ESPECIALLY when you are bringing up another editor’s perceived actions, and Revan could have phrased his concerns about perceived bias better by commenting on the edits, not the editor, so it is perfectly valid for me to talk about that here on Wikiquette alerts.

As for your attempt at rebuttal on the fanboys comment, and your attempt at spin by accusing me of assuming bad faith, you are way off base. AGF policy tells us “This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.” A pattern of behavior is contrary evidence. A pattern of behavior is BETTER evidence than a single, explicit comment, because anyone can have a single moment of weakness or even just poorly word a sentence. A pattern of behavior is what Revan has, otherwise he wouldn’t have just recently been blocked. Once that pattern of behavior has been noted, AGF does not require editors to assume good faith, and so a comment using the derogatory term fanboys, in the context of Revan’s other behavior towards LedRush, including using profanity, is pretty obviously uncivil against him and anyone he may be directing the term against. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sir, the burden of proof is on LedRush. Revan must demonstrate bias in his conversation, but not here. LedRush is making accusations here. It is LedRush's responsibility to link us to the appropriate areas so we can see what's going on. If LedRush just came and said, "Revan is being mean", with no examples to back it up, we would all scoff at the lack of evidence. So LedRush is obligated to provide examples of everything he says. It can't be unsubstantiated. So LedRush must link us to his arguments and demonstrate that he was not biased. That is the only way to show that Revan was, in fact, wrong in saying such things.

As to my example, you completely missed the point. It was intentionally outrageous. That's the whole idea. I'm trying to demonstrate that some edits are ridiculously biased and the only way to characterize them is as "biased'. If an editor continues to demonstrate such behavior then what other conclusions can be reached other than that he is, in fact, biased? And it would not be Revans responsibility to demonstrate here that this was the case, because he did not bring this issue to this page. LedRush did so he must show us where the evidence lies.

Again, it's superficial to distinguish between continually biased edits and a biased editor. It's similar to vandalism: If an editor continues to vandalize, we don't say, "Well, he's not a vandal, just his edits are". That would be ridiculous. We recognize that such behavior is definitional to the person's intent. We call that person a vandal (not bothering to worry about his feelings) and he is dealt with. Similarly, if an editor continually pushes a biased point of view, even after corrected several times, then what else re we to conclude than that he is trying to insert a particular viewpoint into the article? He is biased if he refuses to stop making biased edits. (Also, "address the edit, not the person" doesn't really work here. If you are calling the edit something negative, whether it be biased, stupid, etc., how does that NOT reflect on the editor? Would it be appropriate to say an edit is "stupid"? "I didn't say YOU were stupid, just that what you think and said are stupid." I just bring this up to say that in this context it seems worthless to try and distinguish between the editor and his edits because on necessarily reflects the other.)

Finally, you last comment is, quite frankly, silly. If an editor continually threw direct insults at another editor then that's one thing. It's clear that he has no intent on being civil. The point of the policy is if an editor is continually called direct names, like an idiot, he doesn't have to put up with it. But the policy DOES NOT mean that a prior history allows one editor to take another editors words and interpret them any way he likes regardless of context. Please, I would love for you to show me the policy that says, "If you've had problems with an editor in the past, then go ahead and take all his words as insults, even if he isn't talking about you. You no longer have to be objective." That's what you're arguing. That LedRush can take any comment, regardless of who is actually being addressed, and insert himself into it because he and Revan have had problems in the past. That is absolutely assuming bad faith. And your last statement is just a hodgepodge of all the accusations against Revan with all context thrown out. Your attempting to paint a worse picture than what actually exists. That's why we deal with each statement one at a time, IN THEIR OWN CONTEXT, to avoid the type of rhetoric you just exhibited.

I'm not saying that Revan has been perfect. However, it's unfair to say everything is on him. After his block he never went back and edited LedRush's page again. By all fair standards he has "stayed away"; he has not intentionally sought LedRush out. LedRush, on the other hand, continues to post on Revan's page. LedRush will go to Revan and say, "How come you aren't staying away from me?" It's hard to not see this as instigating on LedRush's part, at least to a certain degree. Surely we don't take the block to mean "LedRush and Revan can never edit the same page again". Even if Revan left the Zeppelin page and stared editing elsewhere, would he be forced to leave again if LedRush showed up? Mmyers1976, you must address this point because this is central. Does Revan's block mean that he and LedRush can no longer work on the same page? If not, then is it really fair of LedRush to go to Revan and accuse him of "not staying away"? Wouldn't that be instigating?Ultimahero (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the only thing silly here is that you seem to want to browbeat and pick apart the opinions of uninvolved editors like me if they don't agree with you. This WQA was supposed to be about uninvolved editors mediating the conflict between Revan and LedRush, but you've turned it into a conflict between you and me, and I was silly to let you draw me into it, but I'll fix that now. I don't know if you are an uninvolved editor or not, but your insistence certainly doesn't make it look that way, you make yourself look very partisan. I wonder how many other uninvolved editors might have helped out here, but they didn't want to be browbeaten by you as you play Wikilawyer for Revan. I don't think your arguments are valid, but I respect your right to make them without being browbeaten by others, and I expect you to have the same respect for others. I don't know what you think you are going to accomplish by this browbeating, but my opinion is based on sound reasoning, Misplaced Pages policy, is still here for anyone to read, and there is nothing I would change about it, so there is no reason for me to waste my time repeating myself or continue discussing this with you. Let it go, and let other people give their opinions on this without harrassing them. 69.15.156.226 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has lead to the following: LedRush defends himself instead of I, which ought to be the case here, since he reported me. The accusations he made of me are farfetched, and it either ends with nothing, or with LedRush getting a warning for wrongfully accusing me several times and for hounding and provoking me. I have already said that I will try not to use the f-word, which was the one thing third parties found problematic. Revan (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Revan, that "ought" not to "be the case". The person reporting someone is not required to defend himself. He is only required to provide diffs of your behavior, which he did. For the record, I didn't take what LedRush said here into account in my judgement, I only looked at the diffs - your pattern of behavior. I am not siding with LedRush's arguments, I am giving my opinion of your behavior, which is how a WQA should be judged. The only thing LedRush's reporting you did was bring your behavior to my attention; had I noticed it on my own, my opinion would be exactly the same. Let me say it again - reporters aren't making accusations, they are bringing someone's behavior to the community's attention, and then letting the community decide - that's why they provide diffs. Therefore, they aren't required to "defend" themselves just because they are reporting. You, as the person who is being reported, are perfectly entitled to defend yourself, but are not required to do so. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I meant exactly what you said: I ought to defend myself because I was reported, but I pointed out that this discussion has lead to the contrary, which only shows how inappropriate his reporting me is. Revan (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If I misunderstood, it is because you expressed yourself poorly, because I look at it now in light of your "explanation", and it reads exactly the same as it did before. I'll say it again, you expressed yourself poorly, and I do say it again because I think it is at the heart of this disagreement. If you are as innocent as you claim to be, then you are here because you expressed yourself poorly. You made a comment about fanboys that was open to interpretation by more than one editor as being a thinly veiled insult, and it wasn't even a constructive comment, so it was unnecessary. Had you not expressed yourself so poorly, you wouldn't be here. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Or you misunderstood because you just misunderstood. Maybe you read it too fast. You misunderstood the fanboys comment when the context was explicitly clear, so it perfectly reasonable that you could miss the point here as well.Ultimahero (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You are a lot of "maybes" and speculations, Mmyers. You (and LedRush) dismiss logic in preference of a more farfetched and defaming explanation, a result of bad faith. I'll say it again, your theories and speculations and "maybes" are farfetched. Your theories are farfetched and less logical. Revan (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, this whole thing is opinions against each other, yours and LedRush's being more farfetched. You're talking about a "pattern of behavior" as proof that what I write is hidden insults. This pattern of behavior excuses other users' bad faith. I already explained that the fan boy comment didn't have anything to do with LedRush, but that you both keep insisting that it is an insult is like calling me a liar and defaming me, is it not? There is also no point in arguing against Ultimahero's very appropriate logical observation that calling the fan boy an insult is assuming very bad faith. But hey, my "pattern of behavior" excuses that. Let's hope you come across many patterns similar to mine. Simultaneously, LedRush also has a pattern, which is more like hounding: he got me blocked for writing on his talk page, yet he kept writing on mine multiple times; he provoked me several times by reminding me of my block when responding to me on the Led Zeppelin talk page, what I wrote having nothing to do with the recent block. That is pure provoking. I had even explicitly told him to drop the dead issue.

And I agree with Ultimahero that LedRush should prove that he wasn't biased, which he can't, because I based that comment on concrete posts he made and not on my general impression of him. And it's not an insult either, that's reading in too much in[REDACTED] policy, which is what LedRush has done by accusing me all to easily of attacking him.

We all know I won't get blocked by this. For all I know, it's LedRush who should receive a warning or 24 h block for the reasons I've stated. You can see on my talk page that I have considered reporting him. Revan (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Revan, you call my opinion "farfetched" and Ultimahero's "very logical" for no other reason than Ultimahero sides with you and I don't, duly noted. I am as uninvolved an editor as you can get. I have never edited on the pages in question, and I have never had any previous interaction with you or LedRush, so I have no reason to show LedRush any favoritism or you any animosity. No, I am not defaming you, and trying to build the case that I am is unconstructive and is just going to escalate things. I am completely within WP:AGF policy on this. The term "fanboys" itself is a perjorative term, it was unnecessary to use it. Whether your intent was to insult or not, use of the term, coupled with your other comments around it, provided enough evidence to question your good faith. AGF policy clearly states “This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.” Note it says "evidence", not "final proof". No one has to prove what you were thinking or what was in your heart. Even if you weren't acting in bad faith, if there is enough that a reasonable person might see as evidence of bad faith, then that person isn't guilty of violating bad faith. Finally, yes, you aren't going to be blocked over this - there was never any chance of that since this is WQA. However, I have noticed that guys like you who argue and argue over and over again in WQA and don't take responsibility for their tone usually end up getting blocked another time, another place, because they don't ever figure out how to moderate their tone to express themselves better. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They are farfetched. The fanboys comment is inexcusable due to the context. It is obviously farfetched to take as an insult something that isn't even about you.Ultimahero (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, very farfetched, and not my opinion because of any childish side-choosing mentality you accused me of having, Mmyers1976. On top of it, you generalize my behavior as "guys like you" and employ something that looks like wishful thinking, "end up getting blocked another time" and accuse me of taking no responsibility for my tone when I actually have. It's very clear that you have a negative view of me. It boils down to this: I don't have to defend myself for any of LedRush's accusations; I have, in the beginning of this discussion, said that I will try not to use the f-word.

I consider this report of me a giant part of LedRush's hounding of me. If he continues, I will consider reporting him. A last question, to you two, even though I assume you will be light on him, and I don't mind if you are: do you think his hounding warrants a warning? Revan (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and therefore have no authority to offer warnings. But I do think he is instigating and deserves to be told to knock it off. At the same time, though, I think you could check your tone a little more, as well. I understand that he's provoking you, and getting frustrated may be perfectly justified. However, the world of Misplaced Pages isn't always fair, and unfortunately you may receive more problems like this (or worse) in the future if you aren't careful of how you sound. I'm not trying to lecture you, nor am I blaming you for being frustrated over this. I'm just saying that tone can be very hard to gauge over written text and you may get accused of stuff unfairly if you aren't careful.Ultimahero (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that. Revan (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I find this to be an incredibly telling statement by LedRush: "My goodness. Thank you for that incredibly gracious response. I often act like a magnifying mirror in conversations, reflecting either kindness or incivility back at the people with whom I communicate. It is not such a bad thing to be reminded to be more civil. I will take your advice regarding Revan and appreciate your thoughtful responses to my issues.LedRush (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)". This was posted on MLauba's talk page.Ultimahero (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A Little Algebra

Here is a little algebraic proof. Revan's comment to LedRush is: "It's made clear that you're biased and driven by making Zeppelin look as awesome as possible." Then just a few lines later, he says: "And naturally, fan boys and stupid journalists will choose whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and the better."

So, in Revan's eyes:

LedRush = driven by making Zeppelin look as awesome as possible

and

Fanboys = choose whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and better

"driven by making zeppelin look as awesome as possible" and "chooce whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and better" are equivalent figures, so

driven by making Zeppelin look as awesome as possible = choose whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and better

Which means

LedRush = Fanboys

Farfetched indeed. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Context, context, context. Even if he said the same about both of them, they were in different contexts. It's still bad faith to assume that he was intentionally trying to call LedRush a fanboy.Ultimahero (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The two comments were in the same reply, separated by only two (2) sentences. Your perception of "context" is very narrow. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not it's absolutely not narrow. But your algebra lesson is extremely ridiculous and FARFECTHED and a result of BAD FAITH. Here's another equation for you: I was referring to the average reader who might take wikipedia's word too much for granted. But I'm very very aware of the fact that LedRush is better oriented with[REDACTED] than the average reader, so therefore he isn't an average reader, hence not one of the fan boys who might interpret[REDACTED] information as "fact" all too easily. I've already said that the comment wasn't about LedRush, but you keep implying that it is. You're trying to justify misinterpretation as a result of bad faith. My explanation is less farfetched than yours, truer, and less ridiculous.

LedRush = not the average[REDACTED] reader who takes wikipedia's word for granted and uses it as a source in articles or academic papers.

LedRush = not fan boy according to the fan boy comment.

On the other hand, LedRush invented ridiculous theories in an attempt to justify a known vandalism that occurred on the Zeppelin article in 2005. The vandalism was left unchanged for a while, which led to Reliable Sources quoting it (I refer to them as "stupid journalists" in my fan boy comment). And instead of accepting the logical and known fact that the vandalism caused that made up fact, and instead of acknowledging that no reliable sources state the same fact before the vandalism occurred, he makes up ridiculous theories in order to justify the absurd and false fact, just so it can stay in the article and make Led Zeppelin look bigger and more awesome than they would if the article only stated the real fact. That is why I called him biased (as you see, Mmyers, this is not very far from calling Led Zeppelin "the best band in the world"), and it can't be more substantiated and less of an insult. The issue is whether Led Zeppelin have sold 300 million albums (the false number) or 200 million albums (the better sourced and more likely number). You can see his theory in his first post in this discussion. It was called "inconceivable" by respected user Pirizcki, and LedRush avoided acknowledging the simple question: are there any sources claiming 300 million before the time of the vandalism? LedRush was clearly driven as a fan, not a neutral editor, to make Led Zeppelin look as awesome as possible. Less than this would qualify as clear bias. Hence, my comment being substantiated and not a "you're biased because you smell" kind of thing.

His theory is in his first post of this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_7#300_million Revan (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Revan is drawing a distinction between calling people who believe that WP's numbers (the 300 million) are accurate (fanboys and journalists) and me, who argued that WP's numbers could indeed be accurate? I don't quite get it. But then again, I don't "get" much of this discussion. All this discussion has done is embolden Revan to call uninvolved third parties' ideas ridiculous (in addition to my ideas), and hurl accusations (IN ALL CAPS!1!) of bad faith on a board designed to report "impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications" in order to increase civility. Despite the fact that more editors have criticized his actions than defended them, he has taken this thread as a go-ahead to continue his insulting and condescending tone. Ultimatehero's greatest contribution to this discussion is to make future actions against Revan more likely as has not taken the lessons of his blocking.

Can we please close this thread, as it is clear that no party will get any joy from continuing this discussion, and it has, in fact, disrupted the other threads on this page, which is intended to increase civility, not decrease it?LedRush (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on all your observations above and on the thread going nowhere and needing to be closed. By all means, can an admin close this as unresolved? Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your under the radar insults are dearly noted. Nice try reporting me, LedRush. Revan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't know if you deliberately misspell Ultimahero's nic name or if you've misread it all along, but can you rephrase the sentence where you mention his greatest contribution? I suspect there's a grammatical error that prevents complete understanding.

Also, if you think I have continued my attacks and insults here, your hounding has simultaneously also continued. You keep blaming me all too easily for insulting and attacking, and you will get reported if you continue, at some point. You both engage in pointing out everything outside the context at hand, claiming that what you point at is proof that shows that you're right, which you really aren't... You're just farfetched, taking angry tones too personally. Revan (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I just saw that you reported Ultimahero, Mmyers76. I wasn't convinced by one word and Ultimahero's response was very concise and with an appropriate length. Revan (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And yes, LedRush, of course I draw a distinction between the average reader who might not be aware of the possibility that[REDACTED] articles can include vandalism and false facts, and a well oriented[REDACTED] editor who knows more about how[REDACTED] works, of course I do, Even if you and the average Led Zeppelin fan (not well oriented with wikipedia) support the same number in this case. Why not draw a distinction when the means differ and the goal is the same? One takes[REDACTED] information for granted, and another tries to justify it with implausible theories. Which is worse? Revan (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Maunus making accusations of White nationalism at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/White Latin American

See . I have explained my position and asked him to retract his accusation: . But he refuses to retract: Miradre (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradre has unduly personalised a discussion at AfD. Maunus' description of Miradre's editing patterns seems accurate: his edits are solely to race-related articles and follow a very sharply delineated point of view. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for some comments by uninvolved editors. Not from someone who is already for long time personally involved with me and Maunus and consistently objects to my views and consistently states support for Maunus's views.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment In lieu of a statement I refer to the statements I have already made in the original thread. I have no intention of hurting Miradre's feelings but the characterization is the most neutral description I can give of Miradre's editing history. Note that I have made no comments about Miradre's person or beliefs, only a characterization of the pattern of argumentation that is immediately observable in his actual edits. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Miradre: Please try to remain WP:CIVIL. I have been just one of nine or ten editors to criticize your current edits and use of sources. I have no idea whether your edits reflect your personal views or not. Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You agree that I am "pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint"? Miradre (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit just above and for example here during the AfD are unduly personalised. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You agree that I am "pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint"? Miradre (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read my response when you asked the question the first time. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You avoided answering. So I ask again. You agree that I am "pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint"? Miradre (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not really fair to pose that question given that you apparently take offense to one of the possible answers.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You've asked the same question three times now. Is that appropriate on WP:WQA? Apparently this report was about Maunus, but you now seem to be grilling me. Please could you stop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am obviously interested in if you are repeating Maunus's personal attack. If you do not, then I ask you to just say so.Miradre (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

When in a similar situation a wiser man than I denied that the earth revolves around the sun. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, please read WP:BAIT and WP:HARASS. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In this situation not denying can only be seen as tacit approval.Miradre (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense you write, Miradre. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the thread and Miradre's edit history going back to his very first edits. While Maunus's comment was not worded as civilly as it could have, calling someone an SPA is only uncivil (lack of AGF) if there is not clear evidence that they actually are an SPA. Miradre's edits show that he is clearly an SPA, so that is not an attack, and once you have clear evidence that someone is an SPA, the bar lowers for when it is acceptable to point out percieved POV pushing, so I don't see Maunus's comment about him pushing a pro-White nationalist viewpoint as being an actionable offense. I think everyone should just back up, take a breath, and move on with the AfD. Not saying anyone did anything terribly wrong here, but I think in this case maybe it is best to even more scrupulously than usual avoid commenting on editors and their editing patterns. Maunus, if you really think the SPA issue is important information for the AfD, maybe just use a SPA tag on one of Miradre's posts, so that people can be informed but decide for themselves if it matters in the AfD. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that I was not the one who personalized this issue, his first post accused me of being ideologically motivated in nominating the article for deletion.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Let it be noted that in strongest possible term objects to any characterization that I am pushing "a pro-White nationalist viewpoint" See reasons above. Let me state it like this. None of my edits favor Whites over East Asians.Miradre (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

... ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So why did refer to it as "White nationalism" when none of my edits have favored white separatism, a white state, or any of the other distinguishing features of white nationalism? Miradre (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He looked at your edits, thought he saw a pattern, and identified what he saw. If he's wrong, nothing more will come of it. If he's right, all you're accomplishing is more scrutiny of your edits. Personally, I think you should let it go. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can find evidence for white nationalism features such as white separatism or white supremacism, please state so. I welcome all scrutiny.Miradre (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly what 'letting it go' would look like. To 'let it go,' just leave this thread alone, and edit something else for a while. Maybe even something that isn't about race and white people. You are certainly a single-purpose account, interested only in race and whiteness, as far as I can see. That isn't specifically against the rules, but it does often tend to become problematic, and it's hardly surprising that someone else noticed it. I don't think that there is anyone interested in blocking or reprimanding a user who notices a frequently-problematic editing pattern and comments on it, so you aren't likely to accomplish any more here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Whiteness"? I cannot think of an edit I have made that favor whites over East Asians. What are you basing your claim on? Miradre (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. If you aren't going to 'let it go,' I can. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good.Miradre (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's quite strange that you would bring up the fact that you don't "favor Whites over East Asians" as a piece of evidence here. Do you favor Whites over Blacks, or Whites over (Brown) Latinos? I mean, otherwise, why not just say "I don't favor Whites over OTHER RACES" or "I don't favor East Asians over OTHER RACES"? This kind of particularity is ... "strange".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider any race to be superior. What I have written is for instance that IQ tests, on average, favor East Asians. On average they score higher than whites. That is however of little relevance for individuals who should be judged on individual merit. There are many blacks who score higher on IQ tests than the East Asian average, for instance. The average score is only relevant when looking at group effects on society such as in IQ and the Wealth of Nations.Miradre (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradne, no one really cares about your personal philosophy, so you don't need to defend it here. That's not the issue. However, you ARE an SPA (like FisherQueen said, not against the rules, but can be problematic), and that coupled with your edits gave Maunus reasonable cause to suspect POV-pushing. He may be right, he may be wrong, but given your edit history, his comments were not unsubstantiated, commented on the edits, not the editor, and so were not a personal attack or uncivil. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, each of Miradre and Maunus made remarks about the motivation of the other which had nothing to do with the question of whether the article in question should be deleted. Each of them might do well to read Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I did say before that I thought Maunus had not phrased things as civilly as he could have, but it did not rise to the level of a personal attack. I also said to all involved parties that in this case maybe it is best to even more scrupulously than usual avoid commenting on editors and their editing patterns going forward. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Anarchangel

• Anarchangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Differences between conservative and liberal brain (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anarchangel's behavior at AfD has become disruptive and downright nasty. He accused Collect of lying, was forced to redact, but then wrote "You assert untruths even when they have been disproven." And then, "you have a promise that I will continue to show your prevarication and obfuscation as I have here." Collect is content to make his points and point out Anarchangel's bias and disruption to the closing admin, while Anarchangel has made this his personal battleground based on years of disappointing interations with Collect. He wrote (and later struck) "For years, I had given up hope of actually catching you lying. It's almost sad in a way, the end of an era." Indulge a literary analogy: Collect is the whale to Anarchangel's Ahab. Lionel (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have gotten rather used to Anarchangel's rants - the part I like the most is his prolonged refusal to accept that 14 pages of Google Scholar hits is more than "10% of 135 results" for which he repeatedly accused me directly of "lying" and after admitting it was not "lying" he toned it down to "prevarication." <g>. His last comments include And therefore you have a promise that I will continue to show your prevarication and obfuscation as I have here. . The real problem is that he hijacked the AfD discussion for the pure purpose of attacking another editor - which is a gross abuse of that process. He came there with a clear intent: For years, I had given up hope of actually catching you lying. It's almost sad in a way, the end of an era (which he later struck out, although the obvious reading is that he was stalking me on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I can cut short the accusations of bias against Collect by showing recent AfDs in which we both voted the same way: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims, where we both voted, roughly speaking to Merge, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Young Conservatives of Texas, where we both voted Keep.

My first edit to the 'brain' AfD was "You checked all 135 of Ryota Kanai's articles cited on Google Scholar? If you know the title of his study, please share", with the summary, "Q?". I confused the "pages" in Collect's answer, (each page has 10 entries), with the total entries he had searched, and so believed at the time that I had caught Collect in a lie. All of the text I wrote in that belief has been struck. What was struck, and what remains, are both critiques of the assertions made with respect to the AfD. "assert untruths even when they have been disproven" is empirically observable, and I stand by "prevarication" as a personal judgement of the greatest likelihood, based on the evidence of hundreds of edits squeezed into a couple of months in late 2008, and a Misplaced Pages proceeding with respect to Collect (I forget the exact one, it was at a higher level than ANI). However, he has not been active in the same areas as myself for years, until the past week or so, when I began to see his edits pop up at AfD. There are many assertions here of bias and bad behaviour based on personal reasons, and I deny them all; I never let my personal feelings interfere with my work here at Misplaced Pages, whether that be to show the deficiencies in arguments and the detriment of behaviours, whatever side of the debate they may be on, or to support material and arguments that are to the benefit of Misplaced Pages, no matter how hard they may be to defend.

Anarchangel (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note that I have !voted on a huge number of XfDs. That Anarchangel "just began" to see them is a teensy bit odd. And note that he retains the claim of "prevarication" which, as nearly as I can tell, is the same as saying "liar." On a personal note, if Collect and Ferrylodge are both banned, I will come back to Misplaced Pages. Kelly, I can handle. does seem to be a teensy bit judgemental at the very least, and I can not say Anarchangel has mellowed. Collect (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Darkcover21 and civility

• Darkcover21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darkcover21 is an editor who has caused problems, both with his clear problems with basic spelling and grammar, but also with ownership issues and civility - he demands the right to edit articles uninterrupted and uncontested, and when warned about making personal attacks on another editor, turned right around and posted an attack on me. I feel further action past warnings may be necessary to convince this editor of his errors. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to delete several spurious long term abuse reports created by Darkcover21 with respect to Blue Square Thing. Darkcover21 continued to create them after I told him that LTA was not the correct venue for his issues with Blue Square Thing. Syrthiss (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me who is thinking this, or do others also think we might competence issues with this user? If a block is desired, this is probably better at ANI (and if that's not desired, well...I'm not sure of the likelihood of us getting through to him through dialogue, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong by someone). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that by the way - I was away at the time and unable to keep track of what was going on.

With regard to Darkcover's actions, I think he needs some help coming to terms with what Misplaced Pages is about and how to do many of the things we do. For example, posting an AfD template on Kirkley and Talk:Kirkley without completing the AfD, questioning the notability to Lowestoft despite it's 45 references etc... I've tried very hard to assume good faith and to ignore as much as I can, but the quality of writing (and some BLP issues) makes it difficult not to revert at least some edits. His style can also be rather combative at times which doesn't help with civility.

I do appreciate that it's difficult to pick up a lot of the ins and outs in such a short time within the project. I think I've tried to be reasonable where I can be and have ignored where possible recently - I'm happy to receive feedback on anything by the way. But things are being made a bit difficult, especially by such personal attacks. --Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well to be fair to Darkcover, he did try for a while to edit collaboratively and from some talkpage posts at Lowestoft he appears to have appreciated your improvements to some of his edits. However, he really does not seem to grasp what the problem is with much of his editing. The recent personal attcks seem a bit out of character and are probably the result of frustration. competence is a concern. A mentor perhaps? Fainites scribs 15:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in the main nothing (or not very much) is malicious. I do have some concerns that Darkcover's behaviour can appear to fluctuate quite a lot at times - this may well be due to frustration and I'm probably responsible for some of that, but at the same time the competence issues surrounding many edits make it difficult. A mentor may work.

On a possibly related note, I fear these edits to Port of Lowestoft may be an issue - based on written style. I know this isn't the direct place for this, but I'd welcome an opinion on the edits. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This user Darkcover21 actions are unbelievable as well as personal attacks and should result in them being blocked from wkipedia. I will leave a note directly on there talk page. (Timesdoors (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Seems he went completely off the rails rather than engage here. He's now been indef. blocked.Fainites scribs 08:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing a user's comments

I have a question about collapsing another user's comments. The specific situation is near the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011, section "Evidence that not ending the trial has harmed Misplaced Pages" but I am looking for general guidance and a pointer the the right guideline or policy.

(Should this question be asked somewhere else? Perhaps the Village Pump?)

The situation is this:

User A posts a somewhat lengthy (37 lines on my monitor) argument.

User B put tags around it collapsing it.

User A revert the tags, asks User B to not collapse his comment.

User B reverts, putting the tags back, and tells User A not to revert.

User A, not wanting to edit war, leaves it collapsed and asks WA what to do. Is it proper to collapse another editor's comments when he has expressly asked you not to do so? Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate not being notified of this discussion to which he has not named me as one of the two users above; I found this in the user's contribution history myself after having a gut feeling he'd posted somewhere else about the issue. I will note that this user has been posting rather destructively and not really been helping the conversation at the page quoted. He repeated quotes from earlier in the page, and felt the need to start a new section that consisted entirely of these quotes followed by a two or three sentence (all right, six often extremely short sentences) statement with merely his own opinion. Merely in the rules of common sense, I condensed the quotes that already appear otiginally at the top of the page without changing any of the text in the quotes or in the rest of the post itself. He blatantly removed them in an attempt to enforce his point, leading to this edit from me. He then collapsed both of my replies trying to enforce his point, a change I reverted while adding my reply and better stating what the collapsed section contains with no prejudice.

I don't think my action in this thread is a case for a Wikiquette concern, and look down on this user for his suggesting I am not following proper Wikiquette. What I did was merely for the readability of the thread that was no doubt to follow, a thread that contributed absolutely nothing meaningful to the discussion. I think there is harm caused in having this process going on because it shows bad faith on this user's part while my actions were entirely in good faith towards advancing the discussion while he prefers to quote nonsense (in my view).

I should add as a note that I did create my own section with a series of quotes after this following the same guidelines I had suggested for his post. The difference is that my section addresses reasons the system should stay on, which is relevant to the discussion; not various editors' feelings, which contribute nil towards any form of consensus. I should note that I followed my own suggestion in that post, and it makes it obvious exactly what is quoted by other people and what is my own statement. Even my own quote from the Oppose section I marked under the quotes. CycloneGU (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Cyclone, but policy is against you on this one. Collapsing another editor's comments is a form of talk page refactoring, and our policy about that says, in part:

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.

You collapsed Guy's edit, and he objected. I understand your dislike for his edit, but your low opinion of the value of another persons edit, where that edit is not unequivocally disruptive, doesn't give you the right to suppress it. Given the strife at that page, policy says you shouldn't have collapsed it in the first place, and you certainly shouldn't have reinstated that after he objected. The right thing to do at this point would be for everyone to leave everyone else's edits alone, regardless of how much anyone dislikes them.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was entirely in good faith for the simple reason of making it clear what was his unique comments and what wasn't. I think the entire discussion will soon be worthy of being collapsed in whole soon in any case (not just that section, but the entire section including mine and Off2riorob's posts) because it serves absolutely nothing to the overall discussion on the page. Regardless, that phase will be closed in a day NEway (based on UTC time), and I doubt it'll have an effect on closing as it's not related to the issue; it'll simply be archived. If Guy feels the need to discuss this issue in a venue that it doesn't belong in, that's entirely his choice, but to bring up a pointless argument and attempt to turn the discussion into something it isn't, while not Wikiquette specifically perhaps, is just downright ridiculous. I acted entirely in good faith, but it might be worthwhile for him to agree to have the section closed as it has no bearing on the discussion at all. CycloneGU (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone, saying your own actions were, "Merely in the rules of common sense", implying the other editors weren't "common sense", isn't a productive way to try to resolve a problem. Nor is your statement, "I think there is harm caused in having this process going on because it shows bad faith on this user's part while my actions were entirely in good faith towards advancing the discussion while he prefers to quote nonsense (in my view)" likely to win you any points at a board where the purpose is to deal with incivility. The accusation of bad faith is uncalled for in this case, and characterizing another editor's contribution by saying "he prefers to quote nonsense" is just flaming, as well as being flame-bait. Similarly, your "pointless argument" and "downright ridiculous" comments are, as well. I understand that you're annoyed, and that you feel your characterizations are accurate. But you need to stop making them. I'm not an admin, but my prediction would be that if you continue in that vein that you won't be doing yourself any favors at all. Please try to tone it down. And incidentally, I see that the "collapse" you implemented is still in place. You need to revert that immediately now that you've been made aware of WP:RTP, viz. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I must apologize, I did not mean to suggest that the user was lacking in common sense; just that condensing something like that is common sense to me. If the user wishes to have it uncondensed - if that's a word - he may do so at his discretion (I will strike my comment saying don't remove it again). It doesn't change the fact that it contributes nothing to the discussion or to the actual outcome, and that perhaps the entire section ought to be condensed. All it is is a repetition of quotes about how editors are hurt by what they perceive as an ongoing "trial" followed by comments from supporters of PC saying that the section is useless; there are a number of users who argue that the reason the system was not removed is because it's working, and it's working well in some places, so there's no point in removing it. I still think there is no consensus in the RFC, but again, that itself has nothing to do with this discussion. If he wants to remove it, by all means; the section itself is useless however. CycloneGU (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, I just saw the talk page post, I'll respond to that. CycloneGU (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this same discussion continues immediately after the flush-left comment that appears below.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• All right, I thought of a possible compromise. It seemed like such a good idea I also did it to my section. I still think compression is the way to go now that I know how to do it, but in this RfC I'll make an exception. CycloneGU (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post a different message when I saw that Cyclone responded on his talk page saying he wanted to try something different, instead. What he did was to uncollapse and then separate Guy's comments out into one Level3 ( === ) subheading, with a separate Level3 subheading for "Discussion", following just below. Perhaps the effect can be most easily seen by comparing the respective table-of-contents entries for TOC item number 18 "Evidence that not ending the trial has harmed Misplaced Pages" "before" and (subsequent to multiple intermediate changes) "after" versions.

I don't have a problem with this endpoint myself, but please remember going forward that talk-page refactoring shouldn't be attempted on contentious pages, and that it's not a negotiation. If it is attempted, even with the best of motives, it has to be reverted if anyone objects. Sometimes that will leave the page harder to read than would be desirable, perhaps most times, but those are the rules that we all agree to operate under, for better or worse. Thanks, Cyclone, for uncollapsing. I doubt Guy will object to the current state of the page, but if he does, he will certainly have the right to insist that it be restored to its structure before you attempted any refactor at all. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am quite happy with the current state of the page. I think it's a good framework for further discussion about pending changes.

Also, I apologize if my attempt to get general guidance and a pointer the the right guideline or policy without dragging anyone else in by name or notifying the persons I had not named caused offense. That was not my intent. I honestly did not know policy on this, and just wanted to know if I had done something wrong. I was prepared to apologize if it was me who had violated policy. Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The person who keeps posting the same stuff, loses the argument. Collect (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's twice you have posted the above (irony noted), and in both cases nobody had done anything which could be fairly described as "posting the same stuff."

In addition, even if the accusation was true, the above is not based on any Misplaced Pages policy. If someone actually does post the same thing over and over (as opposed to being falsely accused of doing so) that is a behavior which should be dealt with just like any other annoying behavior, but the available remedies do not include declaring that he has "lost the argument." Editors can and do make valid arguments in the wrong way. If someone is, say, uncivil while making a good point, that does not invalidate the point. Even if an editor is so disruptive that he ends up being banned, that still does not mean that he automatically loses the argument (although in many/most cases the disruptive behavior is a substitute for rational argument as opposed to being an addition to rational argument.) Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimahero hounding uninvolved editors in WQA

• Ultimahero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Revan (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC) I weighed in on the WQA on Revan as an uninvolved editor. I don't listen to Led Zeppelin, don't edit on any of the pages in question, and have never had an interaction of any kind with either editor. I gave my opinion. Ultimahero doesn't seem content to just give his opinion, he must browbeat and pick apart the opinion of any other uninvolved editor who takes a different opinion. His tone has been extremely condescending. Actually, I call him an uninvolved editor, but I cannot be sure if he is uninvolved or if he actually has some previous involvement or affilation, as his badgering of others as he wikilawyers on behalf of Revan certainly seems very partisan to me. I don't mind if someone starts off their opinion on the case by "i don't agree with (other user), here is my take on it" (I do it too), but I do think that feeling the need to offer a rebuttal to every post that takes a different position from yours derails the discussion. It certainly did in this case. The WQA should have been about mediating the conflict between Revan and LedRush, and instead a lot of it became a conflict between Ultimahero and me, when comments should have been directed at Revan and LedRush. I for my part accept my responsibility for allowing him to drag me into this, but Ultimahero calling the opinions of uninvolved editors who have volunteered their time to help out "silly", "farfetched", accusing them of bad faith, putting words in their mouths to mischaracterize their positions, calling them out for not responding to his offtopic scenarios that he latter admits were "intentionally outrageous" has a chilling effect on these kinds of discussions and will discourage uninvolved editors from volunteering their time. This is all very uncivil behavior, and when an uninvolved editor responds to a WQA alert, he should be trying to model the behavior that users failed to show in the discussion leading to the alert. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• UltimaHero is uninvolved. I did a quick search on the first 500 results for recent edits (which goes back to 2006) and did not find "led" anywhere. In the last month, I did not locate any edits to anything that sounded like a song or album of his, either. CycloneGU (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that he's uninvolved. Makes his behavior all the more difficult to understand. I don't know what he expects to accomplish by arguing with other uninvolved editors by telling them their opinions are wrong and reiterating his own - pressure them to change their opinions? Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know either editor, and do not particulary care about Led Zeppelin. So I am uninvolved just as much as Mmyers1976, as my edit history will confirm. I gave an opinion, just like Mmyers1976. Yes, I do believe Revan was correct in this particular instance. That's what I think and I am free to have such an opinion.

Mmyers1976: "I gave my opinion. Ultimahero doesn't seem content to just give his opinion, he must browbeat and pick apart the opinion of any other uninvolved editor who takes a different opinion." I'm not sure how I browbeat anyone. According to dictionary.com, browbeat means to "be bossy towards" or to "discourage or frighten with threats or a domineering manner; intimidate". I don't see how I was could be characterized as bossy, because I don't believe I made any demands or told anyone what to do. And I certainly never threatened anyone. So I don't see how I did any of that. I simply stated what I thought, and was quite bold in stating it. But I don't see how that could be classified as bossy or threatening. I did attempt to "pick apart the opinion of any other uninvolved editor who takes a different opinion". I'm not sure what could possibly be wrong with that, though. If you offer an opinion, would you rather have me selectively take out single statements (and thus risk pulling them out of context), or thoroughly work through your entire statement, addressing things point by point? Maybe Mmyers1976 and I are just completely different people but I consider it to be respectful to interact with all of what was said by someone who disagrees.

"His tone has been extremely condescending." The problem with making arguments about tone is that A) It's all extremely subjective to begin with, and B) It's made even more difficult because you're attempting to gauge tone from written text. I perceived things he said to be condescending, as well, but I would think that in general it's good faith to assume the person isn't trying to be rude. That's why I never made accusations of "tone".

"Actually, I call him an uninvolved editor, but I cannot be sure if he is uninvolved or if he actually has some previous involvement or affilation, as his badgering of others as he wikilawyers on behalf of Revan certainly seems very partisan to me." Like I said before, I simply feel Revan is being wrongly accused. That's all. Speculating on my motivations like this seems as though it might be a violation of assuming good faith.

"I don't mind if someone starts off their opinion on the case by "i don't agree with (other user), here is my take on it" (I do it too), but I do think that feeling the need to offer a rebuttal to every post that takes a different position from yours derails the discussion." Why? How could thoroughly discussing every point derail the discussion? Again, is Mmyers1976 suggesting that I ignore large parts of his response? Perhaps addressing everything can be a hassle because it takes so long, but neither of us is compelled or obligated to be on this page. At any time we could say, "Eh, this is taking too long. Forget it". So I don't see the problem.

"The WQA should have been about mediating the conflict between Revan and LedRush, and instead a lot of it became a conflict between Ultimahero and me, when comments should have been directed at Revan and LedRush." It's true that we dominated the conversation, but it was always about them and their conflict. It was never personal between us (Until now, I suppose). So if was never off topic, then what's the problem.

"I for my part accept my responsibility for allowing him to drag me into this, but Ultimahero calling the opinions of uninvolved editors who have volunteered their time to help out "silly", "farfetched", accusing them of bad faith, putting words in their mouths to mischaracterize their positions, calling them out for not responding to his offtopic scenarios that he latter admits were "intentionally outrageous" has a chilling effect on these kinds of discussions and will discourage uninvolved editors from volunteering their time." First, it seems odd that Mmyers1976 would claim responsibility and then in the same sentence blame me by saying that I "dragged him into this". Again, how did I drag him? Was he obligated to respond? No. He freely chose to, so I don't think I dragged (which implies I forced) him anywhere.

Next, I do no appreciate Mmyers1976 cutting up my sentences and throwing them together like this. All of those (silly, farfetched, etc.) were in different contexts and by putting them in one string like this is to ignore context and imply that I said them as insults, which is not true. First, to say "opinions of uninvolved editors" is misleading because while I did talk to multiple editors in the above post, all the things cited were in my discussion with Mmyers1976 specifically. So to use plural pronouns implies I was repeatedly having problems with lots of different people, which simply is not the case.

Secondly, I understood (and still do understand) Mmyers1976 to have been saying that if two editors have had problems in the past, then one editor no longer has to assume good faith and can take whatever the other says and insert himself into the statement, thus allowing the editor to perceive insults when he was not even being discussed. I said that comment was silly. (I would like to point out that Mmyers1976 repeatedly stressed Misplaced Pages policy to address the edits and not the editor. He specifically said, " Maybe LedRush is biased, maybe he isn’t but had Revan commented on the edits, not the editor, we wouldn’t be here today." The context was calling an editor biased, so it seems Mmyers1976 is saying that it's okay to call edits biased as long as you don't call the editor biased. Yet here, even though I specifically said the COMMENT was silly, Mmyers1976 seems to think I am insulting him.) I did not call him silly, and I think my response is fair. If Mmyers1976 believes that I misunderstood his point that's fine but I don't see the problem with calling an extreme opinion (at least extreme as I perceived it) silly. I'm talking about someone's argument, not them as a person, so what's the problem?

Thirdly, Mmyers1976 had been taking a comment by Revan (the comment was, "My point is, this balanced estimation will leave readers to choose between the two figures in whatever way they seem fit. And naturally, fan boys and stupid journalists will choose whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and the better") which was clearly about the average reader and insisted that it was a veiled shot at LedRush. I said, "They are farfetched. The fanboys comment is inexcusable due to the context. It is obviously farfetched to take as an insult something that isn't even about you." Again, I'm clearly commenting on the argument, not the person. And this is also where the "bad faith" remark comes in, because earlier I had pointed out that one had to assume bad faith to interpret something as an insult that was referring to someone else. I said, " So, even though he didn't actually say anything about LedRush we're just going to assume he was insulting him because they've had problems before? Sir, THAT'S assuming bad faith. The only one who knows his intentions is Revan, and unless he directly calls LedRush something then you can't attribute malicious intent to him." I think it's bad faith to assume that someone is probably trying to insult you when they aren't even discussing you.

Fourth, Mmyers1976 says I was "putting words in their mouths to mischaracterize their positions". I'm not sure what he's talking about here, because he doesn't give an example of me "putting words in his mouth", but I feel the second part of the sentence is even more telling. He says the purpose of putting words in his mouth is to "mischaracterize their positions". So apparently Mmyers1976 believes that my intention was to purposefully mis-characterize him. He didn't establish that I actually did put words in his mouth, but for the sake of argument let's assume I did. Isn't it possible that I just misunderstood what he was saying? But no, Mmyers1976 assigns a negative motivation to me, namely, to "mischaracterize their positions". Clearly this is an assumption of bad faith.

Fifth, he says I was, "calling them out for not responding to his offtopic scenarios that he latter admits were "intentionally outrageous" has a chilling effect on these kinds of discussions and will discourage uninvolved editors from volunteering their time". The scenario he refers to was not off-topic. He was saying it's never fair to call another editor biased. I responded by giving a scenario that was obviously biased (The example was someone writing, "Clearly, Led Zeppelin is the worst/greatest band ever") in order to point out that some edits are so extreme that they clearly prove the editor to be biased. He did not address this, so I pointed out that he had not answered my argument. He responded by saying, "Did LedRush in fact say anything like "Led Zepplin is the greatest band ever" in ArticleSpace? If not, then your example simply is not worth addressing. Let's not make this about silly hypotheticals, let's keep this about actual comments we can observe in diffs." (Before I go anywhere else, notice that he said my example was "silly", which is the exact same word I used of his comment that he cited as uncivil.) I point out here that I knew LedRush had not said anything like this, and I didn't accuse him of doing so. I responded to Mmyers1976 by saying, "As to my example, you completely missed the point. It was intentionally outrageous. That's the whole idea. I'm trying to demonstrate that some edits are ridiculously biased and the only way to characterize them is as "biased'." Mmyers1976 never addressed my example again until bringing it up here. I think it's worth noting HOW he address it. He characterizes it as "off-topic", which I " "intentionally outrageous". This, of course, is an unfair characterization. They were on topic, and the example was extreme to prove a fair point. I believe by phrasing it the way he does Mmyers1976 presents an unfair picture of what I said.

Lastly, Mmyers1976 says, "This is all very uncivil behavior, and when an uninvolved editor responds to a WQA alert, he should be trying to model the behavior that users failed to show in the discussion leading to the alert". I don't see how I was uncivil. All of my "controversial" comments were directed towards arguments, never people. So I will allow the reader to determine who, if anyone, has acted with a lack of civility. Thank you.Ultimahero (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimahero gives an 1,800+ word response to a a 334 word report. If anyone needed evidence of my claim that his comments derail a WQA discussion, this is it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my response is certainly long. But that's because I thoroughly went and responded line by line, quoting Mmyers1976 and his accusations, and offering a direct response. That's not to mention the fact that I had to give context, through direct quotes, of all the accusations made against me because Mmyers1976's original post offered none. I know it can be timely to go through all of this. However, Mmyers1976 did not respond to a single point that I made. So, I will ask anyone who reads this thread, which is preferable: A)Someone who takes a long time, but responds to everything you have said, or B) Someone who offers very short answers but ignores most if not all of your carefully worded response. Let the reader decide.

And Mmyers1976, please answer this one question: Are you saying you would prefer it if I ignored larger portions of what you write and instead selectively picked and chose whatever seems favorable to me?Ultimahero (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly this does not rise to a wikiquette issue. "Hounding" is a strong term, understood to mean one editor harassing another by "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". I don't see any evidence of that. "Editors" plural is also not established. The length of UH's response to the complaint seems appropriate: UH takes it point by point and addresses it in a civil and reasonably concise manner. As MM admits, a discussion between him and UH on another issue went on too long, went off-topic and it seems to me that each of them was unwilling to let it go. Now why you don't have A nice cup of tea and a sit down? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll accept that there isn't any need for action. As far as plurality, you may have missed Keithbob's comment and Ultimahero's reply in all the looooong text there. Keithbob was wiser than me in not replying back. I do wonder if more people might have weighed in if they thought they could do so without Ultimahero picking apart their opinions. I also disagree with your comments about the appropriateness of the length of UH's complaint, and it cetainly can't be called concise by any stretch of the imagination. He might benefit from some of the suggestions for conciseness in WP:TLDR. But I am going to follow the policy that has kept me from having the ongoing feuds that many editors seem to have, and that's when I identify an argumentative editor, I avoid him thereafter. Mmyers1976 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This was my response to Keithbob:

"I disagree with Keithbob's analysis. He used the quote, "Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either" to substantiate a personal comment by LedRush. But I fail to see how this is personal. Telling someone that they're inserting original research is not personal; it's directly addressing the information being presented. At the same time, though, I don't agree with all the examples LedRush posted. Saying someone is biased is not a personal attack; it would be perfectly true and legitimate for me to say that LedRush is biased in this dispute since it has affected him. There is no personal attack there. Also, saying that someone has no credibility is not necessarily a personal attack, either. The reason for lack of credibility would determine if it's personal. If he said you had no credibility because you smelled, then that's personal because it's being based on a personal reason. However, if a person vandalized a page repeatedly then they could be said to have no credibility and that would be perfectly fair and on-topic. So we need more context to establish what whether it was proper or not. But the swearing by Revan is surely out of line.Ultimahero (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)"

I fail to see how that's excessive.Ultimahero (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin, just go ahead and close this one as unresolved, no action, whatever you want to call it, I don't care. I just don't enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing as much as some here. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos again

Some days ago I had a case here with ClaudioSantos because of his persistent breaches of wikiquette. Once I thought it was more or less settled, I just left it and forgot about it.

However, now I see he has changed his talk page in a spurious and hostile way, posting a copy of the original Wikiquette Alerts thread and tagging it as:

"Some off-topic nonsense, summary: wikipedians have revealed in[REDACTED] SPK-patient's names, professions, pictures, etc. against their will and/or linked their data to hostile(hostile), mendacious(false), spurious(non-genuine) chatter against them and against SPK. The SPK has not revealed nor published some wikipedians' names, professions, pictures, etc. which has been already revealed by the own wikipedians to anyone all around the WEB included the own wikipedia."

I strongly believe this is yet another proof that Claudio doesn't care at all about wikiquette and building an encyclopedia, and that he's just trying to game the system once again. Sabbut (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegations of cabals and conflict of interest by User:Brian Josephson

• Brian Josephson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently appearing on this page was a WQA filed by another editor regarding personal attacks by Brian Josephson at Talk:Energy Catalyzer. (For context, the Energy Catalyzer is a putative cold fusion invention. The inventor has made a number of announcements about his device and its possible commercialization over the last few months. There has been extensive and sometimes heated discussion on the article talk page about the quality, independence, and reliability of sources used in the article, as well as the appropriate interpretation and weighting of those sources in the article.)

Over the last day or two, Brian Josephson has suggested that a number of established Misplaced Pages editors (including myself and at least one other Misplaced Pages administrator) are part of a "squad" of editors, using abusive and disruptive editing approaches, potentially as part of a secret conspiracy by 'hot' (or 'conventional') fusion researchers threatened by the Energy Catalyzer and similar cold fusion devices.

• "There is a prima facie case for suggesting that a number of editors of this article have been engaged in Disruptive Editing...."
• "This was attacked by various people using rather dubious arguments, almost suggesting some kind of conspiracy..."
• "The 'removal squad' then moved in again...."
• "A number of discussants then moved in, in a concerted action..."
• "Clearly, the squad wants..."
• "The squad could suggest..."
• "Which leads one on to the subject of ... ===Conflict of Interest=== " (Josephson introduces his next section this way, linking the editors he has named as part of the "squad" or cabal with his conflict of interest claims)
• ...It has been suggested that some working in this field are seeking to minimise interest in such subjects by infiltrating organisations such as Misplaced Pages and, under cover of anonymity, doing what they can to 'adjust' or even delete articles of this kind (there has even been a suggestion that the page be deleted on this discussion page (TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 20 April 2011)). Such actions, were they to be occurring (and I myself am in no way asserting that this is the case), would naturally be a serious violation of the guidelines." His "I am in no way asserting" circumlocution notwithstanding, he most certainly is suggesting a conflict of interest, in light of his preceding and subsequent comments.

He has continued to imply a conspiracy against him, with the absurd reasoning

• "And surely the shortage of people not declaring an interest in conventional fusion is just a teeny bit revealing..."
• "Would that I could give you people the origins of the suggestions that I alluded to. They were passed on to me by a friend, who got them from another friend, who believes, no doubt rightly, that sometimes it is safest to remain silent about certain issues where power and money are involved."

In response to specific requests that he explain who he believed had a conflict of interest, he declared

• "I will in fact be documenting these issues...when I have time to get round to it."

He just doesn't seem to get that this sort of thing poisons any chance of constructive collaboration. He's not going to listen to me; I'm hoping that an independent voice might persuade him that casting these sorts of aspersions on the ethics of good-faith editors just isn't the Done Thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to cut to the chase on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How many discussions at this board would have been unnecessary if everyone kept to the maxim "Comment on content, not on the contributor" Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Random profanity from User:Francis E Williams

• Francis E Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was hoping someone could help the author of this drive-by talk-page vandalism out with Misplaced Pages's civility policy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's confusing, but the IP user reporting the incident (24.177.120.138) appears to have been involved with Francis E Williams before, in which case the edit cannot be regarded as mere "drive-by talk-page vandalism". The first edit the IP user made was to Francis E Williams's SPI page (). Then there's this edit to the MfD for a supposed sock. And this rather strange, unexplained edit. Someone needs to get to the bottom of this mess (i.e., I don't really understand it. Another sock?). Guoguo12--Talk--  03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nascarking

• Nascarking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011)

This user continues to be abusive towards fellow editors at the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011), despite having been asked twice to refrain from abusive language, diff #1 , diff #2 , diff #3 . Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable language. However, it would probably be best to close this discussion thread and move your comments to ANI, where another thread has been started. TFD (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have copied this discussion to a subsection there. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who)

• TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:TreasuryTag has been maintaining a level of incivility on this discussion. He started here with sarcastic scare quotes and ABF: Sarek 'forgot' to address the issue of notability and here also 'forgetting' to be responsible. Here we have a personal attack what's the matter with you? and here This really isn't rocket science. This sic is minor baiting. Back to insults: It's pathetic This seems to be his excuse: Try not making fallacious arguments thus alleviating the necessity for me to employ rhetorical devices.

The least attractive part of this is This clear personal attack on a "trophy wall" in userspace: My absolute favourite ever "keep" argument at AfD is this one – it wins for the sheer audacity of its paucity of sagacity.

Requests to stop: Comments on the perceived inadquacies of other editors do not constitute deletion arguments. Please stop the personal comments right now. I would ask you to go one stage further and cut out the sarcasm too. Please adhere to the civility policy. Whether or not you choose to call them "rhetorical devices", some of your comments are personal attacks which are disruptive to the discussion. Please stop. your vehemence and rhetorical devices are not helpful.

I suspect this user knows perfectly well what civility is all about and chooses to amuse himself by pushinfg the envelope. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well pardon my 'pushinf' the envelope just a little further through the postbox, but I think I have reacted to the spine-slicingly poor quality of arguments on that AfD ("Keep—They're the Big Bad of the 6th Season," – seriously?) in a not unreasonable way. I certainly do not consider any of the above-quoted material to have strayed into personal attack territory and will this not be reading or watchlisting this Wikiquette thread. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Even Steven Moffat refers to them as such--SGCommand 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the tone of Treasury's comments is pretty uncivil. However, in an attempt to just end the pointless discussion, I created a redirect at the article to point to the list of Doctor Who aliens. This completely eliminates the need to dignify any of Treasury's comments with a response and ends the argument, since notability standards are much less for pieces of articles rather than full articles. Once the aliens are determined to have a larger context within Doctor Who, they can be placed into their own article again. -- Avanu (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag knows better than to behave like this (check his block log) and isn't interested in engaging here so I don't think dispute resolution will help much. Perhaps take it to AN/I or something if he keeps it up. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that TT responds to a claim of incivility by (1) repeating the baiting complained of (1) arguing that they are entitled to be uncivil because of the stupidity of others (2) suggesting that incivility is OK if it does not constitute a personal attack. I maintain that incivility is not OK, and noone is entitled to be uncivil -- this is policy. I further suggest that TT's incivility was not a response to other users, but started the moment he opened the AFD, and that his continued incivility, after requests and this WQA, was a conscious policy to get his own way in the discussion. I also argue that http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:TreasuryTag/Big_box&diff=prev&oldid=425704681 this] is a clear personal attack. TT's contempt for the rest of the community, as shown in his attitude to this WQA, is regrettably equally clear. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, can we please just "Knock it off" now? Enough already, there's no need to get so damn snippy over the "keep"/"delete"/"merge" of a single web-page on the Internet. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not engage in "did not", .. "did too", .. "yo mamma" schoolyard banter. Let the AfD run it's course, accept the results, and move on. Is it really worth a time out on the naughty step to get in the last little bit of oneupmanship? (yep, that's a hint to several folks). — Ched :  ?  07:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. Some people never give up. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Racist personal attack by User:Benlisquare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit, Benlisquare (talk · contribs) called me "nigga". --Reference Desker (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there boy, way to blow things way outta proportion. Can you explained how I called you a nigga? Saying "nigga" doesn't equate to calling someone a "nigga"; from where I come from, nigga is said all the time, and when used as so, "nigga" is hardly a racist term. I think you're confusing nigga with another word. Don't know how things work in your end of the world, but over here "nigga" is a synonym for "damn" or "hell no, what's with that?" But then again, I guess you're getting frustrated that I'm !voting delete in an article that you like, and so I should be expecting that you'd like to make a drama out of every small thing that I do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, okay. I suggest that you redact that right away Benlisquare, you might not have meant any offence or fully appreciate how other people may react to that word but it's really never acceptable in civil discourse in any sort of global environment. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I won't use that word from now on. But I still stand by my opinion (nothing wrong with having an opinion, right?) that the filing user has a certain grudge against me. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You clearly directed the word at another editor. And in this case "standing by your opinion" translates to refusing to admit you did something wrong. Your statement in this very thread calling another editor "boy" also has strong racist connotations. If I see you using similar language again I will block you immediately and be sure to give you enough time off wiki to be able to research what is proper manners when dealing with other persons from around the globe in a collaborative environment. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no question here that Benlisquare's use of the term was wrong and he should be warned. I would also like to point out, however, that Reference Desker's accusation that Benlisquare's delete !vote was motivated by revenge was also a very uncivil violation of WP:AGF. Doesn't justify Benlisquare's use of that word, but there was incivility from both parties. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Benlisquare's comment was a kind of baiting, and displayed clear lack of AGF, and that it in effect prompted an ad hominem response, by personalizing the AfD issue. This doesn't however excuse the use of racial slurs.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, probably not a good idea to drop the n-bomb around here, regardless of the context meant. This is an online encyclopedia, not a hangout to pour forties with Fiddy. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my lack of consideration for the greater community at large, and I now note that my use of language, vocabulary and tone of voice might have been inappropriate for the setting in question, that is, a discussion on an encyclopedia, and I acknowledge that. Me being agitated as a result of a small dispute is clearly my fault, and I should know better than to get angry over trivial issues, and I am aware of that. However, I'd like to point out that I might (or might not) be somewhat misunderstood; my comments were never intended to be racially charged in any way, and I am unclear as to why this kind of conclusion is/was being made.

1. How is it possible that I intended a racially-charged attack, if I do not even know the ethnicity of the party in question? I can understand how you might see my aggressive tone of voice as an WP:ATTACK, but saying that it is "racial" is somewhat overboard, don't you think? Such an interpretation makes my position appear ten times more horrible than it should be, akin to calling a thief a murderer, and I don't think that is fair.
2. "...translates to refusing to admit you did something wrong" - I'm not sure how this works either. I apologise in advance if this seems like a stange question, but am I missing out on something, if I do not see how suggesting that a user has a grudge against me equates to "me refusing to acknowledge that my use of words was bad"? Logic and semantics aside, I don't see a direct link between the two. Similarly, I don't see how "boy" can be racially charged either. If I am being naive, please let me in on the details.
3. As far as I am aware of, "nigga" and nigger are two completely different words. Hence, I hope that people aren't confusing one for the other. I do know that the latter term is a racist term demeaning persons of African-American heritage. Amongst highschool age and university age youth, regardless of ethnicity (well in most countries, maybe not so much for whites), "nigga" can either be used as a term of endearment (although not in this case), as a general placeholder name for the person you are addressing (similar to "mate", "buddy", "homie", "brosef", "comrade", "hey you", et cetera), or as a word filler when there isn't much to say at all; it can have positive and negative connotations, however they do not necessarily have to be "racial". "nigga" is a slang term used frequently in hip-hop music, common amongst youths, and I don't see how the term cannot be used in a non-racial way. In Australia, local gangs of Vietnamese, Lebanese, Greek and Indigenous youths who are often influenced by hip-hop music commonly refer to their friends, and even strangers, "nigga". This is especially the case in where I have grown up from, especially amongst youths. I even refer to my ex-girlfriend as "nigga" when on the phone with her, and I do not intend on starting a racial war against my own ethnicity (hint: we're the same). To relate my point, Misplaced Pages even has articles such as Niggaz With Attitude, Jigga That Nigga, Nigga Please, Ain't No Nigga, Street Nigga, We Them Niggas and Niggaz4Life.
4. Even if it were so that my remark was misinterpreted as the use for the word nigger (to which it is not), would this kind of context make sense at all? "nigger" is defined as a "person of colour", and quite obviously I am a "person of colour", and so if it were the case that the word was intended that way, it would make no sense at all, and in fact my usage that way would make me seem rather foolish, no? Hence, wouldn't it be logical that such a case was not true?
5. Regarding "You clearly directed the word at another editor", I'm quite sure that in hip-hop and even in everyday casual talk, grammatical and sentence structure doesn't have to be the same as it is in the Oxford Dictionary of English, 1807 Edition. Placing the subject after the condition does not necessarily make it as a direction, especially in casual talk. Although it might in some cases, it isn't "clearly" the case for this instance.

Also, please do not misinterpret this as me being stubborn against the Misplaced Pages community or anything; I am merely giving my queries, as I am unsure of a few things, and think that I might be not as understood as I think I should be. I do know that it was my fault to not assume good faith, to use a demeaning tone against another editor, but I do think that some of you might consider to not consider this whole fiasco something "racial". Users have even specifically noted that my words were "racial slurs", from what I can see. I am sure by interpreting everything as "racial", I am being put in a disadvantage that really shouldn't be the case. Hence, I would like some of you to please reconsider interpreting that my words were "racially charged", when I believe that it is not the case.

TL;DR: I admit that my aggressive WP:ATTACK-esque tone of voice was my fault. However, marking them as "racially charged" is going overboard in my opinion, and puts me at a disadvantage in front of the rest of the community. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why this is that big of an issue here. I feel like this language is out of place on an encyclopedia because of the level of informality and because the term is generally used orally, but it obviously isn't a racial slur and does not seem to be part of a racist personal attack. At worst, this a minor civility issue. The term should be avoided to avoid overreactions like this one, but I just don't see this as a huge issue. Because Benlisquare has acknowledged that he shouldn't use this term, I suggest this be closed as resolved.

Furthermore, this looks a lot like a gaming of the system by referencedesker. Perhaps there are people who don't know the term "nigga" (I guess it's possible), but I doubt it. Calling the use of the term a "racist personal attack" seems like a gross distortion of the situation intended as retribution for disagreeing with referencedesker's opinion. That is not how WQA is supposed to work. LedRush (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I think that this is the least impressive 'overreaction' I've ever seen. A handful of editors have expressed distaste at Benlisquare's casual use of the 'N' word and everybody has agreed that such racial language is not appropriate in civil discussion - hopefully we've all learned something and can move on. This is exactly how WQA is supposed to work. Nobody is specifically endorsing Reference Desker's interpretation of this as a 'racist personal attack' and imo thats a clear 'worst case' POV summary but we all agree that any form of the 'N' word should be avoided in discussions on Misplaced Pages. I'm sure a lot of us would like Benlisquare to reconsider his casual use of the term in real life, but thats ultimately not our business. Bob House 884 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a child that I'll rush to WQA for every comment I don't like, but the word used by Benlisquare is unacceptable. Any editor would have been offended by it. Anyway, as Benlisquare has acknowledged his fault, it is resolved and I hope he will not do this in future. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would not have been offended. I live in America and I have many friends that use it on a regular basis, in fact, there is a text on my phone at this very moment using the term from a good friend of mine. Seriously nothing to get worked up over, just tell him you're uncomfortable if you are. BelloWello (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are uncomfortable, Reference Desker, then WQA isn't the place to make first announcements. At the top of this very page, there is a box noting "Avoid filing a report if:... You have not followed the directions at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgmental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively... Remember that the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour." You haven't even brought your issues with myself on any talkpage, or any other communication medium, and you go straight here; IMHO this isn't what you should be doing in the first place, and it seems quite WP:POINT-y and belligerent to me. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A clear case of incivility IMO which was responded to in an appropriate manner by an Admin (copied below):

• "You clearly directed the word at another editor. And in this case "standing by your opinion" translates to refusing to admit you did something wrong. Your statement in this very thread calling another editor "boy" also has strong racist connotations. If I see you using similar language again I will block you immediately and be sure to give you enough time off wiki to be able to research what is proper manners when dealing with other persons from around the globe in a collaborative environment--Maunus."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, If I am being naive, please let me in on the details.. My old economics teacher from 3 years ago would say to me, "Goddamit boy, stop talking and do your bloody work" whenever I agitated him or made him frustrated; I don't see how, in this context, "boy" is a racial term. Hence, I do not understand what is being argued against me. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email; 20:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, "boy" was a term slaveholders used to address their male slaves (of all ages) and its use carried over after the end of slavery as a demeaning way of addressing a male black person. Hence the racially-charged connotations in that part of the world. --Diannaa 21:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know "boy" has the exact same connotations in Australia, where it was used about Aboriginal men of all ages by whites.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Well, I guess you learn something new every day. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Maunus: Yes, but "boy" has dozens of other definitions and uses as well, right? What says that I was using the racist implication (to which I was unaware of), and not any of the others? The opening lyrics to Gee by Girls' Generation follows along the lines of "Listen, boy!" ...so why haven't they been sued for racial aggression yet? If their case is different, then how is my case not? Isn't the current overreaction based on unnecessary political correctness, leading to immediate assumptions that one is racist? And if I seem belligerent again right now, I am feeling rather uneasy given that your first few remarks simply seemed to knock my nose into the back of my skull and twist my jaw out of shape, whilst giving some degree of assuming terrible faith. I hope I have calmed down a bit since I first made my points above, at any rate.

The racial contexts of "boy" in this case are irrelevant because no editors are currently aware of the race of Reference Desker. Usage of the word was not intended to be racist, as the editor's background was not known of. It would be a completely different story of someone called my a chink, as my ethnicity is obvious from my userpage; if an IP showed to be from an Israeli ISP, most people including myself would be reluctant to call them various denonyms that refer to a person of Jewish faith; if someone's userpage noted that they were a certain ethnicity, people would be much more careful... but it's not the same here, it's totally different. Until anyone can provide evidence that Reference Desker is African-American or something similar, I think it wouldn't be factual to assume or state my remarks and sentiments as racism through the use of terms such as "boy". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to believe that in your experience, the term is not generally taken to be offensive. I also believe that you didn't mean for 'boy' to be race related in any way (though I'd argue that whether it's a potentially racist situation or not, calling someone that you are in a dispute with 'boy' is pretty much guaranteed to come across as insulting at best.) You didn't realize that many people consider the term inappropriate...that's fine. Don't make up silly arguments for why it might have been OK even if you had known. Whether you knew their race or not shouldn't matter. It seems to me that you're saying that as long as I don't know an editor's ethnicity/orientation/religion/etc...it's OK for me to call them any random slur that I'd like. --Onorem♠Dil 07:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think those examples made much sense either on second thought. Striking. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Context is everything. If an older person calls a younger person "boy", it's not an issue, while if a white man calls a black man "boy", it is. There is no racial intent with Benlisquare's use of his term. Reference Desker's assertion of a racist personal attack seems like a retaliatory action, even if Benlisquare's comment was borderline uncivil (but ill-advised).LedRush (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd add that it's rather reactionary to claim racial intent when (presumably) Reference Desker's race is unknown to everyone, including Benlisquare. One is unlikely to have racist intent when one doesn't know the race of the person one is talking to. That said, Misplaced Pages isn't really the place to be addressing someone so informally, especially using a term that could clearly cause offence to some. As for "boy", I suggest any usage of the word in Misplaced Pages discussions is designed to be, at best, condescending. Again, best not to use it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that I know better, I'll be sure to avoid using "boy" in future discussions then. I honestly had no idea that there really would be such implications; I'd hear usage all the time without thinking of any deeper meanings, simply because nobody here seems to know about them. I was under the impression that the word could be used as a placeholder to represent the person you are addressing, in parallel to

• "Listen mate, I think you are wrong", as used in Australia
• "Listen buddy, I think you are wrong", as used in American television shows
• "Listen comrade, I think you are wrong", as used in mainland China

and as a result, used it in such a manner. I for one am not American, and do not know how things work over there. Now, I hope that we can all get over past blunders and get on with things as normal again. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact there is no need to use terms of adress like that with any[REDACTED] editors. How do you you know by the way that reference desker is even male? Just adress the topics and not the editors, and you'll be fine.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All those work better in speech than in text, where one's tone is not apparent. I wouldn't want to use "comrade" outside China ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read Misplaced Pages's own article on the word nigga to see why it is considered unacceptable in polite or professional conversation. SeanNovack (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

• Box2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Astroturfing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Take a look at these difs: , , , .,

Calling other editors cowards, nasty, and accusations of a cabal. I have never edited that article until I reverted one of his edits today, and haven't edited it since. BelloWello (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You have recently reported this user at WP:AN3, is it necessary to start a separate discussion here? Monty₈₄₅ 22:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a separate issue. He's started being particularly uncivil after the report on the other page. BelloWello (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My this is nasty. User Xenophrenic is edit-warring on the Astroturfing article. I reported this (well, what else could one do?). User BelloWello, to whom I have never spoken a word, has since accused me of everything under the sun. Sigh .... Looks like harassment to me, or, more probably, a continuation of the edit-war by other means. Box2112 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a heated content dispute that clearly got out of hand. It looks like Box won't be contributing to this discussion for awhile, but I'll leave them a note. Regards, Swarm 00:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith

user:Hubertgrove

We've had a rather nasty little exchange where user:Hubergrove has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetery, OR, and about anything else he can think of to prove a point I assume the entire dicussion can be fount at Talk:Battle of the Falkland Islands. I'm trying to have a discussion about the event and he insists on getting personal, I don't think the fellow understands how to have a civil discourse without getting ugly.Tirronan (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read the thread Hubertgrove has been slightly uncivil. But I have little sympathy with you as you appear to have ramped it up quite unnecessarily. In response to his first perfectly reasonable post you responded with "Removing cited material will land you on a blocked list rather quickly" - a totally inappropriate and inflammatory comment given the reasonable nature of the content of his post. It was always going to go downhill from there. I've just read it through a second time and you would appear to have been unnecessarily confrontational throughout the thread. In fact, Hubertgrove appears to have made fairly good points about a rather dubious source you added. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope this can be an end to the matter. Hubertgrove (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User Snowded using "SPA" in a perjorative manner

User:Snowded continues to refer to me and other editors as SPAs and does so in a clearly perjorative manner. He has been asked to stop doing so here: . His response is here: (note also the dit summary). Other instances are here: , , . Whilst the term is not in itself offensive it is certainly being used here to belittle editors and to further enrage an already charged situation. Sonwded has previously been asked to avoid this terminology and as I recall he agreed to do so. I object to being labelled as such, even though for the moment my interests are heavily directed towards a single issue. LevenBoy (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know all the rules governing this, but isn't it actually reasonable to say it if it's accurate? I just looked at your last 500 edits LevenBoy and I can't see any at all that aren't on the usage of the term "British Isles". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Try looking harder in the last 500, there are plenty. Also, note that I said the term in itself is not offensive but Snowded is using it deliberately to cause angst, and that is my complaint. LevenBoy (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a reach (that Snowded is, as you put it, "delberately causing angst") - in my opinion he was just being factual, eg, that your account seems to be chiefly used for the purpose of reverting deletes on British Isles. On the count thing, I think there are 6 out of your last 500 edits that are not BI-related. I haven't yet moved on to the next 500. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're counting up my edits in that way you need to get a life! LevenBoy (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You brought another user here, and are now telling people to "you need to get a life!", you should try to be more civil. Also, edit activity investigating isn't that hard or time consuming. Monty₈₄₅ 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The usage of "SPA" is entirely in accordance with reality as far as I'm concerned, looking through the contrib history. You add no substance to the encyclopedia, just one , long endless edit war in various articles, e.g. this. My advice would be to develop some interests outside British isles naming issues before you find this sort of report filing boomerangs back at you. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken, I'll start referring to Snowded as "The Welsh Nationalist" from now on. LevenBoy (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you're in the right place to make obviously unpleasantly personal remarks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! You just don't get it. Look at how Snowded uses the term. Look also at how he deliberately conflates my user name with that of LemonMonday, and otherise purposely mis-spells it, and look how he uses terminology like "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" and various other disparaging words. If you're happy with that then what's your problem with my suggestion for him? LevenBoy (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully if there is a topic ban on all British Isles Deleters and Reverters you will be able to discover the joys of true article content.Fainites scribs 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And another thing; I find it offensive, so is that not reason enough to request another editor to stop levelling it at me? LevenBoy (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No. If you find it offensive, there's an easy answer: stop behaving like an SPA (you clearly are one to date, based on your "contribs" - and no one here seems inclined to say you're not). Laughable boomerang. DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Laughable is it? So you think it fine for one editor to call another "The SPA", "That SPA", "LemonBoy", "LevinBoy", "Tweedledee" and so on do you? Please also point out where to edit mostly on one topic is some sort of offence at Misplaced Pages. LevenBoy (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an offence. You complained about being called an SPA. You are an SPA. You therefore have no complaint. End of story. (If you want to complain about other comments then you've "malformed" your initial post. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at LevanBoy's contributions, I would not say that he is a 100% SPA, though he certainly is British-Isles heavy, and even if an editor occassionally edits outside his/her particular area of interest, if his focus is for the most part very narrow, he pretty much is editing like an SPA, so calling him one isn't outrageous, IMO. I don't see anything here that rises to a WQA issue. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw it, but I reserve the right not to refer to Snowded by his username anymore, but as some other generalised entity. Suggestions anyone? LevenBoy (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution