• Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Denes_Lukacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. Talk:Denes Lukacs This article just closed March 21 (after heated debate) as not to move. Now an editor has made another move request 4 weeks later, adding it to a long list of other moves where it will get lost in the shuffle. Some of those other move requests are fine but lumping this one in with the others seems to be abusing the move request policy here at wiki. I mean what's to stop me from making other such requests every 3 weeks from now on if I don't like a result? That would seem like system gaming. It seems this particular article should be taken off that list. What is the common etiquette for this so I know what I should and shouldn't do in the future.Fyunck(click) (talk)  : , 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The closer of the mentioned "this really needs to be dealt with on a larger scale basis" and closed no consensus despite the fact that there was an overwhelming majority supporting the move. The heated discussion mentioned above came from a few tennisfans wishing to mutilate peoples names as prescribed by their sportbody. Bringing the apparently last remaining deliberatly wrongly spelled tennis BLPs into one RM seems in line with the closers comments of a larger audience. In fact you bringing this here has most likely caused a good few more eyes on the matter. Agathoclea (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's cool that it brings more eyes... but you pulled "this really needs to be dealt with on a larger scale basis" out of context. You'll note the closer also said "I highly recommend that editors refrain from initiating move discussions until such an RFC is completed". That does not mean to lump it together with another multi-move request where the fact it just went through this gets buried. That means to wait until a policy change gets ruled on. We can debate all day about wrongly spelled or English spelled but that was not the purpose of this. The purpose was to get a handle on what is proper etiquette on continual move requests. If we can do it every 4 weeks and that's the norm, then fine. Then I'll know what can be done in the future. It seems very extreme to me. And it also had a move request several months before that if I recall. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agathoclea, thanks for notifying me. I'm not sure how a RM is "etiquette," but happy to answer.

I notified you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to sign it. I assumed it was Agathoclea. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironically it was the above mentioned original Dénes Lukács RM which canvassed my attention. As I would think is clear from my User page my interests are religious history and classical music. I have no interest in tennis (or indeed ice-hockey), but I occasionally watch RM and was concerned about the original Dénes Lukács RM from 3 angles. (1) WP:OWNER behaviour exhibited by User Fyunck (British tennis fan of Polish descent with diacritic removed, according to his stated reasons for deleting diacritics on Polish tennis player Błażej Koniusz) towards User Lajbi (Hungarian tennis fan), both members of Project Tennis. (2) The conflict with WP guidelines such as WP:MOSPN, BLP accuracy, the WP naming convention that states "language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, ..)". (3) preemptive use of redirects on other BLPs showing knowledge of correct spelling enough to create a redirect - which I may be mistaken but seems similar to a recent ice-hockey issue.

As Agathoclea says, the RM closed with advice for RfC, which was reiterated by Mike Cline and followed at WT:BLP (in my view changing living peoples' name is a BLP issue, although a relatively minor BLP issue compared with more important accuracy concerns). As far as re-including Dénes Lukács on the final tidy up of tennis names. (i) what are we supposed to do, Dénes Lukács has been left to last, but per WP:CONSISTENCY can we leave 1 European tennis player with an anglicized name in among 899,000 BLPs? Why pick on this one? (ii) in any case a move to Dénes Lukács (tennis) is necessitated by having discovered and brought from hu.wp to en.wp Dénes Lukács (colonel) a hero of the 1848 uprising, and the only Dénes Lukács on hu.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics are not so much a BLP issue because the preference for their real name takes precedent over a non-stage name attribution to a professional standard which effectively bars their name from being properly displayed and carried. If the legal name matches the preferred version by the individual and is upheld with records then the title should have diacritics and the diacritic stripped version should still point back to the disambiguation page as the other two individuals have diacritics in their name. As for going to <name> (field) that should be possible as both the non-diacritic and the diacritic versions should go to the disambiguation page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• User talk:Alligerator ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

He kept spamming his disgust with the Feedback, I tried to tell him straight out that if he posted on the Feedback Dashboard then we have the choice to reply to him, thus giving him Feedback that he suppositively never wanted. He called me a moron (twice), a "lollipop," and told me I better get checked; insulting my intelligence three times in a row. He called me a "lollipop" after I recommended that he just stop his attacking. --A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Flee.} 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, AbigailAbernathy, but:

• You told him 'You're posting on the Dashboard, and we are obliged to reply.'. We are not obliged to reply to all feedback.
• He called your answer, not you, 'moronic'. I am not going to judge if that is a personal attack, but you should have been more precise in quoting him.
• You told him 'If you don't want feedback then don't ask for it.. I do not think this is how the Feedback Tool works: it asks the new user to give feedback on their editing experience; it does not ask them if they want to receive feedback (although I assume they would, if they were confused).

I started helping out on the Feedback Dashboard and I know you get all types of users. My main concern is why would you go back to his Talk page all the time, and not simply letting him be? I have found that focusing on promising users works best, but I am curious as to your motivations. Overall, his edits were sufficiently lacking in quality to warrant constructive criticism; which I assume you gave him. Also, I think your edits overall are high quality - but this dispute may have been preventable with a little more tact, and I doubt is further action is necessary. Regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur. This a newbie with a single edit -- why prolong an interaction which isn't going well? Nobody Ent 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Newbie", wow, I got chewed out for using "minor editor", is newbie acceptable here, or does that imply less respect? — GabeMc (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Given WP:NEWBIES has been a redirect since before my time -- it was created in 2006 -- I've never considered it a pejorative term. Nobody Ent 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Noob is the more pejorative term. Typically spelled out like 'newbie' it is just meaning a new and inexperienced person. Not sure what the context was for 'minor editor', but it doesn't sound bad really. -- Avanu (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This one is comparatively minor, but also quite straightforward. I don't really feel much offended, but I would like to see it made clear to the user that he cannot continue to interact with others this way. If that doesn't occur, he'll draw the conclusion that he can get by with making personal attacks with no consequences. Struck through. Not so minor, given escalating pattern.

This AfD exchange was the first time I'd had any communication with Screebo. I've highlighted the objectionable passages in the following:

AfD discussion for Seamus (dog)

• Delete, as stated above by many, per WP:NOTNEWS, unencyclopaedic, trivial and a one-time event in the life of the candidate/dog, which is already mentioned in the Romney article. Enough, already. As to Ohio's claim that people misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, it clearly states:
  • While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (my emphasis) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but read the very next sentence for what that clearly means: The examples it gives are, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Seamus is hardly "routine news".  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're deliberately twisting the policy to suit your own ends. It does not "clearly state" what the sentence I quoted covers. It just says, "for example, routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia", it does not say that these are the only form of newsworthy events undeserving of an encyclopaedic article. In fact, it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. To clarify. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack, much, Screebo? If you can't discuss this without imagining you're a mind reader and without making personally derogatory remarks, then you shouldn't be discussing this at all. The next sentence gives examples of the kinds of things covered by the preceding one; it gives a sense of the scope and range of what is meant by the description, "most newsworthy events". Something that was first covered by Time, ABC News, and The Boston Globe in 2007, and that has been covered repeatedly since, and that has had dozens of articles written about it now, is hardly in the same category.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, where, what? You must be paranoid or something (and you definitely come across as supercilious). If you don't understand the use of the English language then that's your problem not mine. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have requested per wp:npa that Screebo should withdraw the preceding insulting comment in its entirety, along with his initial accusation of bad faith.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As indicated above, I also posted a request for retraction to Screebo's talk, in which I civilly explained my objection. He has now made close to 100 edits, including two to his talk page, without responding. This is an otherwise productive editor who just needs to be given a clue to prevent him from continuing in the same way in the future. I would, of course, also like to see him strike the offensive comments he made, as evidence that he does finally "get it". Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• My reply from my talk page, quite honestly I didn't reply as I perceived myself to be more "attacked" by being accused of a personal attack, when there was none.

The reason I didn't respond was because I have better things to do on wiki than get into pointless squabbles. There was no personal attack, and accusing someone of a personal attack when there is none can be considered a personal attack.

I maintain that selectively quoting parts of a policy to convey the meaning one wishes is either a) intellectually dishonest or b) shows a lack of understanding of the English language.

Example "Ben & Jerry's manufacture ice-cream and became popular by offering surprising combinations of ice-cream and ingredients. For example, Strawberry Cheesecake, Cookie Dough or Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice-cream."

The point being (and what we disagree about), the "for example" just gives a selection of what is being mentioned precedently and does not purport to cover all the instances of what the previous sentence is referring to (as you maintain).

Finally, here is a personal attack from this talk page, to which I did not respond, as I did not wish to escalate it into drama, a kindly talk page stalker put the person in their place and drama for all and sundry was avoided. Maybe they have different standards in Ohio, or maybe I'm thicker skinned, but my initial comment is nowhere near calling you a liar, I could have used the term "cherrypicking" too, would that have been a personal attack too? No, it's my opinion about your behaviour in this particular instance, I am not saying "crook, liar, thief, fag" am I? Let's just drop it shall we? I would like to get on with editing and not get embroiled in ridiculous arguments, all because some people think Romney's dead dog and its one-time voyage on the roof of his car makes for encyclopaedic material. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There's neither a need nor a benefit to making the type of comments OS highlighted above -- it doesn't advance your argument regarding the deletion and is inconsistent with the goal of not getting into pointless squabbles. I'd suggest striking them and avoiding similar comments in the future. Nobody Ent 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Nobody Ent 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Request posted by a different editor, also concerning Screebo

"Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere." at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Wars. I did call the editor a jerk after he said that to Livitup, but that is indeed being a jerk. No personal attacks is a key policy, but there is no need to be a polite suck up to someone who is this rude. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary being polite (reasonably civil, at least), is the expectation for all editors all the time. (Sucking up definitely not required). Generally speaking, if you retaliate with insults to an editor you feel is contributing inappropriate you complaints will either be ignored or sanctions will be applied to both editors. Nobody Ent 11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD discussion for Gemini Wars

Gemini Wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: "Gemini Wars" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Another WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable promotional que sera sera article. Please show the exciting second party coverage to maintain this in article space. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just added a GameSpot UK reference to the article. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very in depth thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep—Third party coverage found: [1], [2], and probably more, if I kept searching... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite the jerk, aren't you? SL93 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Above, I've reproduced the context of the complaint just posted by user SL93. I've never interacted with any of these editors before; I presume SL93 chose to add to this thread after seeing the WQA notification I posted to Screebo's talk.

It's disturbing that Screebo would make comments like this just after receiving a request for retraction from a different editor over insulting comments in a separate matter.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

( Following comment posted by Captain Screebo: )

• I would like to commend OhioStandard for blowing this out of all proportion, using a scurrilous way over-the-top heading for this section, and also nicely adding background colour and yellow highlighting to make me seem all the more monstrous. As to my comments at the AfD, I have been doing some new page patrolling and also watching some articles (Beez in the Trap, Neymar) which seem to be magnets for fanboy trivia, and people just don't get it even if you try and explain WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:CRYSTAL to them. The general response is "yeah it's on the intertubes so it MUST be in Wikipedia".
• On re-reading my comment from last night, and without being aware that this had been added here as further proof that I am just a foul-mouthed jerk (cheers SL93), I struck my comment and added an apology and explanation for my overreaction. [3]
• Finally, as to the tabloid-style heading of this section, no editor is being accused of ejaculation, "you must be paranoid" is just a surprised reaction at what I perceive to be Ohio's overreaction to a fairly banal comment (compared to, say, being called a jerk or an asshole) and I maintain that it's intellectualy dishonest to cherrypick bits of policy, we all know that the news channels cut and splice interviews to make people appear to say things that they didn't, and all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across.

CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game" is not an accusation of ejaculation then what is it, exactly? Nobody Ent 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an adjectival phrase, coming between "fanboy gamer" (two adjectives) and the noun "sites" and is in no way referring to the editors in question. And I did realise it was a bit inappropriate to the debate, as mentioned precedingly, so I immediately struck the comment this morning and apologized. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not what most readers would believe. It was sarcastic and rude. While it is far from being the worse thing I've ever read, just don't give people a reason to complain. Even if you flag it for deletion it could be seen as a poor response to votes to keep it. Don't antagonize the situation. Personal attacks are serious, even if they are sarcastic. Just refrain from provoking the matter further. I'd also apologize because Wikipedia as complex an nitpicking as it can be is no substitute for good manners and respect of your fellow editors. Always assume good faith... unless you have solid evidence otherwise, i.e. 'Its vandalism time!'.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

@Screebo: Glad you're responding. I don't mind at all that Nobody Ent changed the title you objected to. Sorry you found it disturbing, but please consider that I wouldn't have been able to use that heading if you hadn't said what you said in the first place.

I'm not angry with you, or even much upset about this. I just want you to understand that you can't communicate with others the way you have. But since you've reiterated your statement that I'm either dishonest or don't understand English, have dismissed your "paranoid" remark as unimportant, and since some of your other remarks here ( e.g., "all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across" ) are escalating, I get the impression you're feeling backed into a corner over this, too chafed to be ready to address the problem.

So I'd respectfully suggest before you reply again that you ask some person whose judgement you respect to read wp:notnewspaper, the replacement for the deprecated wp:notnews. Ask whether s/he thinks it's possible that someone who's both truthful and fluent in English could see the examples that follow the phrase "most newsworthy events" as being given there in order to indicate the phrase's scope and intention. If you do, I think you'll be surprised with the result.

I guess that's what troubles me most about this encounter: Your certainty that anyone who differs from your own opinion must be either dishonest or less skilled in comprehension of English than you are. A close second would be the ease with you're personalising conflicts and ridiculing others: Despite striking your "ejaculation" comment, you're still remarking about "fanboy trivia" in this current thread. I don't play computer games, either; they're not at all important to me. But I recognise that they're important to other people, and that ridiculing another editor's interests is just begging for drama: Its disrespectful, unnecessary, and counter-productive. I think you'll see that if you can let your evident irritation subside a little. Oh, re a comment you made on your talk: I've never been to Ohio.

@Nobody Ent: I appreciate your actions and comments to try to help resolve this, and hope you'll stay involved in that way. I doubt Screebo is a bad sort; I suspect he's just reached his limit of seeing new articles whose subjects he holds in disdain. I certainly understand that: I offended someone a while back by suggesting that the great majority of our articles about fashion models, fashion modelling, and suchlike should be deleted. I concluded from the resulting drama that I probably shouldn't be commenting about the subject, or !voting in its AfD's, since I rather strongly disapprove of the industry and the whole corresponding topic area.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted these comments on Screebo's talk page "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." from WP:NPA is a personal attack as well. Do you have any evidence that OhioStandard was trying to be intellectually dishonest or has a lack of understanding of the English language?" He ignored it and removed the comments with "Stay off of my talk page and don't start sticking your nose where it's not welcome." Truthfully, I can stick my nose in wherever I want. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If he's removed it then the that counts as reading it for future reference. He's dismissed your question and I would leave it at that unless this matter escalates and such proof that he has been specifically warned needs to be brought up. While you can post where you want (with some exceptions) the best thing to do is not respond to his edit summary comment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It could have been left at that, but he took me to ANI for crossing out my comment instead of removing it entirely. Very trivial. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've posted at the ANI section about the ongoing discussion here. Please refrain from continuing replying to Captain Screebo at the Gemini AFD. Take a 15-20 minute break and relax. We cannot sort this out in real-time while it bounces all over Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For future note in the archive the discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin required to get user to stop restoring personal attack which will probably be lost to the archives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)   ( permalink to thread in AN/I archive )

Yes, I agree that's sound advice. I doubt it'll fan the flames, though, if I state that it wasn't my intention to make Screebo "seem all the more monstrous" by my color choice above. I wanted to make it easy for readers to understand what was said elsewhere and what was added here, and to be able to quickly identify the passages I was objecting to: People don't have a lot of patience to read threads when they can't see that right away. But I'll gladly substitute less contrasting colors if it'll seem less accusatory or whatever to him. I doubt Screebo's even a little "monstrous", btw, only exasperated.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

( I've softened the colour used to demarcate the two AfD sections presented above. -- Ohiostandard, 19:24, 29 April 2012 UTC )

I thought the color was quite helpful. Indeed, your whole presentation was so much easier to folllow than the usual diffs. I don't think Screebo is monstrous, either, but I think he's a bit more than exasperated. I think he enjoys making sarcastic and over-the-top comments and seriously needs to rein them in. His comments often display poor judgment and lack of restraint. Equally important, he can easily make whatever point he wishes without them. My suggestion is he reread his comments several times before clicking Save page to see if they're appropriately worded.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could be right, of course; neither of us really knows his motives. But I imagine at least half the trouble might be that he's been doing new page patrol too long. Beating back the hordes who constantly try to turn Wikipedia into MySpace would certainly test my patience pretty severely. I imagine that would make even Gandhi sarcastic and suspicious, eventually. Thanks for your remarks about the colour format and presentation, btw; I'm glad to know that was helpful.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I'm the one Screebo was originally replying to, and I was able to tell the difference between the attack on the sources I was offering, and the personal attack. Neither one was particularly fun for me to read, but I've been called worse. I'd advise Screebo to keep in mind that CIVIL applies all the time... even if you took the personal attack out of his original comments, the attack on the source was decidedly incivil. It's not OK to be incivil at any time, kinda like cussin' in the presence of a lady, even if you're talking about something totally unrelated, you still don't do it. :) Let's all move on, mmmkay? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Livit, you're not: I'm the one Screebo was originally replying to, to be strictly correct. I initiated this request over an encounter I'd had with him at a political AfD, after he refused to reply to the concern I raised on his talk page. All the business you're thinking of, about a different AfD for a computer game, arose because SL93 saw my WQA notification and posted his own complaint to the thread I'd started. I figured I could either ask him to get his own thread, or I could include his complaint here. The second option seemed the most economical, so I went with that. I'm glad if my doing so has helped some of you, at least, feel your complaint was addressed by Screebo's strike through in that gaming AfD.

But the incident with which I initiated this WQA request remains unresolved: Screebo's response to that has only been to kind of double-down: He's reiterated the original insult a few times, dismissed my objection to it as unimportant, excused his own behaviour entirely, and has even come out with one or two new ones in the process.

I'm not sure if there's any help for it − I do not want him blocked, for example − but I'd also like to see a better outcome than he's been willing to help forge here so far. So I'm going to leave this open for now, and continue to hope for a day or two that he'll change his mind about that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should have been more specific: I'm the one he was originally replying to in the second example above. I'm more than willing to drop my issue, if Screebo will realize that his particular style of discourse isn't appropriate and agrees to tone it down a bit in general. I make no claims or warranties about your dispute with him. Better? :) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Livit; thanks for this clarification. And thanks, too, for keeping a cool head throughout the trouble that Screebo's comments at the Gemini game AfD touched off. I assume the other participants in that are all right with putting that to bed, as well?  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How about I remove the unnecessary personal comments both editors made regarding the other from the Afd and everyone strives to stay focused on the content and not each other in the future? Nobody Ent 09:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's helpful, Nobody Ent. But whether Screebo's remarks remain doesn't matter to me, intrinsically: I'm not concerned they could injure my reputation; no one's going to take them seriously that way. I'd just been hoping he'd strike them himself to show that he "gets it", that he understands he mustn't personalise differences of opinion or make accusations of bad faith simply because others disagree with his interpretation of policy. But since that insight remains out of reach for the present, your suggestion is probably going to be as good as it gets.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

CS does state on DB's page there that his comments were slightly incivil and suggests dropping the stick and moving on; I think this very good advice. Nobody Ent 19:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen that, of course, as you know. My preceding comment was motivated in part by similar behaviour I've seen in wholly unrelated instances over the past few days. So are you saying that he's also willing to accept the suggestion you've made?  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't know, CS hasn't made any edits today. Nobody Ent 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to rush, off-line activities can take people away for considerable amounts of time. While it would be nice, if it is lost to the archives and the matter simply ends, that is also fine. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, although if any of the uninvolved edtiors who've commented here wants to use {{archive top}} to close it in a day or three, I'd have no objection to that, either. Probably best to wait until Screebo returns to editing though, in case he wants to add any final statement or any additional comments. Cordial thanks to the several uninvolved editors who helped out here, btw. I greatly appreciate everyone's assistance with this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon

I wish to draw the attention of this page to User:Lugnuts and to request advice on how to go forward with him.

In eight years of working here on Wikipedia I have failed to come across a more persistently snide, goading and uncivil editor.

As you may consider from his contributions, his edit summaries recently have been thinly disguised attacks on me ("a user who doesn't know any better" and such) [4].

As you may see from his talk page, and mine, I have directed considerable amount of direct questions to him which have not been answered, or which have been deflected with numerous directions to Wikipedia policy. As you can also see, Lugnuts has attempted to flag up my alleged 'vandalism' in another place [5]. I disagree with his diagnosis, and have found his behaviour, tone, attitude and constant flouting of civility to be increasingly frustrating.

He has consistently ignored my genuine concerns about the work he is carrying out, not least because he is only creating stub articles in a project which requires much more than that to be useful. He refused yesterday to carry out any of the basic, tiny tasks I requested that would help other editors in the project.

He comes across as a "lone agent", without any civility, cooperation, consideration or understanding of the project he is currently failing to help.

I would like to ask for assistance. I have tried to be constructive. I admit that my own tone has not always been neutral, though under the circumstances I believe that the nature of the conversation would lead most grounded people to moments of increased frustration.

I will inform Lugnuts that I have posted this notice here. If someone could please advise as to what can be done to resolve this unfortunate series of events

doktorb _words^deeds 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've replied many times to this user, who has a bad case of WP:OWN over "his project". I'm trying to help, but he refuses to use good faith. This is all very WP:POINTY as he's not getting his own way. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that I have not used the phrase "his project" or "my project". I have consistently requested that Lugnuts takes some time to research the project and its requirements, including through direct questions and suggestions, none of which have been answered or heeded. I notice that edit summaries by Lugnuts are becoming increasingly uncivil, unhelpful, and rude, including what I can only assume are direct digs at me, which runs counter to Wikipedia policy on etiquette. doktorb _words^deeds 13:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have chosen to retire from the project rather than continue with this matter

Dok.

Well that is your choice. I'm happy to discuss, as I have been doing over the last day or so. Lugnuts (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts has unilaterally moved a set of pages such as Leeds Council election, 2012, which came within established patterns of articles (as seen in Category:Council elections in West Yorkshire), in a way which could be construed as part of his dispute with Doktorbuk. After each move he edited the redirect, a curious action which has the effect of making it impossible to simply revert the move without going through the WP:RM process. This seems unconstructive behaviour. PamD 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of being bold and following advice on my talkpage that Doktorbuk posted himself, I moved the pages. I had created a Welsh election page with the wrong title and was mearly doing the correct thing as per Doktorbuk's comments. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Karl.brown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 30 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) #Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) #Category:Unionism
• User talk:BrownHairedGirl ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs) #knock_it_off

I've been bothered by a series of continued attacks on my experience and intelligence by BrownHairedGirl in various CfD discussions. You can see some of the results above - but the latest here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism is where I think she really went too far.

Some quotes from that discussion:

1. "Congratulations to Moonraker for his use a mocking tone. This is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned.
2. "I'd ask again that you stop disrupting CfD by posting this comic nonsense. I do not intend to post the necessary long explanation, because it's hard to know where to start. Googling for snippets to quote at CfD is no substitute for your lack of a wider understanding of the history."
3. "PS The nominator's rationale that the "titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation" would be hilarious if it wasn't all so time-wasting, because it reveals a fundamental ignorance of the issues involved; ethnicity is a central factor in unionism."

• What I did wrong?

I sometimes responded too quickly, and also made factual errors in my comments. I also admit to getting frustrated sometimes, and I also have acted at times in an uncivil manner, but I'm trying to address that from my side. I have made nominations for category changes in areas which are not my primary area of expertise, like British/Irish history, and categorization tree of Ireland. However, any claims I have made have been backed up by sources, and while of course it's possible that some of my claims were erroneous or misinformed, that is not an excuse for personal attacks. BHG has opined on a number of category discussions over the years; I find it hard to believe that she is an expert in all of those fields, and she has even opined on CfDs which are in *my* area of expertise, but I did not resort to name calling in spite of the incomplete understanding her posts showed. I'd like to request the same courtesy from her. In this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law I was frustrated and used a sarcastic tone, and for that I apologize.

• What have I done to try to fix the situation?

As you can see from the discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism, I asked her several times to stop the personal attacks, but she continued to belittle me. I also asked her to stop the personal attacks on her talk page, but she refused to apologize, and closed the conversation: User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#knock_it_off

• What I want?

BHG is an experienced admin, with (perhaps) deep knowledge in certain subject areas which also interest me. But, frankly she has a sharp tongue, and I've already seen other editors chide her for this [6]. I'd like her to cease making personal attacks, i.e. describing other editors or their actions as silly, childish, ignorant, foolish, useless, etc. I will agree to not use such uncivil language in my interactions with her and others, and will ease up on long responses to CfD while awaiting inputs from others. --KarlB (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for BrownHairedGirl to respond before attempting to resolve this matter. I've read the three threads and have a couple of questions to ask you, KarlB. Have you had prior contact with BrownHairedGirl outside of CfD? You admit to having made factual inaccuracies. While the thread shows BrownHairedGirl's condemnation for your proposals they are surprising. By 'long history' this seems to show that the matter has gone on for an extended period of time. How long have you been a part of CfD? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No prior contact that I recall. Not really a long history either - there are three contentious nominations that I recall, I think I first met her on the Category:Hospitals in Ireland category discussion. Have been on CfD about 1 month, but stalking on wikipedia for a lot longer. As for factual inaccuracies, I certainly have not made errors on purpose however, but of course I may have said things that turn out to be incorrect or poorly understood on my part, but I think that applies to all of us... --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

CfD and other areas which you have participated in tend to be areas where cautiously treading is the best option. Judging from your talk page I think the best matter would be to watch CfD for awhile and gather consensus before moving or repopulating a category; it is an area of Wikipedia in which is unlike other areas simply because the ability to damage is far greater then other sections. Certain areas of Wikipedia, chiefly categorization, certain matters of being bold are held to different levels of 'oops' then others. Sadly even I got to hear about the Anthony Zuzzio afd simply because these are newbie errors and are typically the most serious of proposals next to categorization. Quite frankly, a mistake there means a lot more then a typo, an awkward edit or other typical edits. It is best to be cautious and not rock the boat. BHG was being uncivil, but given your recent edits and mistakes she should have responded more like Yasht101. The area of Wikipedia you are most active in is a touchy area where mistakes and ignorance of policies and procedures receive more negative attention because of their environment, while it is not an excuse, I believe BHG was rising to the incivility because of frustration. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I know I made a mistake by de-populating the hospitals in Ireland category, but what I was really doing was just diffusing to subcats; my error was unlinking the two top-level cats, which I professed in the CfD nom in any case. But I take your points about being cautious, and appreciate the advice. I do note that I have made a number of CfD nominations which have been accepted, and relatively uncontroversial. In reviewing my history of CfDs with BHG, the main ones where she seems to start sniping are those having to do with Ireland/UK; in many other conversations our interactions have been cordial and professional.--KarlB (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"But, frankly she has a sharp tongue"

Agreed. I've had a dose of that myself, where my only interaction (AFAIR) was at the many Old Harrovians CfDs. Any disagreement with her seems to be seen as a bad-faith attempt at WP:POINT. I found this particularly galling as I still regard her salami-slicing attempt to rename a vast number of related cats for the same reason, but sneaking them in small batches and leaving the contentious ones until last, as a pretty blatant attempt at gaming the system on her part. Still, she's an admin and thus Infallible and not to be questioned. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• WP:AN
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Fæ and MBisanz

I opposed a proposal of Fæ's in the AN thread linked above, commenting that it was contrary to a position he had taken in an email to me in January in a different situation. I immediately received a second email indicating he believed I had violated his privacy by referencing the earlier email on-wiki. I responded by indicating that I did not believe I had violated his privacy and was forwarding to AUSC/OTRS-admin/Steward/Ombudsmen so that they could investigate the allegations that I violated his privacy. I did not disclose any content of either of his emails on Wikipedia or otherwise use my advanced permissions to access information on him. He continued to object via email and I indicated I did not desire to receive emails from him. He continued to object in the thread above, indicating I was being uncivil, disrespectful, and acting violation of my duty of confidentiality as a trusted user. He requested I withdraw the requests for review by the referenced authorities and I refused. He has continued to say I am acting in an uncivil and disrespectful manner, have violated his privacy, and otherwise made serious allegations as to my reputation as an editor and trusted user.

I filed the request at Arbcom, where he continued to accuse me of acting in a manner in violation of my duties as a user with access to advanced permissions and that I acted wrongly in not removing my original comment on AN. He has also accused me of new violations of his privacy in stating that he gave me permission to contact certain individuals in his earlier email as a means to rebut his accusation that I forwarded his email without their permission. Arbcom has opined that the matter is premature for want of prior DR and none of the responses I have received from the reviewing authorities indicate an interest in reviewing my conduct. However, Fæ mentioned this forum as the one he considers appropriate to review my conduct and the allegations he has made concerning it. I do not believe my conduct violated any WMF/WP policy nor can I find anything in my posts to him that would demonstrate the alleged incivility and disrespect (I haven't called him any names, used profanity, mocked him or the like). However, he has made extreme allegations as to my character as an editor and user of advanced permissions, so that's why I'm here. I would hope this process could determine if my conduct was wrongful and if his allegations were appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 16:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please note The arbitration request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fæ and MBisanz has yet to close, currently running at a vote of 9 to 0 to decline his arbitration request. This WQA case has consequently been raised out of process. MBisanz's multiple case raising behaviour, when he knows I am in the middle of preparing to travel for the rest of the week is now verging on becoming a misuse of process for the purposes of hounding. Don't be a dick seems highly good advice here for a trusted user who absolutely no excuse not to be an expert on dispute resolution processes and to my mind appears to be deliberately choosing to misuse them as I can not think of any other rational explanation for his behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Right, they rejected it as premature in the DR process with 9-0, meaning it is an impossibility to accept. I have no interest in hounding you, but you have made extreme accusations as to my character as an editor and I request a determination by some authority to clear my name, unless you are willing to withdraw your allegations of abuse of my trusted status. I understand you are going on a trip, but letting the allegations lay on the table and further sully my name is unacceptable. MBisanz ^talk 16:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • It has yet to close, are you so incredibly arrogant that you think you represent Arbcom now? Push off and leave me alone, you are hounding me by blatant abusive forum shopping and our community should be ashamed to see a bureaucrat behaving this way. Shame. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • No, I do not represent them. I have, however, read their public policy and it is mathematically impossible to achieve a net four vote that would create a case. Therefore, I am following the advice they have given and beginning the earlier parts of the dispute resolution process, as described in policy. Why will you not engage in dispute resolution with me after you have thrown down the extreme accusations about my character? MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • For the reasons explained above. This WQA is not valid. How can a bureaucrat not understand how dispute resolution works or judge when they are hounding and harassing someone for issues that they created by their behaviour in the first place? Leave me alone for Christ's sake, you seem totally obsessed. Go away. Push off. Find something meaningful to do with your time rather than stalking me. I cannot believe you are a trusted user. I am busy travelling until Saturday, so don't expect me to indulge you in your stupid war game. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

To Hipocrite: First, I only forwarded it to individuals who have the same level of exceptionally advanced permissions. Second, I do have a duty to to maintain your confidentiality and if you emailed me asking for oversight, you're right, I should not disclose the existence of that. However, if you emailed me a link to a news story about Barack Obama, my saying "Hipocrite emailed me." would not implicate a duty to keep the existence of the email secret. The emails Fæ sent me could not be reasonably interpreted to be a request for or notification related to Oversight or Stewardship or OTRS.

To Chris: Thank you. If the process needs to be kept open for formal reasons, I'm fine with it. I'm just looking to get a determination to clear my name.

To Hasteur: I know people are allowed to change their minds and that is not why I am here. Fæ has said I breached my duty to maintain his privacy and that I have been uncivil and disrespectful to him. I would like it to be determined if I have done so. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

To FutPerf: I would like some decision on if I abused my advanced permissions and if the other allegations made by Fæ regarding my reputation as a trusted user are valid. I remember what Lar and SlimVirgin went through years ago when their dispute was allowed to fester, with either party being able to bring up that no one had decided on those allegations and therefore the other person was wrongful, until Arbcom finally decided that case. I don't want to spend the next several years dealing with these allegations when someone can make a determination now. MBisanz ^talk 17:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a good idea to use content from an old email to characterize another editor's position in a current dispute. That said, I'm not seeing evidence of any significant privacy breach; therefore I don't see any sanction beyond saying "MBisanz, please don't do that again" as necessary or desired. Nobody Ent 18:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Chris and Ent. I appreciate your independent feedback and evaluation. MBisanz ^talk 18:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Let bygones be bygones then? Apologies and a cup of tea/coffee/beer all around just to clear the air? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that I have this thread and the comments at the RFAR to point at if anyone subsequently brings up that I breach my duty, I'm more then happy to drop this. MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As Arbcom have confirmed by email that the still open, parallel, Arbcom request opened by MBisanz is to be interpreted in such as way that my comments may represent Wikimedia UK rather than just myself as an editor of Wikipedia, I am unable to comment here until I have reviewed the situation with the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive. This is unlikely to be until next week. In the meantime I have struck my existing comments. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to closing this alert? Nobody Ent 23:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

To WereSpielChequers: My apologies to Fæ for placing him in such a position. I was, inarticulately, trying to demonstrate to him that I perceived hypocrisy in his proposal to require people he disliked to disclose their off-wiki activities when acting here, given his use of unsolicited, undisclosed email to discourage my mere editing. Ched, in the same thread, stated it much more clearly without putting him in such a position. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To OID: After reviewing the January email, I remain convinced that it could not be interpreted by any reasonable person as involving my advanced permissions. It does not mention the use of or request the use of any userrights I possess or any of the processes and policies associated with this userrights. It specifically indicates I may contact a different individual not identified to the Foundation to discuss the contents of the email. It was entirely about me as an editor. MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's take a step back and relax. If ArbCom refuses to accept because process has not been followed then we can consider this a proper step in the process. Given that real-world activities will constrain the process here, it may be best put on hold, but I will try to keep this matter open so that if it comes to an end quickly, it will be preferable. Mbisanz has made his point, Fæ could you please respond about the situation, just to have your view on the matter? I'm not talking about the taking of it to ArbCom, but specifically how MBisanz's actions affected you. (Disclosure: I've spoken a few times to MBisanz for matters on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin page. Not even an acquaintance, but I have spoken to MBisanz before.) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz - as a user with exceptionally advanced permissions, you may, at times, receive information in confidence that you really really want to tell someone else. It is not appropriate to tell someone else who lacks the level of exceptionally advanced permissions you have this information, regardless of why you think you want to tell someone else. Even obliquely, if you have a duty to maintain the confidence of other users, you are duty bound to maintain said confidence, even if other users use that against you.

You further have stated "none of those roles indicate a duty to keep the existence of communication private." This is dramatically and factually untrue. You are a "Oversighter." If I were to email you or the oversight email list and say "such and such an edit reveals my IP address, please oversight it," you would have a duty to maintain my confidentiality. Please confirm that you understand your duty to maintain said privacy. In the absence of said confirmation, I think it is imperative on you that you renounce your oversight tools.

Fae: You are overreacting. No substantial private information was disclosed. Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*3 Suggestion: How about both of you drop it? Seriously. People are allowed to change their minds from time to time. The fact that Fae held one viewpoint in one context is not damning evidence of a problem in annother context. So please try starting fresh with a clear statement of what the problem is (or with a new instance of a conduct problem) as both of you appear to be posting more on the emotional side than on the intelectual side. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see how anything good could come from spreading this conflict into this or indeed into any other new forum, for either of the parties. Honestly, MB, what do you expect from this process? There is an obvious solution here, and that is simply for both parties to step away from the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fae has run into this problem repeatedly. He sees an issue which he blows out of proportion, makes wild accusations about them, and then disprupts any attempts to deal with them through consensus. He seems incapable of dealing with the Wikipedia community in a consistently constructive and civil way which assumes good faith. Fae's problem is more serious because he is an Admin. His behavior must stop.LedRush (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing Fae's name pop-up in several noticeboards recently, it seems to me that he concerned in taking offense at / creating drama because of harmless stuff than he is in improving the Wiki. Maybe it's time to consider whether the drama/time sink he creates for productive volunteers is worth the marginal benefits of having one extra admin doing routine stuff (welcoming users, twinkling/huggling, etc...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that MBisanz has made any errors here. It appears that Fae contacted MB, and then tried to use that fact as a way to compromise him. I'm not saying that was the intent, but rather the effect. Given the multitude of various threads (RfC/U, Jimbo's talk, multiple AN and AN/I posts etc.), I'd rather think that this will eventually need to culminate in either a community "ban" discussion, or a Arbcom case in respect to a desysop procedure. In defense of Fae, I think it was wrong to post any of the personal identifying information that was apparently found/researched "off-wiki"; I have seen that done on at least 2 occasions. I can easily understand any feelings of being unjustly outed he (Fae) may have in that respect. I will say however, that simply because one or two people show poor judgement - that doesn't mean that all, or a majority of the community have either been unjust or misused any permissions. Hopefully Fae will find a way to step away from the drama in the near future, and find a way forward in a productive manner. — Ched :  ?  10:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the Email in question, so I can't judge MBisanz's comment "this proposal runs counter to the position Fæ took in an email on January 26 in a different situation" in terms of whether I'd see the situation as similar, or indeed the position as similar. So in my view MBisanz put Fae into a needlessly difficult position. If the situation were to recur, or more realistically if anyone else was to get into a similar situation, then I'd suggest an email would have been more appropriate; That would have given Fae the opportunity either to point out what made the situations different to him, or why he'd changed his mind. MBisanz would of course still have been free to argue publicly against Fae's proposal, but not to publicly levy a charge of inconsistency without being able to substantiate it with a diff. As for resolution, I would suggest that MBisanz should apologise to Fae. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MBisanz. Hopefully that will resolve matters. ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fae's apparent and substantial incivility above might make people question his position as a rimary spokesperson for Wikipedia in the UK. No need for MBisanz to apolgize. And such incivility is exceedingly common nowadays on Wikipedia, viz. [7] with the edit summary of MJ YCSI which needs no translation if one has seen chatspeak, although the writer asserted it was "random keys." [8]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  You may want to clarify or refine your comment, which at first glance appears to suggest that Fae is somehow related to that conversation on Hipocrite's talk page.--KarlB (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  It's ok, he's just trying to score points against me for some unknown reason. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Well whatever the issue is, I'd strongly suggest to keep it off this particular page. --KarlB (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Not "trying to score points" about anyone - the issue is gross incivility on Wikipedia, and I suggest telling anyone to "YCSI" is, in fact, less than civil. Clearly Hipocrite does not think so, but I do not care about his ability to make random obscenities on Wikipedia :). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue is assisting MBisanz and Fae to come to a mutually agreeable solution. You're welcome to start a distinct assistance request if you wish to discuss an issue with another editor. Nobody Ent 18:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Observation: From what MBisanz "revealed" from the private correspondence between MBisanz and Fæ, all that became public was that Fæ has previously requested help from MBisanz by email in a way which led MBisanz to believe Fæ is not in a good standing to raise the proposal. The amount of information made public is absolutely minimal, and certainly does not include any personally identifying information. I think this incident is just a fight between the two of them, the resolution of which has little significance to the rest of the community, because it would be bizarre if Wikipedia started making rules about confidentiality of off-wiki correspondence! Deryck C. 12:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is an uncomfortable situation for all involved, which was avoidable on all counts. Both parties should be trouted - because this incident reflects poorly on both M and F. There is little point in elaborating on the finer detail now because what's done is done, and that will complicate matters further rather than settle them...best thing to do is avoid each other, and further allegations with respect to each other - which led to this situation. It's not particularly satisfactory for either party, but given how far this matter has been inflamed already by the both of you, you both should be grateful that such resolution is so readily available in this case. And for the sake of clarity, the reality is that allegations neither stop nor start just because of a single determination, but at least you two can control the ones you make in relation to one another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Since MBisanz wants commentary on whether or not he abused his position, I'm making this sub-section to address that one specific matter. Personally, I do believe that MBisanz has indeed made a minor point on WP:PRIVACY under 'Private correspondence' because while no community consensus exists, ArbCom has once stated that private correspondence should not be posted on-wiki.' This is not the message itself, only a brief mention on the stance. This is not 'outing' and should not be taken as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:EMAILABUSE the matter is basically moot against MBisanz, while this seems to be pointed towards regular users, it still applies to all. I believe that the unusual situation did not require the disclosure of the existence of an email was necessary, but not wrong. The case basically involves what Fae doesn't want known and what MBisanz knows to be unusual. If you take a position and then change it the matter should be disclosed, but since it was private, its a murky area. While nothing explicitly prohibits the action, Fae's response is a classic case of Streisand effect, rather then simply taking it privately, the resulting explosion forced MBisanz to defend himself and send it (as required) to additional people. MBisanz may have hit upon a sensitive issue and only lightly pointed out a possible COI, but did not divulge the information itself. While not the best action, it doesn't seem overly egregious or actionable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect its arguable (and no doubt someone will) that referring to the general (or even a minor specific) thrust of an private email constitutes 'posting correspondence' on-wiki. I only really have one question for MBisanz - was the original email in any way related to your position(s) or was it directed to you as a wikipedia editor? If the latter, then imo no abuse took place. MBisanz isnt responsible for what Fae says in email. While he should respect Fae's privacy, this does NOT extend to taking personal attacks. And making accusations of abuse and then complaining because the accused wants to defend themselves to the relevant authorities - I consider it a gross form of personal attack. The alternative is MBisanz has to suffer his reputation being sullied publically. It should also go without saying, if you take a public stated position contrary to a private one - complaining about it afterwards is not going to encourage people to take up your (ambiguous) position Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The difficult thing in this instance is that we don't know whether Fae is being inconsistent, or whether MBisanz sees two situations as similar whilst Fae sees them as different. Of course if the Email was published then we could all draw our own conclusions, but that would require EMAILABUSE. Hence IMHO it would have been better if MBisanz had not publicly alluded to what he perceived as a different position in a private email. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well this is a bit offtopic given the section header but RE inconsistency - which is frankly in my opinion, Fae's problem not MBisanz. If you are emailing people espousing one position, then publicly seeking comment saying you support the other, you should expect whoever you have emailed to call you on it. 'That was a private email' is not a defense for public deception of multiple people. I would expect anyone of good character to do the same in MBisanz position. Leaving that aside, Fae laid some very hefty allegations of abuse at MBisanz. It was Fae that brought his 'trusted' position into it. Even if we disagree on the merits of disclosing the existence of an email in the first place, I think it should at least be affirmed that this was not an abuse of his position and that accusations of that need to be substantiated or withdrawn. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, MBisanz hit upon a sensitive issue by revealing that such an email existed, but it appears Fae had already been told to take the matter (and concerning that stance, off-wiki). MBisanz, according to policy, did nothing wrong as noted by Fae's comment and MBisanz's own response. The existence of a counter position is allowable on Wiki and such a email, if what can be inferred and stated is true, Fae had already taken a stance and MBisanz was merely citing the existence of an email in which that previous stance was most memorable. If MBisanz had chosen a diff of that stance would this matter be here? Taking piece by piece, MBisanz only has one major concern, does revealing the existence of an off-wiki e-mail violate policy? As no policy specifically says otherwise and given the nature the e-mail, did Fae have a reasonable objection to its disclosure of its existence? Maybe, but when Fae explicitly details the contents and forces MBisanz to action the matter and the resulting further spread of said email is out of MBisanz's responsibility. Without seeing the matter in context we do not know the full details and should refrain from condemning MBisanz entirely because of it, only to say that it might be best to err on the side of caution and not mention it. This is independent of a COI and the flags which said position switching details, which probably could be handled in other ways.

If anything, when someone asks that off-wiki disclosure and canvassing be transparent, wouldn't MBisanz be responding to that transparency as permission to reveal the existence of that counter stance is proper. Though such a change of heart begs the question, why? The claim of public deception of a stance is well... concerning and MBisanz may be well justified in simply acknowledging the existence of that stance, even in an email which seems to not have been private and pushed off-wiki by recommendation. (According to Fae's comments) If someone says I am against X previously and sometimes 'privately' yet says the opposite publicly is the disclosure proper for procedure and in the interest of Wikipedia as a whole? Admin's aside, one would expect that such a 'change of heart' be disclosed properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this matter in the future. There is a history of problems that I dare not look into. I prefer not to delve into the matter any further. Consider this my withdrawal from this section. The matter is too complex and beyond the scope of WQA when viewed as a whole and I am not going to bring it up. I want no part in this conflict outside of MBisanz's post. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris and Only in Death. You both seem to be assuming that MBisanz was correct in seeing a contradiction between the stance in the January Email and on wiki in April. But unless you've seen the email you can't be sure of that. If we could see the Email then we could make up our own minds whether one or other was right or whether there was some ambiguity that could lead to two people jumping to opposite conclusions. But we don't have access to that email. ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter? I think the (tentative?) consensus is:

• it would have been better if MBisanz hadn't disclosed the email existence,
• some editors think it would have been better if MBisanz hadn't disclosed the email existence, others see nothing wrong in the disclosure,
• it's not a clear violation of any policy that requires any sanctions beyond "please don't do that again"
• there's nothing about this that MBisanz's roles other than editor. Nobody Ent 23:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the first two points Ent but will bow to consensus. However I feel quite strongly that if MBisanz is being advised it was not the best to reveal the existence of the email, likewise Fae should be advised that resorting to accusations of power abuse at the drop of a hat is not acceptable without some serious evidence to back it up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's my intent here to summarize, not dictate, consensus -- I've updated the first point accordingly. (I've previously commented on Fae as a certifier of an RFC and, in the spirit of stick have chosen to recuse myself from commenting on his contributions.) Nobody Ent 11:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, didnt mean to imply you were dictating, I was referring to the comments above as a whole, I should perhaps have said in addition to your summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the first point is struck, the second which I also have issues with should be labeled with the following note. WP:EMAILABUSE covers mostly harassment, but states 'questionable' and Fae's about-face on the matter could be 'questionable' to MBisanz. As this is important information about an editors previous public stance, does the existence of a private e-mail (which Fae disclosed far more information) really cross a line? Fae's current stance is that the disclosure of off-wiki canvassing be made, shouldn't Fae have legitimate expectation that mere existence of a communication be known? Its the 'I want transparency!' claim and when someone else discloses a problematic position they choose to attack the individual responsible for its disclosure. Didn't MBisanz oblige Fae's current stance for the sake of Wikipedia? Why attack MBisanz when Ched's comments specifically state the ironic nature of the matter? Fae's previous on-wiki statements ARE known, the only thing MBisanz did was reveal the existence of the e-mail. And existence of an e-mail is exactly the what Fae wanted, perhaps not against himself, but it is what one should expect when they call for transparency on off-wiki canvassing. I really cannot fault MBisanz because nothing states 'don't do this'. It was only bad given the circumstance which occured afterwards, but still hindsight is 20/20 and the existance of such an email should probably have been avoided. It would have been best if Fae took the matter up privately with MBisanz and MBisanz quietly removing it, I believe that would have been the best recourse for Fae. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

• Philosophy in Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manwel Dimech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Demdem is consistently making changes, sometimes major ones, with articles s/he is evidently knowledgeable of. S/he arbitrarily removes information which I know to be perfectly correct, especially with the above-mentioned articles, the subjects of which I am a university lecturer.

I wrote to Demdem personally in his/her talk section. However, it seems that the person is quite decided to continue to make changes which s/he does not like, without supporting the changes with necessary evidence or by giving reasons which clearly demonstrate that s/he does not know what s/he is talking about.

This is very irksome, since I have to keep checking the articles mentioned ever so often to see what has been changed next.

I consider this to be very irresponsible of Demdem, and would like you to take the necessary actions to stop this nonsense immediately.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Katafore (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2012

All edits I have made I have explained, the more substantial edits were all preceded by my opening a thread in the talk page, allowing enough time for responses and proceeding only when there were none. Despite the impression given the edits were very constrained considering that the articles in question pose serious problems in terms of WP:ADVERT and WP:ORIGINAL.

Demdem (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Demdem. You say all your substantial edits were preceded by your opening a thread in the talk page. I have looked at Talk:Philosophy in Malta and Talk:Manwel Dimech but I see no such thread started by you. Could you provide a couple of diffs to serve as examples of where you have opened a new thread as a precursor to making a substantial edit? Dolphin (t) 08:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Manwel Dimech: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manwel_Dimech&diff=479348002&oldid=459737664

Francis Saviour Farrugia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Saviour_Farrugia&diff=482855754&oldid=459965566

Confraternity of Good Christians: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confraternity_of_Good_Christians&diff=482916004&oldid=453674233

All changes to Philosophy in Malta were consequential to changes to the main article following the changes made in the articles mentioned above. The only other edit to this article was a removal of a part which violated WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_in_Malta&diff=491126632&oldid=491059911).

Kindly note there has been no enagement ever on the substantial issues by Katafore except to call my points "ignorant", "amateurish" and "stupid" which he appears to feel entitled to do in view of his (allegedly) holding some university post and feeling more knowledgable about the rest in violation of principle that everyone is free to edit Wikipedia(WP:FIVE).

Demdem (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I see some evidence of Katafore asking Demdem not to edit articles on subjects about which his knowledge is inadequate - see example 1 and example 2. This is a sentiment often seen from new Users but, in fact, it has no basis here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are no membership requirements, no qualification exams, and no need to hold formal qualifications in anything. Consequently, if we want a User to desist from making edits on a particular subject we must find some rational grounds for requesting that. Simply telling a User that he isn't qualified or welcome to edit an article, or articles on a particular subject, is invalid. Dolphin (t) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Doing so is actually a point of WP:OWN however there is always the matter of competence. Competence being the ability to find material with a source and add it, asking anything more then that could be seen as being negative. I believe the hatchet should be buried and both of you recognize that you (plural) are both working to improve the project, how about bouncing ideas off one another and working on it together? Every page on Wikipedia is important to someone (taking the time to edit it is proof of that) and establishing that you respect one another; even if you do not share the same viewpoint; goes a long way to helping make a better article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Williamsburgland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• H. 217.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Nifelheim#Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Nifelheim#Controversy ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)

This dispute is regarding the above entry. User:H. 217.83 made this edit, doing two things: the first was to add "Were said to have said" before a statement they were quoted as having made in an interview, thus questioning it's validity, and added statements from an interview in a Fanzine. I reverted several times over a several month period before posting this on his wall last week explaining that I could not find any reference for the interview and very, very little on the Fanzine and that I did not feel it met WP: Reliability as it was a fanzine (it later came to light that the issue in question had been republished in a book by a well known publisher and this became the ref, which I felt does meet WP: Reliability). From the word go the users responses were aggressive, uncivil, laden with foul language and at no point sought any resolution other than his way. I lost my temper, an edit war ensued and we were both blocked for a 24 hour period. He sought help from at least two other editors, so I sought outside help as well, albeit the wrong way and came off as canvassing. I regret doing this without reading the rules, as well as losing my temper and edit warring (I knew this was wrong and admitted to it). I do, however, feel that the user selected other editors he has had positive interactions with to bring in on the issue, and that they sided entirely with him.

In the end I proposed a compromise on his talk page, and later on the article's talk page. This was also proposed by Jeraphine Gryphon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the users he solicited and the one that was the most active. In essence, the proposal was that material from all three sources remain, even though information from Slayer Fanzine seems to contradict what is written in the other two articles, albiet without the weasel words indicating that Blabbermouth and Sweden Rock Magazine are unreliable.

The proposal has been met with hostility on his part, and at this point I've said that I can no longer directly interact with him without losing my temper once again. I would very much appreciate it if someone could put a fresh set of eyes on this and help bring it to an amicable conclusion I would be most appreciative. Because I am appealing to an anonymous group of editors, I have no way of expecting one outcome or another, so I don't feel this is canvassing.

Thank you. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I may reply since I am the other party and some things aren’t correct in that version.

I don’t believe in the user’s good faith. The user started with accusing me of referring to “a fake statement purported to be from the band shortly after they made the initial comments which apologized for them”, and of blending “direct quotes with your own POV”. People on this project seem to forget that it is not only by calling another user an “asshole” or a “worthless moron” (as Williamsburgland did) or calling the other user’s accusations “bullshit” (as I did) that you can be uncivil, but also by accusations of being “POV-pushing” or a “genre warrior”; yet both is quite usual on this project, and I had to face both false (and, at least to me, very offensive) accusations. You may consider my reaction to be exaggerated, but you shouldn’t forget that Williamsburgland’s initial post on my talk page wasn't acceptable either.

It is also wrong that it only “later came to light that the issue in question had been republished in a book by a well known publisher and this became the ref”, which Williamsburgland, as they claim here, “felt does meet WP: Reliability”. I referred to the book on my talk page, before other users got involved, but Williamsburgland kept on denying the importance of the Slayer fanzine and went on pretending the interview I referred to was fake.

Yes, my were “aggressive, uncivil” and “laden with foul language”, but it isn’t civil to accuse me of lying and doing what they accuse me of. And the way Williamsburgland works doesn’t really motivate me to work with them, which should be understandable. I sought help from two other editors, because I knew one of them (Jeraphine Gryphon) to be able to moderate and mediate, and the other one (Dark Prime) to be interested in Black Metal, whereas Williamsburgland contacted all users that wrote on my talk page and had conflicts with me in the past. It is wrong that the users I contacted sided entirely with me, as Jeraphine Gryphon also considered my replies to be very rude and just did “what is right” (see Nifelheim talk page).

Williamsburgland did propose what they consider to be a compromise on my talk page, but I replied that I consider to to be hypocritical because of my former experience with the user (which makes me sceptical about the good faith thing), and because their version, as I understand it, implies that the material posted on Blabbermouth (claiming to refer to Sweden Rock) was true and that from Slayer wasn’t, whereas mine leaves the choice to the reader (“according to Blabbermouth, […]” version 1, “later, in Slayer”, version 2; see Nifelheim article’s history for my older version); at this point, I should add that I know Blabbermouth to have spread wrong information in the past, like when Jon Nödtveidt died (Blabbermouth referred to an Expressen article but wrongly reflected its content). So the proposal has been met with hostility because I can’t directly interact with that user either. --217/83 03:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the challenges in working this issue out, and on of the things that have been most frustrating to me, is the user above's blending and mixing of facts and statements. He opens the entry above saying I accused him of using a fake statement. While he does selectively quote the comment I left on his wall, he neglects to note that the comment was a link to an article stating that a fake apology had been sent out, and that the band wanted to clarify that they had never apologized, and that they meant everything they said and approved those statements before the issue containing their interview was published. I accused him of nothing - I said that the words he was using sounded like the statement. That's all.

In regards to the sources themselves, I can't overstate this enough - this users position seems to be that he doesn't trust blabbermouth and therefore they should not be trusted, and he hasn't seen the Sweden Rock Magazine interview, so it must not exist (ironically, my initial position on Slayer Fanzine).

Is there anyone else who can act as a mediator here and share their opinion? --Williamsburgland (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not state that “the Sweden Rock Magazine interview […] must not exist”, as you did; I just haven’t read it and don’t trust the content on Blabbermouth, though I don’t know if it is Sweden Rock’s or Blabbermouth’s fault. --217/83 09:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

H.217.83, You say you consider it to be hypocritical because of your experience with Williamsburgland, had the suggestion come from someone else would you give it more consideration? Given that Williamsburgland does appear to be attempting to seek a compromise with you, could you both perhaps put aside your previous interactions in order to go forward.

Regarding the sources, personally I would have issues with both as Slayer is a self-identified 'fanzine' and fanzines objectivity can be coloured by the closeness to their material (positively and negatively) and Blabbermouth does not appear much better, but Metal fans (I prefer Rock myself) appear to accept its reliability. And having spent the last hour taking a look on the net into Slayer, likewise. In my opinion weak sources are better than no sources. In the event it turns out either are wrong the article can be re-written accordingly. Given you both appear to be able to speak civilly, you should be able to work out a wording that incorporates all three (remember lack of access to a source is not reason by itself to reject it).

Williamsburgland, as the section stands I do share some of H.217.83's concerns with the first paragraph of the controversy section. "when members of the band made inflammatory remarks in Sweden Rock Magazine". It is too definitive given they subsequently appear to deny making them (in Slayer). Seems a bit jarring given the following paragraph. I would lean towards a rewrite of something like "in an interview in Sweden Rock Magazine, they were reported as making inflammatory remarks about deceased Metallica bassist Cliff Burton as well as deceased Dimebag Darrell." The subsequent paragraph with the Slayer reference then clearly gives the opposing interview. We (wikipedia) are still saying they were recorded/reported as making the remarks, but we are not saying they definitively DID make the remarks. It leaves it open for the reader to look at the sources and draw their own conclusion.Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you for your comment. I would probably have had a problem with the same compromise from another user, but if I hadn’t had such problems with them before, I wouldn’t have considered the compromise to be hypocritical. And if you followed the conflict you may understand it is hard to put aside my previous interactions.

It is true that fanzines “can be coloured by the closeness to their material”, but so can big commercial magazines (who may be “coloured” for commercial reasons, whereas underground media are rather more dedicated to their work and what they cover, and therefore often have better information). --217/83 09:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard but not impossible eh? Your personal opinion on them aside, Blabbermouth & Sweden Rock appear to be reliable for metal fans, as well as Slayer. And since in your response to Williamsburgland above you are not disputing the existence of the articles/interviews, they really should be in that section in the format they currently are due to the timeline. Its just the wording that concerns you? I would support a slight rewrite (as above) to the first paragraph for the reasons stated. When Williamsburgland responds we can hear his thoughts on that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it’s the wording, since Williamsburgland’s implies the Blabbermouth statements were true (which implies the band lied when interview in Slayer fanzine). You may take a look at the Nifelheim article’s history and see how I edited the article (without deleting content as Williamsburgland did). And I really am not sure about “[h]ard but not impossible”; I was sceptical but accepting when another user I had problems with proposed to “work towards having a positive working relationship”, but the conflict with Williamsburgland turned out even worse and I am therefore even more sceptical. --217/83 10:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So to start, H, are you saying that you've done nothing wrong here? That I've unequivocally been the aggressor and you the victim? From my perspective your attitude, for the first reply you made to me, to every response, edit summary and interaction has been aggressive, uncompromising and utterly rude. I've admitted my mistakes, several times. You have yet to admit any error, because as far as I can tell, you genuinely believe that you've done nothing wrong. Only in Death - I suggest you not only research our interactions, but this users interactions with other users on Wikipedia. He's generally rude to most of the people he seems to interact with, the exception here is that I lost my temper with him in a way that most users did not - again, I've admitted that. I've also made extensive efforts bring this issue to a conclusion and move on, but the user above assumes bad faith, as he did from the get go.

As far as your compromise, I think it's agreeable with one caveat - saying 'According to (abc source)' plants the idea with the reader that the source is not reliable. If we do this for SRM and/or BDN, I feel it's only fair to use the same wording with respect to Slayer. My suggestion, again, would be to simply reflect what each source reported. While H's concern seems to be that it overtly implies that the band is/was lying, I feel it allows the reader to come to their own conclusion whether the band is lying, one of the sources is lying, or if there was simply a misunderstanding. To be clear, while H feels Blabbermouth is out to get this band, he has no evidence that they made this up, and frankly, the statement made by the band doesn't explicitly say "We didn't say that". It says it bothered them, and that it was spammed out over the internet. That doesn't mean their position is it's made up, I read it as "this got out of hand."

I too appreciate your input, and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You may have admitted mistakes but you still go on depicting my edits in wrong versions and I am not sure if it is because you don’t really read what I write, because you don’t understand it (although I write quite clearly) or if you are lying to discredit me. I have been rude to you and others but you shouldn’t forget that their comments were offending and I reacted (people shouldn’t tell me about civility after putting me in that box or pretending I was “POV-pushing” although they don’t even understand my edits); every conflict has two sides, and I still don’t lose the impression we can’t deal with each other. And if you read the section with MrMoustacheMM on my talk page, you will see that the conflict ended, I calmed down, and I think I could work with them if I had to.

I have no problem with adding “According to X” to both Blabbermouth (I stated that I don't know the original Sweden Rock article) and use the same wording with respect to Slayer, if it helps solving the conflict, although I do trust Metalion’s fanzine 100 % (I told you the band released a Slayer tribute EP with Sadistik Exekution, and Metalion interviewed Nifelheim numerous times). --217/83 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well from looking at the talkpages of the article (and the user talkpages) you both seem to have blown up a bit. Since you are both being civil here, how about putting that behind you and going forward on some sort of re-write thats acceptable to both. Since they were both quoted directly in SRM and Slayer, start with saying that. I will post my suggestion on the article talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are that civil here, see above. --217/83 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well its quite civil compared to how you were both speaking to each other before. Since Williamsburgland is willing to discuss it on Nifelheim's talk page, how about taking it there and both of you try not to accuse each other of lying and POV and concentrate on the discussion of sources themselves on the article talk page. Just because someone questions the reliability of a source does not mean they are calling it false or 'lying'. I put an alternate wording up that I think addresses your issues with the first paragraph - its a starting point for a discussion there.Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

When did I put you in the genre warrior box exactly? I'm thinking you've confused me with someone else... --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn’t and I am not confusing you with someone else. This was a comment about incivility, also referring to former conflicts (you referred to these, too, don’t forget that); the “POV-pushing” part somehow applies to our conflict (although this wasn’t your wording). --217/83 05:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So basically you're attributing negative statements made by other people to me. Do you know what that's called? --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I attribute to you what came from you. The stuff that was about you and others, or about others, was about civility or other problems that I don’t have only with you. I am not surprised you don’t see the difference. By the way, I am taking a break again today or tomorrow. If you feel the need to ask for a new assistance when I am back, do so. --217/83 15:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user is making libelous statements about me. I can't work out where I report such situations. Please advise. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make requests for help in multiple places, as you've done here. Nobody Ent 11:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Glider87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Thanksgiving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This all began when Anupam was taken to ANI for plagiarism. At ANI allegations were made against Anupam for POV editing. Glider87 was canvassed to go to ANI here [9]. I weighed in at their talkpage and Glider personally attacked me with this: "Lionel I think you are operated meat puppet style by Anupam." He continued to personally attack me with false accusations at talk:Thanksgiving where he wrote "I think there is plenty of evidence that Lionel and Anupam are meats of each other." This is outrageous. I have almost 20,000 edits and have edited thousands of articles on a myriad of topics. To suggest that I cannot edit independently and need Anupam to guide my editing is insulting and ludicrous.

What is really going on here? Glider is making these false accusations in order to change the lead of Thanksgiving. Since he has no policy and no consensus to justify their changes, they're resorting to ad hominem personal attacks. Which is what happens in a content dispute when you lose the argument on the merits. Pathetic.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Correcting some mistakes from Lionelt. I was not canvassed because I asked the other editor specifically for help regarding Anupam's point of view pushing. Based on the evidence provided by others I think you and Anupam are operating meat puppet style. The way you are now trying to abuse Wikiquette is a lot like the way Anupam tries to abuse similar processes and pushes his point of view. I am making changes to the article based on WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE which restores DreamGuy's, so Lionelt is wrong to say it is without policy. Also regarding consensus, Lionelt has previously attempted to push his consensus defeated point of view in the article so he cannot really talk about consensus. Glider87 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You have evaded the specific charge brought against you by focusing on the content dispute. Differences in content are not justification for violating WP:NPA and making false accusations. It appears you have no explanation as to why WP:NPA should be waived in your case, and I will assume that you resorted to personal attacks because of deficiencies in your position.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not violating WP:NPA though because I am not making false accusations. Meanwhile you've evaded the point that your accusations of canvassing are incorrect and I think it is just another attempt to stifle my stronger legitimate opinions by hounding me on my talk page and other pages. Also do not forget that when DreamGuy, at my invitation, informed me on my talk page of the ANI, I asked him for help with Anupam's behaviour so I was involved already, you almost immediately leap to the defence of Anupam with your incorrect accusations of canvassing on my talk page. You them repeat those incorrect accusations on the ANI page. You are spreading deliberate misinformation about others to try to protect another account from sanctions. Which is meat puppet style behaviour. If you retract those false accusations on all of the pages where you make them then that would indicate you admit you made a mistake rather than post deliberate misinformation. Glider87 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There's not much evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and the policy page clearly states calling another editor a meatpuppet is derogatory. Nobody Ent 01:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "calling someone a meat puppet" I'm saying I think the evidence I've seen from others points towards to them being a meat puppet of Anupam. Certainly they appear to be pushing very similar agendas in concert. Glider87 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Karl.brown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 30 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) #Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) #Category:Unionism
• User talk:BrownHairedGirl ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs) #knock_it_off

I've been bothered by a series of continued attacks on my experience and intelligence by BrownHairedGirl in various CfD discussions. You can see some of the results above - but the latest here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism is where I think she really went too far.

Some BHG quotes from those discussions:

1. "Congratulations to Moonraker for his use a mocking tone. This is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned.
2. "I'd ask again that you stop disrupting CfD by posting this comic nonsense. I do not intend to post the necessary long explanation, because it's hard to know where to start. Googling for snippets to quote at CfD is no substitute for your lack of a wider understanding of the history."
3. "PS The nominator's rationale that the "titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation" would be hilarious if it wasn't all so time-wasting, because it reveals a fundamental ignorance of the issues involved; ethnicity is a central factor in unionism."
4. "Your continued advocacy of a POV term which is also geographically inaccurate is becoming silly"
5. "Karl appears to have been approaching the topic for the first time and splurging out the latest factoids which he has read. This is not quite a Randy in Boise situation, but it is an example of how an enthusiastic and thoroughly well-intentioned newcomer to a topic can impede consensus formation by being insufficiently versed in the historical and political complexities of the topic. Digging out a few googled references and saying *"look what the sources say!" is a thoroughly useless approach"
6. "It is not a mechanism for you to fill gaps in your education."
7. "it has become an unwieldy mess, thanks to your verbose pursuit of tangents, "

• What I did wrong?

I sometimes responded too quickly, and also made factual errors in my comments. I also admit to getting frustrated sometimes, and I also have acted at times in an uncivil manner, but I'm trying to address that from my side. I have made nominations for category changes in areas which are not my primary area of expertise, like British/Irish history, and categorization tree of Ireland. However, any claims I have made have been backed up by sources, and while of course it's possible that some of my claims were erroneous or misinformed, that is not an excuse for personal attacks. BHG has opined on a number of category discussions over the years; I find it hard to believe that she is an expert in all of those fields, and she has even opined on CfDs which are in *my* area of expertise, but I did not resort to name calling in spite of the incomplete understanding her posts showed. I'd like to request the same courtesy from her. In this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law I was frustrated and used a sarcastic tone, and for that I apologize.

• What have I done to try to fix the situation?

As you can see from the discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism, I asked her several times to stop the personal attacks, but she continued to belittle me. I also asked her to stop the personal attacks on her talk page, but she refused to apologize, and closed the conversation: User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#knock_it_off

• What I want?

BHG is an experienced admin, with (perhaps) deep knowledge in certain subject areas which also interest me. But, frankly she has a sharp tongue, and I've already seen other editors chide her for this [10]. I'd like her to cease making personal attacks, i.e. describing other editors or their actions as silly, childish, ignorant, foolish, useless, etc. I will agree to not use such uncivil language in my interactions with her and others, and will ease up on long responses to CfD while awaiting inputs from others. --KarlB (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for BrownHairedGirl to respond before attempting to resolve this matter. I've read the three threads and have a couple of questions to ask you, KarlB. Have you had prior contact with BrownHairedGirl outside of CfD? You admit to having made factual inaccuracies. While the thread shows BrownHairedGirl's condemnation for your proposals they are surprising. By 'long history' this seems to show that the matter has gone on for an extended period of time. How long have you been a part of CfD? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No prior contact that I recall. Not really a long history either - there are three contentious nominations that I recall, I think I first met her on the Category:Hospitals in Ireland category discussion. Have been on CfD about 1 month, but stalking on wikipedia for a lot longer. As for factual inaccuracies, I certainly have not made errors on purpose however, but of course I may have said things that turn out to be incorrect or poorly understood on my part, but I think that applies to all of us... --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

CfD and other areas which you have participated in tend to be areas where cautiously treading is the best option. Judging from your talk page I think the best matter would be to watch CfD for awhile and gather consensus before moving or repopulating a category; it is an area of Wikipedia in which is unlike other areas simply because the ability to damage is far greater then other sections. Certain areas of Wikipedia, chiefly categorization, certain matters of being bold are held to different levels of 'oops' then others. Sadly even I got to hear about the Anthony Zuzzio afd simply because these are newbie errors and are typically the most serious of proposals next to categorization. Quite frankly, a mistake there means a lot more then a typo, an awkward edit or other typical edits. It is best to be cautious and not rock the boat. BHG was being uncivil, but given your recent edits and mistakes she should have responded more like Yasht101. The area of Wikipedia you are most active in is a touchy area where mistakes and ignorance of policies and procedures receive more negative attention because of their environment, while it is not an excuse, I believe BHG was rising to the incivility because of frustration. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I know I made a mistake by de-populating the hospitals in Ireland category, but what I was really doing was just diffusing to subcats; my error was unlinking the two top-level cats, which I professed in the CfD nom in any case. But I take your points about being cautious, and appreciate the advice. I do note that I have made a number of CfD nominations which have been accepted, and relatively uncontroversial. In reviewing my history of CfDs with BHG, the main ones where she seems to start sniping are those having to do with Ireland/UK; in many other conversations our interactions have been cordial and professional.--KarlB (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"But, frankly she has a sharp tongue"

Agreed. I've had a dose of that myself, where my only interaction (AFAIR) was at the many Old Harrovians CfDs. Any disagreement with her seems to be seen as a bad-faith attempt at WP:POINT. I found this particularly galling as I still regard her salami-slicing attempt to rename a vast number of related cats for the same re ason, but sneaking them in small batches and leaving the contentious ones until last, as a pretty blatant attempt at gaming the system on her part. Still, she's an admin and thus Infallible and not to be questioned. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

so far, no response from BrownHairedGirl. Hmm. Any suggestions? --KarlB (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply; this has been a busy time in real life. I don't think that I have much to add to what ChrisGualtieri wrote. The problem which KarlB drew attention to was that he was making CfD nominations which had a wide-ranging effect on topics sbout which he demonstrably had little knowledge, and which would have had wider consequences. That can easily happen -- it's easy to stray into an area which turns out to be more complex than first thought -- but unfortunately Karl has on several occasions persisted in disruptively pushing a point.

An example is the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 11#Category:Hospitals_in_Ireland. Karl started by nominating the category for deletion, having improperly depopulated it, and apparently without checking the structure of categories relating to Ireland (which largely work on the basis of all-Ireland categories conta9ining RoI and NI subcats). This was a simple case of a category needing diffusion, which Karl did, but instead of leaving at that he proceeded to try to find all sorts of weird arguments to justify his original error. The result was a long rambling discussion, in which inter alia Karl failed to distinguish between lacunae in the implementation of a category structure (of which there were plenty) and conceptual flaws in its design. Pushing a point on that sort of basis leads to tensions in discussion.

As to the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Category:Unionism, that was the next case where ventured into a complex historical topic relating to an area which has been the subject of long-term Arbcom sanctions ... and instead of seeking the expertise of editors in the relevant wikiprojects he proceeded to post at length based on snippets found in some quick googling. That is disruptive, and it is unsurprising that it frustrates other editors.

Karl's third round of this was at Cfd April 30 Category:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism, where I noted that "this is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned. Everyone has different areas of expertise and knowledge, but it is disruptive for an editor to repeatedly pursue proposals which display such fundamental flaws". That discussion continued, with far too many examples of Karl's silliness to list here, but even when he tried focusing on simple specifics it was little better: e.g. in this comment he cited an example of somewone who he said was born in Ireland, but who was shown in the article to which Karl had linked to have been actually born in England.

Karl's concern seems to be that having repeatedly dug verbose holes for himself, he has found himself defending untenable positions which are derided. Unfortunately, he is then confusing the derision of his arguments with personal attacks, which are a different matter. The best solution to Karl's concerns would be for him to try working more collegially by seeking discussion with editors who have expertise in these areas, rather than taking a stand and scratching around for snippet arguments to support a flawed position. The point of an XfD discussion is to reach a consensus, not to hurl snippets to try to bolster a misconceived position, and I hope that Karl will reflect on how his approach has not been successful.

As to Andy Dingley's comment, his meta-complaint seems to be that I was procedurally sneaky. What happened there is actually very simple: discussions on Old Fooian categories had for years produced no consensus outcomes (most notably at a huge group nominatoion at CfD 2011 February 10, until a new "People educated at" format was adopted for the similar categories named "Former pupils", "Former students". After that, several CfDs (to which I was initially not a party) then renamed some of the Old Fooian categories. So I nominated some more of the particularly silly named-categories, and proceeded to nominate other problematic categories to find out where the limit of consensus was. It turned out that there was consensus to rename nearly all of the categories, at which point Andy made a blatantly WP:POINTy nomination to rename Category:Old Etonians. If Andy doesn't likes his actions being described as pointy, then it's besyt not to make WP:POINTYy nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little disappointed at the above reply. To me it shows that even bringing an issue to Wikiquette assistance has not changed the attitude of BHG. While I admitted things I did right and wrong, BHG shows zero remorse for her uncivil behavior; for example, attacking me above because of a minor factual error (which I corrected immediately). BHG's POV that my positions are misconceived is not borne out by the evidence; the bulk of CfDs I have proposed have passed, and even the famous Hospitals in Ireland had editors who agreed with my logic, including long-time editor John Pack Lambert. Long-time editor RA stated elsewhere, in contradiction to BHGs claims about the supposed consensus on Ireland category trees, that "Making a strict tree may lead to artificiality, where there would be empty "Foo in Ireland" categories except for two subcategories full subcategories. That should never happen." Additional nominations by JPL also led several people to question the utility of empty container (Foo in Ireland) categories, and a broader discussion about that approach in general has been started. All this to say, BHG has strong opinions about how things should be structured, but she is not dealing in facts, and when we differ in opinions, I simply request that she treat my (and other's) opinions in a civil fashion. She did not do so, and even the presence of this request for assistance does not seem to have changed her mind or led to any contrition on her part. Thus, assistance is still requested and appreciated from neutral editors. --KarlB (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I simply request that when proposing major changes to complex and controversial topics with which he is unfamiliar, KB tries to learn from other editors rather than taking a simplistic position and defending it at verbose length with a barrage of Google snippets. KB's claim that I am "not dealing in facts" is part of the problem: he seems to think that a barrage of selected factoids is to way to address wide and complex issues, and the result is huge long discussions which go round in circles.

In respect of the Ireland categories, I proposed at the outset that the CFD be closed pending a wider discussion, but instead KB continued to argue a series of contradictory points which oscillated between the specific and the general, before announcing that would or lack of will to fight, I hereby withdraw this nomination. That's the nub of problem here: KB perceive CFD as a fight, rather than as a mechanism to seek a consensus solution. I am disappointed to see that this discussion does not seem to have changed KB's mind or led to any contrition on his part. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

BHG apparently believes that the following are "major changes to complex and controversial topics"

1. proposing to delete a single category, which served as an Isle-of-Ireland-wide container category for information about hospitals in Ireland. This is in spite of the fact that there are today likely hundreds of categories in Category:Republic of Ireland that do not have an Ireland-wide container category, and as of yet, the sky has not fallen. So, while consensus wasn't there for the change, if the category had indeed been deleted, it would likely have been missed by no-one. I even provided her with a list of some such categories, but she has yet to fix them.
2. proposing to rename a single category with a generic name of "Unionism", whose hatnote has said, since ~2006: "Articles and sub-categories relating to Unionism in the British Isles". My proposed rename was "Unionism (British Isles)". Seems logical enough, right? This same formulation was seen as viable by at least 4 other editors; and in spite of BHGs disdain for outside sources I provided evidence that several published books used the same formulation (British Isles) to describe unionism in Britain and Ireland. In any case, from this nom it was clear that BHG doesn't like the word 'British Isles' and believes that any use of it in wikipedia is POV. The consensus rename result, British Unionism, was not liked by a number of other editors; some feel for example that unionists from Ireland should not be contained within; indeed BHG has argued at length elsewhere that the word British should never be used to describe anything that has to do with Ireland. In any case, this was a simple category rename, not the dramatic fight BHG played it out to be.
3. proposing to delete categories Irish unionism and Scottish unionism; these categories, far from being part of some complex category hierarchy, had been only created the day before, after the rename to Category:British unionism - the reason i proposed deleting them was it was non-sensical to have "British unionism" which purportedly referred to unionism *with* Britain/UK, with subcats of "Irish unionism" which by the same token could possibly refer to unionism *with* Ireland; I proposed a separate discussion, but in any case the categories are likely to end up renamed, which was my second preference.
   

It seems that when google is on her side, BHG uses it profusely (see CfDs on "old etonians"), and is not averse to looking up sources to prove a point (recent quote from BHG on another CfD: "but of course what matters here is not your judgement or mine, but the evidence of usage in reliable sources. I have offered empirical evidence of usage in reliable sources, and if you have some contrary evidence then please present it for scrutiny rather than simply making vague assertions.") However, when an editor uses outside sources that go against her POV, she claims it is a "barrage of Google snippets".

In short, BHG, far from seeing these discussions as a place to build consensus, seems to see them as a fighting ground to push her own POV on various issues, especially when it comes to Ireland. Her personal attacks on me highlight the extent to which she does not see CfD as "a mechanism to seek a consensus solution", but instead as a place to attack other editors. Perhaps BHG has forgotten WP:NPA, which is a policy that should be followed by all, and should be exemplified by admins. Every day, I (and many others) fight against vandals and malicious editors making terrible POV/unsourced/bogus edits to wikipedia; however, I try hard to not sink to the level of calling these editors childish, idiot, stupid, silly, ignorant, etc. Sadly, BHG has fallen short of this ideal; BHG instead attacks editors who use outside sources to bolster their arguments. I hope that through this process, BHG can get some peer feedback from other admins that will help correct her behavior which is unbecoming of an admin here.--KarlB (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Karl is at it again :(

1. The pattern of an all-Ireland category containing ROI and NI subcats is indeed not 100% complete. However, it is widespread, and is the general pattern. The fact remains that Karl was trying to remove one such category without considering the tresaons for the wider structure.
2. Applying simplistic "logic" to the political history of Britain and Ireland is one of the things which ensured that the conflict between he two islands lasted for 800 years. There are many different forms of logic which can applied to many different competing principles, and a neutral POV is achieved by trying to balance those positions rather than proclaiming one approach as "logical". A large part of that discussion was taken up with Karl proclaiming his logical reasons for supporting one position, despite a complete lack of support for that simplistic view.
3. The two categories created on Unionism in Ireland and Unionism in Scotland both have long-standing encyclopedic head articles.

As to the use of Google, please understand the distinction between the use of numerical data to compare usage (as with the "Old Etonians" etc), and the plucking out of one or two references found in a google search. The use of search engine numerics is specifically advised in WP:COMMONNAME, but plucking out individual mentions as evidence of usage is a whole different ballgame.

I do not "attack editors who use outside sources to bolster their arguments", as you falsely claim. But I do criticise editors who cherrypick individual sources on broad topics to say in effect "look, sources support this usage!!". In relation to the political history of Britain and Ireland, reliable sources can be found to support just about any usage or POV, and a more sophisticated approach is needed than taking one or two references and waving them around.

Finally, your allegation that I show "disdain for outside sources" is a blatant personal attack, and a grotesque distortion of my repeated argument against misuse of sources (contrary to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV). Since your complaint was about wikiquette, and you are reducing to wilful misrepresentation of my views, I will take no further part in this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the disdain comment, it was not intended as an attack, just as a reflection on the screenfulls of text above where she critiqued my use of outside sources. A few quotes from BHG may be useful to understand why I saw her comments as "attacks on editors who use outside sources":

• ""based on snippets found in some quick googling. That is disruptive, and it is unsurprising that it frustrates other editors."
• "with far too many examples of Karl's silliness to list here"
• "he seems to think that a barrage of selected factoids is to way to address wide and complex issues"
• "But I do criticise editors who cherrypick individual sources on broad topics to say in effect "look, sources support this usage!!". In relation to the political history of Britain and Ireland, reliable sources can be found to support just about any usage or POV, and a more sophisticated approach is needed than taking one or two references and waving them around.""

Unfortunately, BHG seems to feel that her own knowledge is sufficient to win an argument, and didn't deign in the CfD discussions linked above to provide any outside sources for her claims. She didn't even feel it was worth her while to challenge the sources I provided on their own merits; these included a number of books, written by respected historians, which used language similar to what I had proposed for the category rename. The only explanation I can think of is that her disapproval of the term "British isles" has blinded her to a cold analysis of facts, and instead of having a reasoned discussion about sources, she seems to wave her hand and just claim it is all silliness or disruptive. It is too bad that she didn't feel it was worth her while to provide any sources of her own, perhaps she deems her WP:OR sufficient?

In any case, the net result of this Wikiquette assistance remains unfinished, and in spite of her decision to no longer participate here, I would still welcome further input from other editors. In all of her responses above, she has attacked me, the nominations I made at CfD, the outside sources I provided, my general level of intelligence and knowledge. She has never once acknowledged that her comments were uncivil, and has never deigned to apologize for them.

I think the principle here is important. BHG is an admin, who has previously been called to task for aggressive behavior towards other editors: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Administrator_BrownHairedGirl.27s_badgering_of_User:Boleyn. She is welcome to disagree with the arguments put forward by other editors, but she should do so in a civil fashion, and I think there is ample evidence provided that she has not done so. Just because someone puts forward a source that you disagree with, or makes an argument that you aren't able to make sense of, does not give an excuse to call that person childish, silly, ignorant, or other such terms. --KarlB (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

KarlB and BHG would be better off reflecting on how they could each alter their own behavior to reduce tension and conflict moving forward rather than reflecting on the shortcomings of the other editor. I'm seeing less than ideal snippiness from both parties but nothing that rises to the level requiring intervention warnings or redactions. I encourage both editors to scrupulously comment on the content, not the contributor in the future. Nobody Ent 01:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have endeavored to do that, and have already admitted above that I did not always meet that standard, and have already apologized. I am a bit disheartened that an experienced admin like BHG seems unable to admit any error on her part. I would not have brought this matter to wikiquette if I did not believe there was a pattern of behavior on her part in need of some 3rd party advice, so I do hope she will also take your advice to heart.--KarlB (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

KarlB protests too much. This thread was archived once through lack of interest and should have remained thus. Oculi (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your comment. The discussion was archived because we were awaiting a response by bhg, who was presumably busy off-wiki for about a week. Now that she has said her peace, we can continue the discussion about whether she was uncivil, and whether such uncivility, esp by an admin, is acceptable. Im not going to bother u with additional links showing complaints against bhg, but any search of the admin board will reveal that this isnt the first time bhg has been accused of this sort of behavior. I was hoping for a simple resolution, and commitment on both our parts to endeavor to change some behaviors. I have already committed to same, but bhg has remained innocent (in her eyes). KarlB (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, previous accusations against 'this sort of behavior' are largely irrelevant to this particular noticeboard. As to the 7 examples you cite at the top of this thread entitled 'advice on personal attacks', with the exception of #3 and #6 (which is less than ideal), the other 5 examples seem to be rather understandable expressions of frustration with some of your less (or if at all) helpful contributions in the area. I don't see any reason why bhg should comment further, or why this thread should not be archived. You seem to lack perspective with respect to the concerns bhg is raising regarding those contributions, and I'm not convinced you have really reflected on those at all. However, even that would not warrant unarchiving this thread. If you do unarchive this thread again, I expect you will be sanctioned for it, so please avoid prolonging this any further as it is counter-productive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

but the fact that bhg has not accepted any wrongdoing on her part is not a problem? I have reflected and will change my behavior, the question is, will bhg? Previous complaints are relevant precisely because of that. If this closes, and she continues to make personal attacks, what course of action would you suggest? Or are personal attacks acceptable here if the editor is really frustrated? It sounds like thats what youre saying. For example, are there cases where one can call another editor childish or ignorant, and if so, can you point me to the relevant section of policy that outlines those? If there is a time and place for such snippy language, id like to know the boudaries, as there are certainly cases when it would come in handy. Bhg has given input to other cfds which have frustrated me greatly, because her contributions demonstrated her complete lack of knowledge of a field. Would it thus be ok if i just called her ignorant in future threads, and if she provides sources to back up her point, tell her its a complex field and references cant be used todefend her childish case?Just trying to figure out all the takeaways here, happy to let it close then.KarlB (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Unfortunately the clear black and white assistance you seek simply does not exist. What is acceptable and what will result in sanctions isn't deterministic. The best I can suggest is the more civil you make your own behavior the less likely you'll get untoward responses. At this point it's best to let it go. Nobody Ent 13:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

BHG is honoured as an Admin. Nonetheless, BHG has years of form and has been reported here several times before. For example here and times before that. Her tendentious, verbose and argumentative Wiki-lawyering, hair-splitting and hectoring typically goes unreported, for a recent example see: here. I fear there is only one way and that is BHG's way. Her badgering and dogma has all but driven me away from participating in forums such as CfD, and I others have also left. Is there any wonder that participation is poor? From her example I now realise that aggression is how to establish your own "consensus". (I don't know why I bother to contribute to this as I expect that there will be no censure from Wikiquette, as usual.) Ephebi (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ephebi - thanks for the comments. I appreciate the support. And for Nobody Ent - thanks for the reference to that Arbitration case. As you might expect, I'm not planning on taking this particular story any further than Wikiquette assistance, and having read the rules of this forum, I am not interested in sanctions or anything else for BHG. All I really want is a) a recognition on her part that she crossed the line and b) a committment on her part to use more civil discourse in the future; as mentioned above, I have already committed to the same, and I have already admitted areas where I made mistakes.

Also, you quoted one section from that case. You say there is no bright line, but I would beg to differ, at least in terms of what the expectations are (which is different than what action the community might take for a violation). For example, wikipedia policy states cleary: "It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

Etiquette

2) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrators

7) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and expected to lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise), or particularly egregious behaviour, may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, there are no accusations that BHG has abused her admin tools or powers in this particular case. But she is an extremely experienced editor, having been involved in countless-wiki battles, and knows how to attack, referencing wikipedia policies as appropriate, and perhaps skirting the line. You can see this in her comment above "Unfortunately, he is then confusing the derision of his arguments with personal attacks, which are a different matter." Apparently, calling someone ignorant, or childish, or silly, or congratulating another editor for mocking me, is a "derision" of my arguments, and not a personal attack. If so, that's a very fine line, and she apparently knows how to walk it rather carefully. At the end of the day, BHG has 200k edits, I only have about 4k, so I don't know my way around this incredibly complex community as well as she does, and I don't know where the line is or how to avoid crossing it. But I came here for assistance, and I'm not sure if I've come away much wiser, except perhaps to learn that certain forms of abuse are tolerated here, especially if an admins is "frustrated", and newbie editors like myself should best learn to put up with it...--KarlB (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If I could magically fix the civility issues of Wikipedia I would but I can't. There's definitely a large WP:Gray Area that I agree some of BHG's post fall into. ( I've previously written this description.) The best I can tell you is that what I've found works best is just totally ignoring off-topic personal junk flung my way and staying scrupulously focused on content & policy. Nobody Ent 01:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks. Sending a friendly "quack quack" your way...--KarlB (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I'm afraid that after years of exposure to CfDs shows that civil behaviour goes in cycles with BHG, and is simply triggered by having a different opinion. Its an interesting question you raise about WP:Gray Area - just how far must you stray from the 5 Pillars before you become a jerk vandal? FYI I stumbled across a link to BHG's personal battleplan recording 86 individual submissions to CfD on a subject where there had been no clear consensus. This backs up the salami-slicing accusation. Then this scheming and canvassing where she loaded these cases before bringing them to CfD - after the project & page editors had thought the issue settled, with little or no notification. (Proving Andy Dingley's concerns about deviousness.) It shows a remarkable tenacity and dedication, combined with a lack of respect for other editors and the WP process. Not a good example to follow from an Admin. Although she is comfortable to circumvent normal WP process she is quick to cry foul!, often seeing her own infractions in others. Maybe time for a wikibreak... Ephebi (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WQA generally isn't very effective with long term lower level civility issues. If ya'll are sufficiently motivated you could try starting an WP:RFC/U.Nobody Ent 12:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with others above that BHG's behaviour in discussions has been disrespectful towards editors who dare to disagree with her. Several times she has misrepresented my comments in subsequent discussions and has used unnecessary derogatory language. As regards Old Fooian discussions, BHG was only part of the conspiracy, although she was a significant factor. The behaviour of closing admins in those discussions was very disappointing as they clearly had fixed views on the matter and ignored any opposing arguments. Cjc13 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

• Pogrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After a month of discussion at Pogrom, I have come to this forum after [11] and [12] these two diffs.

A great deal of improvement was reverted, not because of the content or substance, but because of a loss of WP:AGF and the resultant aggressive accusations.

These accusations took the form of accusations as to the "motive" for my edits ("one shouldn't edit purely to add the phrase "antisemitic" or exclude certain events" and "This is manufactured controversy, intended not to enlighten as to the term's meaning, but rather to undermine the entire concept of a pogrom") and spurious attempts to tarnish my research ("Cherry picking sources found through searching Google books for specific terms is not an appropriate way to find material.") Every single one of these accusations is unfounded - it seems to me to be an aggressive attempt to undermine my credibility. The problem is that the editor knows the wikiquette guidelines very well - he is an experienced editor, with his own templates User:Jayjg/NPA and User:Jayjg/NPA2 to warn other editors of the same.

We have been discussing for a month now at Talk:Pogrom/Archive_2 and Talk:Pogrom, and progress has been very slow - I have been keen not to rush things because Jayjg's sensitivity is clear. But now things seem to have broken down completely - I don't know where to go from here. Without trust and mutual respect it is very difficult to make progress. Any third party help to diffuse the situation would be gratefully received.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing much more of a content dispute than civility issues -- suggest opening an WP:RFC or trying the WP:DRN board. Nobody Ent 08:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I really need your help on the civility side. I just don't think it is appropriate for an experienced editor to be making such attacks. It has created a very difficult environment for discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your best option to curb you own behavior -- comments like OK, let's do this slowly. We can take as much time as you need. are just not going to lead to productive discussion. Nobody Ent 12:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the two diffs given in the OP and also the talk page and archive linked. While I can appreciate the frustration on both sides (caused pretty much equally, I'm not apportioning responsibility here) I see no personal attacks and no breach of Wikiquette anywhere. Plenty of mindnumbing splitting of hairs, refusal to AGF and non-collaboration from you both, but no attacks. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand if you don't have time to review more closely. But I have tried to be so patient, discussing the continued reversion of my good faith edits for over a month. I really have tried so hard to do the right thing, and I am begging for guidance. Balanced criticism is fine, but I was really disappointed with Nobody Ent's comment above.

The editor in question made three very aggressive suggestions about my motives - none of which are true and all of which serve to undermine my credibility. Please could you explain why that is ok, and if so should I start making equivalent accusations about his motives? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've reviewed the history of both of your contributions very closely. I accept that you personally find some of Jayjg's comments aggressive and undermining. The point of coming to a noticeboard like this one is to see whether your own views of people's edits are shared by other editors. In this case they are not. It isn't that I think aggression and undermining is OK; I don't. Where I disagree with you is that Jayg's comments were beyond the limit of normal argument here and strayed into personal attack or a similar breach of Wikiquette. You think they did; I do not.

You ask what you should do; if it's OK to attack other people, should you reciprocate? I think you can guess the answer to that which is 'no'. If you think you have been treated badly, don't undermine your own case by resorting to the other person's tactics. Strengthen your case by redoubling your efforts to be courteous and collegial. You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, I appreciate your thoughtful and clear response, which seems fair to me.  I also accept your interpretation of what is "beyond the limit of normal argument", even if I have a different threshold which I try to hold myself to. I guess what you're saying is that this board is for much more flagrant breaches than this.

Just to clarify one last point then - are you saying that breaches of WP:AGF are not "beyond the limit of normal argument" and do not represent a "similar breach of Wikiquette"? If nothing else, surely there can be no uncertainty that the comments i highlighted above were flagrant breaches of WP:AGF. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm saying that if every breach of WP:AGF that occurs on Wikipedia were brought here this board would be jammed solid. My own view would be that yes indeed, this board is really for resolving the most egregious and extreme breaches of Wikiquette. What you have experienced was obviously not pleasant for you, but falls broadly within the expected rough and tumble of editing here. Other editors may disagree and if they do, I'm sure they'll pipe up here but for now I'll call a halt here and leave my contributions at that. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Kim. On a related topic, I just read the thread above re BrownHairedGirl. Some interesting parallels there related to a number of other criticisms against an experienced-and-aggressive editor that I also could have brought here, and some thought-provoking insights from NobodyEnt.

Can I suggest that it might be worth adding another clarification at the top of this board that this forum is really only for the most offensive breaches of wikiquette? Otherwise relative newbies like me and KarlB will continue to waste our and your time criticising experienced editors and getting nowhere. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The forum is to assist anyone who wishes it -- sometimes the assistance comes in getting other editors to change their interaction modes, other times it's just explaining the unfortunate limitations of Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is in connection with the discussion at [13]. The above user has three times referred to the arguments of the opposition as "BS" and has referred to the other users as "idiots". He also seems to think that any discussion regarding his proposals for deletion must revolve around the standards he sets and that any arguments against the deletion which are not based on his criteria are not valid. He has several times stated that the opposition has not proved that WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply and consequently there is no opposition to his proposal. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of procedural notes. First, you should have opened a topic about 168's conduct on their Talk page before coming here. My guess is it wouldn't have gone anywhere, but you can't foreclose the possibility that you can work things out. Second, you should have notified them of this discussion (I've done so for you).

As for the substance, I agree with you. 168's conduct has been combative (somewhat ironic considering the cats being disscussed) and disrespectful. Other editors besides you have commented on it at the deletion discussion and on 168's Talk page. However, a couple of things worth noting. First, deletion discussions are often contentious. Unfortunately, some seem to think that the usual civility guidelines don't apply. Second, I think 168's conduct is actually hurting their objective (to delete the cats) more than it is helping. 168's stridency - in addition to the unwarranted BS comments - is undermining their credibility on the issues. That, of course, doesn't excuse their conduct, but it may help to know that indirectly they are being "punished" for misbehaving.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't leave a notice myself (first time I have tried doing this). 168 seemed to be overly argumentative concerning the deletion discussion and also seemed to violate Wikipedia:Civility, so that is why I brought it up here. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it's sometimes hard to follow all the guidelines and instructions here. I agree on both counts, although being argumentative is not uncommon at deletion discussions and not even inappropriate. However, the disrespectful comments are inappropriate and, to some extent, enhanced by the belligerent style surrounding them. Hopefully, 168 will comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"Rubbish" is actually refering to what I said before. Please see this incivil edit summaryPenom (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference this was originaly filed here. The OP moved it here per the admins closing note.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the section link. Sorry.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on content is generally not considered incivil. Nobody Ent 19:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

We are having a content dispute. It is addressed here[14] and I brought it to a talk page for a discussion.[15] Rather than reply on my talk page to his posts, he has replied back at my talk page even though I have asked him repeatedly not to. Here[16], here[17], here[18], here[19] and here[20]. And my requests here[21], here[22], and here[23]. This is harassment and I want it stopped....William 17:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling another editor's edit vandalism is inappropriate. If William doesn't want Lugnuts posting on his talk page he shouldn't be posting on Lugnuts. Best to take the discussion to the article talk page. Nobody Ent 02:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tempac3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• MfD discussion

An attempt to delete my userspace pages.

Probably a personal issue - the ticket was filled on false grounds: 1) - I have edited Wikipedia outside of my userspace (as Tempac3, not as an IP) and 2) - both pages have been edited recently. Furthermore, I have left a message along an IP edit by me that I can confirm that is my account if requested [24].

He must have been looking for an opportunity to get back at me because I called him an asshole a while back [25] (I was a new member then and was supported by an admin and a long-standing member).

I'd like to notify the board in case such incidents occur in the future with this admin, and also, if he vandalizes my userspace again - be blocked from my userspace altogether.

PS: Another user has jumped in to support the false ticket - take a note of that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempac3 (talk • contribs)

• Ahem. OK, "false ticket"? The account hadn't edited since 8 August 2011. The "message" is this, I suppose--well, I guess I don't understand why I should have requested the IP to sign in and confirm (which strictly speaking probably isn't "evidence"), or why the account didn't sign in in the first place. The "vandalism" accusation is of course ridiculous.

  As for the forum: this almost suggests that the user is filing this to report themselves for calling me an asshole; I'll have a look at the diff, but given my advanced age combined with the number of edits I make (and insults I receive) I think I should be excused for having forgotten that they insulted me. Hold on: ... Drmies (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah yes: my congratulations to Tempac3 for his excellent memory! That was a silly discussion and you'll note that I didn't make anything of it. If I wanted to retaliate I wouldn't have waited seven months. BTW, I don't think I'm out of line with this edit. Well, I'm glad that's cleared up. As far as I am concerned, this being the etiquette board, I forgive the user for having called me an asshole; I'll put it down to their youthful exuberance and possibly the mistaken thought that WP is a webhost. I won't even press charges for being called "some asshole"; I like to think that I'm a more unique kind of asshole. I also think that the user should acquaint himself with various Wikipedia guidelines. Finally, I was then, and am now, not entirely happy with User:Ezhiki's handling of the affair, though I thought it was best to let the matter rest. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Should we invite Ezhiki to the conversation to discuss his handling of this issue? Nobody Ent 14:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not on my account, no. I don't agree with what they said but I don't care that much--I disagree with the notion that good faith needs to be extended automatically to such edits in a registered user space, but that's just a difference in opinion and it wasn't much of an issue to begin with. I don't understand why Ezhiki told me to cool down or why they didn't comment on "some asshole" until I did, but soit. If someone who walks by decides that I did not act out of retaliation (which IMO is the most obvious thing in the world) they can close this spurious complaint. If someone decides that I did act out of retaliation they should prove, one way or another, that I carried a grudge for seven months and then acted on it. BTW, I have no recollection of interacting with Tempac3 or with Ezhiki outside of this odd spat. Also, feel free to weigh in on the MfD: it's clear now, I guess, that the IP is Tempac3 and that the draft is not stale, though I can't figure out what those drafts might be for. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nick Thorne has already tagged the request NWQA which is the WQA equivalent of a close tag. Nobody Ent 14:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press freedom and the Occupy movement (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press freedom and the Occupy movement|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the discussion on this AfD one editor has invoked Wikquette, seemingly in an attempt to shut down someone who disagrees with his view [that would be me]. I've answered his comments but I don't want to go too far and be uncivil myself. Could someone else take a look. Thanks. Borock (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ignore it. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That's probably the best advice. :-) -Borock (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You did nothing wrong. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arcandam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I guess our respective talk pages, better explained below.

User:Arcandam keeps harrassing my talk page with warnings misconstruing every edit I make. He's done it a couple of times before (history). I think it started with this warning template I used to him after he made unexplained, unconstructive changes to the article that we were discussing. We've been in discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip pop, where he responded to the previous with "editsummaries suck", and he's been pretty hostile to me there. I've tried to make nice and be humble at his talk page and the discussion page, so the discussion is about the content and not our character, but he's responded with accusations, calling me ignorant about the topic of the articles I edit, and does not assume good faith because I disagree with him on certain content. I'm clearly on his bad side. One of his main accusations is that I canvassed, b/c I asked editors of music-related articles to comment on a music-related discussion, and I primarily edit those kind of articles. He uses this to undermine any logical argument I make. Both at his talk page and the discussion page, he's threatened to follow the edits I make, so isnt that sort of uncivil or wrong? He is not considering anything I say, so I'm done trying his talk page. Can you please help? He seems to respond better to others who havent debated him yet. Dan56 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. As I've told you before, there is a log of every edit we've made. And boomerang's hurt. But since I agree you are at the right page here, you do need some Wikiquette assistance, here we go:

We've met because I dared to change the genre "hip hop" to the subgenre "hip pop" (which is also known as "pop rap") on Kanye West. If I would've known what a minefield full of WP:GENREWARRIORS the genre-line in infoboxes is I would've never bothered specifying the correct genre. You disagreed with my edit, and reverted with the editsummary: "Rv; dubious changes". So I added a reliable source as a reference and I posted a message on your talkpage. I am not a native speaker, so it takes more edits for me to post a message that is comprehensible and free of typo's than for some other editors. You deleted my message on your talkpage without even responding to it with the editsummary: "Rm, dubious post (took 5 edits?)". Then you stalked me to hip pop (a genre you previously weren't even aware existed), and nominated hip pop and Indie hip hop out of revenge because you think I prefer Indie hip hop.

A couple of Dan56 quotes from our conversations:

• Rv; this isn't the forum for that. Options are delete or keep. (editsummary used while deleting my comment from the AfD discussion)
• Wait, but what would a foreigner know about American music anyway.
• It is quite obvious you're losing your mind. Nota bene: When another editor said "there's no need for this" he responded with "Well he must be."
• Let's agree to disagree on that article, but don't question my knowledge on any music, let alone hip hop.
• You can learn something from me about hip hop.
• Not only I am involved in my local scene in New York, I took a class on hip hop in college and know plenty from using GoogleBooks to research hip hop history and culture.
• R U being a sore loser?
• I've written and edited plenty of hip hop articles on WP, so please don't question my judgement here.
• He has added the header "diversion" above my comments.
• When deleting user warning templates he likes to use the phrase "takin(sic) out the trash" (Apparently this is what he considers to be "nice and be humble"...)

This is not limited to me, some recent Dan56 quotes about other people:

• Can you help knock some sense into him?
• And who are you to call me a control freak?

Dan56 may think he is an expert on hip hop but he wrote: "There's no name for it, like there's not "hip pop", or "pop rap". It's not a legit/accepted term.". I showed him some of the many sources. To make the Randy in Boise situation with Dan56 & Secret clear I even posted a list of some quotes from hip hop songs about pop rap/hip pop, e.g. this one. I showed the fact the terms are frequently in use 123456, 8000 potential sources on Google Books alone, if I search for "hippop" on Google (including quotes!) I get about half a million results. If I search for "hip pop" I get well over 4 million. If I search for "pop rap" I get 5 1/4th million and if I search for "poprap" I get 80k more.. AllMusic has an article about it. If he was an expert on hiphop he would've been aware of the existence of this subgenre.

I asked him if he had read WP:CANVASS (at that point his latest edit was this request for support in an AfD) and he said he had on 20 May at 03:44. Since then he has made these edits (among others): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A selection of his edits from between 19 May 2012 02:24 and 20 May at 03:42 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Two editors agree his choice of audience was "questionable" because it consists of inactive users who may disagree and people he knows and likes. (because they have a similar interest)

He even removed some of the requests for support because he felt they were not needed anymore (which prevented the risk that those editors disagreed with him). 1 2.

Some more canvassing. He even canvassed for this very WQA.

Dan56 is one of those intentionally annoying people who give you a nickname and use it even after you repeatedly ask him not to. In my case he tried to troll by using 'bro'. I told him I am not his 'bro' and asked him to stop a number of times but he continued. It backfired, because it gave me the right to call him 'sis'. Doing that just once has been effective so far; he hasn't called me 'bro' since. Arcandam (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. To be continued...

• The blind are leading the blind. This template runs counter to the suggestion that we don't template the regulars. Then things got worse, with barbs back and forth, and as far as I'm concerned this patronizing comment is all I need to see that dickishness comes from both sides here. Oh, if "bro" is trolling, then so is "dude." I think both of you need to take a break from each other. An interaction ban is a bit far-fetched, but it would be wise for the both of you to refrain from interacting. If you comment on the same AfD or article talk page, don't comment on each other's comments--that would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I never claimed to be Ghandi (a great example of the blind leading the blind by the way). Templating the regulars is unimportant; that template runs counter to the suggestion that we use templates in cases where they are applicable. I hope Dan56 stops trying to follow me around. I do not understand that sentence about "dude" BTW. Arcandam (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• What's not to understand? You're complaining that he trolled you by calling you 'bro', and I don't see why that's trolling when "dude" isn't. But you also referred to their notification of this thread as "trolling", so I don't think you know what trolling is. What I do know is that this and this are not examples of canvassing. In the one, he leaves a note about reliable sources on an AfD, in another he updates a question he asked by saying that he started a thread about the problem. That's not canvassing. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of Dan56's edits, it takes two to tango. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this may be a cultural difference or a generational gap or something similar, but calling a 20yr old male 'dude' once is not comparable to calling someone 'bro' after being repeatedly asked not to. Do you think Dude, Where's My Car? contains more swearing than the Southpark episode "It Hits The Fan" (S5E2)? Did I insult myself here? Arcandam (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. I did not refer to the notification of this thread as trolling, I referred to the person who notified me as a troll.

But it's quite consistent with the suggestion we do template the regulars. Beyond that, concur. Nobody Ent 14:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

• Robert_O._Becker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After removing much of the original research and undue material in the Becker article: [26], Olavn characterized my edits as: "dismantling and annihilation" to another editor: User_talk:Saedon#The_Body_Electric.

After I reverted his addition of the undue material [27], I then posted on WP:FTN about the recent additions of undue material and OR: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Robert_O._Becker. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Olavn also added an excessively large list of papers which he added: [28] which i then cut in half due to the extreme size: [29].

Olavn has now characterized my actions as meat puppetry and disruptive editing [30] (note I had already explained on the Becker talk page that large lists of research papers do not help with establishing notability: Talk:Robert_O._Becker#Nobel_Prize_Nominations). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Annihilation refers to the way IRWolfie demolished The Body Electric - behaving like the building inspector in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. (The text there was mainly a synopsis of the book The Body Electric. What he calls Original research was simply to look up in the PubMed index how many times the author had been referred to.)

Disruptive editing refers (in addition to the abovementioned annihilation) to how my attempts at including a decription of Becker's research in Robert O. Becker is consistently reverted/deleted by IRWolfie- - without even a proper explanation. (The demolishing building inspector again. How many peer-reviewed papers to list is less important - except when Beckers notability is questioned.) And he tagged the remaining short research description with "Undue weight" without explaining.

Meat-puppetry refers to his posting as described here. OlavN (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a number notice-boards, talk pages of Wikiprojects, etc where people post asking for help. To call this meat-puppetry is not at all helpful, nor is calling another editor (IRWolfie) a 'deletionist'. You've compounded this be accusing him of disruptive editing. Have you read WP:AGF? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor appears to be trying to sidestep consensus by inserting puffery (or boasting as he calls it here [31]): in the lede here The_Body_Electric_(book) that was discussed and deleted from the main Becker article, for example the clear original research in the line The book was quoted 440 times by other papers on Google scholar (April 2012). The editor has also tried to avoid dealing with the lack of sourcing that made The_Body_Electric it into a redirect in the first place by recreating the article and not mentioning it to anyone. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I notice also that the administrator DGG has already explained to OlavN that we do not include all his papers but only the most important User_talk:DGG#A_problematic_article, yet OlavN used my trimming of the list in his accusation that I was disruptively editing [32]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

After DGG gave me this advice, I shortened the list of referred papers. (But now and then, when Becker's notability is challenged, the large number of peer-reviewed papers must be shown.) Properly editing this list implies keeping the important ones, like those in Nature and Science. But IRWolfie's "editing" was simply text slashing, keeping only the first 13 or so from the 33, and omitting 3 Nature articles.

The important reason for using the word deletionist is the recurring deletions I mention under Disruptive editing above. The proper way to point out lacking sources etc. is to explain in Talk what is missing, not to demolish everything (like in The Body Electric) or to delete science description (like in Robert O. Becker).

It is a regrettable fact of life that puffery must be included in the lead section - for demonstrating notability. Telling how much the book is quoted in Google Scholar, is part of this notability demonstration, and not (original) research in this research description. OlavN (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AGF? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A sentence such as "His main book The Body Electric was quoted 435 times by other papers on Google scholar (May 2012)" does not belong in the article and is indeed original research - if you don't believe me, ask at WP:NORN. Puffery has no place in an article unless it is part of a discussion of puffery in reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read WP:AGF and assumed good faith, as I stated in my first complaint - many unexplained deletions ago. What we call puffery is actually important information, and demonstrations of notability (which deletionists need to get rid of).

But you have evidently not read the book you are "editing" about, or you would have known what is meant with negative/positive polarity. This is relative to other parts of the body, and the strong gradients near an electrode are physically and physiologically different for negative and positive electrodes. OlavN (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is an essay, meaning it's just one or more editor's policy, not something that has community consenus. I'm not seeing evidence of incivility on IRWolfie's part; other the other hand calling a post to a noticeboard meatpuppetry isn't appropriate. Nobody Ent 00:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bryonmorrigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• R-41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Talk:Nazism (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Nazism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user Bryonmorrigan is using uncivil language and combative behaviour towards the user Collect because of disagreements between them. Bryonmorrigan said to Collect "Wow. You aren't even capable of the critical thinking skills necessary to denote a difference between saying, "The Nazis, as well as X, did this..." and "X are Nazis"???" [33] This is uncivil and combative behaviour that is not constructive. Criticism of Collect's arguments could have been done through constructive criticism rather than this derogatory uncivil and combative way. Bryonmorrigan needs to cease this uncivil language and combative behaviour. Also I believe that both Bryonmorrigan and Collect need to engage in more constructive discussions, pointing out mistakes in each others arguments through reference to reliable sources (and not their personal opinion), and if they cannot find an agreement between each other, they should seek Wikipedia:Third Opinion or a Request for Comment through proper channels on Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not directly involved in their argument, but I saw the post by Bryonmorrigan and found it unacceptably uncivil and combative.--R-41 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I would note that the BryoMn has had similar posts about other editors, and seems not to understand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and that "lively discourse" need not include personal attacks.

[34] Seriously, dude. Grow up and read a book or two. Every single reputable source on the planet...even the KKK itself...describes the KKK as Far Right. Nobody is buying your uneducated, unsourced, patently absurd, and utterly childish nonsense.

[35] Promoting this kind of nonsense is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking skills.

[36] that will not be changed simply to make articles fit in with your distorted weltanschauung

[37] That's a profoundly un-encyclopedic view...and would have Neo-Nazis "in charge" of the pages on Nazism

[38] Your OPINION is neither consistent with reality, nor backed up by the reliable sources, both of which prove otherwise. Social Conservatism, whether promoted by Rick Santorum or Osama bin Laden, is pretty much the very DEFINITION of "Authoritarianism."

[39] You can no more "decide" that Breivik is not a "true" Christian than you can state that Fred Phelps isn't one either. You are not the Supreme Pope of Christendom. He is as much a "Christian" as any other Christian

Show clearly the methodology of BryonM's posts towards a host of editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the same arguments could be made but with less edge, for example, [40] could have been stated instead by pointing to something along the lines of what the essay WP:EXPERT states. Having a valid point isn't an excuse to be uncivil. I don't think this is uncivil: [41] IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

YMMV - but saying "You are not the Supreme Pope of Christendom" seems to me to be a direct comment on an editor, and not a comment based on anything else (like actual article content). Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was unnecessary to say. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is what are Bryonmorrigan and Collect going to do to prevent this kind of situation from coming up again. First of all Bryonmorrigan clearly needs to evaluate how his statements are going to be interpreted or reacted to by other users - it is a waste of everyone's time to resort to uncivil, combative, and derogatory behaviour - quite frankly it achieves nothing other than asserting a cocky obnoxious attitude used to make one feel better than the other person they are arguing with by putting them down - causing anger and resentment by the other person. Second of all, Both Bryonmorrigan and Collect need to provide reliable sources for claims made and not their personal opinions, nor their opinions of each other.--R-41 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As I assiduously avoid personal attacks, I ask you show me exactly what comment I made you so deem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For me the key issue is Bryonmorrigan's incivility which borders on personal attacks and he needs a clear warning from an Admin. Incivility and its related behaviors of battleground and personal attacks are poison to the success of WP because they drive away productive and civil editors. It should be dealt with quickly and firmly. The content issue between him/her and Collect is secondary.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you requesting that this discussion here be transfer over to the Administrator's noticeboard for administrators to review Bryonmorrigan's behaviour? I am a bit busy, would you or another third-party user be willing to do this transfer?--R-41 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan appears to be an infrequent editor, I think we should give him time to comment here at least, first. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If, as appears to be the case, the allegation of Bryonmorrigan's "incivility" shouldn't have been brought here, there's no reason for Bryonmorrigan to reply here. WQA is not a first resort. At the top of the page are clear instructions about the steps to take before coming here, e.g. Before requesting assistance your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor, usually on their talk page; and Avoid initiating a request if: You have not followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes; politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor - emphasise the desire to move forward constructively and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues while assuming good faith -- none of which, AFAICT, R-41 did. I stand, or rather sit, to be corrected. Apologies in advance to R-41 if there are diffs I haven't found. Writegeist (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: The headers were comprehensively overhauled soon after I wrote the above. The post cites instructions that no longer apply. Writegeist (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If I made a mistake in the process of addressing this I apologize because I have not used this noticeboard before. I presented a diff that clearly showed a highly uncivil and combative remark by Bryonmorrigan to Collect. With the situation on that talk page rapidly escalating in uncivil behaviour, I believed that I had a choice of either reporting Bryonmorrigan to Administrator's noticeboard - where unless it is severe no action is typically taken - or bringing it here to seek a resolution of uncivil behaviour and giving advice to Bryonmorrigan on preferable alternative behaviour. Given the number of diffs Collect has shown of Bryonmorrigan's recent highly uncivil and combative behaviour I think the situation warrants a resolution now. Other third-party users here clearly see the problem this behaviour causes - it discourages other users to contribute when they see such combative hostile behaviour, as such it is disruptive - and I think it is best if we solve it now.--R-41 (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Posting here is fine; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (Personally I'm holding off commenting until I see if the editor is going to respond when they resume editing). Nobody Ent 01:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply R-41. With respect, those weren't your only choices. The first recourse open to you, and the one of least dramah, as clearly indicated on this page, was to raise your "incivility" concern directly with Bryonmorrigan. Also the diffs I meant---sorry if I wasn't clear---were not diffs of Bryonmorrigan's supposed transgressions. (And if you think those were "highly uncivil" you'd probably burst a blood vessel if you read some of the more prickly posts by certain other editors---Bryonmorrigan is a choirboy, albeit one with a fairly robust voice, by comparison.) No. I meant diffs showing you had the courtesy to try resolve your concerns directly with him, and failed, before raising them here. Which you didn't. Of course you still could, if you're really that bothered by them.

Nobody Ent, I often find myself in agreement with you, and don't have much time for rules and procedures myself, but I see a worthwhile benefit in taking the simple first step of direct engagement: it gives editors the opportunity to work these things out quietly and collegially (civilly, even?) without immediately dragging them onto the dramaboards, which tend to be adversarial and counterproductive, and where questions of "incivility" tend to get blown out of proportion. Writegeist (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen Bryonmorrigan do this before with other users and have told him not behave in an uncivil way, he denied that he was and didn't listen to me. I do not typically have any arguments with Bryonmorrigan, I more likely agree with him as my views are similar in principle to his, but his behaviour towards others he disagrees with is often rude and causes disruption on talk pages. As this is a place to provide advice to users who have engaged in uncivil behaviour without punishing them, I thought at the time I posted it that this was the perfect venue to address this ongoing issue to be reviewed from multiple users - uninvolved with discussions between Bryonmorrigan and Collect, who could review these edits and to provide constructive advice on how to avoid such incidents from happening in the future. I made a mistake in the process of addressing this but I agree with the user Nobody Ent, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Now that this issue has been addressed, rather than regretting that it has been brought up here out of the order of the process, I suggest that that third-party users take a more positive approach here by reviewing the issue and provide constructive advice to Bryonmorrigan and Collect on how to better respond to disagreements in order to help both of them avoid getting into uncivil entanglements.--R-41 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase. You're at WQA because you want "third-party users" to "provide constructive advice to Bryonmorrigan and Collect on how to better respond to disagreements in order to help both of them avoid getting into uncivil entanglements." May I? If Bryonmorrigan and Collect want to avoid getting into "uncivil entanglements", my advice is to respond agreeably to disagreements. Advice duly dispensed, and Bryonmorrigan and Collect shown the smooth path to a future of blissfully congenial collaboration, would it be OK to put this to bed now? Writegeist (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you mis-posted the "rules" here, and happened upon this thread. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Might the inanity of a comment be missed, shouting in boldface is an effective way to amplify it. Beers. Writegeist (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC) (After which, Collect "undid" his shouting. Yet, curiously, the quality of the comment still comes across loud and clear. LOL.) Writegeist (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Important? Not. The use of an accidental semicolon from a keyboard is ... accidental. If you check, you will find the edit was changing an accidental semicolon into a colon. But I suppose that is a "major edit"? Not. Cheers - but this is not even at the level of using "sic" when quoting a clear typo. Collect (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I accidentally gave the impression that I thought a comment of yours was important, or in any way a "major edit." Beers. Writegeist (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

10 points to Gryffindor! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would advise you to be civil on the WQA board. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Aww, that's sweet. I see a Civil Service desk in your future. While you're in the mood to dispense advice, do you have any for Messrs. Morrigan and Collect, as requested by R-41, on "how to better respond to disagreements in order to help both of them avoid getting into uncivil entanglements"? It seems the only volunteers available are you, me and Nobody, and I've already done my bit, so if you go next, followed by Nobody (or vice versa, you can probably work it out between you, no squabbling!), we'll have this thread all sewn up by lunch time! Writegeist (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to criticize R41. He came to the board in good faith. Looking at Byronmorrigan's user talk page I see there have been warnings and discussion on his page. Over the past 6 months and 350 edits he has been accused of edit warring (2), vandalism, and biting a newcomer. Now here we see evidence of incivility. This adds up to disruptive editing and I think he needs to receive a clear warning from an Admin who will follow up with a block if he doesn't adjust his tone and battleground tendency. My view of him/her is reinforced by these posts from their User page:

• "I'm going on a self-imposed (most-of-the-time) exile for a while, to concentrate on law school. I'm sure that the Trolls, Anti-Intellectuals, Anti-Academics, and the dastardly forces of the Christian Taliban will be happy to hear of this..".
• "Wow. It seems like Wikipedia is getting even WORSE. As long as the POV Warriors are allowed to run rampant, without fear of reprisal...in a venue where my condescending attitude towards their uneducated, moronic rantings is more closely watched than their anti-academic vandalism...people will continue to chuckle when Wikipedia is brought up as a source for any kind of knowledge. Until you start banning the Trolls...they will always win, because as long as you are defending the site from them every day, they are succeeding" -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist appears to be either worn out from seeing so many disputes or is extremely cynical, all I asked for was advice to be given to Bryonmorrigan and Collect to assist in avoiding future confrontation, and I have been criticized for acting in good faith by intervening in an issue on a page I edit where a dispute that I was not involved in erupted. And this criticism by Writegeist is all because of her/his aggravation that I made an error in the order of the process, well I apologized and I asked for people to move past my error to look at the situation and help to resolve it. And now Writegeist writes some condescending patronizing remark to the third-party user here assisting with Wikiquette,IRWolfie- - saying "Aww, that's sweet. I can see a Civil Service desk in your future" - that is disgusting behaviour for a third party user on an assistance discussion board to say to another third-party user who is attempting to assist other users and solve the issue. I find it a shame and a disgrace for a board designed to assist people having its own volunteers sling mud at each other rather than solve the problems.--R-41 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've brought the trolling here to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolls_at_WQA. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

R-41 you brought Bryon Morrigon here because in your opinion he had been uncivil (but not to you). Collect piled on with his scatter of grapeshot diffs, most of which IMO are as meretricious as the sole diff you supplied. (Strewth, you two think BM's comments are uncivil? Have neither of you seen the likes of AndyTheGrump and Malleus Fatuorum in full-on caustic mode?)

So much for the problem. The specific solution you requested was for outside editors to advise Messrs Morrigon and Collect on how to avoid what you call "incivility entanglements". How fucking incredibly patronizing. Like you seriously think two experienced editors who know exactly what they're doing will take to heart any advice from WQA? The very idea is absurd. Nevertheless, for you to get your needs met, I did exactly what you wanted: I playing the busybody for you, offering really quite sensible advice to two people who absolutely don't need it. I also drew the attention of the only (two) other outside editors here to your request, and invited them to add their own unneeded advice to mine, post haste, so that you'd get all of what you want toot sweet and then you could bring the curtain down, and Morrigon and Collect could be on their way. All of which you have ignored. Instead? First you complain about the way Bryon Morrigon and Collect engage with each other, you've switched to complaining about the way I engage with Collect and Wolfie. These complaints put me in mind of a meddlesome poodle that can't see a scrap between Jack Russells without jumping into the middle of it, then whines when it gets a nip on the ankle (or whatever poodles have for ankles). And now Wolfie has scampered off to ANI to complain about me and Bryon Morrigon. It's really all too silly for words. No wonder I'm cynical about the dramaboards and these so-called incivility complaints. Not to mention the users that peddle them. BTW I'm not in the least aggravated, as you seem to think, about your "error in the order of the process". I don't know why you keep banging on about it. What aggravates me is officiousness. Well, that and inanities shouted in boldface type, lol. (Although the example above turned out to be quite good fun.) Good luck. Writegeist (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Which two editors were those? Nobody Ent 21:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To Nobody Ent, Writegeist has been reported by User:IRWolfie- for trolling on this board - he insulted IRWolfie-, a volunteer here, out of nowhere, saying in response to IRWolfie-'s request that Writegeist be more civil in his comments, "Aww, that's sweet. I can see a Civil Service desk in your future", how is that supposed to be constructive here? To Writegeist, no it was not patronizing what I did, I sought a resolution to the dispute between Bryonmorrigan and Collect - it could have helped them. Don't try to weasel out of the reality of your condescending patronizing comment to IRWolfie- who came here voluntarily to help other users. You, Writegeist have insulted a fellow volunteer here who was being helpful with a clearly condescending and patronizing remark. Your comments in general have been cynical, offensive, and now openly derogatory with you using obsenities. If you are so cynical that you cannot assist users on an assistance board, and that you hate these "dramaboards", then here is my suggestion: quit - if you don't like working here, then why bother keep doing it.--R-41 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

R-41, WQA is pretty much open to anyone who wishes to comment, for better or for worse. Writegeist doesn't appear to be a regular volunteer here; reviewing the archives, I only found three other cases where they have commented. While not disagreeing with your viewpoint, civility/npa enforcement on Wikipedia is very uneven; lacking a long term pattern which could be documented at an RFC/U, the types of questionable comments made here by Writegeist are simply best ignored per WP:DENY. Nobody Ent 22:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That would normally be acceptable, but Writegeist is affecting the discussions here in a way that will not lead to a real, well-intentioned resolution of this situation between Bryonmorrigan and Collect. I'm leaving it up to IRWolfie-'s report of Writegeist to the administrator's noticeboard. But sure, I'll try WP:DENY and ignore his remarks if they are unconstructive, condescending, and cynical; but if Writegeist is not serious here about assisting users, other users need to step up to the plate to try to resolve the dispute between Bryonmorrigan and Collect.--R-41 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan makes points that often make sense - I have agreed with a number of them in principle, but he does so in an uncivil and combative manner; Collect makes some controversial points but fails to provide reliable sources to back it up. These are two issues that I think need to change. Bryonmorrigan and Collect, what do you think about this? I don't want to be patronizing, but I see both of you as having merits but are making errors in presentation of your comments to each other, it gets you two frustrated with each other, that could be improved with some helpful tips and both users addressing what is causing frustration between each other. You may still disagree with each other, but it could avoid disputes, and improve the quality of contributions and reduce disruption.--R-41 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

R-41, I don't take kindly to such egregious distortions as If you are so cynical that you cannot assist users on an assistance board (your emphasis). Odd indeed that you should peddle this well-poisoning canard when this very thread proves the opposite. I've even taken the trouble just now to remind you that I gave you exactly the assistance you asked for in dispensing totally unneeded advice to Bryon Morrigan and Collect. How many times does this need to be repeated to you before you stop insisting black is white? Or are you just baiting me? Writegeist (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist, I don't take kindly to someone insulting another WQA volunteer, IRWolfie-, with that patronizing sarcastic remark "Aww, that's sweet. I see a Civil Service desk in your future", he is here of their own accord to help resolve a dispute. Perhaps you should apologize to IRWolfie- and Collect for insulting them, because much of what you have done is cause disruption here. In case you want me to apologize to Bryonmorrigan and Collect for having the trouble of coming here I will, I apologize to them for bringing them into this mudslinging fight between two WQA volunteers who should be helping others, I invited them into a bar with a brawl happening. I asked this seriously - if you are cynical and you don't like "dramaboards", seriously why are you here? This is a place to assist users, if you don't like it why do you do it?--R-41 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)