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

Resolved

 – The main parties involved agree the civility issues have been resolved. There remains a larger issue of how to hold effective policy discussions, but that is beyond the scope of WQA

I believe User:Pixelface's current behavior (starting approximately on June 6) on the RFC for determining whether the current version of Notability (fiction) has global consensus is out of line for civility for behavior expected of editors, particularly in an area of heated concern.

I will admin the topic is a very sore one, as it hits right at the center of the emotional inclusionists/deletionists issue. I am fully aware of Pixelface's views and respect those views for what they are, and I can understand the frustration behind seeing what you strongly believe in be overwhelmed by others.

However, the method by which Pixelface is approach this debate seems like it's trying to seem who can shout the loudest to make their point overly clear. There's no specific diff that exemplifies this behavior, though telling people "they're wrong", bringing up a point that doesn't apply to the specific section of the discussion while pulling from the user's history to try to prove them wrong, assuming bad faith, repeating the same points over and over and even trying to shut down the consensus process before it can begin. There's at least 30 other editors at that page and over 200 edits since the 6th, and no one else seems to be taking the same aggressive defensive stance that Pixelface is, and the atmosphere the comments generate is not healthy to good discussion.

If this is not considered uncivil behavior, then I apologize to Pixelface for the inconvenience and will drop this matter. --MASEM 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That editor *was* wrong. That editor said the notability guidelines can only be more strict than WP:N but not less strict. Clearly a false statement. The question about games *did* apply to that thread. Saying you ignored all the discussion on WT:NOT between my first removal of PLOT and my second removal of PLOT is not assuming bad faith; your claim that discussion had not taken place between those removals, however, was. And your refusal to address specific articles is why I keep bringing them up. And I didn't try to shut down anything. Are you saying you started the RFC because earlier I mentioned the {{rejected}} tag? I'm not the only person who has mentioned the {{rejected}} tag. Speaking of aggressive stances, how many people in the Oppose section[1] have you been arguing with? Let's see, you're the first responder to the first 6 opposers, you eventually made a comment under the 7th opposer (me), you were the first responder to opposers 9,10,11,and 12; and you replied to opposer 13, 16, and 20. So you may want to look at your own behavior regarding "shouting the loudest" and aggressive stances.

And if you're so concerned about the civility of the discussion, where are your Wikiquette alerts for TTN and David Fuchs? Where is your Wikiquette alert for the editor who said "gutter trash"[2]? Here[3] TTN says "I do find it funny that the opposers think that their whole "everything it notable" ideal still has any chance in hell." And here[4] David Fuchs says "Congrats. You infuriate me to no living end. I can parrot quotes from people all day long too. That doesn't help jack-shit. Disk space is not the issue here, stop pulling a straw-man." and "If I had a nickel for every time someone invoked WP:IAR... oh wait, since I can ignore rules, I'll delete your userpage, talk page, block you indefinitely, and trash every article you've ever worked on. Will that make you happy?" Considering that nearly every opposer is getting a wall of people arguing with them, and there is practically no space between supporters, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal aims to wipe out millions of hours of volunteer work and has the support of an editor currently under editing restrictions regarding wiping out that work, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal has the suppport of multiple users whose names have shown up in the past at WQA, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal has the support of multiple people who have referred to other editor's good faith edits as "vandalism", I think I've been pretty civil. As far as I know, nobody but you has made a comment at WT:FICT saying they think I've been uncivil, but I have seen several other editors told to watch their civility. I'll be happy to stop commenting at WT:FICT if you think my absence will improve the atmosphere. From the looks of it, your proposal doesn't need opposition from me anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the fact you or I are replying to every message - it's the tone, as pretty much your comment shows, is where the problem is. It is confrontational and almost requires an equally confrontational response, which if progresses leads to edit wars, blocks, or worse. I am not asking you to leave the FICT, NOT, or any other discussion, nor expecting that as a result from here, but I am asking you to participate in resolving the issue, not inflaming it. Yes, there are others that have made a single reply or two in the FICT discussion that is heated, but not in nearly every reply they've made has been bordering on this same level of confrontational and accusational language that you have made; if any other editor on that page made as many such confrontational statement, I would have included them here too. --MASEM 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you replying to nearly every person who opposes your proposal looks confrontational. To me, it appears like you felt threatened when I mentioned the {{rejected}} tag, and you reacted by starting an RFC on FICT — which you seem to have focused more time on than any other editor. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Do you think the RFC has done anything to resolve the issue? It looks to me like the same old division. I can think of a possible way that might help resolve the issue. Ask people a simple question. Ask them to fill in the blank:

• A fictional literary character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional television character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional comic book/graphic novel character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional film character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional videogame character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional vehicle can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional item can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional location can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional concept can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional _____ can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction television episode can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction film can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction book can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A videogame with a a significant plot can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A comic book/manga title can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A comic strip can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A webcomic can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A toy with a significant backstory can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A storyline can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A _____ can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• Fictional topics that should probably not have separate articles include _____
• Fictional topics that are generally suited better to lists and not separate articles include _____
• When someone searches for a fictional topic, the search term should generally be a redirect when _____
• Fictional topics that should generally never have separate articles include _____

And don't just ask involved parties of E&C1 and E&C2. I'm sure there are millions of editors that aren't even aware the discussion at WT:FICT is taking place. You're trying to decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of articles from one talk page, so don't expect smooth sailing. As far as I know, nobody else but you has said at WT:FICT I have being uncivil, so you may want to consider that when you think about my tone. I don't think I've inflamed the situation at WT:FICT. But if you think so, I'll go ahead and not comment at FICT for a week and you can see if the atmosphere improves. I would even be happy to not comment there anymore until the RFC ends in July. I think you'll find that maybe I'm not the problem. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Pixelface here. I have seen far more blantant incivility and tendentious editing from some on the other side of the discussion that no one can reasonably single out anyone here. Throwing out allegations against each other does not help the discussions progress. The bottom line is that it is a contentious debate and just about everyone involved should focus more on the pages under discussion than on those particiapting in them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface's editing behavior is bordering on Tendentious editing (or has already crossed this line), and while not necessarily uncivil in the usual sense, it is extremely tiring in a plonk-worthy sense. S/he has also started disputetagging WP:NOT in the last few days again (with prompt reverts), which had caused much drama at WP:NOT and ANI in the last two months before. I endorse Masem's summary that "the atmosphere the comments generate is not healthy to good discussion." Just to make clear, this note here is not intended to single out Pixelface as the only culprit, but very few editors have had what I perceive as similar bad track records for heating already heated discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some diffs of this supposed "tendentious editing"? This board is for civility. And are you saying that WP:NOT#PLOT is *not* currently under discussion, which is what the {{disputedtag}} says, the small text in WP:NOT#PLOT itself says, as well as what the {{fiction notice}} says, which is transcluded on WT:FICT, Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries, and several other places. If you think my comments at WT:FICT are creating an atmosphere that's not healthy to good discussion, I'll be happy to leave and you can see if the atmosphere improves. Would you like me to do that? --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll skip the diffs and just point to your recent history with WP:NOT again. To cite WP:TEND, "the term [tendentious editing] also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors" and (example) "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Maybe Wikipedia:Disruptive editing would have been more fitting (although it refers to article editing), which says "Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Wikipedia:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by [...] exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity." Are you grossly incivil? - No. Do I perceive your edititing behavior harmful for productive discussion? - Yes. Is WP:WIKIQUETTE the right place to bring this up? - Possibly. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the recent history of you and Masem at WP:NOT? If me and Hobit remove PLOT from NOT [5] [6] [7] and you and Masem insert PLOT back into NOT [8] [9] [10], does that not indicate that section of policy is disputed? If several people have said on WT:NOT (in Archive 17, 18, 19 and the current talk page) that PLOT should be removed, does that not indicate that section of policy is disputed? If discussion about PLOT has been going on for three months, does that not indicate that section of policy is under discussion? If Masem states in their edit summary that discussion had not taken place at WT:NOT from March 10 to March 29, when WT:NOT looked like this, who's being tendentious? If I get reverted by an E&C2 party who reports me for "vandalism" for removing PLOT from NOT and I get blocked for vandalism and I leave Wikipedia for a week and that E&C2 party then tells another E&C2 party it was good news I left and several uninvolved editors state my edit was *not* vandalism, who's being tendentious? If the editor who originally added PLOT to NOT removes PLOT from NOT and he's reverted by an E&C2 party, who's being tendentious? If there's an edit war at WP:NOT and I'm not involved and WP:NOT is protected by an E&C2 party who's not uninvolved in the dispute over PLOT, who's being tendentious?

I've been discussing PLOT at WT:NOT since January. It boggles my mind that Gavin.collins, Eusebeus, and Seraphim Whipp think PLOT is not disputed. I know Gavin.collins knows it's disputed, because he's commented multiple times at WT:NOT. I also know Eusebeus knows it's disputed, since he commented in the RFC on PLOT. And having been in an argument with Seraphim Whipp in the past since I dared ask her friend if he had read the vandalism policy since he reported me as a vandal for removing PLOT from NOT, she should be also be aware that PLOT is disputed. Any one of them could click on the history tab for WT:NOT and see which section of that policy has been under discussion for the past three months. While I have repeated some of the same arguments at WT:NOT, I *have* persuaded other people. I've repeated myself at WT:FICT and I *have* persuaded other people. Of the people who have commented at WT:FICT, who has "repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles"? I appear to face opposition from a small group of E&C1 and E&C2 parties, who are biased against a group of articles.

And what are the articles I've disrupted? As someone who's never created a plot-only article and as someone who routinely adds reception information to articles, what are the articles I've disrupted? Do you know many articles some people in the Support section have disrupted? It's funny you ignore all the other incivility at WT:FICT and all the disruption by supporters of Masem's proposal and single me out. It's funny that multiple people in the Support section have been referring to other editors' good faith edits as "vandalism", and you and Masem single me out.

So, seeing as you've opposed my edits to WP:NOT, you have the opposite opinion of the FICT proposal that I do, you decided to summarize the arguments by the opposers but did not also summarize the arguments by the supporters, you said the opposers need something "actionable", you were an involved party of E&C1, and you were contacted by an editor under an editing restriction to perform edits they are not allowed to perform — is this your "neutral third opinion" here on my civility? I haven't even begun to say what I really think at WT:FICT. I've bitten my tongue and I think I've been pretty civil. Of the people who've commented at WT:FICT, I could easily point out who I think are the productive editors and the disruptive ones. I won't be commenting at WT:FICT for a week so you can see for yourself if the discussion becomes productive with my absence. Thanks. I think we can mark this thread as resolved. --Pixelface (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to read such huge blocks of text (as I said elsewhere, my time is limited). But, as you even demonstrate in this thread, your replies tend to be (much) longer than what you are replying to, and you raise new (or the same) points over and over again and request answers until the editors are tired of replying to you (as I am right now), in which case you claim consensus. This is (I guess) exactly what Masem meant with "shout the loudest to make their point overly clear". And this in turn is what I meant with Tendentious editing. (There is no need to reply to this, as I am neither asking you a question, nor am I going to read another huge block of text. I know your position already.) – sgeureka ^t•c 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your time is limited, but you can read this huge block of text at WT:FICT and summarize of all of it? And I haven't been claiming consensus. I've been saying there is no consensus. And it's funny you link to WP:TE at WQA, since TE was created by an admin infamous for their rampant incivility. I won't be replying here anymore. --Pixelface (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I didn't read that huge block of text and never claimed I did; I skipped the replies of soapboxing people and was still perfectly able to get the gist of it. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys actually want a 3rd-party opinion on this issue, I suggest you take WP:TLDR into account. I for one don't have the time to sort through all of this mess ;p :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my initial paragraph summarized the issue to the TLDR degree. --MASEM 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll agree with that. I looked at the diffs, and I don't see anything egregious -- it just kind of sounds like a heated policy discussion. The only diff I'm not sure I care for is "bringing up a point that doesn't apply to the specific section of the discussion while pulling from the user's history to try to prove them wrong".

As far as repeating the same arguments over and over, this is why I have given up participating in any discussions regarding a change in policy. I frankly can't even stand to read them.  :) If further action needs to be taken beyond observing that, yes, that has been a very frustrating discussion with tensions rising and the occasional ad hominem attack, somebody else needs to do it, because I just can't bring myself to read that debate. Every time I try, my eyes glaze over and I start to get a headache :D Pixelface is not helping, but there must be a dozen other editors making equally unhelpful comments. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out WP:TLDR to Pixelface on his Talk page. That much I feel is definitely an appropriate action ;) If we need to go past that, like I say, somebody else will have to do it. Large blocks of text with no paragraph breaks make my head go POP! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another case of what I certainly believe to be tenatious and uncivil editing. On WT:NOT, Pixelface has posted the same basic arguments with the same links to AFDs to support the point in a matter of 3 hours (not accounting for the fact that Pixelface has used the same points repeated in the same discussion thread or elsewhere on NOT): first time, second time, third. It's one thing to stick to your guns for something you believe in, but this type of discussion is not helpful to reaching a conclusion. --MASEM 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to AFDs where PLOT is ignored is not uncivil, Masem. It actually shows that PLOT does not reflect consensus. Would you like me to show you what real incivility looks like? There are several people at WT:FICT I can cite. --Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Pixelface: I still don't think this is really a civility issue, but Masem has a point about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of reiterating the same links multiple times. You might consider creating a sub-page off of your user page which summarizes this point, and then you can just very briefly link to that when it is relevant to your argument, e.g. "Many articles that start as plot summaries go on to become FAs, see User:Pixelface/My chosen AfDs". This could help cut down on the verbosity of the discussion, and give your argument more impact.

Masem, what action do you want taken here? I don't see any egregious civility issues, and while Pixelface is being sorta tedious, the discussion itself is inherently tedious and I don't see how that can be avoided. Such is the nature of (or IMO, failure of) the consensus-based decision-making process when you have far too many participants. :/ (which, again, is why I refuse to participate in policy discussions on Wikipedia anymore under any circumstances) I have suggested that Pixelface take a different tack... But if he wants to write way too much text in a discussion that already has way too much text, there's not much that can be done to stop him, I don't think. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got the one that can be dealt with here: at least as I observed it, the long and mostly repetitive replies were questionable and thus I brought the point up here (and thus why the pre-apologies if they weren't considered a problem). I see no problem if Pixelface wants to refer to an essay of his/her own should they want to reiterate the same points, just to help improve discussion and readability of talk pages. Assuming Pixelface does this, I consider this aspect resolved, and apologize for the inconvinence. There's a larger issue of how Pixelface's general approach to these discussion (the tone and nature) is in line with the resolutions of the ArbCom Episode and Character cases, which would need to have a more formal review beyond what this process can provide (including others that may have escalliated the situation like Ned Scott and TTN) there should the issue continue to grow. --MASEM 14:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is Pixel's disputatious, passive-aggressive responses & he knows it - he can drop the unconvincing, wide-eyed "who-me?" act. This is why, Pixel, you have been the subject of numerous discussions at AN/I; you STILL have not apologised to User:Moreschi for wasting his time cleaning up after your churlish, pointy and disruptive little outburst on the Symphony pages. Honestly, what are hoping to gain in all this? As far as I can tell, every time you try to push your point, you succeed in warming the cockles of those who already agree with your position, and antagonising most everyone else. Frankly, this is RfC fodder. Eusebeus (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus -- do you have specific complaints about recent behavior? The WP:POINTy symphony merge proposal was a pretty lousy thing to do, but that was like three months ago. The rest of your comment is just ambiguous and vague insults towards Pixelface.

Again I would reiterate to Pixelface's detractors: What action do you want taken? I don't see anything blockable here, and I've already asked Pixelface if he would please be less tedious. If the only tedentious editing he's done recently is at that horribly tedious discussion over at WT:FICT, I'm inclined to write it off as pissing in the ocean -- it's kinda rude and gross, but there was already a lot of nasty water there to begin with. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be worth summarizing my findings, in support of the compromise proposal below.

• Pixelface's nature of argumentation at WT:FICT (repeating the same arguments over, occasional red herrings and borderline ad hominem attacks) is tedious and somewhat disruptive to the consensus process.
• Moreover, not only is this style of argumentation not helpful to consensus, there is also strong reason to believe that it is not helpful to Pixelface's position either. Repeating the same arguments without further elaboration or attempts at compromise has the effect of diluting the argument, and may create a perception that Pixelface does not grasp the issues being raised by the other side. It would be beneficial to Pixelface, as well as the community at large, if he were to take a few steps back and possibly limit the volume of his participation on this discussion.
• Despite the above, Pixelface is far from the only editor engaging in such tedentious behavior at WT:FICT, and furthermore his behavior is pretty much on par with what happens in every policy discussion I have seen. Therefore, I cannot justify any administrative action against Pixelface. Compromise and voluntary compliance are the only options.
• The community would do well to address the dysfunctional process for addressing policy issues. It is my belief that the effectiveness of consensus as a decision-making process begins to fall off rapidly with >7 participants, and with >20 participants it is completely ineffectual. However, this is only my opinion, and any remedy to the dysfunctional policy-setting process is far beyond the scope of WQA.

--Jaysweet (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In partial response to Jaysweet:

• The nature of argumentation at WT:FICT (repeating the same arguments over, occasional red herrings and borderline "ad hominen" attacs) is indeed tedious and somewhat disruptive to the consensus process; however, participants on both sides of the discussion have engaged in such behavior.
• This style of argumentation may indeed not be helpful to consensus, but because both sides have done so, neither side is really being helped here at convincing their opposition. Again, participants on both sides are repeating the same arguments without further elaboration or attempts at compromise, which may create a perception that multiple editors do not grasp the isues being raised by the other side. If Pixelface should step back, then so should a number of others again on both sides of the discussion or we should find a way to get totally new editors into the discussion who have not yet commented.
• I obviously agree with this point about administrative action against Pixelface being unwarranted.
• Here I think we need to think of ways of getting the larger community involved in the discussion.

Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with all of this. While I stand by my findings, I think you could replace "Pixelface" with at least a half a dozen other editors and they would be equally true. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, just when I was about to give up, there is some hope!

Pixelface, as per above, would you agree to create one or more essays in your user space which summarize your main points, and then rather than constantly reiterate them on WT:FICT whenever a new participant shows up, you can just provide a one- or two-sentence reply directing them to your essay? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally against pointing people to essays. I already told Masem on June 10 that I wouldn't comment at WT:FICT for a week. And I haven't commented there since June 9. That was 4 days ago. On June 17, I will ask Masem if he thinks the discussion at WT:FICT improved with my absence. If Masem thinks it has, I won't comment at FICT until the RFC is over on July 3. I've already given my suggestion above of how I think the discussion could be improved: the fill-in-the-blank questions that I think the community should be asked. I'd be happy to give my opinions on those questions at FICT on June 17. Saying Masem wasted his time rewriting FICT was uncivil of me. Asking Masem "Are you done playing Internet lawyer" was uncivil of me. Masem, I apologize for making those statements. But I think Masem is behaving like he owns WT:FICT. Masem has made 679 edits to the talk page — that's more than anyone else and over 100 more edits than the next editor. For perspective, I've made 36 edits to WT:FICT. I will work on my tone. But other than that, I seriously don't know what Masem wants. I'm not the only one confused. I've asked how FICT applies to various articles with no answer. Masem says WP:NOT#PLOT is not disputed (it is). At this AFD I *added* reception information to the article and Masem dismissed it. Masem's an admin. So please ask Masem if the article that got deleted met the current version of FICT or not. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mark this as "Stuck" then. As I mentioned before, the general tone and productivity of the discussion is about on par for what I've seen with policy discussions. This is a Wikipedia-wide problem, and far beyond the scope of a Wikiquette alert. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be marked as resolved because I've already apologized to Masem for two uncivil comments I made towards him, I agreed to leave WT:FICT so Masem could see if the atmosphere improved, and even if I have been "repetitive and tedious", that's not a violation of the civility policy. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it's resolved, in the sense that WQA cannot do more than with what I've seen and I accept Pixelface's apologies on the comments; there is a general larger issue of incivility all about these policy pages (beyond just Pixelface) that probably rubs against the ArbCom request that people not inflame this dispute and works towards a compromise solution, but not to a point where its necessary to call them in to put down enforcement against that. I will note I never asked Pixelface to not comment at FICT, and though FICT has been calm over the past week because Pixel's not replied, I think this is more due to the fact that we've resigned that as it sits, the current version of FICT is not going to work (the split between inclusionists and deletionists is too great to overcome) in addition to the issues falling more to a question of the flexibility within NOTE before readdressing how to fix FICT. --MASEM 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has been bullying other users at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis for days on end now, while burying other people's arguments under many repeats of the same long-winded rhetorics, against the prevailing consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well add me to the complaint as well, since I'm the first one who broke the assumption of good faith. I'd sum up the ongoing argument as WP:TRUTH v. WP:WIKILAWYERING. Somedumbyankee (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god, I stared at that discussion for like 5 minutes, and while I understand what is being debated, I still don't have the slightest clue what each side's arguments are. It's a total mess.

I don't think Redux is violating the civility guidelines or anything (although, with that ridiculous mess of a discussion, who knows? If there is something I missed, feel free to provide a specific diff of the offending behavior), but he/she, along with a number of other editors, are unintentionally muddying the waters to the point where it is impossible to discern any sort of consensus or logic from that discussion.

I have left a note on the page in question suggesting a better way to proceed. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I don't think this will generate results. We just basically have aggressive behaviour by one person who seems to feel the need to voluminously reply to anything said in opposition to him (which represents most people on the page) and perpetually raises straw man arguments and misquotes/twists policy to sound like it agrees with him. There is a bullying attitude, but I wouldn't say it's actually extended to actual bullying at this stage. However there is a clear resistance to developing any consensus which digresses from his own predetermined opinions, and somewhat deliberate attempts to stop it from developing. Orderinchaos 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redux is not "bullying" or "burying" anyone against the "prevailing consensus." This alert is absurd, ridiculous, and unwarranted (notice the lack of diffs by the original poster) and is yet another effort to short-circuit the debate by those who disagree with the elimination of diacritics in the names of tennis biographies on English Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Completely absurd alert from this user (who btw has followed the discussion during retirement :) ) When is it bullying to state one's opinions? Moreover, sometimes one has to state them again, as some refuse to listen. --HJensen, talk 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HJensen's own contributions on this topic both now and in previous iterations of the debate elsewhere have been fairly incivil on a fairly consistent basis. Less verbose than Redux, but a hell of a lot more personal. Orderinchaos 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to help out, without going too much into the exact theme of that discussion. Jaysweet, don't feel bad ;), that discussion is at a state now that makes it very, very difficult to catch up. The general theme is actually very similar to this discussion, currently ongoing at the talk page of WP:BLP. That is, what is the extent of community discretion to discredit common usage, once verified, on the basis of unverifiable assertions by users. Particularly, if we are seeing common usage in English-language sources, which would define the title of our article, is it valid for us to claim that all the sources are "wrong" and decide that Wikipedia will right that wrong? My answer to that has been no, because that would be original research and point of view. On the tennis discussion, people are now claiming that they have consensus to retain status quo. We had consensus in a previous discussion to move, but then this consensus was considered "insufficient". I didn't mind. Then, of course, canvassing started to take place. I have also explained that, unless it can be established that shuning verified common usage on whichever ground that is based on user assertion is not original research and point of view, it will mean that we cannot have localized consensus to authorize that, because we have a more significant consensus, established in WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, that says that those are non-negotiable in writing the encyclopedia — so far, people have actually admitted that the sources will indeed show common usage without diacritics, but that that's meaningless for [whatever reason] -- that's not negating OR and POV, that's continuing to give unverifiable reasons why we should ignore the sources, that is, OR and POV..
Now, I have indeed been posting more vehemently, but the purpose of this, and it has been clearly stated, is not to "bury" anyone, but rather to cause discussion. Otherwise, what we have is people coming over and saying "oppose because removing diacritics proves only that no author had a properly configured keyboad". That's not the only claim made, of course, but it is actually one of them. Was that ideal? No more than the alternative would have been: have people "vote" and then claim that, by headcount, there is consensus to maintain [what is essentially] original research and POV. They can, of course, attempt to establish that it is not. That is why we need discussion, not voting. But people only wanted to vote, as it was done in other occasions when diacritics and spellings were discussed. In the discussion that I have been able to provoke, some people have been personally offended for being told that they are wrong, which is all I have done; they have also been refusing to get the point and then insisting that there is no point in discussing it further, calling my counter-argumentation "bulying". Redux (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your argumentative style (not your argument itself) is borderline bullying. You just repeat the same (false) arguments in 500 word essays over and over and over again as if this actually helps debate. The word I was looking for was filibuster. The only reason it is "difficult to catch up" is that any poor sod who wants to figure out what is going on has to read pages of padding from one contributor who seeks to contest every opposing editor/rationale in exactly the same way. This is not discussion, it is a poorly concealed form of social engineering to create a "last man standing" scenario so your arguments, which not only represent a minority viewpoint in the discussion but need greater justification given that they're a change from the previous consensus (demonstrated by no significant changes over a two-year period) will trump others simply because they've been worn into the ground. Moreover you have shown an arrogance and dismissiveness towards other contributors (especially indisputably good faith ones such as Kotniski and Evlekis, from whose contributions to the debate I have found stuff I didn't know) which is entirely unacceptable. These things have stood for a very long time with basically noone challenging them, now we have three or four editors from one project working to try and overturn that. No demonstrable cause has been given for this action, nor has it been put in the context of any actual policy, other than a chronically poorly-worded guideline which seems to trip all over itself and several policies which don't relate to the situation at hand, given that the players' correct names are verifiable in reliable sources with diacritics and no original research needs to be entertained to establish what they are. Orderinchaos 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much point in rehashing the argument here. The point is basically that the two sides are talking past each other and WP:IDHT is the reason why civility has left the conversation. There is a guideline, and one side of the debate rejects that guideline. It's a valid question for the guideline, and WT:UE is probably the place the discussion should happen, though there's a separate proposed policy at WP:UD. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somedumbyankee has summed it up very well. In a discussion where both sides are completely unwilling to compromise and where communication is rapidly breaking down, a background level of incivility is almost unavoidable. I would urge everyone involved in the discussion to take a deep breath and back away. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, now Redux is not "bullying," he or she is "borderline bullying." Where, oh where, do we draw the line? If you (Orderinchaos) believed Redux's arguments to be "(true)" instead of "(false)," would you believe it OK to post them over-and-over again? I'm asking because that's exactly what the opposition to the tennis moves requests has been doing. In fact, because the opposition appears to be more numerous in terms of numbers of editors who have posted (perhaps because of canvassing), who exactly is trying to create the "last man (or woman) standing scenario" and who exactly is trying to wear whom into the ground? Your silence about this tactic is really quite significant. I've asked before and I'll ask again: supply diffs to support your claims that Redux has been bullying, arrogant, or dismissive. Otherwise, stop making the claims. Finally, you've tried to turn this Wikiquette alert into yet another debate about the substance of the tennis moves request. This is clearly not the appropriate venue for that. Tennis expert (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't - I've focussed squarely on behaviour. Bullying would include threats beyond the action or user talk page stuff, this is borderline bullying as it's stayed within the confines but is still aggressive, dismissive and single-minded, and is clearly operating in a deliberate and tactical manner to drive off other contributors rather than engage with the facts. Also, the oppose side has in general behaved well on this occasion. In a previous debate where I took a similar stance several months ago, some who agreed with my stated position behaved reprehensibly, and it was one of the main reasons I withdrew from that debate after it failed to go to ArbCom. I don't *need* diffs - the RM/Tennis page stands as evidence by itself to any neutral person (and several have in fact reviewed it to that effect). Orderinchaos 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on not needing the diffs yourself. Obviously, you know in your own mind what you mean in your own posts. But it's only fair to readers new to this debate and to Redux that the complainers/accusers supply the diffs. I thought that was required in situations like this. In my opinion, the adamant refusal to provide them despite being asked to do so is persuasive evidence of a lack of evidence to support the complaints/accusations. Therefore, they should be dismissed out-of-hand. Tennis expert (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adamant refusal" is blatantly false. I was just about to run out for a bus to an all-day class when I wrote that (00:03 = 08:03 AWST), and still have assignments due this coming week, so my time on Wikipedia is limited enough without chasing down diffs for things. Please assume good faith, as I have towards yourself. Orderinchaos 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird on three counts. (1) You are apparently saying that we should assume your good faith and not ask for any diffs when you publicly accuse editors of wrongdoing. That's not how this works. (2) You didn't say anything about needing to catch a bus for an all-day class. Instead, you said, "I don't *need* diffs - the RM/Tennis page stands as evidence by itself to any neutral person...." Because I can't read your mind, that sounded like an adamant refusal to me. But I look forward to your list of diffs to support the "borderline bullying" accusation. (3) As for your always assuming good faith toward me, that really meshes well with your threatened block of me the very first time you ever contacted me on anything, which you later admitted was hasty and unwarranted. Tennis expert (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if my earlier wording was unclear - I was most certainly not refusing (more expressing incredulity than anything else). I didn't feel it necessary to burden the page with minutiae of my offline life as it seemed irrelevant at the time. As for your point 3, I did apologise and retract (not only on your talk page but also openly on AN/I) as soon as I realised I had chronically misunderstood the situation. There was in this case a separation between intent and result - the result of the action had been disruptive, but there was no intent to disrupt and I realised you'd been left somewhat holding the can for the decisions of others. As an aside, if you note that I did not initiate *this* action but yet seem to have been left with it by its initiators, there is a surprising amount in common between your position then and mine now. Orderinchaos 20:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I believe there is a difference between apologizing for an action and then saying I never did it versus simply apologizing. (2) The difference between you and me is that I stopped making tennis article page name moves when the support I had thought was already there did not materialize. (That support is now there in the proposal to make the moves but not for immediately making them.) You, however, persist in pursuing this Wikiquette alert against Redux when the initiator appears to be long gone. So, in addition to your ongoing refusal (temporary?) to provide diffs, our positions are not as "common" as you apparently believe. Tennis expert (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I would encourage those involved to read WP:WQA#Findings by Jaysweet (talk · contribs), as well as WP:WQA#Findings by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) above -- except, replace "Masem" with "Guido den Broder", replace "Pixelface" with "Redux", replace "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles" with "Tennis expert", and replace "WT:FICT" with "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis". It's essentially the same exact problem... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you talking about (replace "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles" with "Tennis expert")? Tennis expert (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that Le Grand's role in the WP:WQA#User:Pixelface discussion further up this page is pretty similar to your role in this discussion. (And you should take that as a compliment, I thought Le Grand was being quite rational ;D ) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was confused because that user tried to end the discussion with "findings." Even I (who has a clearly expressed preexisting opinion) would not be enough of a bully (or filibusterer or oppressor or liar (or arrogant or dismissive SOB)) to attempt that tactic.  ;-) Tennis expert (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, filibuster effectively means jamming the airwaves to prevent debate - I don't think you could be accused of that in this case!) Orderinchaos 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, fair point. He was putting his opinion in juxtaposition to the "Findings" section I had already created based on what I saw as a 3rd party. Maybe a bit heavy-handed, but I appreciated his comments anyway.

Anyway, you're right, that part of the analogy is weak. But the overall similarity between the discussions is striking... In both cases, the complaint is about a user who is endlessly repeating themselves on a hopelessly tedious policy discussion. That's definitely not helpful, but I'm not going to go issuing a warning to Redux (or Pixelface) when there are a half a dozen other people on that page on both sides of the argument being just as repetitive and tedious :D

The same advice I gave to Pixelface would apply here: Summarize your arguments on a subpage in your user space, and then link to that rather than repeat yourself. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that repetitive posting is not the best way to conduct discussion. Except in this case, were it not for repetitive posting, there would have been no discussion at all. We had seen how discussions on this and other similar topics have taken place: there is canvassing, and many users show up sustaining a "oppose" — thus dragging the process into a vote-like situation — per [whatever reason]. Since we define filibuster as jamming the airways to prevent debate, we might say that canvassing is the filibuster in this situation.
So how to try and break this trend? I thought a way to do that was to respond to people individually, because that would probably cause at least a few of them to engage in actual discussion, where they would need to be able to sustain their rationale convincingly. What would be the alternative? Certainly not wait until 15 people, who knows how many "canvassed" (is that a word?), have posted "oppose because Wikipedia can't disrespect x culture" and, after a while, make an umbrella post deconstructing the rationale, when people have already moved on and are probably not even monitoring the discussion anymore. And then what? Count signatures and see which "side" has the most supporters? That's a vote (and a questionable one at that, if there has been canvassing), not a discussion. Redux (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User repeatedly uses personal attacks against editor nrswanson on Talk:C (musical note)#C4 etc. page simply because the editor disagrees with his viewpoint. For example, user insinuates intellectual inferiority of nrswanson based solely on that editor's religious background. When asked to stop personal attacks, user still persists. It is also possible this editor may be using sock puppets and a separate report has been filed for that violation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi. Nrswanson (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a rather long comment on the content dispute (for once, this is in an area where I have some experience and knowledge), and IMO the evidence falls in your favor, Nrswanson. But the problem, as you stated, is that personal attacks are now going both directions - more so from Totophi and the anonymous IP toward you than the other way, but I see evidence that you're both getting heated up about this. So I recommend you all step back and cool down a bit. Remember, attack the content, not the editor.

If this continues past the latest parts of the discussion (including my comments there), let me know and I'll take a closer look and/or issue warnings as appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as this are completely unacceptable:

• Totophi wrote at 10:17 on 12 June: "My respect for you and your accomplishments has come to an end. Do you realize how deluded your own statement is? The issue of contention does NOT concern finer points of music theory! In addition, you pompously accuse me of insults where I have stated none. You, on the other hand, are revealing more and more the fine talent of talking a lot while saying little. Do you still claim to uphold the values on which Wikipedia is based? Give it up, you miserable hypocrite. Oh, and that's not an insult, by the way." Et cetera.

That should earn him a block for incivility. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's grounds for an instant block, which is what seems to be requested here. Yes, it is uncivil, and yes it is overstepping the line, but Totophi later showed some signs that he was willing to calm down and stop being disruptive, and the purpose of a block is to reduce or prevent disruption. If a warning has been given, it would be in bad form to then block him without a continuation of the behavior that got him the warning. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that Totophi has made any serious attempt at calming down or working constructively. He has made no apology for personal attacks and has said my accusations of sock puppetry deserved no response since they were "obviously frivolous". It is apparent that he sees nothing wrong with uncivil behavior and, since the sock puppetry case has now been proven, it shows deliberate deceit with the intention of doing harm. I believe a block in this case is warranted as Totophi's actions prove his continued contempt for wikipedia's guidelines.Nrswanson (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what KieferSkunk has said. This matter is resolved - if the incivility/personal attacks do continue, then please leave a note here with recent evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. The sockpuppet case has ruled to block him for abusive socking for one week and an administrator has gone ahead with the block.Nrswanson (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

What can be done about these kind of comments - Revert: the point is to help readers--not masturbate over ideology, You are both acting like total jerks. Please stop edit warring? Few months ago I tried to contact him on his talk page but he removed my comment with edit summary remove POV warrior spam. -- Vision Thing -- 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to reach him on the talk page is from two months ago, so I don't consider that particularly relevant. However, the "masturbation" edit summary is inappropriate, and I have warned the user accordingly. I am about to look into the edit-warring that sparked the incivil edit summary and will report back about what I find. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the term "masturbation" in a metaphoric sense within the context of suggesting Vision_Thing actually start interacting with other editors here on Wikipedia in an appropriate way rather than continuing a pattern of self-stimulation. Vision_Thing has a long history of manipulating Wikipedia for unitary pleasure for several years. I have repeatedly engaged in attempts to edit constructively with Vision_Thing: I have asked for outside comments, I have constructed votes, I have taken Vision_Thing to mediation. Vision_Thing, usually in concert with various sockpuppets, meatpuppets, single topic accounts, fake accounts, and banned accounts, has been engaging in a multi-year POV edit war relating to definitions of Fascism, national socialism, Nazism, neofascism, and neonazism (among others). When Vision_Thing is outvoted by other editors, Vision_Thing simply waits a few weeks or months, and starts the edit war over again. I think the term "masturbation" was apt and appropiate. I am surprised that the term is considered "inappropriate" here on Wikipedia, where cyber-masturbation is common, but apparently it is, and I will not use it again.--Cberlet (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The metaphoric implication was quite clear, and that's where I thought you crossed the line. Obviously there are no individual words that are verboten on Wikipedia... but calling someone's edits "bullshit" or "ideological masturbation", especially in an edit summary, is pushing the civility policy.

The problem with edit summaries is that 1) they are highly visible, 2) you cannot take them back or edit them later (at least not without admin intervention), and 3) they do not provide enough context. It's really not appropriate to accuse someone of ideological masturbation without a clear explanation of what you mean, what behaviors are leading you to say that, etc. When you just toss the term about in an 11-word edit summary, it comes across as if you are flinging insults rather than trying to characterize a type of behavior.

So, no, the term is not always considered "inappropriate", but I would probably directing the term at another editor in an insulting manner it in an edit summary.

The edit warring is another story, and there are channels for addressing this. Let me know if you want to try and pursue this. In the meantime, just try to keep it civil. Thanks!  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see your points.--Cberlet (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mark this as resolved then.  :) Thanks!! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The abovementioned user harrassed me about "flag removal from certain pages" which he won't or maybe can't even specifically mention. The fact is, the last flag which I might have removed from any article was probably more than two weeks ago. This is his message to me just now on my talkpage which I had deleted. I double check back at this user-talk page and found that he was embroiled in some kind of mess with another Administrator, that I won't want to get involved in for obvious reasons. Quite frankly, this gives me the impression that he might be taking things out on me for no valid reason(s). On another note, I had dropped the same user a wiki-smile (mentioned here) about two months back and he seem quite unhappy about it even though I tried to be civil with him. Appreciate if maybe some admin can help me get this guy off my back, thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at this, I don't see how that can be considered as having "tried to be civil with him". Of the two of you, your tone is much more aggressive. Regardless of when this action in question happened, he apparently just came upon it. The Mmmkay at the end was unnecessary, but it certainly doesn't constitute harassment, or even incivility. I don't know what flag he's talking about or what article, but if I were you, I would politely ask him to clarify, then do some research to find out what happened and what should be done. If you need assistance with this, feel free to ask me on my talk page. LaraLove|Talk 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my Talk page, I got a message from user w2bh which contains the statement "I'd say you have some personal issues regarding your ethnicity and your ancestry". I feel this is a personal attack against me and my heritage. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy. No one should attack someone's ethnicity and ancestry. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello out there, user w2bh is still insulting me. He posted in my Talk page, "Or maybe you have something against unpure blood?" Now he is implying that I am racist. Is anyone out there? Why is no administrator speaking against this harassment I am receiving for User w2bh. Lehoiberri (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misinterpreted w2bh's remarks. The "personal issues regarding your ethnicity" comment, while it was getting a bit personal and I will advise w2bh to refrain from those sorts of comments, was not meant to "doubt your ancestry," as you interpreted it. w2bh was trying to understand why it was so disturbing to you to include a reliable source that classified the ethnic makeup of the majority of Argentinians as non-white. w2bh apparently interpreted you to have taken offense at the implication, which w2bh found confusing because he didn't see white vs. non-white as a positive or negative. Of course, I have no idea of knowing what is in your hand, so I want comment on that; I'm just saying it's clear that's what w2bh thought. He wasn't "doubting your ancestry" or anything.

I will advise w2bh to try to keep it more professional and less personal. In the meantime, I would also encourage you to try to be less sensitive about these issues. w2bh is not "harassing" you; the worst he did was make some improper speculation about your motives in reply to something you said. That's inappropriate, but it's not harassment. You could have made the whole thing go away by ending the conversation, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for future reference, you are likely to get a faster response here and at other noticeboards if you provide diffs of the comments in question. Also, I think the slow response was due to it being the weekend. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow response also because of "busy-ness" lately :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – hopefully. Editor warned.

Continued gross incivility despite reminders for past 2 weeks. The comment for discussion entry for Talk:Captain America#Intelligence under intelligence revisited stated "sick and tired of this shit." User went on to write:

-66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have warned ThuranX to be careful in regards to civility. FWIW, it does seem like he is trying to uphold consensus -- but coming off a recent block for incivility, he needs to be far more careful to watch what he says and how he says it. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in question ignored EVERYTHING that went before in favor of a split of 'ILIKEIT' and 'ISAYSO'. No amount of discussion, no amount of asking him to find external sources, had ANY effect whatsoever. AGF and Civility go only so far. I see no reason nor value in persistent civility beyond the point where it's clear an editor will not stop till he gets his way. This pushed well into gaming AGF and CIVIL, and I had had it. I'm not about to apologize, but there was probably a better way to tell the editor to go soak his head. ThuranX (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Further, that an IP came right here suggests this is a familiar tactic for this IP.) ThuranX (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said both here and on your user talk page, it appears you are in the right regarding the content issue. The best way to deal with someone who ignores consensus is to 1) make sure the consensus is clear on the talk page, 2) make sure their objections to consensus are reasonably addressed (i.e. tell them civilly why they are wrong), and then 3) if they continue to object on the talk page, ignore them; if they continue to revert, report them.

The worst way to deal with someone who ignores consensus is to cuss them out. Now, maybe some day, if I edit Wikipedia long enough, I'll see someone say "You won't listen to fucking reason!" and have the other person respond with, "Oh, hmmm, perhaps you are right, let me take another look at your argument..." But it hasn't happened yet ;p --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, and 3 were done, so he reported me before I reported him. Thanks for seeing all that, and still coming for me instead. Nice to know what kind of person you are. ThuranX (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a big rant here, but I decided it was unnecessary. This is all I need to say:

"What kind of person" I am: The kind of person who sees an editor coming off a recent block for gross incivility hurling obscentities at another editor, and rather than issue a templatized warning and/or report to WP:ANI, instead says to himself, "Perhaps there is another side to this story?"

ThuranX's definition of me "coming for" him: [11]

That's all that really needs to be said. If ThuranX has a problem with how I dealt with this, fine. In the future, when I see a report involving civility issues with ThuranX, I will go straight for the "warn" button in Twinkle, rather than investigating first. It will save me a lot of time anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all you did this time, so ... wow... big difference. You didn't 'handle' the problem at all, you said, 'ThuranX is right, but clearly, he should suffer forever, since IP isn't willing to change', which is ridiculous, and proves that on Wikipedia, he who cries first wins. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(redent) I am okay with no action, but please not this is my first Wikiquette report, as could be noted on my edit history. Providing additional sources to a discussion page rather than a contentious edit is my understanding how things are supposed to go. I made no page edits other than to get reasonable response to what I thought were new issues that addressed the previous arguement, and in the face of continued gross incivility, I did not feel so inclined to activly respond to User:ThuranX colorful remarks. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

For someone who so pointedly condemned my perceived incivility, I have to say that I am a bit taken back by ThuranX's comment "AGF and civility only go so far" and that he could have found a better way to tell a user to go soak their head. Nice to know what kind of person ThuranX is; he can dish out the condemnation and advice from on high, but cannot be bothered to follow it himself. I am not defending the anon's actions, but I am certainly drawing attention as to how Thuran seems to be of two minds when it suits his purpose. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between losing one's patience, like I did, and a constant holier than thou attitude, like you're displaying right now, and which has earned you numerous recent AN/I reports. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, perhaps you left after posting your righteous indignation at my "holier than thou" (and what sort of attitude do you think you might have displayed in your comments?) but before each of the AN/I complaints were found to be baseless. Rather a significant difference from being called to AN/I for what one has actually done.

I am working on my behavior, to try and be more charitable towards the foibles of others. This anger/civility - or rather "losing one's patience" - issue of yours appears to be a long-standing problem - at least in the two years I've been here. If you keep 'losing' your patience, perhaps you should attach a leash to it, or some such, so seek a longer-term method of rehabilitating your behavior so the temper doesn't get 'lost' out barking at or biting the neighborhood kids. Just a thought. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note , the incivilty started upon the first response, not a mere push to edge. I hope this was an opportunity to bring this User's conduct to attention of others in case of future temper losses. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Will an uninvolved editor please mark this thread as archived? I don't feel that I can do so any longer, since I am being harshly criticized for some reason that is beyond my understanding, therefore making me "involved" I suppose. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues, leave a note here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to RFC and back to mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – somewhat. Sockpuppet blocked, but blocking administrator Jayjg advised to make more appropriate block summaries in block log. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This users last edit summary on an edit to David Irving was "It's evident this article is tightly controlled by a gang of angry Jews. I'm not just accusing. See their profiles-might have to look at their page history. can't reason with em. tis unacceptable.)". I find this sort of language troubling and inappropriate for Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter). For the record I have edited David Irving, and I'm not Jewish. I don't want to bite newbies, and this is only this users second edit. But can someone not involved in the article, and familiar with whatever our rules on civility are please have a look. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a message to his talk page. LaraLove|Talk 13:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post a much harsher warning but you beat me to it by a few minutes :) I'm not 100% sure we want to keep an editor whose first (and so far only) mainspace contribution includes a rant about "angry Jews", but I suppose we'll see what happens. Perhaps he'll just go away. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked indefinitely (manifestly excessive I think - we can't bite newbies for their first edit I don't think). I'll leave the blocking admin a message. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg may know more than us: An obvious sock. Anyway, we'll see what he says. FWIW, I don't think an indef was entirely out of proportion. If the user wants to contribute constructively, they can create a new account. Unless, you know, it was important to them to retain the "angry jews" comment in their contribs... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, unless Jayjg has evidence this is a known banned sockmaster, he should have asked someone else to do the block, since the sock specifically mentioned Jayjg by name... (but if this is a known sockmaster, all bets are off) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very bad block, not just for that reason, and it's duration. It's also a strong assumption of bad faith. In the absence of any form of counselling and for a first mainspace edit, this contributes to the chilling effect. We have personal attacks warning templates after all.... I've told him on his talk page. If it is a known sockmaster - then it really should have been noted in the block logs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaysweet: Account creation is blocked. LaraLove|Talk 22:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No major personal attacks cited for Orangemarlin. seicer | talk | contribs 13:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past day or so, Orangemarlin has exhibited extremely belligerent, uncivil behavior towards myself and others. The situation began with my removal of a blatantly false quote from a few articles. (See here, here and here.) I provided sources in the edit summaries proving the quote to be phony. I recall reading how such obviously false information can be removed from Wikipedia with prejudice and without discussion (from my understanding of what BLP says here, which would cover Phillip E. Johnson's article and any instance of this phony quote attributed to him in other articles). As expected, these proper and source-backed deletions were reverted and Orangemarlin falsely labeled my edits as "disruptive" here.

I attempted to politely ask Orangemarlin about the removal here, but he ignored the inquiry and deleted it while falsely labeling it "uncivil" here. I tried again here with the same result here.

Orangemarlin subsequently fabricated a sockpuppet accusation against me here and here based on EXTREMELY flimsy evidence which included blatantly false and easily disproven information (i.e. where my IP address tracks back to). I feel this accusation was made solely as an intimidation tactic. Orangemarlin was asked about this accusation by another editor here, in response to which he further accused me of vandalizing the article(s) here. I responded to the new accusation here, which Orangemarlin deleted again with the false claim that I was being "uncivil" here.

I approached another editor for help and he asked Orangemarlin about the situation here, with Orangemarlin responding unequivocally that I was a sock, "case closed," and with the edit summary of "we don't give AGF to socks" here. (I didn't realize WP policies and guidelines were subject to Orangemarlin's whims.) Orangemarlin went further on to describe his feelings about anonymous IP users here, which do not assume good faith (at least when they involve edits that runs contrary to his agenda).

During the sockpuppet accusation, I removed Orangemarlin's notice from this IP addresses talk page as I had read it. Orangemarlin reverted my removal with false claim here and here that they could not be removed until the case had been decided (which is completely unsupported by the WP pages about this process).

Finally, yet another editor (an admin, in fact) politely asked Orangemarlin to answer some questions regarding his accusation against me. The questions were here and the request is here. Orangemarlin once again took the uncivil route, bizarrely calling the polite, proper questions "rude and insulting" here.

The accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism have all been dismissed and abandoned, but Orangemarlin's policy-violating uncivil and non-AGF behavior remains unchecked and continues even now here, here and here (which includes his added desire for me to be blocked for no good reason), and I really doubt it will cease. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The userpage of User:Jinxmchue is relevant. (Not saying that means we should ignore the IP, but it's relevant)

I am not entirely pleased with how OrangeMarlin handled this entire thing. His conversation with HiDrNick is worth a read. Also, I would hate for OM's recent edits to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kdbuffalo to become a trend... Yeah, he was right that the IP was someone he'd interacted with before, but chucking out names of possible sockmasters with little to no evidence is a little sketchy.

That said, I don't think I could be entirely objective here -- I have too much admiration for the work OM does in combating fringe pov-pushers on Wikipedia. Someone else should take a look at this, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had similar experiences with OrangeMarlin (and other editors in his clique of friends). it seems to be an intimidation tacit used to forestall criticism of their perspectives, but unfortunately they seem to be immune from any form of administrative action regarding it. C'est la vie... my suggestion to you is to be polite, firm, and reasonable in your dealings with them, and to keep in mind that it's mostly bluster. I'll take a look at the pages you noted, and if there's anything I can do to help content-wise, I will. but I fear you're just going to have to put up with their attitude. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal attack, Ludwigs2. And on the Wikiquette Alerts page no less. Very considerate since you're saving OM a trip. Odd nature (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of writing an essay: Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack for accusing... The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sounds interesting. let me know when you finish typing the title. =D --Ludwigs2 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you say so. for me, it's simply a statement of experience, one which I can back up through diffs. and frankly, I'd love the chance to take up the matter here, since when I filed my own wikiquette grievance against OM, it was quashed before I even had a chance to participate. as you choose, odd nature... --Ludwigs2 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a minor, several months old mistake which I admitted to and apologized for is relevant beyond how the incident was and continues to be blown completely out of proportion by Orangemarlin and others on his side. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sockpuppeting evading a block is relevant. If it was an honest mistake why have you been trying repeatedly to delete evidence of it for months? You seriously don't expect the community to just ignore that, do you? OM's guess that you were Kdbuffalo sockpuppets seems well-founded, if factually mistaken, now that you've admitted you are a sockpuppet of Jinxmchue. He dropped the claim as soon as you admitted that, so there's nothing to this filing. Now move along. There's nothing here for you. Odd nature (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see the tactic here? Instead of addressing OM's behavior, they are trying to turn the alert back upon me. (And incidentally, if there were anything to this months-old "evidence," why has nothing come of it? Either advance the accusation or retract it.) 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx, you've admitted [37] are using an anon IP to sockpuppet. You used this sock to edit war to insert pov content over the last 3 days. Now you're raising a stink when you're rightly identified as sockpuppet? Your using victim bully tactics here. It's not going to work; OM was right that you are a sockpuppet, he was just wrong on who's sockpuppet you are, that's all. Identifying a edit warring sockpuppet as a sockpuppet is no insult. Now please move along. Odd nature (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to dignify your smear tactics with any further responses. Address OM's uncivil behavior, not your personal chip on your shoulder against me. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Odd nature, will you please cite diffs where this editor has "inserted pov content over the last 3 days", or strike your statement? ➪HiDrNick! 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have Oddnature reverting several editors' contributions simply based on his personal bias against me.[38] Wow. Just wow. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, this is not resolved. This is about OM's incivility, not his claim against me. And I would really like someone other than OddNature or any other friend of OM to handle this. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? How about starting to assume good faith, Jinx. I don't even know OM. He's been no friend of mine, though I do trust him more than some others. Odd nature (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, I have nothing against you or any other editor here, but I myself would like to see someone other that the same-old-faces have a chance to comment on this, before it to gets quashed. --Ludwigs2 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that will be me, although I have commented on OM in the past due to his (repeated) appearances at Wikiquette alerts -- most without merit. That said, I don't see any personal attacks. It may be heated, but it was warranted given the situation and was met with an equal amount of hostility, in addition to POV-pushing. 67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was using Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to POV-push and edit war and that takes an increased weight when dealing with the situation.

My point is, back away and go find something else to do. You aren't helping yourself in this situation by complaining about Orangemarlin, when you have committed infractions that could warrant sanctions if it is not curbed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Your comment was two-thirds about me and one-third about OM - and that one-third didn't even have anything to do with issues I raised. I never accused him of making personal attacks. I accused him of being uncivil or, as you so cutely put it, "heated." (Hey, can I use that word, too, and get away with behavior contrary to WP guidelines and policies? "I wasn't edit warring. I was engaging in heated editing.") Anyway, let's look at what the WP:Civility page has to say:

"This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible."

I don't see any "excepts" in there. No "except when someone is editing under an IP address." No "except when you consider someone a sock puppet." OM apparently sees many "excepts" on that page and feels perfectly justified behaving the way he does. I wonder if the WP community at large would agree with that.

I'll back away when I feel I've exhausted my options. And I'm not trying to help myself. How would opening myself up to further harassment by these people help me?

Finally, I've faced and accepted the consequences for my actions. If I had been the one behaving like OM did during the past couple days, there's no way we'd be having this conversation now. I'd have been properly warned and probably even blocked mighty quickly. All editors are equal, but I guess some are more equal than others. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add in my agreement. I don't like being told to back away and do something else for the sake of peace, as though OrangeMarlin were a tantrum-bound four year old who couldn't be held accountable for his own actions. so far as I know he's an adult, perfectly capable of balancing his emotions and acting in calm, deliberate, good faith civility. the fact that he doesn't (and you yourself have noted how often his name ends up in alerts here, so that is not a personal attack but rather a demonstrable fact) is a poor reflection on his character, not ours, and I for one am not interested in coddling him.

if it were me, I'd make him sit in a corner and read wp:Please do not bite the newcomers till he could recite it back to me verbatim, and then I'd quizz him on it, just to make sure. --Ludwigs2 05:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tantrum-bound four year old?" Thanks.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll use that out-of-context analogous phrase well, OM. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, Orangemarlin has stepped up the incivility and ventured into personal attack territory. Check out this edit summary for his reversion of my (and lots of other people's) edits:

Reverting anti-semitic whitewashing

So now I'm being accused of being an anti-Semite. If OM does not face any consequences for these behaviors, they will only continue to escalate. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try dude. I reverted whitewashing of Wildmon's anti-semitism. And of course, added references. But of course, it's a personal attack to state that I'm making a personal attack. Oh, this is too confusing. Enjoy your evening. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, OM. You obviously are referring to my edits (though you've carelessly reverted others' edits as well) as "whitewashing" even though all I did was move one section to a more appropriate spot in the article - something that I mentioned in the article's talk page and which went unchallenged. And adding "anti-semitic" in front of "whitewashing" is your attempt to describe my alleged motivations for making the edits I did. The only confusing thing is how you are allowed to continue your uncivil behavior and personal attacks. As I said before, if I were the one making the comments you are, I'd have been quickly warned and most likely blocked. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is going nowhere but a flame war. Think maybe everyone could stop posting long enough for an admin to actually look at the thread? The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Ludwigs2 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, sorry. I hadn't realized when I posted the above that that this alert had been quashed as well. since I can't expect an admin to look at a thread that has somehow been resolved (even over the objections of the person who started it), I feel no compunctions about continuing to post

This is unconditionally despicable behavior, though on the positive side I suppose it's good that OM has friends who take care of him. people, I swear... --Ludwigs2 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Jinxmchue (talk · contribs), who has had three brief blocks the last of which expired in December 2007, announced at that time "Username retired", stating that "My IP address is not static and the last three digits change from time to time. I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT. If they change, they change. In the future, when I notice that the IP has changed, I will post a note about my identity on the new IP user page."[39]
2. Since 15:25, 19 May 2008, he has been editing as 67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs), whose talk page was started by another editor at 05:56, 26 May 2008, with "Warning: Censorship of material on American Family Association". After a series of warnings, 67.135.49.116 made his first edit to his IP user page talk page at 05:13, 17 June 2008,[40] but failed to post the promised note about his identity.
3. He was blocked for edit warring, not vandalism,[41] and on his talk page was advised that his edit summaries using "conspiracy-theorist language" and "hitting out in an aggrieved tone" were not a good way to build consensus.[42]
4. Subsequently, his editing patterns aroused suspicions of sockpuppetry which would have been resolved had he revealed his identity as promised. He only revealed his identity at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Kdbuffalo at 19:20, 18 June 2008, in response to a direct question asking if the IP was Jinxmchue.

• This gives some background in relation to civility issues, the content dispute issues should appropriately be dealt with elsewhere. . dave souza, talk 09:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Users warned that future violations of 3RR will lead to blocks - referred to WP:AN/3RR Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been making repeated edits to Malta related articles (specifically Maltese People) for some time now with an agenda I believe borders on xenophobia/racism. Any assistance in sorting out this issue would be appreciated. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits are you referring to? Please provide a link.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the Maltese People article, re: Talk:Maltese people specifically the 'Language section of infobox'. You have made edits in a similar vein to the Egyptians article. Also, you've removed my legitimate criticism of your questionable edits from your talkpage. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see that there is some edit-warring going on at that article, and I would caution everyone involved to be careful about the WP:3RR rule. However, I don't see any xenophobia or racism... The dispute appears to be over whether an infobox should include only official languages, or if it should also include languages spoken by a sizeable minority...? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that Yolgnu's targeting of Malta related articles (making no constructive edits) borders on racial discrimination, similarly, the edits to do with Egyptians. Hopefully the issue on Maltese People has been/will soon be resolved. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection, Yolgnu (talk · contribs) and Gibmetal77 (talk · contribs) are both already in violation of WP:3RR. I have warned each of them on their talk page. Further reversions by these users could result in a block without further notice. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been receiving raging and extremely profane messages, edit summaries, and such from Blogsd. They're referenced here[43]. It started with calling me an idiot, then progressed to further insults and profanity.

I've done a little digging in the last few minutes and discovered I'm not the only person he's been calling an idiot[44]. He's also reverting editors' edits for reasons that I can't comprehend, like stating that wikilinking to the article on Oman is vandalism to be stopped at all costs[45], and that wikilinking to the article on the Toronto Star newspaper is vandalism[46]. I believe I need assistance. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have them a level 4 (final) warning for personal attacks. As far as the mysterious reverts, I think he/she was objecting to the removal of an unsourced statement. In the former case ([47]), the previous edit was the removal of an unsourced statement, and I suspect that Blogsd hit the wrong undo button. In the latter case ([48]), a paragraph was removed as well as the wikilink.

The civility issue is much more severe than the bad vandalism reverts, so let's see what happens next. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to be very Polite as wikipedia standard i m extreme sorry i beg ur pardon that i dont care about ur worrring . new u can block me as i already back up all text i need in my wikipedia profile. but i m affred u cant block me permanently . block my id i will creat new one . block my ip . i m using dynamic id here. block my 1st 4 digit of IP ( which u cant do it for permanently for obious reason) i change my ISP . i will use cyber cafe which will use entirely new IP . so do wateva u can. u can now block my id thnx . will see u with a new id saonara

This user is evil, and frequently says muhuhaha.

Blogsd^Contact