Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive98

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IP:98.165.140.193

This editor continuously shows incivility and makes demands for me to add unsourced information regarding the upcoming second season. The whole thing started when the editor appeared mentioning that Cartoon Network's "See What's on TV" page confirmed the season premier episode of the show. I told them that the schedule was unreliable on the grounds that it only pertains to the current week's programing, they never archive, and currently as of today (January 30) there's no mention of any broadcast in regards for the February 7 date that the IP claims the episode will broadcast on. The only sold source that can be used right now is the TV Guide page. When I brought this to their attention, they ask me if I was on drugs, and I ask them to show civility and I ask that they provide a reliable source. They then call me "the dumbest person ever" and present the link to the schedule insisting that this was totally reliable. I asked again to refrain from incivility. When I told them that the schedule did not confirm the date, they demanded that I add it. I told them no, and asked them one last time to show civility. So in their current response they dropped the F-bomb, and used a statement that appears to come off as a double entendre for masturbation. Sarujo (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Sitush

I'd like to complain about an editor on this page Talk:History of Hollyoaks who has been accusing me of ownership of the article, implying I am not capable of grammar because I didn't attend Cambridge like he did, telling me he is fed up with me when I didn't do anything wrong, taking the moral high ground on everything and labeling himself as supreme in knowledge, personal attacks then follow. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I left an extensive note on the talk page, but in summary: Both people seem to be good, well intentioned editors that just don't get along. I suggest you try to bring in more people and stop discussing editor behavior on the talk pages as this is not in line with Wiki policy. Good Luck! :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Building Official

Editor 99.9.102.9 has once again reverted deletion of unencyclopedic job description not meeting notability or WP:RS without discussion. I have asked for and received a 3rd party review, backing my position. I have asked for discussion on both the article talk page and the user's talk page, but no response.Kilmer-san (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the text in question is a copyright violation of a boilerplate job description found here and probably other places. It should not be restored. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've left a proper warning on the IP's talk page, along with an explanation that WP works on third-party sources, so hopefully that will be the last of the edit war. Next time they try to add unsourced content, place a {{subst:uw-unsourced2}} warning on their talk page, as I just now placed {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} on there.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kumioko

Resolved
 – Filer retired after being blocked in separate matter. Ncmvocalist (talk)

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

There is an ongoing RFC discussing the mission of WikiProject United States and its relationship to other WikiProjects. Reviewing the talk page and its archive, there appears to be a systematic effort by User:Kumioko to drive away any editor who disagrees with him such as Markvs88 (talk · contribs). Kumioko's conduct met with criticism last week at an ANI. In response, (without prompting from me) he announced that he was leaving the project. He left what some might interpret as a subtle threat about future interference with my activities at WikProject Virginia. He then started leaving messages on my talk page demanding that leave the project as well. He also tried what one editor described as a SLAPPy effort to have me removed as an mentor of college students in the Public Policy Initiative. As I continued to edit, he retracted his resignation. And his edits are very aggressive and appear to have the goal of chasing me away as well.

On January 29, I made a silly accidental deletion mistake in an edit which was quickly corrected and explained as accidental. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#correction Today, Kumioko brings it up again saying I "innapropriately [sic] change comments (you seem to be the only one that believes it was an accident),"diff, which is a needless personal attack. He also accused me of deleting "large chunks of content" but later retracted that claim diff when questioned.

Kumioko is refactoring large chucks of talk page in his selective effort to manually archive items just a two days old which may not show him in the best possible light. When I unarchived them, the response is more insults and again the false accusation of being an outsider. diff He also tried to move relevant discussions from the previously announced RFC section, to other sections of the talk page. [1]

Kumioko leaves improperly sarcastic edit summaries such as this

Could someone please act to restore civility to the discussions? I think a civility coach may be appropriate. (Yesterday, I also left a request at ANI asking for full page protection on the project page until we can reach consensus.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would take to get to this. Racepacket has tried every other venue so it was only a matter of time till it came here. I suggest before making a determination or taking this alert at facevalue that someone take a look at the submitters own contributions and the ongoing discussions in the 5 or 6 venues (ANI, WikiProject US, WikiProject Council, here, etc) before making a determination. In my opinion its the submitter of this alert that needs the alert and not me but that's just my opinion. I would also like to note how he mentioned a user that shares his general point of view while avoiding (although inferring to their existance) users who do not share his view. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If you would like people to look at text, it would be polite to provide links. Bielle (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect this battle has raged for months and I have lost patience with constantly providing links in every venue that Racepacket adds another complaint too.

In the spirit of cooperation I have added content below which largely constitutes comments I have already made about his contact in other locations. I apologize but this is going to be quite long.

Racepacket has so far submitted his concerns to:

he also feel what I personally felt were inappropriate comments on the talk pages of most of the State projects including:

and others. I added my comments to them and they were reverted by SarekOfVulcan who then blocked me for what he said he felt was personal attacks (they were not) I left on the Wikipedia talk:Online Ambassadors/Mentors page asking for a review of whether Racepacket should be allowed to remain as a Mentor based on what I considered to be dubious activity. I argued the block and it was reverted by another Admin who agreed and felt that I did the right thing adding that there was no other venue to bring up such concerns about a mentor other than the talk page of that project.

Back in November Racepacket as well as 3 or 4 other users came forward with concerns about the scope and intentions of WPUS after I submitted a message to the other projects to collaborate by using 1 banner. I knew that many of the State and US topic projects to be Defunct, inactive or Semiactive and it seemed at the time to make sense that using one banner, {{WikiProject United States}} would make things easier to pull these misc. projects together and allow them to collaborate in a central location if necessary until the defunct or inactive projects were active again. I also knew that there would be some, perhaps most, that would not want too. And that was fine. The message was taken way out of perspective and perceived as a hostile takeover of the other projects by WPUS. After repeated compromises and discussions about the scope of WPUS and what articles would be tagged Racepacket continued to attempt to restrict and confine WPUS into a smaller and smaller roll so that they would only be allowed to add articles in the scope of National importance further pressing that even the state level articles (Ohio or Virginia for example) were out of scope. Even after myself and other members of the projects attempted to inform him and after the other editors who started the discussions with him had left, that the members had the right to set the scope and direction of the project and that any project had the right to tag an article with their banner without an outside editor or project telling them they could not (these are both in accordance with WikiProject Guidlines found here).

This gave Racepacket the perception that the project, myself in particular where being aggressive and dismissive of others comments and Racepacket then continued to leave more and more messages and comments in what appeared to be a Wikistyle fillibuster of the topic until myself and he were embroiled in what has been termed by others as a "Slugfest". In the last couple weeks though things have been getting more and more negative and in the last few days especially Racepacket has been displaying more and more innapropriate tactics and it was most recently especially IMO when he violated policy. He apparently did not like how the discussions were going so he attempted to Forumshop by adding links to the discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council soliciting comments. He also begain canvassing and attempting to votestack by leaving comments on the User pages of those that he new shared his views and by leaving comments on all the project pages (as can be seen by his contributions here on the Project pages and here on the user pages even encouraging a couple of users not to give up. It actually got to the point were other users including myself got fed up and began to leave the project. As I can see including myself about 6 users have left the project in the last week. I returned because I wasn't going to be driven off by someone but others still remain away.

Racepacket also has had frequent problems with signing his posts making users such as myself check the history of the page to see who left it, tends to misalign his posts in discussions making it appear that they are continuous posts from previous comments, etc. He misquotes comments or policies and twists them to his view.

I hope this helps but please let me know if you need me to provide more. --Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All of Kumioko's concerns were explored by administrators at the ANI which Kumioko filed against me. Their conclusion was that anyone is welcome to edit and comment at WikiProject United States, and that Kumioko should consider ever editor that participates as a "member." They also found that the notices which I posted about the centralized RFC at the state wikiprojects were neutral. The whole idea of a centralized RFC is to give notice widely, without regard for which way people will vote. (Hence, the ANI explained that is not "votestacking" or improper canvassing.) The major difference between Kumioko's conduct and mine is that I have done my utmost to remain calm and polite and have never sought to chase Kumioko away. In constrast, Kumioko has been very clear that he is trying to chase me away. I reject his fundamental premise that Kumioko is the owner and sole gatekeeper to participation in WikiProject United States. It is never proper to pursue a deliberate course of conduct with the express purpose of chasing away another editor.
It is interesting that Kumioko admits that he has had adversarial interactions since October, but he is unable to point to one diff where I have been impolite. Please take the time to read only the three comments that I left before starting the RFC: diff, diff and [2]. It is clear that the rancor to that point was not generated by my comments. I agree that walls of text has become a problem at the WikiProject, but the vast majority of text is generated by Kumioko, without regard for brevity, clarity or spelling. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me just say that, as a fellow WPUS member who has interacted with Kumioko and Racepacket, I do NOT think Kumioko entirely blameless. However, I do think Racepacket's venue shopping and unwillingness to accept consensus isn't right. So in that spirit, I am submitting a counter-Wikiquette alert against Racepacket Purplebackpack89 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone wanted to look for 1 case of impoliteness I suppose they could look just below where I was being accused of meatpuppetry. Or you could read through the messages and get a sense by the tone of whats being said. I could say a string of Curse words with a smile but that doesn't make them polite! --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Earlier today you made reference to a "dozen or so emails" discussing what was happening on the talk page, have you been conducting off-wiki communications? Racepacket (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well yes but absolutely not regarding this situation. For clarification the only off wiki communication I have sent was regarding Wikimania, the Smithsonian Collaboration, the Archives collaboration and some activity of trying to get some missing images regarding active politicians. As I told you before (and this is a classic case of you misquoting what was said) the EMAILS were from other members of the project telling me they agreed with at least the majority of what I and the others had said and offered words of encouragement (partly why I came back to the project) but did not wish to participate in the discussion for various reasons. I asked most to reconsider but I completely understand why they wouldn't want to embroil themselves in this drama fest. And, No I will not tell you who they were. In fairness several also told me that I had gone too far a few times (which I have admitted doing in frustration) and that if I stop replying you will stop posting (something about a fire without oxygen will soon fizzle out or something to that effect). --Kumioko (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you think that they would have felt more comfortable in contributing to the discussion if there had been less of an attacking tone present on the page and a pattern that whenever someone leaves a comment, you feel the need to respond immediately without giving other people a chance to weigh in? Racepacket (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That is perhaps true but the general consensus in the messages I received was that I was not the one they had a problem with. But since most of the messages you are leaving are directed at me as this last one was what else would you have me do? --Kumioko (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It is very important to make a distinction between the substance of messages and the manner in which they are communicated. It is fine that people disagree. Some want an "narrow" project scope while other want a "broad" project scope. A talk page can be used to sort out differences and come to a consensus; but not to drive people away. Making people "go away" is never a permissible goal or an allowable tactic. People who disagree with you will remain active in WikiProject United States no matter how rude you are to them or how many times you slander them in unrelated places either on-wiki or off-wiki. Racepacket (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe this exchange typifies the "chase them away approach" that must stop:

Although I am willing to discuss changing the scope and mission you seem to be under the illusion that there is no consensus. We have 180 members of the project, all of which have added their names to the list in the last month since the Scope and mission has been thier. I must assume that at least most of them read at least some of it before they join so that, to me, is consensus of sorts to the ones who are actually participating in the project which excuse me for being blunt but, matter more to me than a couple of editors who aren't members of the project. If some of the members comment and state yes we think the scope should be changed then we can go from their. However thus far the only members of the project seem to be arguing for leaving it the way it is. So until the members step up the consensus is, by the virtue of them joining the project with the scope clearly visibile, that it stays. --Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me translate what Kumioko just said: "go away". This isn't worth my time. Markvs88 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko is responsing to a reasoned arguments made by a number of different editors by saying there is consensus because he will only listen to people who agree with him. Note the bitting "under the illusion", and the overall tone of the paragraph. The irony is that Markvs88 and I have probably contributed far more to Wikipedia's United States coverage than has Kumioko. Having chased Markvs88 away, he started attacking me:

Now I have tried to remain patient about this but I am going to take my nice guy hat off for a moment and say simply this. What have you done for Wikipedia lately other than stir up emotions on discussions and cause internal turmoil? If you have a problem with what I am doing or how I am doing it then I challenge you to step up (imagine me throwing my gauntlet down). Why don't you take over as Coordinator, gorvernor, King or whatever you want to call it of one, some or all of the Inactive or defunct projects and start working on getting editors collaborating as I have done. Better still help out here, on the US portal, on the Collaboration of the Month or whatever. If you want to continue to discuss an issue that has limited merit and support instead of improving content then fine we can but this is a complete waste of time for us both at this point and I am sure, I hope, that you have better things to do. I know I do. I also suggest that you stop spamming your personal biased feelings on the talk pages of all the projects in rebuttal to the comments I left soliciting participation and cooperation. If the projects want to join in and help great and if not thats ok too but Wikipedia does not need one editor poking at the hornets nest and stirring up emotions because they are pissed off that things didn't go their way. --Kumioko (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The irony is that Kumioko perceives his role until now as "Coordinator, gorvernor, [sic] King" when he is just one member of a collaborative team. Remember at the time that he wrote this, there was still ongoing discussion with a number of users disagreeing with his position. After a number of such lengthy, biting posts, people started to back away from participating. Racepacket (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Another editor recently posted the following on the article's discussion page directed at Racepacket:
"... you might want to look at this one, covering the period since you joined the discussion. You have made more edits than your lead opponent and more than all of the other 24 particpants combined."
Rather than having anything to do with Kumioko's actions, it is more likely that it is Racepacket's aggressive attempts to dominate the debate that have driven people away. Or maybe it's just that other people aren't interested in a crusade, have had their say and moved on. Racepacket needs to pretend that there is this mass of his supporters out there that agree with everything he says, because otherwise it is obviously apparent that he is isolated in his largely negative agenda to restrict the actions of a WikiProject that he doesn't even belong to. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
1) Take into account the "minor edits" that were spelling corrections, Kumioko and I left about the same number of comments. 2) Take a look at the thread above the RFC entitled "Scope of WikiProject United States." How welcomed were those editors treated? Will they ever come back? 3) Aggressivenss come out through language choice. Racepacket (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Are we really still talking about this? Nothing happened either time you went ANI, nothing happened when you went to the Wikiproject Council, Nothing happened when I went to the Ambassadore program and virtually knowone responded when you went to all of the WikiProjects. Nothing is going to happen here. When are you going to realize knowone cares anymore, they and we have better things to do so let it go! --Kumioko (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not "go to Wikiproject Council", I just posted a notice of the on-going RFC there. Racepacket (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You inability to accept responsibility and acknowledge your serious policy violations (of bot policy, of WP:NPA,of WP:CONS and of WP:HOUND) is very troubling and will not end with a dismissive "knowone cares anymore." Perhaps your lack of spelling and grammar skills should lead you to reconsider your role at Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Racepacket

Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per above. Venue-shopping, refusal to accept consensus, and flooding the WTUS page so as to render it unnavigable Purplebackpack89 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I have treated user Purplebackpack89 with the utmost consideration and respect. He offers no examples where I dealt with him in a rude or attacking manner. I support his right to participate in the RFC. However, I have also treated the other users who have expressed views and concerns on WT:WPUS with the same consideration and respect and I believe that everyone should have their views considered and not be bullied.
  • I also observe that no notice given on my talk page of this complaint. I suspect that there is some meatpuppetry going on here over the last three days between Purplebackpack89 and Kumioko. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I have been accused of having some moral flexabality I have no need of meatpuppets and I somewhat resent the implication that I would stoop to such a level. Also, since its basically been the same 5 or 6 people in these discussions I cannot see how you would come to such a silly conclusion other than as a spiteful retaliatory comment. --Kumioko (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Kumioko, don't you think that it is a very odd coincidence that Purplebackpack89 has filed this complaint just two hours after I filed the complaint about you? Racepacket (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a meatpuppet? That's such a base accusation, it doesn't make any sense. If you looked at my comments, you'll find at times I have been quite critical of Kumioko as well as you, and that I don't meet the criteria for meatpuppetry (namely, I'm not a new user). Kumioko has largely furnished examples above, and most of your other unfortunate actions can be found in the edit history of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. With regard to notification, I a) forgot and b) don't really see the need to notify you of your name being mentioned in a thread you yourself started. This meatpuppetry accusation really troubles me Purplebackpack89 07:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but given the timing, it is probably fair to ask whether you read all of Wikiquette alerts on a regular basis or whether you came to this thread some other way? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, with this [[3]] edit you notified everyone participating in your ANI to look here. It is extremely uncivil to make the baseless claims about meatpuppetry. In fact, with your pattern of forum shopping, it is pretty much necessary to monitor your contributions list to see where else you have raised issues concerning the WikiProject United States. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone who is uninvolved with all of this, it appears as if you are all bickering at this point and it doesn't really attact many uninvolved users to comment or provide perspective (which I thought was the reason why you were all here). Remember, the conduct that is examined isn't limited to the subject of the complaint; it can extend to the filer as they are both parties to a dispute. In light of that fact (that the conduct of both parties is examined in the process), retaliatory WQAs like this (and unjustified accusations, like those of meatpuppetry in this thread) are never looked upon favourably - they serve to exacerbate disputes rather than move them towards resolution. More light and less heat would be appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we can close this out now. Racepacket was banned imdefinately for CCI violations a couple days ago making this pointless. --Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kenatipo

Stuck
 – Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kenatipo created--Cube lurker (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked him whether he could remove my postings from his user page, he answered sarcastically. I, obviously, would like them to be removed. WikiManOne 18:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-issue. It is up to each individual whether or not to retain postings on their talk pages. I don't see any sarcasm in his reply to you. My suggestion would be, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. BTW, you didn't inform Kenatipo about the discussion here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, coming from you who agrees with him on various issues, you would try to defend him. Sorry, I did forget to notify him, thank you for going ahead and doing so. The posts in question were not posted on his talk page, they were posted on other pages and were the "Quote" was quickly corrected, it is posted there deceptively and in an attempt to undermine my editing. Obviously, you would like me to "get out" because I provide a necessary check to activist editing/pov which you seem to support. WikiManOne 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's get something straight right off the bat. I don't "support" anyone on various issues, nor am I "defending" anyone. Now, what I see is you gettiing bent out of shape because your move proposal on Talk:Pro-life is being vigorously debated (and as I see it, will probably not pass), and rather than going on with life, you would rather continue instead to badger someone who doesn't have the same views that you do. I suggested that you drop the issue as there are more important things in Wiki-life to worry about. An admin reversed your earlier actions of WP:NOTAVOTE, so that right there speaks volumes about your particular behavior in this case.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Vigourously debated? What actual arguments have been brought against it other than "WE DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED WHAT NEUTRAL SOURCES LIKE THE AP AND NYT CALLS US!!!" but I don't want to discuss that here. Also, note that the admin you reference SUPPORTED the move, so does that "speak volumes" as well? I'm not bent over about it, but I don't like that you seem to be stalking my edits.. WikiManOne 02:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Without delving into the original conflict, there appears to be an valid issue. WP:UP#POLEMIC mentions that user pages shouldn't be used to maintain a collection of what we view of flaws in those we have conflict with. The one exception would be if you were gathering diffs to be promptly used in dispute resolution. I will bring this to Kenatipo's attention and hopefully it resolves at least this part of the dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there was a policy on that somewhere... Clearly the content on that page isn't to be used for dispute resolution, he's ignored your message.. I wonder if there's a way to escalate this.. WikiManOne 02:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This tune keeps going through my head -- don't know why: "I can hear the cuckoo singing in the cuckooberry tree..." --Kenatipo speak! 06:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
hmm, seems like WP:BOOMERANG on WikiManOne for his first response above. Why would you say that on a wikiquette page?Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2011 Egyptian protests- Hate and uncivil attiudes


[[Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Wipsenade (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User :94.246.150.68]] has over the last few days the same disruptive tastes, on-off edit war and trolling on Talk:2011 Egyptian protests. WP:CIVIL broke down as User:The Egyptian Liberal, User:Lihaas and IP number User:94.246.150.68 went to war over the page's topic and factual accuracy. User :94.246.150.68 has also tried cat-fighting and or showing off on Chetniks, Talk:Chetniks, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jash Wipsenade (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I beleave this is why the articale 2011 Egyptian protests is now semi-protected to.Wipsenade (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

He’s even exploded off at XLinkBot once-

(cur | prev) 17:18, 13 January 2011 94.246.150.68 (talk) (36,661 bytes) (please **** off mr bot, I'm, not even ADDING them) (undo).

User :94.246.150.68 was acuseing User:Lihaas of stalking him. Who slalked who? [[4]] and may have anoyed User:DIREKTOR to.

Can you reminded them of WP:CIVIL, since my efforts have been to no use on them. The IP may also need a 12 or 24 hour ban to help him cool off a bit.

I just only notcied this: STALKING??? I told this guy he "can have his way"! As in: 'It will be done your way", a parting message, after I announced I'm leaving the article once and for all, and said nice "bye" repeatedly. Like, yesterday. "Stalking" for a message to say "ok, bye".Now, get lost and don't approach me anymore anywhere. No nice "bye", this time. And here now really, over and out. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The evidence:-

[[5]] [[6]][[7]][[8]]--Wipsenade (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Help!--Wipsenade (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I left this article already, yo. I have no patience Lihaas' behaviour that is/was tolerated by everyone, I don't care anymore about Egypt or "where in the world is Osama bin Laden" at all now, so leave me alone. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem was bot reverting the YT links. Srs bzns. And now bye, again. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
apparently this is a case against complaints by the IP. (see above, the complaint goes WAY beyond the egypt page against him + the first "evidence against them" + [9] --> User_talk:Wipsenade#94.246.150.68) Wipsenande posted politely on my page, i responded to him affirmatively, and we seem to have resolved concerns
the article, an ongoing and HEAVILY edited article, has seen its talk page used aggressively. i have taken all matters to talk, and discussed and continuing to resolve issues there. so i thought others were too, including wipsenande.) Why would MULTIPLE editors say im doing a good job on constructive edits then? Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
what is so hard to understand in this message that you refused to acknowledge and removed Once again and for the last time: I don't care anymore and at all about you, this article, stupid comedies, Egypt in general. Now, I'm out. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
would you seriously write this on a wikiquette alrt page?Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, not. And would you seriously report my parting message saying literally: "fine, have you way, bye" as "stalking"? No really, this is all. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also cat-fighting on ... Talk:Chetniks is simply awesome. I wonder how and where. Apparently nothing but super-gently helping out a new user (Ganderoleg, newest sections at the bottom, also on his talk page) is "cat-fighting" apparently. Wow. I'm so bad. Maybe this was this trolling. (Yes, I said, I'm out, but once I want to close a tab I see something new. So now I'm not looking anymore.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

?--86.16.14.103 (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Case now resolved and dropped.Wipsenade (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Greets. I'm not sure if this belongs exactly here, but User:Gunmetal Angel seems to use his rollback quite at random, so I just wanted to let some admins know to check it out. He seems to rollback quite any uncomfortable edit that he disagrees with and has nothing to do with vandalism or whatsoever. For instance, he plainly rollbacked a bunch of copyedits, updates and cleanups that i just did. Cheers.--Lykantrop (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be a job for this board, unless there is uncivil behavior is involved. Figureofnine (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Allright, i turned to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. thanks--Lykantrop (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

IP editor 24.0.177.155/70.111.133.184

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – violation of use english guideline, report at AN/I if continues

IP editors 24.0.177.155 may be the same person 70.111.133.184. Both of them do edits where they delete English names for places in Ukraine where the English name is derived from the Russian language name.

70.111.133.184 left the following offensive edit summary

  1. 21:55, 3 February 2011 (diff | hist) Kharkiv ‎ (Native name is Ukrainian Kharkiv, not Russian Kharkov. Задолбали кацапи зі своєю псячою мовою. Всюди сунуть це бидляче московське наріччя)

24.0.177.155 left the following offensive edit summary

  1. 15:45, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) Dnieper River ‎ (Кацап, скажи, де річка Дріпро протікає набільшу територію? Так в Україні.)

24.0.177.155 posted the following offensive comment on User talk:Toddy1 at 17:05, 7 February 2011 [10]

CВИНЯ КАЦАПСЬКА ТИ НАВІТЬ НЕ РОЗУМІЄШ УКРАЇНСЬКА МОВУ, АБО РОЗУМІЄШ З ВЕЛИКИМИ ТРУДНОЩАМИ. СКАЖИ МЕНЯ ЧОМУ СУНЕШ СВОЄ ВІЧНО СМЕРДЮЧЕ ТА ВІЧНО П'ЯНЕ РИЛО ДО УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ВІКІПЕДІЇ? ЧОМУ МІНЯЄШ УКРАЇНСЬКІ МІСТА НА РОСІЙСЬКУ ВЕРСІЮ? ЗАПАМЯТАЙ ВИБЛЮДКУ, УКРАЇНА НЕ КАЦАПІЯ І НІКОЛИ НЕЮ НЕ БУДЕ. ТЕПЕР, ПІШО НАХУЙ ЦАП СМЕРДЮЧИЙ.

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to translate those for the non-Ukrainian speakers amongst us. Figureofnine (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Google's rough translation - CVYNYA KATSAPSKA YOU do not even realize UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE OR UNDERSTANDS with great difficulty. Tell me WHY menya SUNESH your eternal and eternal Drunk smelly snout TO UKRAINIAN Wikipedia? WHY UKRAINIAN CITY Change on the Russian version? ZAPAMYATAY VYBLYUDKU, UKRAINE AND DO NOT KATSAPIYA it WILL NOT. Now, walking Nohah DAC smelly.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a violation of WP:TPG#YES (use English) -- take user to AN/I if continues. Gerardw (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the help of someone from Western Ukraine here is a translation:
  • CВИНЯ КАЦАПСЬКА ТИ НАВІТЬ НЕ РОЗУМІЄШ УКРАЇНСЬКА МОВУ, АБО РОЗУМІЄШ З ВЕЛИКИМИ ТРУДНОЩАМИ.
    • Piggie Katsap you do not even speak Ukrainian or understand it with great difficulty. [Katsap is a racist term for Russian people.]
  • СКАЖИ МЕНЯ ЧОМУ СУНЕШ СВОЄ ВІЧНО СМЕРДЮЧЕ ТА ВІЧНО П'ЯНЕ РИЛО ДО УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ВІКІПЕДІЇ?
    • tell me why you pick your always smelly n always drunk nose(face) into Ukrainian Wikipedia
  • ЧОМУ МІНЯЄШ УКРАЇНСЬКІ МІСТА НА РОСІЙСЬКУ ВЕРСІЮ?
    • Why change Ukrainian city to the Russian version.
  • ЗАПАМЯТАЙ ВИБЛЮДКУ, УКРАЇНА НЕ КАЦАПІЯ І НІКОЛИ НЕЮ НЕ БУДЕ.
    • Remember bastard, that Ukraine isnt Katsapiya and never will be. [Katsapiya is rude word meaning Russia.]
  • ТЕПЕР, ПІШО НАХУЙ ЦАП СМЕРДЮЧИЙ.
    • Now f*ck off smelly goat
--Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the text below the header that this is not a WQA issue. Based on the translations above it certainly is, and the user has been warned about it already. If it continues this needs to go to AN/I. Figureofnine (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Pro Football AFDs

After repeated attempts to keep the discussion on the content of the articles in question, the above users have continued to make accusations of bad faith without evidence and other accusatory comments.

For example:

  1. "I have full reason to believe that this campaign is no longer in good faith."
  2. "Mr. McDonald has even attempted to initiate a rule banning semi-pro articles but has been overruled, so he's acting within his twisting of the rules to do it anyway."
  3. "This is getting out of hand."
  4. "Personal beefs with the nominator aside"
  5. "Now, for my more important issue: considering I think your "conclusion" is complete bunk and spinning for an excuse to make yet another deletion in a campaign to scrub anything that even mentions the phrase "semi-pro," "
  6. "I think that your perception is that anything that is not notable in your opinion should be purged from Wikipedia"
  7. "a backlash may come against the work of others rather than your own, but I won't be surprised"
  8. "you might have your own definition of verifiable, independent and reliable sources, but we go by WP:V here"

Of note: I've asked what "rule" I attempted to initiate and who overturned it, but got no answer. The rest of the personal attacks I've done my best to ignore. I really don't care about the personal attacks except that they are massively distracting from the actual discussion.

One of the users claims to be an administrator. In any event, I think we need some help here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is in the deletion logs. Your account has personally tagged every single article on semi-professional football, and at least one professional minor league, and has actively campaigned to delete the articles in question even in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to your assertions. You have engaged in definitional dodges regarding the "reliable sources" rule, twisted the meaning of a guideline (WP:NSPORT) to mean something it never has, attempted to start a conversation to extend it but was overruled, have violated the general principle of trying to save information if it is of any value to Wikipedia, and now you have reported those who oppose your decisions for "bad etiquette?" I am a civil man, Mr. McDonald, but the complete elimination of an entire genre on the basis of your definition of notability, which does not coincide with Wikipedia's, is bad etiquette. That is why I feel it is in bad faith. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing personal attacks here. Figureofnine (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tried my best to keep a civil tone, but when it appears to me that a person has a misunderstanding of certain aspects of policy, it isn't going to come across as praise. My opinion is that Mr. McDonald does taunt people, and my opinion is he seems to enjoy getting a reaction from it; whether others would draw those conclusions from his statements in the discussion is another matter. As he notes, I have said that I will not be surprised if it does lead to a backlash. Mandsford 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OKAY Several points worth following-up here"

  1. The evidence is in the deletion logs. There are a lot of deletion logs in Wikipedia. To which do you refer?
  2. Your account has personally tagged every single article on semi-professional football, and at least one professional minor league, Yep. Most of them were horribly sourced, voilated neutral point of view and even advertising in some cases. And for every last one of them that was deleted, enough others agreed with the position to prompt another editor to delete the articles.
Many of them were proposed deletions that you failed to give prior notification to the editors and/or authors.
  1. and has actively campaigned to delete the articles in question I wouldn't say I've "actively campaigned" for deletion. But even if I had, so what?
  2. even in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to your assertions. Evidently others besides me disagree with that statement. As I have said multiple times before, if you feel that these deletions were not handled properly you are welcome to take them to deletion review.
Which will be done in due time.
  1. You have engaged in definitional dodges regarding the "reliable sources" rule, again, do you have any examples to go with this?
See the Seaboard Football League discussion.
  1. twisted the meaning of a guideline (WP:NSPORT) to mean something it never has, We did address this but obvisously we still disagree.
  2. attempted to start a conversation to extend it but was overruled, What are you talking about here?
See the Semi-pro AFD Discussion Library. Apparently I was mistaken in thinking that was you, but you agreed with the proposal put forth when most did not.
  1. have violated the general principle of trying to save information if it is of any value to Wikipedia, Not sure there is such a "general principle" but assuming there is, it is my belief that the articles in question were not of value to Wikipedia.
It does exist. Wikipedia's deletion policy explicity states "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." It also lists a large number of alternatives to deletion.
  1. and now you have reported those who oppose your decisions for "bad etiquette?" Yes, you have continued to engage in arguments against me rather than against the subject matter in question.
The subject matter in question is your actions, Mr. McDonald. I don't even know you. I don't have a desire to bait or troll other strangers-- in fact, it is the opposite. I am not the one secretly PRODding other people's articles without notification and calling for mass deletions of entire genera of articles, knowing full well people will object. You were apparently also using speedy deletion for some of these pages, which was something I haven't noticed. I am not the one calling for deletion as the first step, which is against Wikipedia policy. Just because I chose to stand up to you does not make it bad etiquette.
  1. I am a civil man, Mr. McDonald, but the complete elimination of an entire genre on the basis of your definition of notability, which does not coincide with Wikipedia's, is bad etiquette. That is why I feel it is in bad faith. Evidently other editors disagree with you besides me. View Semi-pro AFD Discussion Library for a review.
I did review the article and the consensus to your proposal came back as "there was no need to change the current situation."
  1. I'm not seeing personal attacks here. You're kidding, right?
I have not attacked you personally at all. I haven't called you a single name. I have only stated that I do not believe your actions have been in good faith. If coming to that conclusion is a "personal attack," then I must be in the wrong universe. I know we try to assume good faith whenever possible, but sometimes that is not the case, and when a person targets articles for deletion not on merits but on its genre, and continues to defend it with ignorance and dismissal of the sources provided (e.g. "That article doesn't describe the league" even when it does), I can no longer assume good faith.
  1. I've tried my best to keep a civil tone, but when it appears to me that a person has a misunderstanding of certain aspects of policy, it isn't going to come across as praise. Assume I don't understand policy, does that give other editors a license to be rude?
Does that give you a license to accuse others of being rude? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. My opinion is that Mr. McDonald does taunt people, Provide an example, please.
  2. and my opinion is he seems to enjoy getting a reaction from it; That's not true, and if it were true how would you know it?
  3. whether others would draw those conclusions from his statements in the discussion is another matter. I guess
  4. As he notes, I have said that I will not be surprised if it does lead to a backlash. I guess I've been warned.
To Mr. McDonald and Mr. Fuller, I would point out that the purpose of the Wikiettiquette forum is not to have aggrieved parties continue their dialogue. The basic idea is that persons, other than the three of us, observe our behavior and then offer their suggestions to any one of us, or all three. So far as I can tell, User:Figureofnine is the only other person to comment. In that all of us have had a chance to make our comments, let's wait to see what other persons have to say. Mandsford 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but it didn't seem to be working that way in practice. I'll step back from here on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting advice on how to handle a editor who is making off-topic disparaging remarks

Resolved
 – Apology given and accepted. Well done, all! Jusdafax 05:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

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


A while back I was blocked by an admin, and another admin reviewed the case and overturned the block, with a caution to take care to avoid edit war situations, which I have diligently observed (see Talk:Taco Bell as an example).

My issue is this, we're discussing a move of the Jared Lee Loughner page to just Jared Loughner (discussion link). Everyone in the discussion has for the most part been very considerate, but a certain editor, Mr.grantevans2, has decided suddenly to mention the block incident, and is suggesting "that is worth taking into consideration when evaluating your opinions within this dialogue and maybe 1 or 2 other Editors might want to know about it as well".

In essence, its being used as a tool to cast me in a bad light. I honesty don't see how it is relevant at this point. Yes, it is on my Talk page, but my feedback and explanations are there also, so I don't mind, because it gives context to the incident. To simply throw it into the middle of a name change discussion without context seems wrong to me.

I'm not very familiar with how to lodge a complaint, and I've been reviewing the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page, but I really just want to get things back on topic and hopefully get this editor to understand that ad hominem attacks are not the right approach. I can't help that I was a bit ignorant of the Wikipedia convention, and made a mistake, but that shouldn't mean that I have to defend myself at every turn against an honest mistake. I am much more careful now, and I think the issue is settled.

I would appreciate any advice you can give on how to deal with this situation. I don't want to do anything that will escalate the problem, I just want to be able to discuss the issues at hand, not personal attacks. -- Avanu (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view you have come to the right place, if you had to come somewhere. This is seen by many Wikipedians as the bottom rung of the ladder in resolving disagreements. Since you are new at this, I will note that it is an important point to let the subject know of this discussion on their talk page. There is a neutrally-worded template for that; I'm sorry I don't have it at hand for you to use. (Perhaps someone here does.) As far as your complaint, it appears on the face of it that you have a case as we are supposed to focus on edits not editors, but I have not looked any deeper than the subject's talk page, where I noted an apology or two to him, so at least he is aware of the conventions we use around here to cool things off. Best wishes, Jusdafax 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Template is {{subst:WQA-notice}} (it's in instructions at top of this here page), I've left the notice. Yes, adding the reference to your block was inappropriate and doesn't contribute to the rename/move discussion. Gerardw (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I was acquainted with prior edits of most of the Editors regarding this BLP but Avanu arrived seemingly only related to the discussion about the move, so I had a look at his talk page. I found the information there relevant in terms of how I see the degree of NPOV in his contributions so I felt it was reasonable to share that with other involved Editors just as one might do with a SPA. I don't think I was mean about it, I was only trying to share information that I had come upon which I might like others to share with me if a new Editor appeared during an important discussion. I did not mean anything personal and I will apologise to Avanu right now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Viriditas

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – No clear indication that this was a wikiquette violation on the part of Viriditas (talk · contribs); WP:SPI and WP:HOUND issues are beyond the purview of this board and should be taken up at AN/I or other more appropriate fora. Eusebeus (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(and many, many other pages as well)

I am growing concerned that Viriditas, a very experienced editor, is stalking me and gaming the system to make serious personal attacks on myself and others, masking them in clever language and tactics. This matter first came to my attention in early January of this year, when Viriditas posted a comment in an AN/I complaint about refactoring that he had no standing in. While that in and of itself is not odd, his comments were. In his very first post to/about me, he stated:

"Not this shit again. Jack, read between the lines: when an editor like yourself did this to me many, many times in the past, I asked that editor to stop and they did not, and it led to the same complaint that ScottyBerg is making here, as you may or may not be aware..."(1)

As I had not interacted with the user before, I asked him to explain himself. His responses were less than apologetic (2). When I sought to ask him on his user talk space what he was talking about, he deleted my inquiry with the edit summary, "Fun and games are over"(3). He then followed that deletion up by a lengthy discussion with another user about this supposed prior interactions, abstaining from identifying his "prior interactions" with me (likely out of fear of WP:OUTING banning if correct, and NPA blocking if wrong).4. When I asked (5) what admin supposedly knew about my prior account, he declined to support any of his accusations (avoiding naming the admin with whom I could confer with regarding the matter) before force-archiving 6 the entire discussion, which I am fairly certain continued on via private email.
Had the matter ended here, I would have simply written off Viriditas as a kook to be avoided, like one of those crazy people hallucinating in the park. He certainly stated his intent to avoid me, tweaking one of his prior posts (6) to state in one of the worst NPA violations I'd really seen to date: "My best advice to you is to stay away from him. I plan to do the same unless I see more of his nonsense on the noticeboards or on my watchlist. This guy is bad news, trust me." Unfortunately, he failed to follow through on this , following me to one of the articles I regularly work on and beginning to edit and comment there.
To add irony, Viriditas then posted a warning on my talk page asking me to not to "hound" his edits and then proceeded to do just that, following my edits less than 48 hours later with several dozen posts in an article where I had been editing in (and which he had never visited) specifically reverting my edits and again making several personal attacks (a, b, and at least twenty more), starting a new article to organize opposition to a minor point in the article (c), initiating a renewed FT noticeboard discussion (starting here, but several dozen posts long, complete with snide little remarks about being a "new user" despite his earlier comments about my so-called extensive history with him), the creation of another organizational attack user talk subpage (d). I call the latter an 'attack page' because Viriditas only added commentary opposing my own, reverting out anyone who tried to add supporting views (e).
Additionally, Viriditas followed my contributions to more pages (starting with these edits f and g followed by at least a dozen more posts), (h) and (i). It should be stated that each of these links note simply the first edit in a series; in actuality, I think the user has easily made over a hundred edits in articles he had never been to prior to my involvement in them.
If that weren't enough, Viriditas (amidst this flurry of activity) then refactors my edits in a noticeboard discussion (7) - precisely the same action which prompted his very first comment to me via the admin noticeboard (8).
He later accused User: Kenilworth Terrace and myself of having an "unusually close association to each other. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean." (9). When KT asked for clarification of that accusation, Viriditas avoided answering. (10) I am not sure whether he was suspecting KT and I of being either gay or sockpuppets, but considering his prior comments, I am going to go with the latter; either would meet our criteria for bad faith personal attacks. These comments were not confined to me; any editor with a differing viewpoint was treated dismissively. In the matter of Kenilworth Terrace, he was content to poison the well of any of KT's contributions by suggesting malfeasance on his (and my) part. He has pushed away several well-meaning contributors (User:Ddball and others) by telling them that their contributions were no longer required or that they were too new to understand policy as well as he did.
I have sought to resolve this matter with Viriditas via his talk page, but have been rebuffed several times, and am convinced that the user has no intention or interest in ending his snarky comments, oblique accusation (or outright personal attacks) and wikistalking. I realize with dread that the user has an extensive edit history (with a commensurate block log for just this sort of behavior). He is fully aware of the tricks to pretty up his edits to make many of them seem innocuous and above reproach - so much so that I am sure that several of his longtime associates will leap to his defense, pooh-poohing my thin skin and re-categorizing these personal attacks as simply 'snarky oversight' or whatever. The simple truth is that I am uncomfortable dealing with someone who stalks my edit history, prepared at a moment's notice to poison the well with his unsupported personal attacks. In looking at many of his interactions with others, he seems to fly immediately under the radar of a blockable offense; perhaps his actions can be seen in a more inclusive light. I think that's the only way that this editor is going to receive the mentoring I think they need. In the very least, it will at hopefully shed light upon an issue that I think has been lurking in the shadows for far too long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding clear NPA issues here. However, this comment of yours is clearly a personal attack and tends to undermine your case: "Had the matter ended here, I would have simply written off Viriditas as a kook to be avoided, like one of those crazy people hallucinating in the park." Harassment and stalking accusations are serious, but I'm not sure this is the place for it. Figureofnine (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Figureofnine, if you are not finding it, then you are not looking hard enough; it seems - as the subject of the stalking and the personal attacks - pretty damn clear.
Understand that I do not classify Viriditas as a "kook" or a "crazy"; it wasan initial impression based on the aggression and vehemence of his initial remarks, We all know the sorts of users that sometimes come to Wikipedia touting all sorts of crazy, kooky ideas. We tend to simply RBI or simply (and routinely) ignore these types of people, as they are clearly spoiling for a fight. Until I saw his extensive edit history, I thought he was one of these types of contributors and planned to simply state my confuson and leave it at that. His behavior escalated, not mine.
Lets make it easier: read the comments from Viriditas, and insert yourself as the recipient. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Since I have been mentioned, perhaps I ought to comment. Viriditas certainly did imply that editors at WP:FTN had an "unusually close association", which, given the context, I took to mean myself and probably Jack Sebastian -- although I assumed he meant to insinuate sock/meat puppetry rather than anything more exciting! It is equally true that he evaded explaining what he meant by the phrase. However, on its own I would have shrugged it off as the sort of low-level incivility one gets all the time -- not worth wasting WQA time on. If it's part of a wider pattern of uncivil behaviour, then that's more serious. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and this board is specifically not for long-standing disputes between editors. See proviso at top of board.
Jack, I looked at your diffs/links, and did not see personal attacks. If there are some that you wanted to specifically mention that you hadn't already pointed out, please do. Figureofnine (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Background: The Circus is a 1928 film by Charlie Chaplin. In 2010, someone posted a youtube video with a claim that a scene from the 1928 film shows a person using a cell phone, with the conclusion that the person is a time traveler.
This diff shows Jack Sebastian adding an "In popular culture" section with full details of the time traveler, including a paragraph in the lead. Astonishing amounts of discussion have occured at Talk:The Circus (film) and FTN permalink and several other places, including ANI. Numerous people (including myself) have attempted to explain that not all verified information is suitable for inclusion in an article.
The current WQA report is a reaction against the good and patient work performed by Viriditas who took the most time to explain how articles should be written. Jack Sebastian needs to be reminded that our purpose here is to develop the encyclopedia, and this WQA report is unhelpful. There is no evidence of Viriditas doing anything other than resisting the degradation of articles. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, however, should be much more mindful of his language and attitude towards editors he regards as problems. Indeed, ones whom I would also view as problems. Posts about RFC/Us and blocks, however, are not really conducive to toning down the commentary inflammation level. Collect (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, that was the most charitable version of a situation I've ever heard. And largely inaccurate.
Figureofnine, to begine with, there is not a long-standing dispute between Viriditas and myself. Before he intimated in an open forum in mid January that I was some dodgy previous user, there were no common edits. Nada. After that, the user asks me not to "hound" him by asking for clarifying information as to his accusations (he doesn't explain the accusation, btw, which leaves the accusation out there like a forgotten, used diaper).
Now, if someone takes the time to post in my user talk a request not to follow their edits, one expects that they intend to avoid me. Not Viriditas. While claiming their intent to do precisely this as well as warning another user to "My best advice to you is to stay away from him. I plan to do the same unless I see more of his nonsense on the noticeboards or on my watchlist. This guy is bad news, trust me." (1). If you look at the whole post, you will see the accusation there again, a telling breach of bad faith and uncivil commentary. Calling someone bad news is indeed a personal attack.
Less than 48 hours after this exchange with another user, he's posting in the article. So, while I am not supposed to go near his articles, he decides to stalk my edits? In what world is that not harassment? And it isn't jsut a few edits here and there; the guy is all over the article like white on rice. Now, I don't mind that the article is getting improved, but it seems incredibly hypocritical of someone to do so after telling em to stay away from their edits. And note that Viriditas has commented in virtually every single article I have visited for the past three weeks. This is a textbook example fo wikistalking.
I am not the only person who has to deal with this nonsense. In the middle of the Circus edits and ensuing discussion (across no less than four different venues, Viriditas chases away dissenting opinion, noting that their "opinion is no longer needed, thanks". As well, Viriditas gets all BITE-y with at least one user (who, with over 6k edits isn't a newbie anymore), suggesting that they might want to edit somewhere more their speed, and that because they are new, they might not know policy all that well. This sort of behavior tends to shed contributors to the Project, who come to see that their time could be better spent elsewhere. This presents a pattern. Looking at the background on his more recent blocks, this does seem to be the way he interacts with those he disagrees with. It indicates a pattern of gaming the system and incivility.
If you desperately need me to wade through diffs, I will, but I am hoping that an overall view of this background noise of unfriendliness and game playing amount to harassment for those who piss this user off. At the very least, he has made several personal attacks on my person - and the last time I checked, one doesn;t have to call one a cock weasel to trip the NPA alarm.
Lastly, Collect, I wasn't suggesting that Viriditas be blocked or banned. I was pointing out the possible reasons why Viriditas decided to not identify me as some user he thinks he's dealt with in the past; OUTTING carries stiff penalties, and rightfully so. Indeed, I came here because I do not know how to interact with a user that will not communicate except through sugar-coated snide remarks and has followed me to almost every page I have been to in the last three weeks. Being told by one user that he's God's Gift to Wikipedia by one user is not encouraging. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, Jack has been in conflict with me since 2007 under another account name. Although Jack has denied it, he has not tried to hide the connection to his old account and it can easily be found simply by looking at his contributions, which are an identical match on every criteria needed to reasonably conclude they are the same, even down to geographical location, and most importantly, editing behavior. The initial ANI report filed by ScottyBerg tipped me off, as only Jack enaged in this type of disruption, and I have rarely seen it from anyone else. Looking further into the problem, I was surprised to discover that the new account was causing the same problems as the old one, once again attempting to add trivial, unencyclopedic information to Wikipedia and spending months arguing about in a tendentious manner. Various administrators are aware of the situation and are watching it closely. I have not revealed his previous account name on-wiki because I was under the impression that he was attempting to engage in CLEANSTART to clear out his extensive block log and get out of a number of disputes he had found himself involved in. However, it looks like Jack might be gaming the provisions of CLEANSTART, and this issue should probably be escalated due to other factors. I've attempted to contact arbcom through one of their clerks, but I'm not certain they are able and willing to deal with this problem. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just so we are clear here, you felt you were well within your rights to game the system the way you have, stalking virtually all of my edits over the past three weeks because you think I am someone you had a "conflict" with four years ago? In what world does that excuse your behavior?
As well, you were asked when you made this preposterous claim back in January to identify the admin (apparently, they have multiplied like rabbits since) who is aware of my previous account. You chose to delete the section rather than answer. I now offer you another opportunity to identify that admin (or any of those admins) here. If you are concerned about revealing their identity, let them contact me via private email. Its the same offer I made back in mid-January. AS well, please name the arb you contacted; I'd like the opportunity to talk to them myself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I said nothing of the kind, Jack. Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Er, yes you did, Viriditas. When I asked you to identify the admin, you instead archived the entire section (and oddly enough, only that section). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Jack, everything you've claimed I've said is a distortion. Perhaps you don't have an eye for detail or use words loosely without thinking, I don't know. For example, I said above that I contacted a clerk, yet you claimed below that I contacted an arb. Words have meaning Jack. You can't just change them to suit your POV. Try to pay closer attention to what people are saying rather than what you want them to say. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how its a distortion, Viriditas, You post to another user specifically states "The fact is, at least one administrator is fully aware of the real situation and watching it closely"✛. I then ask you to name the admin, or have them contact me ❖. Then you archive the matter without answering the question (or directing my inquiry to the admin in question, as I've not heard from them). And the snarky, uncivil comments I was talking about? Right there in your post. I am going to assume (the last bit you are getting, btw) that you are perhaps unaware of the offensiveness of your language. The alternative supports my idea that you do this to get a rise out of people who then make you look like the calm one in a dispute. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll put on record here that, having only now become aware of this situation, I'm also finding it more and more obvious which user J.S. is a reincarnation of. (However, I am not the "admin in question" who was claimed to have been aware previously; I never noticed J.S. before today and have not been in contact with any of the parties.) Anyway, if he is who I think he is, I can only recommend, very strongly, to both parties to drop it and walk their separate ways. As for "clean start", I don't think there was any active sanction in force against the earlier account when they left, but he did have some older entries in their block log that were related to an earlier conflict with V. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you quite certain? Jack Sebastian says above "I had not interacted with the user before." But you speak of "an earlier conflict with V." This is a murky situation and needs to be cleared up, and what you're saying, while appreciated, would only seem to fuel the controversy. I'll reiterate my previous comments that this is not the place to deal with this kind of protracted dispute between two users, possibly dating back to 2007. Figureofnine (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I have no idea of the history of any of the people involved in this issue, and I encountered the matter at WP:FTN. After looking at the attempted edits I formed my own view which I will now have to express more strongly: Attempts to highlight a youtube video on the basis that media puff pieces have remarked on it is a total misuse of Wikipedia, and whatever Viriditas' motivations, their opposition to the misguided video is commendable. Wikipedia is not a place where editor X should focus on editor Y, so Jack Sebastian should explain why their reply above focuses on Viriditas without engaging with comments by others. The long OP seems to be based on "Not this shit again" (is there anything else that is significant?). However, onlookers such as myself think that comment, while less than ideal, is understandable under the circumstances, and we are more interested in the issue of importance to the encyclopedia: should silly videos get a mention in articles? (answer: no). Where is the acknowledgment of that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Er, this isn't yet another venue to argue that matter, Johnuniq. There have been far too many noticeboards, talk pages, etc. used, and this isn't going to be yet another. This isn't about that matter in the slightest. It initiated by the well-poisoning remark by Viriditas in an admin noticeboard, followed up by a warning on my pages to stay away from his pages and bookended by him stalking virtually every edit I've made in virtually every page I've visited for the past three weeks, all of this coupled with the same, poisonous talk. Sometimes, he refers to me as this prior editor, and other times he calls me a new user who doesn't know policy. That is what we are focusing on here, not some piddling matter of Wiki policy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've only responded to articles and topics that were highlighted on the noticeboards. That is, after all, why we use noticeboards as centralized discussions; they are intended to generate interest in articles needing attention from outside editors. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
See, that would be a lot easier to believe if you hadn't posted a formal request for me to avoid posting in pages where you edit, and then going ahead an staking all my edits for the past three weeks. That, coupled with the well-poisoning commentary makes your claim of innocence a lot harder to believe. And I note that you have again tossed out an accusation without supplying the name(s) of the admin(s) or arbs you claim know all about this. Sorry, no sale. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Jack, please take a moment to read and review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It forms the foundation of editorial interaction and acts as a social glue to keep discussion on target. There's no need for you keep throwing personal attacks around. Try to be civil, please. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Assuming good faith isn't a set of blinders to bad behavior, Viriditas. You have clearly demonstrated no interest in interacting civilly with me - the repeated removals of my initial attempts to interact with you were all quickly removed by yourself. You have even stated your unwillingness to AGF yourself here that you feel that I am this person you had conflicts with four years ago (again, I am very surprised by this admission of a long-standing grudge against someone), and th epointed accusation that I am seeking to game the system. I am not even sre you know what irony is, dropping a request for AGF into the discussion. You haven't earned it, Viriditas.
Additionally, AGF doesn't mean that I have to overlook your noticeboard personal attacks:
  • "Not this shit again. Jack, read between the lines: when an editor like yourself did this to me many, many times in the past, I asked that editor to stop and they did not, and it led to the same complaint that ScottyBerg is making here, as you may or may not be aware..."
or the comment:
  • "My best advice to you is to stay away from him. I plan to do the same unless I see more of his nonsense on the noticeboards or on my watchlist. This guy is bad news, trust me."
These are not signs of someone acting in good faith. These are not signs of someone interested in working collaboratively with others (and this means more editors than just myself). These are the signs of someone harassing a user in the hopes that they will do something stupid, blow up at your unacceptable behavior and get blocked. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Jack, I hold no grudge against you, and I certainly do not go around trying to get editors blocked. However, if you are going to abide by WP:CLEANSTART you are going to need to change your editing behavior, starting with your lack of civility towards your fellow editors. That's up to you, not me. Viriditas (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the way it needs to work, Viriditas: you need to stop following my edits, and I mean now. You don't get to float the accusation that I am "hounding" your edits on January 9 and then sow up in every article and discussion page I am involved in.
Secondly, I never want to hear another word from you about anyone's prior account in conjunction with me. You know full well that claiming such poisons the well of collaborative editing, even when you don't further taint it by hinting at bad acts on the part of the person you think I am. Already, at least two different editors are clearly thinking I left under a cloud of bad behavior and whatever - simply from you dropping the prior account bomb in the first place - and that ruins any possibility I might have of interacting with them constructively. You knew this when you made the comment, and further knew that the only way I could defend myself was to OUT myself. That is not going to happen.
I will not seek to edit in pages or issues you are involved in, but I will expect the same from you. You are clearly operating under several misconceptions, and I am not interested in exposing myself enough to clear them up for you.
If you can agree to these three conditions, then I am satisfied that the matter is resolved. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Civility isn't negotiable, Jack. I agree and strive to be civil with you regardless of whether you agree to be civil with me. Sure, we all have our bad days, but that's why AGF is so important. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please answer the 2 questions Viriditas. (1) Do you agree/disagree to stop acting in a manner which suggests you are harassing Jack Sebastian? (2) Do you agree/disagree to stop making suggestions that Jack Sebastian is associated with another account (unless you have credible evidence to show in a SPI or you have formally submitted the evidence to ArbCom)? An "I agree" or "I disagree" will suffice to determine whether this dispute is resolved or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've already answered these two questions in the above discussion: 1) I have been drawn into discussions from the noticeboards, and I have not harassed Jack Sebastian in any way. 2) I have credible evidence to show in a SPI and I have already attempted to submit this evidence to arbcom through one of their clerks. The vast majority of Jack's allegations are completely false; in fact, I challenge him to show a single, documented instance of me following him to an article. There isn't one. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
On (1), this makes the lines clearer to me (someone who isn't involved in this matter) as to where you are both at in this dispute. Thank you for your response. However on (2), I think there is a bit of an issue either because I have missed something or your response is a bit unclear. Has an arb failed to confirm that the evidence was received by ArbCom? Or did the clerk fail to confirm that he/she submitted the evidence to ArbCom and received a receipt? Or have you not followed it up since it has been submitted? Usually, when a dispute comes here with suggestions of 'an alternate account', the users are directed to avoid making further such suggestions except within the SPI (where evidence is being submitted). However, as this involves potential outing, ArbCom are going to need to become involved (meaning those suggestions should be limited to that off wiki venue as ArbCom should deal with that from there); repeating the suggestions here or elsewhere onwiki does not help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct, only a clerk, not an arb, received the evidence, and told me I should either file a public SPI or because of the sensitive nature of the information, contact the functionaries. I declined to pursue a public SPI because after researching this issue, I believe that Jack has a legitimate reason to keep his identity offwiki due to the circumstances involving his original account. In any case, I can provide documented, unambiguous evidence of Jack hounding me:
  • 15:40, 8 Jan - 02:12, 9 Jan 2011. Jack keeps trying to contact me on my talk page[11][12] after I've informed him I don't want to talk to him.[13]
  • 05:59, 9 Jan. Not liking the fact that I've tried to ignore him, Jack stalks me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and begins to involve himself in a dispute between me and DocOfSoc.[14]
  • 06:20, 9 Jan. Jack follows me to DocOfSoc's talk page.[15]
  • 10:07, 9 Jan 2011. I leave a message on Jack's talk page asking him to stop hounding me and to leave me alone.[16]
  • 16:58, 9 Jan. 7 hours later, Jack returns to my talk page, after being asked to stay away, and copypastes my initial request, but addresses it to me instead.[17]
  • 05:31, 13 Jan. Jack posts on my talk page, after being asked to leave me alone.[18]
  • 14:44, 4 Feb. Jack posts on my talk page, after being asked to leave me alone.[19]
  • 18:42, 4 Feb. Jack posts on my talk page, after being asked to leave me alone.[20]
  • 17:34, 7 Feb. Jack posts on my talk page, after being asked to leave me alone.[21]
Please note, I have not attempted to contact Jack nor involve myself in any discussion outside of the topics covered in the initial ANI report about Chaplin, and Jack has been involved in many different topics. Please also note, I did not involve myself with Jack's attempt at mediation, nor have I tried interfering in other discussions with other users on their talk pages as Jack did, nor have I tried to contact Jack on his talk page, aside from the one time on January 9th when I warned him about hounding. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been appallingly abused by Viriditas for my involvement in The Circus talk page and I object to it. He has slurred me in several ways on my talk page and at the discussion page for no apparent reason other than to disagree. However he never provided substance to his argument. He has made claims and pressed I believe so as to give me the appearance of being argumentative. He abused me and I only asked for the substance of his argument. He apparently brought in others to side with him. My observation about the article is that a refernce to the issue is present and warranted and should have appropriate weight. The current reference is merely a link and fails to correctly weight the issue. Jacks contribution is appropriate. I would be willing to entertain difference of opinion and have repeatedly asked Viriditas to provide some substance to his position. He has argued that the reference shouldn't exist (I disagree with that and note the link and reference exist at his hand). He has also argued that the reference shouldn't be too big (I agree with that, and note it isn't, nor would it be with Jacks contribution). He lied to me about editorial support for his poorly enunciated position. He erased my contribution to his faux poll on his talk page. He rambled about my objections on my own talk page .. without addressing my issue, but claiming confusion over my statements and answering in a misleading way at the same time. DDB (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please provide diffs of this alleged "abuse" for others to examine. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddball&diff=411708677&oldid=411707923 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddball&diff=411707923&oldid=411701397 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddball&diff=411701397&oldid=411701028 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddball&diff=411701028&oldid=342256811 These edits to my talk page were where Viridatus wrote things like "I don't know what you mean" and then proceeded to misrepresent what I asked in a favorable light for himself. He was argumentative and insulting. and still did not address the issue or the question I asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viriditas/Circus_consensus this is one link I was given and contributed to by request of viridatus. My contribution was deleted by Viridatus. I note that when he deleted my contribution e claimed I was not aware of wiki policy in much the same way as Jack has previously written. He still did not address the question I posed about the reference in the article.

The rest is in the discussion history of the article on the circus. Even were it the case that I was an ignorant editor your dismissal of me was unwarranted. You should have explained yourself and not obfuscated .. as you continue to do. The truth about wiki is that individuals are not perfect. I accept I may be wrong on issues and circumstances and I expect that when I am that people will politely show me my error and allow me to progress. It is wrong to deny me basic courtesy. DDB (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you point me to a single diff that you find to be especially egregious and/or "abusive"? I don't see any. You say that I will not address the question you asked on the talk page, but I don't understand your question. The only thing I see on the talk page is you asking me to prove that the public commentary isn't notable; we don't ask those types of questions. The person wishing to add content is responsible to prove that the material is notable, not the person asking you to prove it. Your question is called "shifting the burden", or argument from ignorance, and we try to avoid it. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like we are approaching nub. I feel it is argumentative to ask me for something which you already accept (the link reference is there at your own hand. Why should I argue for what you already accept? However you have allowed your opinion to guide your edits, and as a result you have changed things and ignored people solely for your own purposes in that mission oriented view of yours. This page is to discuss wiki ettiquette and I have provided the offending links but for the actual article discussion which is available and viewable. Your conscious conformation to my request shows that you know that. DDB (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following you, my friend. What does "why should I argue for what you already accept" mean? Viriditas (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Viriditas needs to tone down, but I have to say you (Jack) have made similar allegations as well in realtion to this (the Circus) dispute within the last few months. I would have to say that if Jack wishes to pull the rug froom under Viriditas the easiest way would have been to say who they had been and end the inuendos. I would also susgest that Viriditas either laucnches an SPI or stop the PA's. Perhaps both users need to agree to stay away from eachotherSlatersteven (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. While it's useful for editors to thrash things out in this forum, what is at issue is not civility but a variety of things, including alleged harassment and alleged sockpuppeting. These need to be addressed in the appropriate forums. On that note, perhaps we can close this out? Figureofnine (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I magree Jack take the accusation of PA's and stalking to ANI. Viriditas luanch as SPI. I would also sugect that each of you agree to not edit any mutual artciels for 7 days.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My previous account is just that. It was abandoned in good stead with no outstanding blocks, bans or restrictions. Nothing further needs to be discussed, and I am not going to make the problem about me, because - while I may be difficult and somewhat stubborn - I do not engage in these sorts of tactics of stalking, or seeking to obliquely out an editor. Viriditas tosses the comment out there that I had a previous account and people - yourself clearly included - start wondering what I am hiding. That is what poisons the well on a fundamental level, as it short-circuits the idea of editing about the article, not about the editor.
What Viriditas failed to note in his bulleted points of "documented, unambiguous evidence" is that I was asking him to support his accusations made in an open admin forum (ie, naming the admin who was supposedly keeping a "close" watch of my edits, or asking them to contact me). He never, ever answered the question, and this is the first time that I have heard about ArbCom being involved. What he also fails to point out is that after asked me on my talk page to not post on his page, I did not (aside from noticing him about the WQA, as required). I have not been to any non-admin page where he is involved. Yet less than two days after posting his 'hounding' notice, he shows up in the cery article I am working on. And every other related article. He even engages me directly (though dismissively) in these articles and discussions - including refactoring my comments (again, to try and get a rise out of me).
This is a guy who wants it both ways: he wants me to stay away from his edits and articles, but feels no compunction about engaging in mine. Despite the fact that this behavior qualifies as wikistalking, and his comments as personal attacks, it's just two-faced.
I am fairly certain I have not engaged in any contentious discussions on articles I previously worked on under my retired, abandoned account. In fact, with one or two instances, I haven't even run into the same editors I used to edit with on a regular basis (I presume they are either retired or otherwise engaged). Even if I did, I make no mention of our prior association, or engage in previous discussions. As I currently have no interest in becoming an admin (bluntly, I am amazed that anyone would want such a thankless, sucky job), so the need to disclose my prior account is not even recommended. Arbs are just admins, and admins are human; someone would slip up over their cups and my privacy would be gone. It's happened in the Project before.
Furthermore, I would like nothing more than to have no contact with Viriditas. He hijacked articles I am working on and began editing - all after warning me to stay away from his edits and articles. And if you want to consider the subject of OWN, look who's been making the lion's share of the edits over the past three weeks.
Lastly, I disagree with Figureofnine. The issue is indeed about civility, harassment/wikistalking, personal attacks and accusations of sock-puppeteering, and ghosts of old accounts (real and imagined). Thrashing stuff out is indeed the point of this page, but I am starting to suspect that when Viriditas is in an argument he cannot win, he adopts one of the following three tactics. H either ignores pointed questions that would undercut his position, seeks to reframe the question in such a way that the discussion is about something else entirely (ie, 'can it be included?' 'You don't understand the policy, let me explain it to your tiny little mind'), or attacks the editor presenting the view opposing his own ('Didja know this guy had another account?' or 'you guys have a suprisingly close relationship' or 'your opinion is no longer needed' or 'This guy is bad news, trust me').
If it were just me, that would be one thing, but he apparently does this to everyone he has a disagreement with. Clearly, I cannot get him to change - in his mind, I am some guy he fought with over three or four years ago, and apparently still carries a grudge about (which is pretty unhealthy, I think). Maybe someone else can help him. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I note your choice of words. Did you previous account have any blocks, restictions or warnings that had expired?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but I think that everyone would benefit greatly by putting this before the noticeboards dealing with harassment and sockpuppeting. Otherwise there will be no resolution to this. Incivility, such as there is any here, is secondary to broader problems between these editors. Figureofnine (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been at ANI for a few days now. The only admin (I think) who commented declined to get involved.[22]. A Quest For Knowledge 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Slatersteven, I've already stated that I am not going to OUT myself; that includes not giving any information that could be used to identify said account. My old account was in good standing. I had every right to retire/abandon that account and start again. If an Arb asks, I'll likely identify the prior account, but since that's only required if either I am running for admin or in the course of an SPI investigation (closed door or otherwise), Since I loathe sock and meat puppets, I don't see it coming up. My prior account is a non-starter discussion. Drop it, please.
Figureofnine, I appreciate your comments, but would desire a wider reading of the matter than just yourself and Slatersteven. And I am unaware of a noticeboard for complaints of harassment, aside from AN/I. I am seeking to follow the rules here,and protocol dictates that this is the proper course of escalation
(commenting after being caught in ec and WMF issues) QfK, I think that AN/I topic was about the closure of a FTN discussion, not Viriditas' behavior (though it was pretty embarrassing there, too). - Jack Sebastian 17:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me but I fail to see how you saying out right that your previous account had never had any wargnings, bans, blocks, restictions or oterh dsacntions is outing you. It would (I would argue) be imposible to identify your previous account by the simple answer of "yes my previous account had never been subject to any of those".Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I will forgive you. Stop asking me to reveal information about my old, retired/abandoned account; it's not going to happen. As well, pease stop seeking to reframe the question; it isn't about my old account, it's about Viriditas' behavioral issues, directed at not only myself but others as well (who, as far as I know, haven't a prior account). At least one of these victims of Viriditas' editorial behavior has retired from the Project. Fairly conclusive evidence that Viriditas' behavior is costing us contributors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I see tehy are also planing to come back. I would ask that an admin steps in now to confirm or deny oif you previous account shared a similar history to this one.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, but they might not. The guy created over 100 articles, and he retires immediately after interacting with Viriditas? That is a large-type red flag telling us that something is wrong with Viriditas' behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned at the outset that since this is a civility board, it doesn't help your case to not be civil yourself. Implying, without evidence, that Viriditas drove another use away from Wikipedia is not civil. Figureofnine (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but civility, like the Assumption of Good Faith is not a set of blinders to bad behavior. The editor in question, Kenilworth Terrace, left the Project being treated poorly by Viriditas (essentially accusing and me of being socks of some kind). Granted, his sainted Aunt May might have fallen ill, but in the absence of evidence other than what is documented, we have to presume that a prolific editor like KT left because he felt he was being treated shabbily. Please forgive me if I have little in the way of good faith to offer the subject of this WQA when he says things like that.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the user has not left the project but has simply retired the account to start another one. That is perfectly acceptable and I wish him the best of luck. Viriditas (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but civility, like the Assumption of Good Faith is not a set of blinders to bad behavior. The editor in question, Kenilworth Terrace, left the Project being treated poorly by Viriditas (essentially accusing and me of being socks of some kind). Granted, his sainted Aunt May might have fallen ill, but in the absence of evidence other than what is documented, we have to presume that a prolific editor like KT left because he felt he was being treated shabbily. Please forgive me if I have little in the way of good faith to offer the subject of this WQA when he says things like that.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Ken has not left the project, and I have personally had little to no interaction with him outside a few comments on the noticeboards and his attempt to contact me on my talk page, so your accusations and personal attacks are again without any basis. Looking at Ken's edit history, he was entirely in the right to start a new account, as his current/old account was associated (rightly or wrongly) with a sock farm. Viriditas (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Wtf? What sockfarm are you referring to, Viriditas? The "close association" you accused him of having with me? Are you accusing me of being a puppetmaster now? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No need to ,if I may turn over I prefer it that way, swear. But I agree that I cannot see any accusations of a sock farm. Perhaps Viriditas wold care to provide some diffs. Aslo Viriditas please don't move otehr users posts.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Jack was the one who is replying to threads out of order.[23] He had previously complained about other editors doing this here. It's a bit hypocritical of him to engage in behavior he finds distasteful. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you have again misrepresented the facts (not sure why you do so, when its so easy to check):
"There is no need to keep upsetting people by moving their comments. In the future, please don't touch comments made by other editors unless you have permission from the original editor to do so. Thanks"*
Your words, not mine. Maybe you forgot the conclusion of that AN/I discussion: consensus was that you simply do not change other's posts. At all. Please don't do it again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive. Your questions are muddying the water. BTW, is there a reason you keep re-threading the discussion to alter my replies? Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a patern here of repeated accounts being reitred and new ones being opened. But this does not appear to be sock puppertey as such. It does however indicate that the user is not leaving wikipdeia just closing one account.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The purpose of WQA is to provide editors with neutral third-party review of interactions at moments when the principles of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are being tested, typically in a content dispute. To the degree that the editors are clearly brushing up against each other in fairly adversarial terms, I would urge all of them to step back and renew their commitment not to take content disagreements personally and to strive for an open-minded approach to editing. WP:AGF enjoins editors to go beyond civil advocacy and attempt to appreciate others' points of view. However, in instances where there is a suspicion of gaming the system through sock-farming, or issues involving old disputes being renewed through new accounts, the ability of WQA to provide assistance is tested.
I do not see egregious violations of our civility policies on the part of Viriditas, who, as a seasoned and veteran editor, well-knows the limits of what is permissible engagement. To wit, the diffs provided by DDB are without merit and in no way substantiate his claims. (That, in itself, is a violation of Wikiquette.) Beyond that, however, WP:SPI and other such concerns extend beyond the purview of this forum, and should be addressed - and discussed - elsewhere. Accusations of WP:OUTING, WP:HOUND and the like are extremely serious and can lead to a permanent ban. As such they should be reviewed in a more formal setting. Following the heat/light principle, I will close this thread soon and urge the involved editors to seek redress at AN/I or other more appropriate fora while at the same time reconsidering their manner of engagement with each other. Eusebeus (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree in all respects. The complaint has no merit and the allegations need to be pursued elsewhere. Figureofnine (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd also echo that. I'd add to that the following: matters rarely end well when you discuss another editor on your user talk page without notifying them (and they subsequently come to realise that you were in fact discussing them without giving them an opportunity to comment or respond). Similarly, if evidence is sufficient, a functionary should be in a position to act to resolve the matter where there are concerns about alternate accounts being used (and that is preferrable to dropping suggestions to that effect on-wiki). Obviously though, such steps are not necessary if a case can be made about more serious conduct problems of tendentious editing (though WQA has never been capable of addressing that). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tom Van Flandern

I watch the article for some time, but I avoide editing BLPs. The harsh words and the uncivil tone on the talk page makes me sad. There is no direct violation of personal attacks, but unfriendly is not enough to describe the situation there. Some times this sounds like kings talking to their servants. If somebody is capable to teach that people that we are civilized people this would e very nice, thanksStone (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, thanks for the heads up -it seems there is a bit of tendentious editing going round (By the way, it's not a BLP: Van Flandern is sadly dead). --Cyclopiatalk 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes after my edit I saw it. But his page is somewhat haunted.--Stone (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
There is indeed a serious problem of article ownership, incivility and tendentious editing from JuanR (talk · contribs) -so much that it drove a good faith contributor away, it seems. I hope some admin can give a long serious look at the talk page. --Cyclopiatalk 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I have also posted on the User:JuanR's page and note that he was blocked from the same article in Oct 2010 for edit warring. Hopefully and admin can take a look at the situation and see if any further action(s) are needed to correct the situation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have add some useful information in my talk page. I see that Cyclopia has reverted to a version by DH without considering the questions and corrections suggested in the TvF talk page. One of the references deleted by DH has been re-introduced by another editor. But the rest is still ignored. For instance, why has the original heading "Non-mainstream beliefs" been substituted by "Non-mainstream science and believes"?
Regarding blockings, I noticed the bad behavior of an editor in other article. He was finally banned. I was the one who noticed the bad behavior of another editor in the TvF article, after studying my formal notice, administrators blocked him and stopped from editing more the TvF article, whereas at the same time they blocked me by 12 hours for violation of 3RR. As seen in my talk page, I requested with:
You blocked me "for 12 hours for a 3RR violation". Sorry if I do not understand well this policy, but I reverted once the day 30 September and twice the day 2 October [1]. Either I am completely wrong or all sum a total of three reverts spanned in three days. Where are the "four reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period"? Thank you.
Since my block had already expired I never received an answer from administrators. JuanR (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute oever Content leading to bad behaviour.

I have been dealing with DrKiernan for several weeks now regarding the issue of Royal Monograms. I hope this is the right place, as I was also considering an RFC. We have a user on Commons who has been creating monograms in SVG format, and I have been placing them on the relevant person's page. DrKiernan however, CONSTANTLY removes them under the guise of many different arguments. His first, happened regarding Mary, Queen of Scots. I placed this monograms on her page, and he removed it. He claimed it was incorrect, and used two sources, this coin and this book cover, which he claims is Mary's own embroidery work. First problem, those two sources do NOT show the same thing. Second, the coin matches the vector monogram which I inserted in the first place(though he still claims that book as a source, even though he admits the coin shows it in it's correct form). Then, after that, he's moved on to the argument that the colours are wrong. This is much more complex. He claims that the monogram for Mary, as well as another of a Greek Monarch, should be coloured gold, and uses the above coin as "proof". This is despite the fact that A: Of course, the coin is gold coloured, it's minted out of the metal gold, and B: Monograms are very versatile, and just because it's on a gold coin, that DOES NOT prove itwas always gold. Monograms are also used on stationary, post boxes, and other uses, so their colour can vary. Other contradictions in his arguments have gone from claiming a file monogram was unsourced, and then at the same time claiming that the source it DID infact have, was put there by him. Well, which is it? Unsourced, or sourced by HIMSELF!. He claims some are fake, wrongly-coloured, and even that monograms add nothing to pages(the same silly argument could be made about Royal Coats of Arms being on royal persons' pages, INFACT, it could be argued that royal arms add EVEN less, because a Monogram is a personal thing, for one person only, while a Royal Arms is used consecutively by many monarchs). He refuses to engage in trying to correct those monograms which he feels are incorrect, either by asking myself, or someone else in the graphic lab to change them to colours that he believes they should be(except for "Gold, because the coin is gold"). This despite my offering to work with him in changing them. All he wants to do is find arguments for removing them. I don't believe he's doing anything constructive, his sources contradict, his arguments are silly, he doesn't try and engage in correcting what he sees as an issue. I believe he should not be allowed to engage in the monograms issue any longer(this includes removing them). Fry1989 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You should notify the other party of a WQA posting. You haven't provided diffs to the content in question: reviewing [[24]] I see both editors going wp:3rr with no discussion on applicable talk page. Recommend starting a discussion on applicable talk page and requesting third opinion or RFCing the issue. Gerardw (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem. I've done a talk on the pages of two of the monograms in question, AND on my talk page, but he sticks to the same arguments, even when they're reasonably proven against. I can move this to an RFC if I have to, but I need some sort of public discussion on this. He simply will not engage, all he wants to do is remove them. He's never given a valid argument for why a monogram shouldn't be on the page of the person they represent, and even though he claims they add nothing, he's never elaborated on that. Fry1989 (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not try a third opinion(WP:3O)? This appears to be a problem between two editors. Figureofnine (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This issue was discussed at Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots#Royal Monogram. where 3 other editors agreed with me that adding the file was inappropriate. A similar issue was discussed at Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom#Inclusion of Monogram where the outcome was that I added the correct monogram myself [25].
There are some misunderstandings in Fry's post above. On the issue of sources, the problem is that I believe the files added by Fry are original research that do not match the sources that I have provided. I have explained this at User talk:DrKiernan#Monograms. He believes that the monograms do not have to match the sources, except in very general terms, and that it is fine to alter elements, or change colors. I am not convinced of this. On the issue of behavior, I do not constantly remove them, as I have added a monogram as shown above. On Mary, Queen of Scots, there are different versions of the monogram; the problem with the file added by Fry is that it does not match any of the different versions exactly. It is the Greek kings' monograms only that I think should be in gold, since the source that I provided only shows them in gold.
The claim that I "will not engage" is untrue as shown by the discussion split over at least five different pages. I have explained that I do not have the capability to alter the files myself [26]. I have asked for the files to be corrected [27][28], and I did suggest a third opinion [29]. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Then in that case 3O is definitely not applicable. However, despite the incivility on both sides, this appears to be essentially a content dispute. Figureofnine (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Where have I been uncivil? DrKiernan (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't understand the many uses of monograms. Unless he can prove that one was ALWAYS gold, even on paper, or other uses, and not just because it's on a coin or a medal made of gold, he can't claim the colours are wrong. And yes, he does constantly remove them. It has to stop. Fry1989 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Whom ever has some picture proof of these monograms, I believe should have the right of way on this issue. In either case you guys need to find some middle ground, and resolves this quickly.Jetijonez (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That he claims the colours are wrong, but doesn't prove it, along with the other contradictions in his claims, are why he shouldn't be listened to any more on this matter. He doesn't know what he's talking about. The problem is he won't stop removing them, and I need someone else to tell him to stop. It should be noted that 2 users have disagreed with him, myself, and the creator of the monograms. He hasn't proven to our satisfaction, that the monograms are incorrect. The creator has many a source, so his creations should be taken in good faith unless PROVEN to be wrong. That's ALL I'm asking for, proof. Saying something should be gold in all purposes JUST because it's on a coin made of gold, IS NOT proof, it's an assumption. Fry1989 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
They are in gold in the source provided, which is not a coin. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT: The definition of monogram on Wikipedia is 'a motif made by overlapping or combining two or more letters or other graphemes to form one symbol'. If that is true, then color is not a factor in whether something is or is not a monogram, since characters in a language are not color-coded. (although it would be interesting if things took on different meanings because of which color pen you decided to use.)

So if this is true, and color doesn't matter, then just make it black and be done. (you could even make a standard that abstract representations of monograms be rendered black) -- Avanu (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And there lies the issue. Monograms are rarely black, they're usually in patriotic colours, or the person who they represent's favourite colour, or something like that. In the case of Greece, the creator has chosen to render them in blue. I believe it's his perogative, unless it can be shown that another colour was used. Why should we comprimise to DrKiernan, when he's contradicted himself, hasn't engaged in trying to correct what he views as an issue, and removes them without proof of his claims they're wrong? Fry1989 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
And as I have already said, I believe choosing your own color is original research. DrKiernan (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So in showing a reference graphic, how is black going to be original research? Black is a neutral color and it is the color most common in the world for letters/graphemes. These SVGs are simply for people to see the shapes aren't they? Just add a disclaimer caption like 'colors may not necessarily be the same as original sources'. Even a DaVinci changes color over time. I'm not seeing a real reason this has to be a deal breaker. Come up with a compromise. -- Avanu (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've already agreed to the addition of uncolored examples or examples which are the same color as the original. DrKiernan (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am dismayed by the line which this complaint is taking. I have responded to each of Fry's complaints with courtesy and reasoning, and in return he has replied with comments like: you're so thickheaded I don't trust anything you say You were wrong You WERE WRONG You're too lazy Can you read? you clearly have problems You're being disruptive childish and piss off.

And I'm not the only editor who has had trouble engaging with him [30][31][32][33][34][35][36].

Furthermore, I was never informed of this discussion, and so consequently I see no further reason for me to contribute here until diffs are provided showing incivility on my part. DrKiernan (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just peevish nitpicking, as obviously you were aware of the WQA [[37]]. As WQA is voluntary, you don't have to participate; if you don't want to, just don't. Gerardw (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The initial suggestion that comes to mind is for the both of you to take your talents to a different subject area of Wikipedia where you won't interact anymore before someone behaves in a way that you might end up regretting. KEEP IN MIND, the complaint doesn't whose bad behavior this is leading to :) (maybe its mine, *evil grin*)
As a person who loves graphic design, and really has never given much thought to royal monograms, I'm wondering if each of you could make a list of what *IS* and *IS NOT* part of the defining characteristics of a royal monogram. Apparently, my initial approach of using Wikipedia's definition of monogram falls a bit short, so maybe if each of you could provide some material that gives these types of definitions, or feel free to telephone the Scottish Parliament or Royal Monarchy directly. If it is anything like a corporate logo, then it can come in several forms that range from simple black and white to vibrant detailed colors. But please, provide some background here of what DEFINES a royal monogram so the rest of us can understand this better. Maybe a little list, 1, 2, 3, 4.... -- Avanu (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
DrKiernan is taking those words out on context, and all of his links show that. I didn't call him lazy, I said if he's too lazy to try and engage in fixing what he sees as an issue, I'm too lazy to do it for him. That's not an attack, nor is any of my other words, except when taken out of context. And my disputes with other users is completely irrelevant to whether or not DrKiernan is correct or not in this matter. He tried once before to blend issues to get a foot up, and another user agreed that was wrong. Also note that several of the other users he uses to show I've had disputes with, such as Xanderliptak, and Vega61 have been indeffinately blocked because of THEIR behaviour and self-promotion, while the others and I have worked out our issues between ourselves not requiring the Community's voice, something that DrKiernan and I are unable to do.. As I've stated before, he doesn't give any proof, he contradicts himself, and I do not believe he knows what he's talking about. Why is his behaviour being tolerated? When you think something is wrong, you try and find sources which you can use to correct it. He doesn't do that, he just removes them. He sys things have to be gold because they're on a coin or medal made of gold, and that others should be black because they're on a rot-iron gate that is black. None of that is proof, that's an asumption. As this shows, monograms are usually in colour. Fry1989 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts

Resolved
 – Subject retired from Wikipedia. Jusdafax 05:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 – Subject is still editing. MarnetteD


Calling editors "IDIOT!" and labeling minor disagreements with established editors as vandalism is starting to go a little over the line, IMHO... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue does not look like it is resolved. First, in the retirement statement that Jusdafax linked to the user states that they will return to edit as an IP. Second, the user has made several edits today including this one [39] which broke a working external link. I would think that these new actions along with the original complaint brought by TheRealFennShysa still need to be addressed. MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Noted. Clearly I jumped the gun. The subject will have to be notified of this discussion on their talk page. Jusdafax 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
RAP did say his last day would be 22 Feb. He also has sort of apologized for the comment 4 hours prior to the initial post here. He is also discussing the edits that raised the issue here to begin with. ~~ GB fan ~~ 19:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for the followup. It does look a bit more resolved now. I would think that the one question to be answered is the editing as an IP. Of course, if this editor leaves in good standing then they are permitted to edit anonymously. Hopefully they will want to contribute positively. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
OK good to hear this. I don't do many closures and when I do, I want them to be spot on. This time I was a bit too quick. Jusdafax 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Note they have now removed the retirement notices completely and blanked the 3RR warnings. After many months here Rusted has yet to grasp the importance of collegial editing. The display of continued edit warring, reliance on poor sourcing, blanking talk page messages they don't like, and hasty retirement when their actions are questioned is a pattern that I think anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a degree of time recognizes, and it rarely ends well. If the refusal to address other editor's concerns continues then it may be time for an RFC/U, a mentor would be another possibility. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I just notified RAP of this discussion. I can find no evidence that they were ever notified that their actions were under discussion here. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why i'm the problem. First of all, i apologized for my outburst, but FennShysa deleted it. I have begun to take things to the discussion pages on the Wiki's page. I don't plan on edit warring anymore. I thought of retiring because every edit i seem to make warrants an immediate revert. That whats angers me. I feel at times that FennShysa and Catz are following my edits like a hawk just to revert them. Now for the explanation of the constant reverts:

LXG: It is known that Ian Fleming's James Bond played a role in Allan Quatermain's creation. Alan Moore added the character of "M" from Bond to his comic series. Also, in the film, the y have Sean Connery playing the role of Quatermain, whereas 40 years before he played James Bond. Now they ask for a source when the other names are unsourced, though one makes no real impact in the film, Herman Melville's Ishmael is only a secondary character, whereas Fleming's M is a persona of The Fantom, the main antagonist. Why isn't Fleming allowed to accompany his fellow authors in works that were used. FennShysa cites there are several other M's in literature, but i fail to see any. I really don't see me calling Shysa an idiot relevant to the issue, since i apologized right here [40] and really unfair i'm being pegged as the vandal here. Not saying anyone was vandalizing, but i see no reason to this investigation. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:24 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Kevin Hagen's IMDB link is broken, his page cannot be found, that's why i attempted to fix it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:26 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I also didn't enjoy this snide remark, FennShysa. [41]. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:51 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mr.grantevans2

Abusive language, see diff[42] - "We have spent 10 times as much talk on where a fucking photo is going to go, so, Tarc, get off your fuckin high horse". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The language was in response to a perceived insult from Tarc, which is why I said "Tarc,get off...". Overall, the discussion at the BLP has been very spirited, as seen by Andy's personal attack which he later apologised for. No harm no foul as far as I can tell. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest then that you apologise to Tarc, and then try to find something more constructive to engage in - it is the endless going-over of the same arguments that led to the discussion getting so 'spirited' in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, Andy, I had a look at Tarc's work. He/she looks like a pretty tough cookie to me; with a pretty thick skin. I don't think he/she wants an apology or cares 1 whit about getting 1. btw,I kinda like his/her "fire", as I like yours too. I don't think I go out of bounds often, maybe I have been on edge lately,what with the fights for freedoms that are going on throughout the world(even as a spectator I get emotionally excited). I will tone down my editing. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User Aleenf1

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – edit war

Aleenf1 and I were engaged in an editing war. This ended a couple of weeks ago. However, Aleenf1 has gone on to reverting edits by me. For example, on multi sports calendar's the word "ceremonies" is centralized. However Aleenf1 is calling me a hypocrite when i change his edit from the central tage being removed [43]. Intoronto1125 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I defending myself against this issue, while he always summon me for edit-warring, just keep eyes what he done. He can created {{2012 Summer Olympics calendar}} with the word "ceremonies" keep on the left, while revert my editing with this reason, keep the same word on the centre. So, such as a double standard treatment is unacceptable, and honestly i want to say "Who are the one that really cannot see that"? --Aleenf1 08:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Both of you are engaging in an edit war, neither are using the talk pag. This is not a civility issue. Stop editing and use the other forms of dispute resolution (third opinion, RFC) Gerardw (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou and Personal Attacks

User:DinDraithou has a problem with ad hominem argumentation.

They do not take notice of warnings regarding this behaviour.

They are unable to notice community consensus, and have a problem with original research behaviour.

User:DinDraithou could do with assistance in improving these aspect of their editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how conventional it is to say that I'm being accused/romanticized by someone who is crazy and doesn't belong in the project. Check the articles he's created. Here he is on your pretty board because I don't want anything nasty in my userspace. DinDraithou (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the "not take notice of warnings" and "community consensus" links, but the first three and DinDraithou's reply are personal attacks. DinDraithou, please stop with the attacks, comment on the content, not the contributer. Thanks! Gerardw (talk)
I admit to having a short temper, and that discussion has really been over for a while so I should not be returning to it. However, pointing out an accuser's history is pretty standard practice in the world and it's not like you want your noticeboards inhabited by the wrong sort of people, messing up discussions and calling for beatings or whatever. It's pretty easy to learn a little specialist language and act like some kind of authority, because the logic can be simple. That's what we're looking at here. But I'll go ahead and make sure the board doesn't appear in my watchlist. DinDraithou (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
(Message to admins) What I'm going to do today is go through my watchlist and remove a lot of articles that will only distract me from my goals for the next three months. Most importantly I need to reduce my interaction with other contributors by staying off the talk pages, where I've spent too much time in the last months. Usually I can't help my temper, because I grew up around hateful people. As far as new articles I will create likely no more than five before leaving some time in May and having my account deactivated. Honestly I've come to loathe this place, myself in it, and wish I could leave now, but I've created some important articles which no one but me is ever likely to properly complete because I have a very rare knowledge of the subjects from a wide range of sources. DinDraithou (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:200.106.71.117

Well, I might be a bit of a middleman here but this IP has given 1 or 2 uncivil comments [44] (calls me a Brainless Nurse) and here. Thanks, Dr. Zombieman brains.../the infected 16:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Also now calls Legolas2186 (talk · contribs) a crazy guy[45]. Dr. Zombieman brains.../the infected 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I watched this back and forth unfold all morning in Huggle. I'm surprised it escalated to this degree. I believe that the user:200.106.71.117 had some valid edits that should have been discussed. Unfortunately, I think one comment (or two) on the talk page went down the wrong way with Dr. Zombieman and it went ugly very quickly. Despite repeated (though, admittedly, heated)attempts for discussion and explanations, the editor simply got frustrated. I've suggested to both editors that a bit of a break might be in order. In short, I think the incivility was borne of frustration that the edits weren't really being discussed. Wikipelli Talk 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes

Stuck
 – unable to reach consensus Gerardw (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Deliriousandlost is being disruptive by not following accepted talk page etiquette at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes, specifically by removing her comments after they've been replied to at length. I haven't been party to the discussion on the talk page and it makes it hard to understand what is actually going on because she removed the comments, which is one of the reasons why WP:REDACT exists. I restored her deleted comments and pointed her to WP:REDACT, both in an edit summary and on her talk page, but she keeps removing them,[46][47] leaving the discussion in a mess. I've had dealings with her in the past and she has taken a dislike to me for reasons that are not clear so I don't think I'm going to achieve anything. I was hoping an independent voice might help. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My comments have been removed with no objection from the other parties then involved in the rfc because apparently my position regarding the rfc is tainting the outcome of the rfc and my comments and my very presence are not welcome at all, even though the comments were replied to. For the sake of the rfc going forward i removed my comments. Aussie restored them. I do not disagree that the discussion makes little sense with my comments removed but Aussie wants them and drmargi doesn't and rather than fight over whether i am welcome to comment or not i simply 100% backed out. That now is the issue here being brought forward. I am not welcome to stay and i am not welcome to leave. The striking of my comments still would leave my signature and the text which is what drmargi is objecting to so that is not a viable solution. Anyone have any solution?
Aussie, you might want to get your timeline in order regarding diffs. Much of this has been close-to-overlapping. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Article talk pages don't belong to any one group of editors. They are "owned" by the community, so it matters little what the two other editors, with whom you appear to be in opposition, think of your removal. Other editors need to be able to understand the discussion, which is why we strike through comments, rather than delete them. The only exception to this is that edits by banned editors may be deleted by anyone but even then, sometmes it makes more sense just to strike them out.[48][49][50] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Further to point, this was filed 11 minutes after i complied with Aussie's request to abide by REDACT by noting my comments are retracted. So far noöne has objected to that. Yet Aussie subsequently filed this complaint. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 17:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You haven't complied with WP:REDACT at all, which is why this report was raised. WP:REDACT says to contact the person(s) who replied to your comments and ask if it is okay to delete your text. You didn't do that. You posted to drmargi's talk page stating you had already deleted your text.[51] There's a difference between asking if something is okay and stating that you'd already done it. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, Deliriousandlost's initial comments were not substantively directed to the issue which required the RfC, but rather were a treatise on why the RfC constituted WP:OR and she thereby opposed it. That soon elicited several heated remarks from another editor, and debate ensued. In an effort to calm things down, I added a couple comments and placed the heading above Delirousandlost's initial comment, thus hoping to keep the RfC separate from the (at one point rapidly escalating) discussion. I did and said nothing that even remotely suggested I wanted her comments gone. What I did was simple organization, and have attempted to explain that to Deliriousandlost to no avail. Drmargi (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Being one of "the other editors" I think that this is more a case of missing WP:GOODFAITH than anything. I think Drmargi was trying to keep the RfC section focused and organized rather than pushing you out. However, I do have to agree with the complaint at hand and express my belief that posting (redacted) is not much better than outright deleting the content since it's eliminating 99% of the relevance to subsequent replies. What is wrong with doing the suggested strikethrough? MrCrackers (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And this issue just can't be dropped like i was trying to do in what started this second round. Drmargi also objected to both my initial post with the bold red text and my more organised re-write opposing the query and potential outcomes of the RfC. Repeatedly moving my comment out of the comments of RfC no matter their content is a great way to tell me i am not welcome to make a comment that does not support any of the proposed solutions. Which could be simply taken as i am not welcome to comment since i am not willing to pick one of the pre-selected outcomes but rather chose 'none of the above'. Sure that might elicit a response but that does not justify removing my comment to a separate section. If needed create a section for responses to my comment in the Request For Comments but don't remove my comment to elsewhere. Trying to pick a policy that fit the odd circumstance i went with calling it original research to have essentially a popularity contest in picking which BBC-published site was to be considered more reliable than the other. Last i checked the reliability was rested on the publisher not generally on the individual author. Pitting one BBC-published site against another BBC-published site in a query of which is reliable and which isn't seems to have a fundamental flaw to me. If you expand it to the broadcast episodes themselves as a potential source you then have 3 BBC-published sources each with some variation from the others. To call one reliable more-so than the others is to essentially call the BBC an unreliable source at the same time you call it reliable. Original research might not have been the best policy to site but it sort of kinda somewhat works here. There is probably some more appropriate policy i am not thinking of or maybe never heard of.
I guess the organising itself is where the issue lies as i object to your assessment of my comment and the associated need to reörganise it into a different section. Still, do i object to the impression i am not welcome? Nopes; i was glad to leave and remove all potentially offending comments too so as to ensure a quick and complete end to the matter without negatively influencing those who might later come along. That didn't go so well.
The striking out was not done because of my understanding that drmargi didn't want my comments there. My agreeing to not have them there equals removing them. It really is that simple. For all of the edit conflicts i am getting everywhere the last little while clearly i am not the only one who is editing her comments in places after hitting save. Had it occurred to you to simply remove the entire section which objects to my comment? I was to be done with this but none of you will let me go. Drmargi has said i am there "just to cause trouble" and if backing out is also causing trouble then what am i to do. I am not welcome. I want to leave. Different people want me to remain involved and not retract everything. I am not picking one comment to retract - i am retracting all of my comments before it blows up into something of ridiculous proportions. Which it ended up doing by my very trying to avoid it. Take out my retractions, take out the responses to the notes of my retractions, remove the entire response section. So you objected to a comment i retracted. O no. Does it need to stay? Nopes. What does all of this go to? I changed my mind, i gave up, and backed out to not make a fuss and the fuss followed me. Does it really need to keep going? delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 19:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to endorse a complaint because i picked the option in the policy that you don't favour then i think that is a mimic of the issue that started this in the first place. Placing "(retracted) ~~~~" is completely within the allowed options whether you like it or not and is not a valid ground for filing or supporting a complaint. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 19:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't often do diffs but [52] is where you find the first real issue. The edit summary is "RfC: Should the USA special be counted under Series 15 or 16 or neither: restore heading separating comments from discussion". Drmargi unilaterally decided that my substantial re-write was still not acceptable content to be in the RFC so Drmargi moved it to the discussion. That would be disallowing me my vote/comment/whatever and that is hardly a non-aggressive move to make. I move it back. [53] and drmargi edits a previous post to call my comment now "inappropriately placed". [54] I get the hint and remove all of my comments. That is where Aussie comes in objecting to my removing my comments. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, in addition to the 11 minute time delay from the moment i came into compliance with the policy you pointed out to your filing this complaint there is also point 1:
Avoid filing a report if:
  • The specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere.
The issue was already being discussed on yours, mine, and drmargi's talk pages. You were already involved on mine and yours. It was you and i discussing it semi-concurrently with each other on each others' talk page. This complaint is in violation of the first thing to avoid. I am at the point where if i could i would file a complaint on you for malicious complaint filing. Sounds silly but this is my first time in these parts and well i think you have enough experience here to know when and when not to file a complaint. We were having a productive discussion until you brought it over here. If you filed this complaint because you object to my selecting the option to put "(retracted)" in in place of striking my comments then you really should look at the policy you directed me to because you are the one who showed me it is ok to do that. This is one of those times that you don't file a complaint. An apology would be nice.
Considering i want nothing to do with Top Gear and my attempt to be that impartial third party blew up in my face i would prefer that my comments not appear at all in the rfc but whatever i really don't care which way it goes. I was trying to make you folk happy and darmargi in particular happy and you turned on me for it. I realise that i can't win. No matter what i write drmargi will object to it since i have issue with the query put forward in the rfc and that is not an acceptable comment to make in response to the request for comments. Since i have no personal interest in the show i really personally don't care how it turns out or if it is ever resolved. For the readers who are confused my concern was to ensure accuracy. That is why i emailed the respective websites asking them to synchronise the data rather than continue to present conflicting data. If someone reads the emails then at least the issue will be known beyond the article's talk page and this 5-page discussion. If you don't know from somewhere else, i don't even like the show; i think it is one of the strangest concepts for a successful tv show that i could ever imagine - and it is real. As to the other complaint against me that i write too much - i wouldn't be writing anything but rather would be sleeping if this hadn't been filed in the first place.
Who wants to continue this? Who wants to let me part from Top Gear with what peace i can salvage from this regrettable encounter? delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue wasn't being discussed. It had (past tense) been requested that you don't remove your comments but you continued to remove them. Based on previous interactions, as I stated in the report, I felt it better to ask for the voice of an independent third party and this was certainly justified by the fact that by the time this report was raised you had deleted your comments three times, without ever having asked the person who had replied to you if it was okay to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I was the independent third party at Top Gear - look how well that turned out! Drmargi approved the removing of my comments as drmargi had put in such a note when i first removed the o-so-extremely-provocative comment before writing the more-on-topic second draft and the redact policy allows for noting a comment has been removed. You wonder why we don't get along at times? It is stuff like filing this which has issue between us. You got what you wanted and still that wasn't enough. Also, you need to learn to count - i removed my comments twice with the intent not to replace them. Somehow you got 3 out of 2. The third which replaces the comments with "(retracted)" and a new signature is not deleting my comments against your wishes - that is me complying with your wishes. It seems that you have lost track of the time-line and you reported me for complying with your request or you never even checked that i indeed had complied with your request before you complained that i wasn't complying with your request. Does that sound messed up? To me it does.
And What the hell do you mean the issue was not being discussed - what then are the messages on yours and my talk pages? That my dear is a discussion - well it was until you turned it into an "i've reported you" as response to my "have it your way". Half way through those messages i had already complied with your request. Somehow that wasn't good enough for you and we are now here.
Avoid filing a report 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 whilst assuming good faith.
  • Remember that the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour. Users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors.
Those would be two more of the things to do which you selected to omit. Considering we had moved forward and the matter was resolved by the time you filed this complaint you actually are in violation of both of those points rather bluntly. You assumed bad faith, i moved forward constructively and you didn't like it, reïgniting a resolved issue just to bring it here is hardly, polite, civil, or non-difficult communication with the intent to re-resolve an issue that already had resolved in your favour.
Aussie, you got what you wanted. You have my blessing to restore my full comments and if drmargi doesn't like them then you are most welcome to deal with that matter yourself. Or leave it as it now is. Your choice. It is everything i think you want & you already had it. What more do you want from me? I want an apology from you for taking it this far when it didn't need to be because of your refusal to accept my complying with the policy you asked me to comply with. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't intent to apologise for your lack of etiquette. It's not a discussion if somebody steadfastly refuses to do what has been asked of them in defiance of the guideline. As I said in the report, "I've had dealings with her in the past and she has taken a dislike to me for reasons that are not clear so I don't think I'm going to achieve anything. I was hoping an independent voice might help." I think that your responses here and the response of one of the editors involved in the discussion demonstrate that concern was justified. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I steadfastly did what you asked of me in compliance with the guideline. This all is your response to getting what you asked for and the subsequent response to your bringing it here. My responses to your abuse of etiquette and guideline justifying your abuse of etiquette and violation of the rules of filing the complaint is the most absurd argument you have so far made. Your insistence upon bringing in old, resolved issues on which we now have amicable dealings is a rather odd and low blow to strike. You got what you wanted and you are unhappy with that so you are further complaining by bringing it here and continuing to complain here that getting what you wanted is not what you wanted. How the hell does giving you want you want justify complaining? I am not adding my comments back in. I am not removing the note that my comments were retracted. I am not editing anything there because it is blatantly clear that my input is not wanted in any mannor. I have said a few times now that you are invited to restore or leave as is any or all of my comments. You instead continue with complaining that you are not getting what you want from me. At some point when you realise that some 12 hours ago (before this here complaint was filed) you got what you wanted from me and that all of this here stems from you insisting upon blowing up an issue that resolved in your favour to proportions well beyond reasonable you are welcome to apologise to me. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 06:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you did not:
  • Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text. You certainly didn't do that.
  • Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered. I asked you to strike through your comments (deletion markup) and instead you deleted them completely.[55] In the circumstances "(retracted)" was not an appropriate placeholder, not only because you had not discussed with drmargi before removing your comments, but because "(retracted)" resulted in the reply to your comments making no sense at all. This is addressed in WP:REDACT:
  • A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The comment was neither thoughtless nor stupid but it was first drmargi who opted to go with "(comments deleted by editor)" [56] So i ask, why is that ok for drmargi to do but for me to say it is retracted is unacceptable? I was following the precident set by drmargi in the matter. If you object to my removing my comment and not commenting on my comment in the process of removing the comment then how do you not object to drmargi having done so in the time between my initial comment being removed and my re-write being saved? Also, why do you not want my initial comment restored? That is the one that everyone was so upset about. The re-write is far more appropriate but still it was deemed unacceptable by drmargi. Fail once. Try again. Fail twice. Don't bother trying for a third time. Back off and move on. Or so the plan was. The objections that remain are mostly if not entirely directed at my initial comment which noöne has objected to my removing so keeping the responses to it is more than a little odd. The entire response section could be removed for being in response to something that is preferred to not be there in the first place by all parties involved prior to your coming on the scene.
As to discussing it with you, i tried to. You yourself have called it not a discussion. Following drmargi's lead in using a notice of removed comment seemed in keeping with what would be acceptable to drmargi since drmargi had already done that. If drmargi objected to it then that could be addressed. I was of the impression that it would be preferable if no trace of my presence were found in the RFC but i wasn't about to remove the comments of others which contained my user name - that i left up to them to decide how to act. You came in before they did and it all fell into chaos because your preference ran in direct conflict to what i was understanding to be drmargi's desire. I can't both completely remove my comments and all visible trace of my involvement while also only striking out the text. Stike, purge, or note that it has been removed? Three choices. I picked the middle-ground option which had precedent hoping it would end the matter amicably. Did i think it would be the very thing all parties would have issue with? Not at all. Despite my user name i am not that crazy to go intentionally pick a fight with you two. :P Honestly, i might not have had a chance at it but i do qualify to be a candidate and this kinda was the last thing i was looking for in the hours before i was to file my nomination for steward. I was really, really, really, really not looking to make a big deal out of this or anything else. Radar. Fly under. I still say, use whatever you want. I really don't care whether some, all or none of my comments are there; whether they say they are retracted or deleted. I would however object to describing them as "thoughtless and stupid" or any like phrase because they were neither thoughtless nor stupid and doing that would surely bring this back here with me the one then filing the complaint. "Comment removed by author" would be fine. Leaving it as "retracted" is also fine by me. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 07:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that's true for both of us. Deliriousandlost has taken a dislike of me based on a series of imaginary slights, and refuses to budge from her position as the aggrieved party, no matter what explanations are offered. Her steadfast insistence on attributing motives to me that are arrant nonsense simply underscores the degree to which this is true. Drmargi (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If i am not the aggrieved party then why do you call my involvement at Top Gear totally unwelcome and unhelpful saying that i am there just to cause trouble even though i was trying to help and noöne else said i was being a troublemaker. I support not labelling topgear.com an unreliable source which is your position and somehow that has me at odds with you. I do very much disagree with your disallowing my comment in the request for comments, especially the re-write which was very much on-topic. If you didn't want me gone then perhaps you shouldn't have acted like you wanted me gone and then told me to avoid you. Whether you want me gone or not i still don't want to be involved with Top Gear. I don't believe you find my comments helpful to the RFC and you are not objecting to my retracting them. That would mean you prefer i not be involved. That is fine by me. If you do want me involved then just tell me so. Tell me it is all a big misunderstanding and that you didn't want me to retract my involvement in the RFC because you valued my input. Telling me your motives are because you assessed my comment as unacceptable for the RFC is hardly welcoming. Short of that i can only guess your motives and calling my guess nonsense because my guess is not favourable to yourself is actually an example of why i don't mind not continuing my involvement with Top Gear and wish that you would have let it be at that. Oddly enough it is yourself and Aussie that i have greatly disagreed with. Other than this here Aussie and i have been getting along rather well of late. I don't know what brought him to be the forth party to the RFC but it is a bit odd that your go-to-guy comes in to object to my backing out because we are fundamentally disagreeing and i would rather rescind my involvement than continue to disagree with you. Prior to my comment in the RFC yourself and i had been getting along. Your insistence that my comment was not acceptable for the RFC and removing it to a discussion section and then calling it inappropriately located when i moved it back was hardly conducive to getting along. You seem to stand by not accepting my comment as being appropriate for the RFC. Am i wrong? If my comment is not appropriate for the RFC and you don't object to my retracting it how then am i wrong in believing that you would rather i not be involved in the RFC? If that is correct then how do you object to my calling it so. Your position seems to be that it is better that my comment be retracted; Aussie's position seems to be that it is better my comment NOT be retracted. At this point i really don't care which way it goes and suggest the two of you decide which way you want it to be. Fighting the two of you in separate and a joint fight is three fights too many. Rock. Me. Hard place. You two win. Sorry for getting involved at Top Gear. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 06:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of peace and sanity here, I'm going to step in and provide my two cents, if it is welcome. One: Please remain civil here. I'm seeing some hot tempers and I totally understand that and I'm not saying anyone has gone out of line yet, but for the record and as a friendly reminder, let's remain civil. Two: Let's come to this compromise- should anyone agree to it. In the future, when participating in an RFC, if you want to retract your comments, let's strike them rather than remove them. Removing comments could potentially cause some confusion and as a courtesy, striking the comments show a retraction. Does that sound reasonable? Dusti*poke* 08:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dusti, while reasonable, this was never about a standard practice but rather a one-off incident where i tried to appease two parties giving me rather conflicting signals who only had in common the dislike of my compromise which was actually put forward in some measure by each of them independently. Invoking ignore all rules and removing my comments entirely because their existence, whether stricken or not, prove detrimental to the RFC is what got the least objections but which also landed me here. Whether they remain retracted, get restored, are restored and stricken, or are purged someone won't like it. So, Dusti, any ideas for the 'here & now'? delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What do the other editors request that you do now? You seem to have tried everything you can do thus far.... Dusti*poke* 17:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
She hasn't tried everything. She hasn't done what she should have done in the first place, struck through her comments rather than delete them entirely. Had she done that, or at least done it after the first time her comments were restored, this report would have been unnecessary. Simply striking through her comments rather than writing volumes of excuses and explanations for not doing so, now totalling 5,300 words on multiple pages (5 times the volume of the offending posts), would have been far easier and resolved the problem before it started. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Aussie, if i knew that drmargi didn't stand by the very example from drmargi that i was following in the footsteps of then yes i would have discarded that example in the first place rather than stand by it as being the resolution. For 3 days now i was of the understanding that drmargi's note of my deleted comments was satisfactory resolution to drmargi. One does not assume someone to set an example they personally find unacceptable. If it was agreeable to drmargi then i couldn't satisfy both removing and striking. Since both were meant to avoid conflict and instead produced the conflict for that i do apologise to you. My goal was a peaceful and simple end to a disagreement and given what i had at the time i believed i was taking the most agreeable option for all parties involved by noting my comments to be retracted. Subsequent revelations clarified that to not be the case. With positions clarified i have obliged as much as is agreeable to myself too. Comments that you objected to my removing are restored. Comment previously removed and replaced not restored. Note of my comments being retracted are themselves removed for being in conflict with the comments not actually being retracted. My departure from the matter rescinded per insistence that i be the one to restore the comments. As to the length of comments, it is a very poorly kept secret that i write a lot.:P delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Jesus H. Christ what a fiasco this is turning into. I support completely wiping all text below my RfC official comment and pretending nothing was said in the last 3 days. Everyone wins. MrCrackers (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If drmargi agrees to this proposal, it would resolve the problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
As much as I would like to see this at an end, I can't agree to simply wiping the text and pretending it didn't happen. This is not the first time I've been on the receiving end of wildly overblown and grossly inaccurate accusations by Deliriousandlost, and I gather this is also the case for AussieLegend. It has to stop. Delirousandlost has kept this problem going by refusing to comply with a simple Wikipedia guideline: remove text by striking it through, preferring to produce the volume of text AussieLegend has noted above in a misguided attempt to achieve what, I'm not sure. Her comments both here and on the relevant talk page represent repeated assumptions of bad faith based on her need to keep herself in the right and justify repeated disruptive edits. Moreover, she has repeatedly attempted to use both my comments and AussieLegend's conduct to justify her own actions by inaccurately portraying what was said and done, then shifting blame for her choices onto one or both of us. I have explained repeatedly what my edits were designed to do. Instead of simply acknowledging her error, restoring then striking out her edits as Wikipedia guidelines require, and leaving the discussion as she wishes to do, we've seen a series of frenzied and disruptive postings, both here and on the Top Gear talk page designed to avoid doing what is appropriate and somehow make her failure to do so my fault. Similarly, instead of accepting responsibility for disruptive editing that is arguably deserving of more aggressive action than this discussion, she has accused AussieLegend of abusing process in opening this discussion. No one has (metaphorically) put a gun to her head or forced her to do anything, yet Deliriousandlost refuses to accept any responsibility for her choices and the actions that followed them. Wiping the slate clean won't address these larger issues, just sweep them under the rug, and that's unacceptable. In order to resolve this, Deliriousandlost must do two things: a. restore and strike through her text in adherence to WP:REDACT and; b. apologize to both me and AussieLegend for her false accusations and assumption of bad faith. That done, this problem is at an end. Drmargi (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
"This is not the first time I've been on the receiving end of wildly overblown and grossly inaccurate accusations by Deliriousandlost." What was not germane to your point at Lie to me was exactly my point - that the television industry uses production numbers and that production numbers are not necessarily sequentially synchronised with broadcast order. You took issue with me mentioning how i have them listed on my own website and that i said when watched in that order there is no continuity conflict which is present if viewed in the order broadcast by FOX. I spoke specifically of that show and you turned it into responding to me as though i was making general statements about all shows which are not true. You assumed i was making assumptions and told me i can't assume such things. Or the time you decided that despite having a template specifically for including tv.com in the external links section of tv show and episode list articles you decided to remove them where you found them for tv.com being an unreliable source which accepts user-submitted content. External links are not reliable sources but you still reverted some peoples' edits, including mine.[57] You disagree with me pretty much everywhere we cross paths at some time or other, even when i take your side. I still don't understand what you are getting at with this [58] but it seems you are either picking on Xeworlebi or myself or both of us. "Is made" versus "finishes post-production". They are a simple and more technical way of saying the same thing yet you felt to come along and correct me.[59] Also, if you have seen any shows' end credits of late from FOX or Warner Bros. then you should have noticed they are now actually labelling it in the end credits with "Production #" prefix. The seventh broadcast episode of The Good Guys is "Production # 5042-10-107/S105". My accusations are not grossly inaccurate or wildly overblown. There are many little ones which if all mentioned would greatly extend this beyond what it already is and only serve to allow you further jabs at me even though i don't do short comments.
Aussie and i have disagreed on things. We have also been able to eventually work out mutually agreeable approaches to the matters. Emphasis on eventually. When we have questions we can ask each other. We might even make a joke in the answer to the question or follow-up comment. We don't always agree but we do appreciate and attempt to understand the perspective of the other.
You are the one who moved my comment out of the comments to a discussion section. That had me removed it. You then noted my comment was deleted by myself. I put in my re-write and you again removed it to a discussion section. When you called my comment inappropriately placed i was very offended. That is why i removed all of my comments. Fighting with you about allowing me to have my comment in the request for comments would have turned into its own request for comments and that was ridiculous. I was and still am not agreeable to your relocating or disparaging the placement of my comment. Aussie objected to my total retraction despite it being what seemed the most beneficial so I followed your example [60] and notes that my comments were retracted. Now you say that is not good enough for you. How was i to know the very example you set was unsatisfactory to you? Aussie later clarified that that is what he felt to be insufficient. But you were still silent on the matter. If you had not set the example you did or had said anything 3 days ago then i would have been able to respond accordingly. Since my solution is giving you my blessing to do whatever with my comments that will have you satisfied and your request is that i restore them i have. If the comments are to be included i chose to not have them stricken and i instead rescind my withdrawal from the matter because despite fundamentally disagreeing with you i am more against calling a BBC-published website unreliable due to the precedent it would set. As noöne is asking that my first draft of RFC comment be restored that remains replaced with the re-write as it was when Aussie objected to them all being removed. If you want them stricken then we have an issue there. You misled me into believing i was satisfying your concern so i will not be apologising to you. That deception is the underlying reason for why Aussie and i remained at conflict these past couple of days - i could satisfy his request or what you presented and i believed to your position but not both. For not responding with the appropriate courtesy to your actions in the RFC i do apologise to everyone. If you can apologise for your actions and comments then this matter can be resolved.
And since you mentioned it, i have had a real, loaded gun put to my head and been told to do things. On two occasions, once to the back and once in my face. I don't recommend the experience and this is nothing like it. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you have no intention of accepting responsibility for your choices and the actions you took, but rather will continue to hide behind a non-existent so-called "example" (where in WP:REDACT am I obligated to strike out your comments? That seems to be your basis for refusing to do so.) in yet another attempt to deflect blame from yourself. None of the rest of the verbiage above is relevant to the issue at hand. You're still playing games rather than simply owning up to a series of bad judgments and then restoring, then striking out your comments (all your comments, not a selected few.) That means restoring the first version of your RfC comments, and using strikethrough to reflect any changes. Drmargi (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You never said BOOOO about it to me for 4 days. How am i to read your mind? It is only non-existent if someone had the diff oversighted. I don't understand how you would rather have all of this than have me just back out of the RFC. If you object to having a note of retracted comments then you should have restored my comment that was so offending when i removed it rather than place a note that my comment had been removed. Nothing says that you would strike my comment but as the other party to the issue you chose to not discuss it or revert it but to jump right to noting a removed comment. That would indicate you accept that resolution since you yourself on your own chose to put that in place of my upsetting comment. That is called setting an example. Telling me now that it is not an example and is not and never was an acceptable option is just grasping at ways to keep this going.
I didn't restore my initial comment because not even you objected to it being removed and now that i say so you object to it not being restored. Who is playing what game? What next? I removed your statement that my comment was deleted. Do you want that put back in? Shall you complain that i have not retained the statement that my comments are retracted? Technically they were removed rather than stricken. If you want it restored to what it was then the notes that they were retracted don't belong. They could be but then it will create a situation where i am disavowing my own comments and well i am not. So i would have to go in and add a note that i retracted the retraction to each of them. It sounds a bit silly doesn't it. It can be done. I would first require that all of the other people to restore their initial comments rather than re-writing them. That includes you drmargi. If saving is to be treated as absolute then modifying a comment 4 minutes or 8 hours later is just as unacceptable for you to do as it is for moi or Mr Crackers.
The above is exactly part of the issue at hand. Or shall i file complaints on each of those issues and all of the others individually? You use them in general against me and i bring them up specifically as defense to your wild assertions and you dismiss them as irrelevant. One guess as to why we have issue. You are dismissing my counter-claim that the accusations are not wild and unsubstantiated. That is kind of the same thing as you did at the RFC that so offended me the other day and triggered all of this. If i disagree with you you make bold statements that i am wrong and if i challenge that assessment you say i am making wild accusations.
You even dismiss the correction to the misrepresentation of my relations with Aussie. If Aussie wants to tell me that we are not finding ways to get along then perhaps he should let me know because i thought we were.
"You're still playing games rather than simply owning up to a series of bad judgments and then restoring, then striking out your comments (all your comments, not a selected few.)"[61] Requiring me to strike out all of my comments is completely unacceptable and will not happen. I will not be giving in to these wild demands of yours. My first bad judgement was getting involved at a show where you were well embedded. My next bad judgement was backing down from your confrontational editing in the RFC because it reäffirmed your dominance rather than being equals. I offered you the option to do with my comments as you pleased without objection. You chose to have me handle it. I chose to handle it my way. Too bad. All comments not being stricken. We can review the matter of the first one once you and Mr Crackers restore all of your changes and strike through things. If you require it of me you should first be willing to do it yourself. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To Mr Crackers, my apologies to you for a fiasco of a request for comments. I realise you have good intentions in starting it but i do disagree with pitting a publisher against itself in a question of which is more reliable. My opposition to the RFC is unconventional but is very much sincere and it is for that reason that my comments are not stricken. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the discussion correctly, there was an RFC posted and Delirious provided some input. drmargi found the input either inappropriate or inappropriately placed and then refactored the page to move Delirous's comments. Delirious objected to the refactoring but in the spirit of cooperation and wishing to withdraw from the discussion, deleted her comments. Aussie found the deletion of the comments made following the discussion difficult and therefore restored them. Is that mostly accurate? Gerardw (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the initial discussion but that seems to be what happened. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Either version of my comment was not that welcome. The first version spawned its own response section (to which it was then moved by drmargi) which was overshadowing the RFC. The second version was also relocated out of the RFC even though it was vastly more on-topic. When i saw that drmargi called it inappropriately placed back into the RFC i realised this would go on and on. I removed all of my comments. I do not disagree the response section had no context without my comment visible on the page. That is what Aussie found. I can't do anything right by drmargi short of striking out my own comments even though if visible i don't want them stricken. Save for the subsequent comments it is back to what it was that offended me in the first place. Drmargi has not restored and stricken a single change to any of drmargi's comments. drmargi has not demanded that Mr Crackers restore and strike the changes to all of his comments. Rather a double-standard targetting me. Hence the stalemate this is at. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 22:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, Aussie's correct that deleting comments is uncool. However it seems to me that this all got start when drmargi refactored your comment [62] so that was the most uncivil thing I see here. However the history is such a mess that trying to undo that would just create more problems now. Would the involved parties have a problem if we just archive the whole section? Gerardw (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
First of, factoring is mathematical, despite the Wiki-speak misuse of it. Therefore, there is no possible way I could have factored, much less refactored, anything she wrote. Second, despite Deliriousandlost's carrying on, I did nothing to modify her post. I simply added a heading above a group of posts that had become a heated discussion with the intention of separating comments regarding the RfC from the discussion of its merits. Deliriousandlost has repeatedly misrepresented what was done, and why, to make herself seem the sole focus of the addition of the heading, and thereby, the victim. The edit I made is a commonplace one on talk pages, designed to organize the discussion, nothing more. There is nothing uncivil about it. Until such time as Deliriousandlost complies with WP:REDACT and apologizes for her false accusations and misrepresentations, I will revert any attempt to archive the discussion. Drmargi (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"Simply adding a heading above a group of posts that had become a heated discussion with the intention of separating comments regarding the RFC from the discussion of its merits" is exactly the issue. That is modifying my post to relocate it to a new section outside of the RFC proper. And you did it. And i am offended. And you want me to apologise to you! You could have made a heading indicating it was in response to my comments but you chose to move my comment out of the RFC to the subsection and when i objected to your "simply adding a heading..." you objected to my objection and i then objected to your objecting to my objection and you then called my comment inappropriately placed which really offended me. My accusations are not at all false nor misrepresenting.
You openly and explicitly admit to doing what started this specific disagreement. Yet you concurrently absolve yourself from all fault by saying it was called for and deserved and a common place action done all the time and that i am out of line to disagree with you. And that my dear is the fundamental issue i have with you. Even here you have promised an edit war should anyone archive this complaint against your wishes. That would be exactly the same practice i am objecting to your having done - unilaterally changing a discussion 'for the greater good' despite the objection of others. You are literally here in your immediately above post demanding to have it both ways so as to always favour your wishes in whichever circumstance. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 07:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, drmargi's behavior was inappropriate: Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. WP:TPG However, WQA can only be helpful when the involved parties are willing to work towards a solution. When a editor's response starts with a holier-than-thou redefinition of a word (refactor), it's not a good sign. The logical conclusion is drmargi is not going to apologize or change their behavior. Delirious, your best course of action is to simply disengage. Gerardw (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It was a good suggestion but Aussie has great issue with my not writing short comments here or at the shows where we have mutual interest and disagree and he too is still requesting that i strike my comments. [63] Oddly enough he went in and re-wrote that comment rather than striking things so as to remove visible reference to this.[64] More double standard. Ironically here is a short comment. delirious & lost ☯ ♥hugs♥ 13:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read what was actually written, and not what you think was written, you'll see that I made no such request at all. I was pointing out the flaw in writing far too much and used this case as an example of where writing far too much is unnecessary and causes your point to be lost. As I told you at Talk:NCIS, there is no obligation to make the first copy of your post the final version. The revision of my post occurred less than 3 minutes after the initial post and nobody had replied during that time so it was entirely appropriate to make that revision. If you had replied immediately after I made my first post, instead of several hours later, then rewording what I wrote would have been inappropriate but, since that did not happen, there is no double standard at all. The concern you've expressed here is really quite silly when you look at the facts. The next post after mine occurred two hours after my revision,[65] and there's a touch of irony in the fact that he was not replying to me but instead was also expressing concerns about the lengths of your posts. He edited his post too,[66] but I don't see you complaining about him. The next post was my response to him,[67] followed by yours, an hour after that, but you said nothing then about me revising my posts.[68] That didn't happen until three posts later, seven posts and six hours after the revision that caused you so much concern.[69] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The "nobody has replied so I can refactor my post" logic assumes replying to a post is an atomic transaction. You can't know whether someone has read your post and is in the midst of replying. Following the WP:REDACT policy of using preview would avoid this situation. See also template:uw-preview, and essay WP:TWWPK. Gerardw (talk)
If somebody jumps on your post immediately and you've revised it, they'll get an edit conflict and then they can review to see what has changed. This happens all the time on Wikipedia. The possibility of somebody doing that is no reason not to revise your post. As for previewing, you can preview all you want but it doesn't help if you then decide that what you've posted is not the best way to say what you wanted to. Relying on preview is a rather unrealistic approach. As for Deliriousandlost, there's no way she can type up 150-900 hundred words (the average length of her posts) in less than 3 minutes. And, as I've pointed out already, she didn't actually reply for several hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Aussie, what you just described is where you use an edit summary to convey that you are revising to a less inflammatory comment, just in case people have read it but not yet saved a response. You don't do that. It takes mere seconds and chance to refresh a watchlist just in time to see an initial edit and less than a minute to read what you first wrote. Walking the dog, taking dinner out of the oven, the cat wanting breakfast, a phone call, a power outage, or whatever... those are things that can get in between starting a response and actually clicking "save page". Writing a response in notepad and then going to insert it into the talk page is one way that edit conflicts are minimalised. I could write 150 words in 3 minutes easily. I could probably do 900 in maybe 10 minutes - 5 if i don't care if make any typos - but how fast i type is really not the issue. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I said nothing about an edit summary and you took 6 hours to respond to the post. I can't help feeling, based on your insistence in pushing an off-topic discussion at Talk:NCIS (season 8) that this is just a diversonary tactic to avoid answering to the complaint at hand, that you failed to follow proper talk page etiquette at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes . --AussieLegend (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Best if you both drop the WP:STICKs. Aussie, Delirious doesn't have to answer to you. She already explained her reasoning, and you haven't called out DrMargi for the refactoring that started this mess. Delirious -- it was 3 minutes. Let it go. Gerardw (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Aussie, you brought this up at NCIS season 8. I didn't write that edit for you. I called you on it and you didn't like that. I am the one who said you didn't make proper use of an edit summary to retract your inflammatory comment and well since you insist no such retraction is called for that got the big issue at NCIS season 8. By that logic i could write whatever i wanted about anyone so long as i turned around and replaced it with a less inflammatory comment 2 minutes later. Personally, i find that a gross abuse of the policies for which you refuse to apologise. A simple 'sorry i stooped to that level of comment' would have been all that was needed but you did and still do seem to insist it was completely ok. Hence the issue just goes on - you stand by it and i continue to be offended by it. I do agree with GerardW that it is a bit funny how you don't have issue with drmargi tweaking my edits for me but do have issue with the fallout from my objecting to drmargi having done so. You were completely uninvolved until you showed up pretty much at random and took issue with me while being unaware of the whole story. Considering our past, it was really not a good thing for you to step into a dispute between myself and someone you get along with quite well as you are really not an unbiased third party.
GeradW, backing off from a disagreement with Aussie doesn't work because he brings it up next time he disagrees with you somewhere else as evidence of your past wrongs to show you are wrong in the new matter too. My edits at NCIS LA show i am wrong at Ghost Whisperer. My edits at Top Gear show i am wrong at NCIS DC. When i wrote the entire article for list of Crossing Jordan episode Aussie complimented my work whilst complaining to the admin who deleted his preëmptive-creation-of-a-not-needed redirect page that had been at the same title because it meant his not retaining article creation credit for what was entirely my work. I had started the article outside of WP as a subject to focus on rather than continue the issues at Ghost Whisperer. I asked him not to again follow me to another show (he had come to Ghost Whisperer after i realised he had previous involvement at How The Earth Was Made and i thus ceased my involvement there). Between then and when i had the list ready he had created the page as a redirect. We both are huge fans of NCIS DC & LA so avoiding each other entirely just isn't so easy. I try to avoid bringing up the past issues but to provide some context for responding to your suggestion here i kinda have little other option. The one thing i don't disagree with is Aussie's claims that i write a LOT. It is plain to see here and at most other places i write. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have amended the complaint to name AussieLegend and drmargi and added NCIS (season 8) and Aussie's talk page to this since they all go together and while they complain about me i most certainly do complain about each of them.
drmargi has now threatened an ANI complaint because i refused to let Aussie walk all over me at NCIS and in doing so named drmargi there.[70] Drmargi then started a discussion on Aussie's talk page about how i am a problem.[71] Aussie actually used an edit summary when responding, "She's an ongoing problem." [72] Then drmargi notices i removed the warning note from my talk page and drmargi again says that i am being taken to ANI, now or next time. [73] The warning i got from drmargi was to not discuss other people who are not part of the discussion and drmargi in turn almost right away starts a discussion ABOUT me at Aussie's talk page. I have left notes on each of their talk pages informing them of my amending the complaint here and acknowledging the looming threat of taking this to ANI because i won't give in to them or write short messages. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

drmargi has requested i retract mention of drmargi from NCIS and once i get confirmation on whether simply striking names or reworking to remove names entirely would be more acceptable i shall do so.
In addition to my request that drmargi remove the commentary about the inappropriate placement if my comment in the RFC at Top Gear i am requesting that all comments between drmargi and Aussie about myself be removed from Aussie's talk page per drmargi's own instance to not be the subject of or mentioned in a discussion that drmargi is not part of. My comment at Aussie's talk page was reverted by Aussie, effectively telling me i am not welcome in their discussion about me. [74] delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the complaint was made about your actions and only your actions, changing the name was inappropriate and has been reverted. If you wish to complain about the actions of other editors make a separate complaint. Don't chjange somebody elses. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I started to and you know what, it looked absolutely ridiculous to complain about etiquette on this very page. Not to mention having two ongoing complaints with the same 3 people, 2 accusing 1 and 1 accusing 2 for the same issue. Congratulations for filing the complaint in the first place. You have effectively ensured there is no way for me to formally file a complaint on you as long as this is ongoing without looking like an idiot and if i wait until this is resolved then i am merely carrying a grudge. Either way i come across as even worse than before or no formal complaint is filed against you.
Now, about that whole discussion on your talk page and your repeated reverting of my comments there including the request to wipe the entire conversation, i do believe the existence of that conversation and your refusal to allow me to participate while you discuss how much a problem i am and how i ought to be taken to ANI is itself grounds to take this to ANI rather than file a 2nd complaint here. I have asked both of you to remove all mention of me since i am not welcome and to carry on the other topic mixed in as you please. Kindly do so. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see this issue as ever being resolved. Deliriousandlost has generated over 8,000 words explaining why it's too hard, or why she couldn't or shouldn't type "<s></s>" three times, turning anyone off responding at all to the discussion. Despite suggestions to drop the stick she refuses, dragging this discussion into areas where it's irrelevant and pointless and dragging other issues into this discussion where they are irrelevant. The discussion is going nowhere so there seems to be no point in continuing it. As long as it remains open, Deliriousandlost will continue add more and more irrelevancies. I still believe that her refusal to strike out her comments at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes was a breach of etiquette but I am more than happy for this discussion to be closed as unresolved. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do i have to strike the comments? I don't want them stricken. I voluntarily removed them to back out entirely. You, Aussie, insisted that they go back in. They did. Now you two demand that i strike them. Why? You insisted that i remain part of the RFC and if i was to remain part of the RFC i was going to stand by what i said. You demand that i retract what i said for no reason other than __i don't know __. The RFC itself is long since redundantly dead due to new sources and the BBC's ever-changing position on the matter. Both of you have demanded that i strike comments but Aussie, you have so far actively dismissed my requests to you for the same. drmargi has been silent and is presumed absent at this time and will find my request for such at a later time. My request of drmargi to remove the inappropriate commentary on my comment itself in the RFC has gone entirely rejected/ignored for about 3 weeks now. You are applying a rather blatant double standard for yourself and moi and it is most frustrating. When really frustrated i tend to write; if i think it might be somewhat incoherent i will note as such in the post or/and edit summary.
Again, the fundamental concern of mine in this matter of which i have written well over 10000 words is:
why do i have to strike my comments if i stand by them? delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 11:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, if you read a little more and wrote a littleLOT less you'd see that this was explained to you on your talk page,[75] and then covered in the very first entry in this complaint.[76] If somebody has replied to your comments.....no, I've said this again and again. I shouldn't have to to continue explaining the same thing over and over and over. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, that does not answer my question now and it did not answer it back then either. You are working on the premise that i want my comments retracted. I do NOT want my comments retracted; i DID want to not pick a fight with drmargi so for the lesser of two evils i removed my comments against my wishes to attempt to satisfy another. Putting them back in is a whole other matter. For them being back you two are both demanding that i strike them. Why ? delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 13:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll reiterate my suggestion to drop the stick.
  • Delirious, just let it go. It's been discussed more than enough. Y'all disagree. You don't have to answer to Aussie and they don't have to answer to you. There's no need to monitor Aussie's talk page, that just escalates the dispute. Just focus on the editing.
  • Aussie, the suggestion you referenced above was for both of you to drop the stick. You're not getting third party support here for your complaint against Delirious. Your comment "Honestly, if you read a little more and wrote a littleLOT less" borders on personal attack and shows a lack of good faith. Gerardw (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Gerardw, in case you had missed it, I dropped the stick a while before you made the suggestion, which you only did after Delerious's decision to reignite the debate by dragging an irrelevant discussion here. I actually suggested a resolution back on 29 January[77] which, as is her right, Drmargi rejected. Despite your suggestion to the contrary, others have made suggestions that actually support my position, which is simply one of compliance with WP:REDACT.[78] I can see why poor Dusti, who at least made a practical suggestion, didn't return. The only reason I'm replying now is because I am offended by your suggestion that my post "borders on personal attack and shows a lack of good faith." I have tried to demonstrate good faith with Deleriousandlost but it's impossible because she writes so much that it's simply not possible for the average person to respond adequately to what she wants you to respond to and then complains that you haven't responded adequately. I've tried to assume good faith despite the snide edit summaries that she makes while you're trying to engage in conversation and then she has the audacity to ask what the problem is, when it was explained to her in the very beginning, a million words ago. I was certainly demonstrating good faith when you made a puzzling, and somewhat unhelpful post on my talk page.[79] I'm demonstrating good faith by assuming that you may, one day, answer the question that I asked you in response.[80] --AussieLegend (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I left this discussion because it three things became abundantly clear to me: a) that Deliriousandlost had no intention of taking responsibility for her actions, much less corrective action; b) that any attempt to impress on her the need to abide by policy as articulated above would simply be met by a profusion of words designed to misdirect, redirect, confuse, excuse and generally avoid dealing with the issue at hand and; c) that this discussion was becoming cannon fodder for Deliriousandlost to use elsewhere, as has recently been proven out. The request she is now hiding behind is a nonsense that was never appropriate, nothing more. The fundamental issue is that she refuses to be held accountable for her actions, much less accept responsibility for them. At some point, one simply remembers the meaning of futility and at least attempts to move on. Gerardw, I would be far more impressed with your efforts to "mediate" if I felt you were neutral, but you aren't. You hold AussieLegend and me to a sharply proscribed definition of civility (inaccurately, I would argue) while both making uncivil comments yourself, and allowing Delirousandlost extreme lattitude to behave without civility, and without assumption of good faith. Sorry; no dice. Drmargi (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please post a diff of the uncivil comment(s) I've made. Thanks. Gerardw (talk)
Why do i have to retract something i don't want to retract and has no need to be retracted just because Drmargi and AussieLegend demand i retract it? Why is it ok for them to refuse to retract demeaning comments and an entire thread dedicated to how much i am a problem to them whilst concurrently demanding a retraction and an apology from me for a non-offenseive comment? Why is it ok for Drmargi to edit drmargi's own comments after people have responded to them and why is it ok for drmargi to edit my comments? Yes, Aussie i have the audacity to demand to know why you insist i retract a comment. You show such contempt that the only reason that has ever been given for insisting upon the retracting of my comments is an implied 'because we said so'. Do you even know why you are wanting the comments retracted? I don't know why you want them retracted. I just know that you do want them retracted. To that i say: No; you wanted them readable and i don't want them stricken. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive98&oldid=1145853266"