Revision as of 23:32, 9 September 2012

There is a discussion to close Wikiquette assistance at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Closing Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance.

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

Active discussions

Disruption at Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

• Andromedean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sport and politics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Sports & Politics has spent the last two weeks attempting to remove and edit the article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics - Technologies used for Olympic sports, using a wide variety of underhand tactics which I don’t believe are unbiased or justified. This editor has caused an immense amount of disruption to this article whilst adding very little of value. I have also noticed that Sports and Politics has drawn criticism from other editors and other articles so this behavior could be more widespread.

The original reason given by Sports & Politics for removal was that‘The GB cycling team did very well and mainly the French need to get over it’

Sports & Politics then uses a variety of different tactics such as It is a conspiracy not a controversy or the technology is not controversial because no rules were broken.

ostensibly credible sounding reasons are often used by Sport & Politics such as displaying ‘original research and synthesis’ so after I have nearly converted it all to direct quotations to avoid any chance of using the tactic the strategy changes, Sport & Politics then starts to edit the technical data to gibberish, for example:

"cycling has seen the most impressive technological contribution. For example, 100% of the 221% improvement in the one hour cycling record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics."

was changed to:

"In cycling, technology has contributed to changes in bicycles"

Due to the ambiguity of this statement I confirmed with the original source that 100% of 221% improvement really means 100/221=45% of the total, and this figure should be quoted, Sport and Politics then claimed this reason for subsequent removal:

“The above only goes to prove the confusion to the uninitiated reader and as such shows it is not easily accessible to all users of the encyclopaedia so it has no place on Misplaced Pages as it is far too easily confusing as clearly demonstrated above. Remember Misplaced Pages must be accessible to all not just the writer or those with specialist knowledge”

Of the most serious deletions by Sports & Politics brings this response from another editor

“Take for example, the statement when quoting Boardman: When Boardman was questioned if this high-tech warfare would put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." It was directly from the source. I specifically noted in my editing note that I want to quote "what is exactly provided in the source". Could Sports and politics please provide a reason for deleting it? Showmebeef (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)”

Sports & Politics answers “Calling it "high-tech warfare" is incredibly POV and pejorative. It not actual warfare and is sensationalising….”

Another tactic is to use obviously invalid technical arguments such as:

improvements in the 1hr cycling record due to aerodynamics has no relevance to Olympic cycling, because this event isn't used in the Olympics!

A more recent tactic is to corrupt the article slowly, removing references which simultaneously refer to London 2012 and controversial cycling technology, so no individual article address the heading in its entirety, allowing Sports & Politics favourite excuse for removal, synthesis.

Extracts Sport and Politics abhors which will merit quick removal includes a report called Sports Engineering An Unfair Advantage published immediately before the London Olympics with contemporary references to the coming Olympics which states:

Research shows that people fear that sports engineering will: overshadow the triumph of human spirit and effort, make certain sports easier, create unfairness so the "best athletes" might not win, and ensure that rich athletes and countries have an advantage over the poor ones.

Once Sport and Politics has edited the article to a form that he/she can credibly attack, Sport and Politics then requests it to be locked.

In general, you will notice that Sports and Politics frequently uses the same method as the excuse he/she gives to remove articles, unfounded opinion.

This list of tactics is by no means exhaustive, but it is exhausting me which is probably the whole point, attrition.

Yesterday I politely asked Sports and Politics for the last time to leave the article so that people can comment against each point which addresses all the issues. It was edited back by Sport and Politics early this afternoon, so this was the last straw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromodean is acting as the owner of the article and has been waned previously not to forum shop with an RfC is currently ongoing. I have made clear reasoning as to why I believe they are acting as an owner. This diff here makes an an unfulfilable request that only they edit the article. The user has had numerous editors pointing out the information is nothing more than synthesis of information. The editor has repeatedly ignores sound reasoning by multiple users as to why the information has no place in the article. There is an RfC ongoing and the user is clearly showing their dislike of people not coming to thier point of view that the information should be included. in the above diff the editor states "if there is a consensus and good reason to remove bits I will later consider this" this is clearly a demonstration of the owner believing they are the only one who can say yes or no as to what can be included and removed from the section.

Andromedean has taken particular umbrage with me as i keep on stating where the section they want to include is in breach of Wiki policy and guidelines. Most particularly in the cases of Undue weight, Synthesis, Original research and a neutral point of view. The Above 100%/221% quote is incredibly confusing and no context was given and no explanation was given. The user is missing the article is about Controversies and the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. The information the user is wanting to include is failing on the grounds of relevancy in the most part. The user is also failing to assume any good faith from me that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipeida by claiming above that i am "using a wide variety of underhand tactics which I don’t believe are unbiased or justified. This editor has caused an immense amount of disruption to this article whilst adding very little of value". This is totally without foundation and this is entirely missing the point that i am attempting to act in the best interest of the encyclopaedia by not including text which is , synthesised, biased, confusing, irrelevant, incorrectly attributed and giving minor information undue coverage. Andromedean is clearly demonstrating they are not taking on board the constructive criticisms from multiple editors and the highly detailed and justified reasoning that the information should be removed. I am not the only editor which has stated that information added by Andromedean is not of a place in Wikipeida. Andromedean has also been criticised by other editors (not just myself) that they are ignoring the reasoning given for the removal of "their" information.

This is nothing more than a dispute over content and Andromedean not liking "their" information being challenged. The user has also added a note on my talk page with the section stating in this diff here "be thankful i am not asking for a ban" The user is missing this is a content dispute and that they are clearly not without fault here.

Andromedean has also been warned for forum shopping when they were trying to go around an existing RfC with a DRN which can be seen here and here.

Andromedean needs a mentor to ensure that they fully understand Wikipeida policy and can edit constructively especially as they are posting highly un-constructive posts such as this on an article talk page here

Sport and politics (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I have been more offended by Andromedean in this discussion than I was by Sport and politics when I disagreed with him. Sport and politics is just exceptionally hard to convince, whereas Andromedean seems to think no reasonable editor can possibly disagree with him. E.g. this comment where he clearly feels that all editors who have commented in the RFC so far are biased, as he warns them that no unbiased editor will disagree with him. He is clearly not assuming good faith, instead he claims censorship repeatedly. In fact, I happened to read through WP:TE and found a number of points that apply to Andromedean: "One who accuses others of malice", "One whose citations are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit", "One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject" and "One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages". In comparison the talk page conduct of Sport and politics is generally unproblematic, but I don't think moving a user's comment from where they intended it to be is entirely acceptable. As far as editing the article is concerned it takes at least two to edit war. I have expected Andromedean to make such a report, and the only reason I did not warn him that it could be a self-destruct was that he would probably be offended if I did so.
By the way, my IP has changed again. I am the IP who responded to the RFC. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

88 I have agreed to undertake multiple changes to suit both yourself and sport and politics as can be observed from the changes from the original article. Note one of the early comments from another user before I made most of the changes. These changes included three direct links each relevant to Olympics, cycling and technological advantage to remove any reasonable claim of miscategoration through synthesis.

I just looked at the sources Andromedean used, and several of them appear to validate this as a controversy. Instead of revert warring with Andromedean's good-faithed efforts to improve this article, I suggest the other regulars here look themselves at the sources and prune out any synthesis and leave what remains in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

however when 'synthesis' starts to include prunining out important quotes we have to draw the line and start asking for more expert help, and a genuine independent opinion. I asked Hauster as he seemed to be involved with the RFC, and something in the RFC said I could ask again if dissatisfied. I wasn't aware that it isn't allowed to ask a more experienced official who had already had some connection with the article to examine if the rules were not being mis-interpreted, although please note he suggested I bring it to this board. After given further fair warnings that is what I eventually did. --Andromedean (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any response to your Wikiquette issues, in particular the repeated and unfounded accusations of bias and censorship? (As I stated in my most recent comment in the discussion I have read your versions of the article, and remain unconvinced. Let's keep that discussion on the article talk page.) 85.167.110.93 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean you are not being representative with the user you are quoting there. Other users have pointed out where you are not being wholly amenable such as can be seen when you approached a user for a DRN here They clearly pointed out you are not engaging in the content at hand but are believing it is the conduct of the users who disagree with you that is at issue. Another user pointed out you were not addressing the reasoning provided by others who disagreed with your assessment here.

Andromedean if you have a direct issue with a user please take it up on their talk page as opposed to approaching a user you consider to be sympathetic "to keep a record of the following infringements by certain un-named persons?" and "Then present it at one of these forums." "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WQA" or "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN/I" such as this and an edit summary "Take notes of infringements" seen here. That goes to give off an impression that you are not interested in editing collaboratively and want to remove those whom you disagree with. It goes against the spirit of Wikipeida and assumes bad faith in the user you are disagreeing with.

Sport and politics (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that Sport & Politics has changed the title to include my name. This is disgraceful behaviour. If anyone wishes to make any complaints about me, raise your own section. --Andromedean (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean You cannot have your cake and eat it, by expecting nobody to state where you are at fault when you have made a litany of very bad faith complaints about myself. This whole section is about the Controversies at the Summer Olympics article and talk page. To make a complaint regarding myself means that there will inevitably be users complaining about the conduct of you Andromedean as many users view you to be one of the main disruptions on the article and talk page and have made that clear in their comments here and on the talk page. It is not worth the effort having two discussions about essentially what is happening on the same article. It is pointless to spread what is essentially all related to the same article over many areas of Misplaced Pages. That would be highly disruptive and not in the best interests of Wikipeida. The article title has been edited to reflect the fact this is a complaint about you to Andromedean. Andromedean you do not own the this section or the title of this section simply because you started this section. That again shows the negative editing you are engaging in and is demonstrating your lack of how Misplaced Pages works. Sport and politics (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean please refain from making unsubstantiated claims as you did in this edit summary. It is is not conducive to a constructive debate. Please also be aware this is a complaint about you as well Andromedean. The title has to be accurate in reflecting that it is a complaint about you too Andromedean. You cannot demand one sided and un-representative titles which only convey what you want to show when it is not a reflection of reality. Just because you initiated the discussion and made the initial complaint doesn't mean you get to dictate the scope and content discussed. the discussion has naturally evolved to be a complaint about your disruptive and obstropolous behaviour as well. Sport and politics (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for an experienced negotiator to avoid disruption of an article, unfortunately my request on this board highlighting the issues seems to have encouraged the same person to continue even more. Could someone explain if I have come to the correct board, and how to proceed, thank you. I have no interest in slanging matches. --Andromedean (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean I think you are missing the facts here that you have fallen foul of shooting yourself in the foot, by making this complaint you have to accept that you will have your editing scrutinised and as you have been highly uncivil and incredibly disruptive there is more than enough to demonstrate that you are editing in an way which is non-constructive and disruptive, in a way which shows bad faith assumptions and a refusal to engage only in the content. Andromedean as you continually make references of a negative and highly dismissive and personal nature about the editors who disagree with you, you are not being a constructive collaborative editor. Sport and politics (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This board does not seem particularly active, presumably they are pre-occupied with discussing whether it should be closed. I would strongly advise you not to proceed with this case for the reason given above (though it would probably be good for you in the long run). I won't report you, but I will provide the diffs I provided above, as well as this claim of editors having "agenda"s, in whichever forum you wish to take this dispute to. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How about you start the Wikiquette off on a good footing by not name calling in the title? I've reworded it in a similar style to other posts here. My understanding of the Wikiquette assistance board is that it is a place to seek a way of successfully working and communicating with one another. It takes at least two people to make an argument, after all. Sionk (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance here Sionk. Can people obtain experienced third party assistance here or is this a place for the original editors to discuss their differences?--Andromedean (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still remain very concerned about bias for the reasons which seems obvious from these quotes and the underlying facts and science, I don't mak these accusations lightly but only when I'm convinced there is a chronic problem which is unlikely to result in fair outcome --Andromedean (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"At most a section on unwarranted French reactions to several British results in different sports could be made based on these two, but I don't think it is high-profile enough..... "85.167.110.93 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Do you have any semblance of controversy other than just the original research and synthesis being displayed. The GB cycling team did very well and mainly the French need to get over it. Complaining as the French did is just being a sore loser so it is not a controversy."Sport and politics (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Agree with S&P. This is more of a conspiracy theory than a controversy - Basement12 (T.C) 23:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet the underlying science, the timing of the change, the change in performance, and even by the GBs own admission and timing of the changes, all justify the French (and American) suspicions of technology being a factor in the eventual results.

These are a few rules which may have relevence to the article in question. These are as much notes for my future reference, than to encourage further debate here, but editors may wish to be take note that I'm aware of them all the same:

Anglo-American focus: Misplaced Pages seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? - Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective

Dealing with biased contributors - I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do? - Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page

Guidelines_for_controversial_articles An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views

Blinded By Science: How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality – Chris Mooney, originally published in Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how some methods used to balance coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This board is never to mediate between different desires regarding content: it's here to assist parties in improving communication and to help all move towards proper "getting along" as per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. A "mediator" here can only work on those items - and I can see a few instances above where 3rd parties have commented on those types of issues, but they have received no concrete responses - just like on the other noticeboards, YOUR behaviours (or in this case YOUR communication styles) are 100% relevant and in-scope of the discussion.

If you are trying to argue content, then the dispute resolution noticeboard is the main noticeboard or indeed, start simply with the processes in WP:DR - in some cases, a 3rd opinion or an WP:RFC are the better ways to go.

Remember, however, that civility is a pillar of Misplaced Pages, and if your own edits/actions aren't clean in those areas, you will find less success across this entire project; this is, after all, a community dangerouspanda 10:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After exhausting all reason, I did contact the dispute resolution noticeboard, to have them rejected, since some sort of a dispute was already filed by those with a bias to grind. Therefore, I was asked to lodge a complaint here. After a day the person who I was complaining about changed the title of the section to include my name, and started to attack me! I assumed misleading people in this way was an automatic level 3 warning, evidently not!

I have asked for third party help, and asked another person to take notes of unreasonable behaviour about a person who was causing severe problems. Yes I have done this, is this what you mean?

Be aware everyone isn't aware of the complexities of wikipedia resolution system and those that are can play clever political games. I now understand why this noticeboard is being disbanded, it is just going to encourage those who play political games rather than try to help those who use facts, reason and science to support their arguments. The longer this sorry enterprise goes on the more disillusioned I become with the quality of reasoning and fairness on Misplaced Pages.--Andromedean (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to review your own edits first, before accusing others of having low-quality reasoning or fairness. You're not getting your way on the contents of an article. Misplaced Pages goes by WP:CONSENSUS - full stop. As the RFC is already underway, then rightfully DRN was inappropriate. I see nothing in your submission here that shows incivility by anyone other than yourself right now. Calling things "vandalism" that do not meet the definition is uncivil. Trying to focus this discussion on others alone, while pretending you're not part of the problem is inappropriate. The goal of this board is, as stated, working on communication, never content. Calling things "political games" and "bias to grind" prove that you are personally carrying an axe here. Nobody will move forward while you continue to see yourself as the victim, rather than one of the causes - nor will the article. The current RFC will help determine consensus - all aprties should participate civilly, and make policy-based arguments. You have failed to show that anyone - other than yourself - are acting unfairly in that process. dangerouspanda 15:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re to Eats: This has been rejected by DRN twice 1 2 because a RFC was still early in it's action with a very focused group of editors who are polarized about their viewpoints. Still nobody seeing external comment. Andromedean, your continued descent into outright hostility is disheartening. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hauser: your accusation at me 'soliciting' when asking for help was extremely insulting, you owe me an apology, examine your own behaviour. I respectfully ask you refrain from becoming involved in this discussion or any discussion involved with this topic.

I can only repeat to everyone that my attempt at writing the article was an honest attempt at reflecting the objective situation. As a professional writer of scientific material I am used to the peer review and criticism process.

However, I was alarmed at subversive measures being used to harm the process through what I was confident was the malicious, overzealous and incorrect use of rules. This process has clearly failed, the perpetrators have gained confidence which will create untold problems for others the future.

May I recommend to everyone: try to read the full story in the talk page from the start, before accusing people and recognise by the time they get on here they may be at the end of their tether, this page is the tip of the iceberg, we are all human even the most patient and understanding.

PS I took up the suggestion of a 3rd party negotiator, as per panda's suggestion, but this is not popular with the other(s).

This page is only helping to inflame the situation, therefore I will no longer engage on it as it is becoming increasingly hostile and unfair.--Andromedean (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment on this page inflaming the situation, which I see is one of the reasons those in favour of closing it is using. However, it is sad that you disregard the conduct advice given to you by experienced editors such as EatsShootsAndLeaves. For his benefit I'll point out that I was not hostile to outside editors' involvement. However, 3O was inappropiate for two reasons, number of editors (for which Andromedean was tricked by this change that has been reverted), and the active RFC which Andromedean has previously sought to evade. I'll also point out that I have made one poorly worded comment in the discussion for which I apologised. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean you are coontinually keeping oon making unfounded accusations and are not beheaving in a constructive way. this diff with line "S&P Not sure why WP:3O clearly can't be used. As pointed out by someone else, you seem to be vey knowledgable and astute with using the rules for a new user!"

Firstly i have not said anything about using or not using WP:30 and secondly the claims you make are in bad faith and are without foundation.

There is also more demonstration of ownership in this diff "feel free to put a dispute notice on it, but not all of them!!" that line implies i won;t let you get rid of all of my stuff.

I am very concerned by the behaviour and continued personal comments which are in bad faith and without foundation. I think that unless Andromedean realises their comments and behaviour are a serious problem then This will need to be looked at on a more serious board, such as the administrators Noticeboard.

Sport and politics (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

• Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor One Night In Hackney has resorted to making uncalled for bad faith comments in the talk page of the mentioned article. First of all nowhere in Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Not_Libertarianism and Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Request_for_Comment have i made a bad faith comment towards One Night In Hackney, simply keeping it focused on content and on the policy issue - on the other hand they have decided to imply that i am incompetant and unable to understand simple English and that i am selectively quoting him.

The fact ONIH is making such bad faith comments is complicated by their own failure to fully read my comments. For example this accusation of selective quoting is itself selective considering his point on "unduly self-serving" is covered by the first point of WP:ABOUTSELF which i clearly make mention of in the third paragraph of my RfC initiation even making it clear ONIH stated the bullet point. What else i selectively quoted is beyond me. Another example of ONIH apparently not reading my comments in full is his comment "That source has been brought up before, it doesn't say UKIP are Libertarian" despite the fact nowhere did i say that the source stated that the party was but that it made mention of the party's claim.

Whilst me and ONIH do not see eye to eye on many things on Misplaced Pages, there has been no call for this incivility at this article. Mabuska 10:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I must also point out that this is not even a fortnight since ONIH was topic-banned for 3 months in regards to Northern Ireland Trouble's related articles for behavioural issues. Just to stress - this article is not covered by that topic-ban so there is no violation of it. Mabuska 10:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor from Troubles area stalks me to an unrelated article he's never edited before, and openly admits he has no interest in the content in question.

Same editor claims "Good enough for the context it is added in. Though there is no problem if it's put into the proper context in a new sentence, i.e. The party calls itself a "democractic, libertarian party" which fully meets the opening sentence of WP:ABOUTSELF". WP:ABOUTSELF actually says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim ." Since the material is self-serving and an exceptional claim, it can't be used due to the use of "so long as".

Same editor asks "Does that bullet point even apply in this case considering the context i just proposed adding it in as - a quotation from themselves about themselves and nothing more?". Hardly my fault if he can't understand basic English.

Same editor claims "ONiH says that the first bullet point of WP:ABOUTSELF applies (bringing the Exceptional claims policy into play)". What I actually said was "Wrong, read the first bullet point - "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim".It happens to be both" . Leaving out the self-serving part is highly problematic, and totally misrepresents my position.

Summary: Disruptive editor stalks me to an article with the sole intent of harassment, and proceeds to misunderstand policy and deliberately misrepresent me as well. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points. I don't see enough here for Mabuska to have filed a report. At most, I could possibly interpret ONIH's comments as ones that voice some impatience and frustration, nothing more. And certainly Mabuska isn't shy of leaving similar frustration-borne comments that (in my opinion) far exceed that which he is reporting ONIH for here. I can't help but also wonder why Mabuska decides to refer to ONIH's recent topic ban, and even going to far as to draw attention to this notice at the Arb page. Is it relevant, or are we watching a WP:BOOMERANG? --HighKing (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with HighKing, this smells of trying to exploit the troubles ban, possibly to provoke another editor ----Snowded 21:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@ONIH - This report is about you not me.

@HighKing - Your comment can be considered simple ad hominem as this report is not about me. Although only one of those examples you quote as far as i can tell does cross the boundary and that is this one, but it like the rest only comments on Hackney's editorial stance. How any of that "far exceed"s what ONIH has said is beyond me. Hackney's comment i have quoted above on the other hand was simple personal abuse of implied idiocy and incompetence. I also make mention of the topic-ban as ONIH was topic-banned for behavioural issues including his discussion behaviour - my mention of it here is to highlight that rather than the sanction encouraging better behaviour from ONIH, it apparently isn't. You did note how i stressed that ONIH was not in violation of the topic-ban just to avoid any misunderstandings?

@Snowded - ONIH could of accused me once again of POV or rhetoric or of somehow being a loyalist (as he seems to do quite a bit), yet for me that doesn't cross the boundary of what was in my eyes quite simply personal abuse. Have i ever implied that an editor was quite frankly stupid or inane as ONIH basically did in different terms? I will also note how in the article discussion in question since i posted this - ONIH frequently makes reference to me and "misrepresentation" in his comments rather than assuming an editor will actually read his comments for themselves. Is there any call for his continued reference to me? No. Would that not appear to be nothing more than attempts to provoke another editor into tit-for-tat?

@HighKing and Snowded - That topic-ban which resulted in 6 editors being topic-banned was a wake up call for our WikiProject to kick itself up the ass and try to stop the malignancy that festers and rises to the surface when certain editors arrive at talk pages and get into tit-for-tat with each other. Even though i do not get caught up in it as much as those who were topic-banned, i have started cleaning up my act in recent weeks in light of that topic-ban discussion and the point of reporting an editor is to highlight problems with them that need addressed to encourage them to behave in a more appropriate manner. That is the point of this and i sincerely doubt ONIH would pay any attention to a talk page notice from me instead of this report. ONIH is guilty here of uncalled for incivility and personal abuse towards me despite recently being topic-banned for such behavioural issues. Such behaviour from all of us needs to stop. How else can it be addressed than it being reported? ONIH just happens to be the first editor i've seen since that topic-ban being offensive. If i come across his polar opposite FergusM1970 acting the same i shall report them too with full reference to the topic-ban. If i so desired i could pull out a whole backlog of stuff from all of us that would shame us as we've made mistakes and errs of judgement, however that is in the past and before that recent mass topic-banning. It's time for us to all clean up our act.

I am not calling for sanctions against ONIH, far from it, and i never said as much above. I am highlighting for the record instances of offensive abuse and bad faith that only fosters malignancy to which the response i am looking for is agreement or disagreement as to whether it is or isn't.

Mabuska 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And before anyone asks what is the point if i'm not looking for sanctions, the point is if a lot of reports gather up where admins agree an editor is guilty of continued offensive abuse, then it shall be taken to AN/I where sanctions will be requested. Gives time for an editor to address their style of approach before serious action is requested against them. Then again is that not what a topic-ban is meant to do anyways - give an editor pause for thought to address their style of approach? Mabuska 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that it should be clear i am not seeking sanctions here considering the top of the article does say "No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead." The first point of "Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s)." i addressed above. Mabuska 12:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

ONIH could simply apologise for his offensive comments, and i would be more than happy to close this report myself. Mabuska 11:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to highlight an instance of in this discussion where ONIH acts in bad faith is his opening comment: "Disruptive editor from Troubles area stalks me to an unrelated article he's never edited before, and openly admits he has no interest in the content in question." - accuses me of being disruptive, accuses me of stalking, and then distorts my own comment. Saying "Personally i couldn't give a figs about what UKIP is" does not quate to me not having an interest in the content in question, especially when i say immediately afterwards "but if it stops the recurring issue from happeneing again it's not a bad solution" - sounds like i have an interest in solving a recurrent problem in the article to me. Mabuska 11:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of "ad hominen" is flawed (read completely wrong). My advice is to grow a thicker skin and turn down your sensitivity controls. And reread what was said. You lost a lot of credibility with your posting by trying to involve Arbcom and by implying that ONIH had more to answer to due to his "behaviour". You lost even more credibility by your responses to those that took the time to review your complaint. --HighKing (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

inappropriate responses

• Unscintillating (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Illinois Family Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Faithful Word Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The second page is not directly related, but the Talk page shows the only previous interaction between this editor any myself.

description of your situation
This diff explains and also shows the problem.

I came to the user's talk page to discuss a revert that caused an article to get page protection.  I could also take this issue to the edit warring noticeboard, but I don't know that a block is needed.  So the sequence of events from my viewpoint is this, I made my first edit ever at , this editor finds the edit within four minutes and restores a potential libel, and fourteen minutes later I remove the potential libel.  The editor posts at Talk:Illinois Family Institute#Libel?!, and I reply.  Meanwhile, another editor has resolved the potential libel, and an administrator has locked down the page.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no potential libel here. I tried to say this nicely, but the bottom line is that Unscintillating just doesn't understand what libel is and shouldn't be throwing around that term as a justification for removing material. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Still is right; there is no libel issue and Unscintillating is frankly displaying a level of ownership that does not befit a constructive editor to the project. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Roscelese, yes, the potential libel issue is resolved, as I said above, "another editor has resolved the potential libel".  We are here because Still's involvement got the page locked down for edit warring and he/she doesn't seem to understand his/her role in this, and how to respond differently going forward.  Even now, Still represents that I "removed material", and probably still thinks that I think that editors can't quote the SPLC.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) StillStanding-247, is it your statement that "your libel excuse was false" is an example of "saying nicely"?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. I checked and this edit by Unscintillating appears to be correct unless the IFI was previously listed as a hate group by SPLC. If not, I recommend that any editors who edit-warred with Unscintillating to change the text back to the original, incorrect statement, be immediately topic banned or blocked. IF ILI was previously designated as a hate group by the SPLC, then Unscintillating's edit was wrong. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You should probably take a look at this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that is a blog authored by "Guest contributor" on November 23, 2010.  It seems quite possible that it is based on the Winter 2010 source that is at the center of this discussion.  It is certainly wp:unreliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say that I object to his repeated claim of edit-warring. I reverted exactly once, and with explanation: "(We don't do this for the FRC or any other SPLC-designated hate group)". I then opened a discussion, as WP:BRD says. He reverted back without a comment, only to have another editor revert it to the original. If anyone was edit-warring, it was him. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying that I reverted back "without a comment" is erroneous.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a spurious claim from Unscintillating. Should be closed forthwith. GimliDotNet 07:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I came here to claim anything, I came here because I don't want what happened to happen again.  How is shutting this down going to solve a problem?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't raise a WQA based on one good faith edit, it's wasting everybody's time GimliDotNet 07:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you say.  Maybe it would help to discuss the issues for which I came seeking assistance, .  Unscintillating (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RL calls, BBL.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no WQA issue to discuss here. Content disputes should be on the article talk page, if you can't find a solution then you can alwasy raise an RFC GimliDotNet 08:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So calling an editor's comment uncivil and ending the discussion 13 seconds later by deleting it is a content problem, and should be discussed on the talk page of the article?  That makes no sense.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, but can people please be careful about using words with legal implications like libel, they can fall under WP:NLT. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no problem in that regard until you arrived.  Also, this is not a discussion to resolve a content dispute.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

out of line answer by article for creation reviewer DESiegel

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

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin_Matthew
• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin\_Matthew

Note: above headers were not added by OP dangerouspanda 09:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I submitted a page for creation, which was refused, I am not asking for reversal or so. There was a weird issue with that page, which was altered while it was in review. That happened by an account jmhhacker that does no longer exist. The page had then be loaded from the sandbox of that account (the 'new' page).

I got then a refusal and barely recognized what I had submitted. Compared to my subpage of the same name, it was evident that the page was edited.

Today I submitted it again, resetting and addressing some things, I agree not perfect.

Then the reviewer seems have to been working from a different version of the page, through this move from/to that non-existing account there may now be two versions out there in different areas, in talk and in AfC.

I was not aware of that account at the time and asked both reviewers, the first one, and the second one, if they had edited the page as part of their review. While I got one 'normal' answer, I got this 'flying off the handle' from DESiegel:

I made no changes to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Justin Matthew except for adding a comment, marking the draft as under review, and then marking it as declined. No one else made any changes except that another reviewer also added a comment. There was no "mysterious editor". Precisely what change so you think this "mysterious editor" made? The point is that you must write any wikipedia article from a neutral point of view. You must not set out to show that anyone is a "good guy" or a "bad guy". You must instead summarize what published independent reliable sources say about the subject, and make no statements not supported by such sources. Statements of opinion as to the quality of his work or his other merits must be clearly attributed to a specific named individual or entity -- they can't be your opinions nor "people say" nor left in the air nor stated as fact. You will do well to consider how to accomplish this and not worry about anyone else's edits. The history tab will show the exact edits of any and every editor who makes any changes to the draft. If there are links that don't belong, remove them. Don't worry about who added them unless someone argues or restores them. A few points of procedure: Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (Mike (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)). The wiki software will convert this to your user name or signature and a timestamp. Please leave a link when starting a discussion of a specific page like this one -- I visit and edit and discuss a lot of pages, and may not know which page you refer to. Is this at all clear? DES (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I had to ask since what I saw come out was not what I did put in. This is a normal question. I did not assume any reviewer would edit an article other than adding flags, nobody would. I do not 'worry' about others edits, what I got back was not the page I did put in. Defensiveness is absolutely unacceptable to a normally asked and not out of bounds question.

His history analysis is wrong, because he misses that the page I submitted did come from me, not from someone else. And here he talks to me, not the origin of the page he is looking at. So there were two pages created maybe at the same time with the same title. I created one before 8/28, which was then overwritten on 8/28. I came back today from the weekend. However, the account that what I think snarfed my page, and re-issued it as an own, but different from the original, more links, some of my text but not all, does no longer seem to exist. The photo on that other original page does not depict Justin Matthew but his brother and collegue at the channel.

While this is a pretty simple thing, maybe two edited the same subject under the same title, checking the history, and the account one is talking to should be basic enough, because the page that was reviewed was obviously not the one I put in. He should have noticed this.

And "Is that all clear?" is not a way to talk to anyone. It does not matter how many pages DESiegel reviews, or how venerable he is in his tenure at this place. However, I did see that he is stalking this matter, since I got a helpdesk answer from him too, So he is the reviewer, missteps, and now stalks the case to catch the complaint so it seems. How many out of line answers did DESiegel deliver.... he does know about his fail because the helpdesk answer he delivered later was all good. A little too good.

Mike

Mike (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

He did provide a lot of information, whether or not you were the sole editor to the AFC page, so asking "is all that clear" is a sensible final question so that he could clarify any of the points where needed. dangerouspanda 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that the comment was preceded by this question which included the lines "there have been edits done that removed a large part of the article" and "Is it possible to protect a page through the review process from edits other than author and reviewer, so I can get it right once, then leave it to the dogs to shred.... ;-) ?" and then by this response. Then this query on my talk paged seemed to ask some of the same questions, which is why I asked if my further response was clear. I am always careful about WP:BITE, and I do more work with newcomers than many experienced editors here. I am sorry if my comment seemed hostile -- it was not so intended.

Oh and Mike, you said "This is Misplaced Pages and not some junk bulletin board where any clown is an admin." As it happens I am an admin here. Whether I am also a clown is for others to judge. Of course that gives me no special privileges beyond the limited admin tools, nor any special authority over content. DES 08:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that there continue to be two AFC submissions:

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin_Matthew that was created by User:Jmhhacker (an account that does exist), and has been edited by User:Nittmann
• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin\_Matthew that was created by User:Nittmann

dangerouspanda 08:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is helpful. DES 08:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Broadsword_(disambiguation)#August_2012_cleanup

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

• Broadsword_(disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Broadsword_(disambiguation)#August_2012_cleanup

Recently Trofobi made an edit, which I reverted. He/she instantly reverted it back, which as far as I understand is against policy or at least bad form. I re-reverted it, which is probably rather bad, and He/she instantly reverted it back again, but at least started a discussion. Sadly said discussion has gone badly. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation of why the edit was made, and the motivation for the reverts, but Trofobi has repeatedly refused to answer. Also, I have been baselessly accused of certain actions and motivations, but that is not really important and may be ignored for the purposes of this request. As to diffs and the such... Well, the section of the talk page, listed above covers everything rather well and it's not that long.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy against immediately reverting someone, especially when the revert includes an edit summary besides the default "undo" message, and especially when the first edit is against consensus. According to the page history, you made the first edit which Trofobi reverted, citing the Manual of Style in his edit summary. You then restored the edit calling the MOS "merely a guideline," which Trofobi (rightfully) reverted. Had I been there, I would have reverted you as well. There has been significant discussion on the talk page, Trofobi was just restoring the article to the version that met both local consensus (as established on the talk page) and site-wide consensus (which is what guidelines represent). There has been no wikiquette violation, but you have a serious case of WP:IDHT. There's no action to take here, except to draw WP:Boomerang attention to a potential edit-warrior (that'd be you, Zarlan). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is simply not true. This is the first edit.

What you call the first edit, was my revert of that first edit, made by Trofobi.

As to re-reverting a revert of ones edit, I cite from What BRD is and is not: "Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.". Besides, even if it were not so, it's still very much bad form. Nevertheless, that's not the issue at hand. The issue is that Trofobi refuses to discuss the matter. He makes responses, but doesn't answer any questions, makes baseless assertions, and won't explain what he does or why.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I see discussion on the article talkpage ... including Trofobi. We go by WP:CONSENSUS here ... try and obtain consensus for your changes dangerouspanda 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution