Revision as of 02:23, 24 April 2008

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

Active alerts

Admin Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)

Hi, recently I was communicating with admin Ricky81682 (talk · contribs). I am dissatisfied with several of his comments and actions. First, I'd like to cite the following to illustrate what I expect from admins:

My main problem with him is that he does not sufficiently explain his statements and actions. What do I mean by sufficiently? Claiming that someone is uncivil is not sufficient enough, because the word uncivil has no real meaning without explanation. For a series of unanswered questions, see this group after he blocked me.
I could still ignore that but then he made this comment (again without explanation, nor evidence): "I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." The statement seemed so ridiculous to me that I asked several times whether it was aimed at me. Since he said he'd ignore my questions, I've concluded that it was. I'd like Ricky to explain what he meant by POV-pushing and list such examples. I take this allegation seriously because I always try to adhere to neutral point of view (that is the one supported by reliable evidence). This can be easily illustrated by the many {{fact}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}} and other tags I inserted into articles. It can be also illustrated by the tens of articles I created or significantly improved and hundreds of references I added (examples of references: , , ).
Rickly claims he explained his actions, but I think this can be a semantics problem.
For example, he stated that I called people nationalists in a particular comment. However, it is quite clear that I didn't label anybody a nationalist in that comment. I am aware that I once said that an editor's actions are based on nationalism. In other examples, I talked about nationalism in general. When I asked Ricky to clarify this, he changed his rhetoric to "a rant about nationalists" First, I was answering a question so how that makes the answer a rant I don't know. Second, even if it was a rant, how does that warrant a block? Moreover, he said that I want on "complaining about 'they are two and I am only one'" I said that: "That they are two and use it as an advantage is a fact for me. If you have a problem with that, try to explain why. Also, that was a general point about how Misplaced Pages works." I still support this statement and Ricky still didn't say what is inaccurate about it or why it warrants a block.
In conclusion, I know that some comments I made were inappropriate (but certainly not much different from others' involved), but the point of this alert is to see some explanations from Ricky and others' comments on the questions posted.
Therefore, if someone wants to start with off-topic discussions here, please don't. I've been thrown so many red herrings at Misplaced Pages recently that I may get mercury poisoning.--Svetovid (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Skimming User talk:Svetovid#WP:3RR and the following sections, it looks to me like a classic example of WP:SOUP (Admin X warns editor Y in perfectly simple terms not to make personal attacks. Editor Y obfuscates with complicated demands for lists, definitions, explanations of widely-understood terms, etc etc etc). Ricky81682 is not the problem here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody. Someone doesn't like that they are being warned by an administrator for their poor, uncivil behavior, so they rant and complain at WQA. Again. Take your warnings as you would with a pill, and learn from your prior mistakes. I don't think it can be any simpler than that. You have been given an adequate explanation, and if you would review the policies that are set forth on Misplaced Pages, you'd understand that your actions deserved sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs 13:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it simply: Where in that comment did I label editors nationalists? Which policy or guideline did my comment that two editors have an obvious advantage against one editor break?
"poor, uncivil behavior" Ironically, this is the kind of vague statements I wrote about.
"Admin X warns editor Y in perfectly simple terms not to make personal attacks. Editor Y obfuscates with complicated demands for lists, definitions, explanations of widely-understood terms..."
Actually, my questions were direct replies to Ricky's statements, not to his threats to ban me (even though this question is still unanswered). For instance:
Ricky said: "then wanting to use a blog (that definitely fails as a reliable source)" My reply: "please expand. Blogs don't automatically fail as a reliable source so where is the justification for that statement?
Ricky said: "I see you removing tons of sourced statements." I asked: Can you list them please?
And the statement, "I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." obviously needs an explanation because it's threatening.--Svetovid (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For the arguments about blogs, see here for why they are generally not accepted, like you were told earlier. For the other discussions, you should know as (a) you were told by others about them and (b) you took it upon yourself to create a WP:OWN complaint against those who argued that with you. As I said before, I am not interested in playing technical games with you. Otherwise, I think that the discussion on Svetovid's talk page, this Wikiquette alert, this at WP:ANI, plus this oddity (done "like suggested") should be more than clear what this is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"they are generally not accepted" That was exactly my point!
OK, you are not willing to explain your actions. IMO, you failed to act as an admin should.--Svetovid (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an overflow of a complex dispute involving Hungarian and Slovakian editors and articles. FYI, I have started a centralized location for discussion of these disputes and editors, at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. I recommend that any other complaints about these issues be directed there. Thanks, Elonka 11:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Geogre

User:Geogre wrote the following on my talk page: this. He did not add anything to a page. The page in question was just begun. Instead, he criticizes my writing style. His purpose on my talk page is to do nothing but to be incivil. Misplaced Pages is about praise and helping, not actions like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the Special Olympics encyclopedia. Bad prose will be ruthlessly edited. Edits should not be whined about. I should point out to all here, though that WP:PAIN was deleted by unanimous consent. I find the idea that it might have been reborn here and that people are again racing to take offense very, very troubling. Geogre (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually edit any "bad prose"? No, you didn't. You made a few changes that were wrong, made unverifiable claims, and have been completely uncivil. You are not allowed to describe other people's writing habits in the manner that you did. Please read WP:CIVIL if you can't understand that. And unanimous? No. That is an outright lie. Redpen actually wished that the review turned out well and one of the complainees responded favorably. Two of the opposes were outright without merit. You have a very bad problem with the truth, and it is only reinforced by your unwillingness to back things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how you can find the diff cited offensive. More fundamentally one is allowed to critize writing style. Indeed, critizing writing style is by necessity a part of any reasonable dispute resolution. This because the only alternative is to be silent and make stale reverts, AKA edit warring. Misplaced Pages is about building an encyclopedia, not about praise. Praise do of course help in building an encyclopedia, because it helps to know when people appreciate your work. But that praise must be focused. By the same token pointing out what one sees as a mistake helps in building an encyclopedia because it allows the receiver to avoid it in the future. Always what is a mistake and what is praiseworthy must be an judgement call, but this in no way means that you should be quite about the mistakes you sees. WP:Civil simply tells us that when you feel the need to point out a mistake to an editor then you need to be civil about it. If WP:Civil is being read as saying you can't point out a mistake to anyone then it needs to be changed. Taemyr (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the diff cited is uncivil.

"You know why not that many people write about the sermons? I assume you do, since you know everything ... I came here to find out if you were as proud and obnoxious with everyone else as you had been with me ... I couldn't conclude from that that you were as impenetrable to sense with others as with me, but I could see that you content yourself with Lord Emmsworth-style pontifical writing.

That's an attack on the writer, not the writing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As is "Special Olympics encyclopedia". Granted, Geogre is well known for being... abrupt, but still. In any event, I believe that this is now being discussed at ANI here. --Bfigura 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That discussion has now been closed, and was with respect to a specific article, not to general manner. DGG (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Teddybearnow

This user is in the middle of an argument over the EyeOS article. Before the page was protected, this user consistently reverted my contributions, even though I provided valid references. I'm trying to get on the topic of the article itself in Talk:EyeOS, and I'm asking him for a valid reason why he's doing it, but he refuses to discuss it, and instead attacks me. Psychcf (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I can indeed confirm. 84.13.214.118 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 84.13.214.118 is a meatpuppet from Psychcf, who is the owner of http://www.psychdesktop.net/, a project competition of eyeOS, he is disturbing in the article, trying to get it removed, adding lies, changing lines to give bad reputation to his competition, etc. I think that this behavior isn't allowed in wikipedia. He criticizes the project (eyeOS) only because eyeOS use ajax, a technology widely used (gmail, youtube, digg, etc etc use it). I think that this user clearly have a conflict of interests and wants to use[REDACTED] for his personal busssiness against eyeOS, his competition. Teddybearnow (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Just like that ^ Psychcf (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • you feel attacked because you edit an article, that is in fact, about a product competition of your company? Teddybearnow (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Company? I thought I already told you that it's simply a hobby of mine. No money involved. Psychcf (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Maybe is no money involved, but you clearly don't have a neutral point of view on this article. You have a PROJECT (not company) that is competition of eyeOS, so you are not the correct person to edit eyeOS page. Teddybearnow (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Would you kindly take a look at ? Thanks. Psychcf (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an outsider: teddys behaviour may or may not be helpful, but if you (Psychcf) are running a competitor website, then you have a clear conflict of interest and should avoid editing the article, even if your edits are entirely in good faith Restepc (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And further to that you shouldn't be editing articles about your own website/product either Restepc (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Psychcf (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the conflict has been resolved. Psychcf (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article of the eyeOS project was semi-protected because a discussion with User:Psychcf, who wants to put his opinion on the article. Later, he admits in the talk page that he is a project developer of http://www.psychdesktop.net/, a project competition of eyeOS. A conflict of interests is clear here. Some days later, after a long discussion, he accepts to change his behavior, and some hours laters, another employer of http://www.psychdesktop.net/, joins to the discussion, saying absolutely the same as Psychcf. We have a clear situation where some people are trying to give bad reputation to his competition through wikipedia, adding his own opinion to the article, and some critcism without references. The article will be unpprotected tomorrow, and they are talking about continue with his behavior, in the talk page. I think that is not allowed to edit[REDACTED] articles about projects/things where you are involved/are your competition/you have some personal interest Teddybearnow (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

nl:Misplaced Pages

I'd appreciate some friendly advice to users

• user:Aecis
• user:Aleichem
• user:Fram
• user:GijsvdL
• user:JacobH (one-purpose account)
• user:Jorrit-H (one-and-a-half purpose account)
• (and myself ),

explaining that en:Misplaced Pages is not an alternative platform to continue discussions relating to events on nl:Misplaced Pages. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so, if you think so, why do you repeat at EN.wiki the behaviour for which you have been vomitted out of NL.wiki community? GijsvdL (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Upgrading request to more than friendly, where necessary. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only checked statements made by one party and contested by another, and have warned users on both sides to refrain from personal attacks. I probably should not have continued a discussion at the 3RR page (since that was the wrong location for that discussion), but apart from that, I would appreciate if Guide den Broeder would include diffs to point which of my edits deserve notification on this board. Fram (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Diffs added. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop the unfounded accuse of a one-purpose account, I made this account to make an article on request some time ago. I'm now involved in this because YOU named me, if you can't take the heat don't start the fire... If you cant get your way without these 'low kicks' why even try? Jorrit-H (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff please. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So far, you have made 12 contributions: one article edit, one userspace edit, and 10 comments on me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While Jorrit may have made very few edits to the English wikipedia, I believe he has contributed significantly to the[REDACTED] project, just in other languages, and I don't think the labelling of him (or her, I don't know my Dutch names) a one-purpose account would be considered accurate by most people Restepc (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An account is not the same as a person. But could we stay on-topic? Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The topic appears to be that you object to them mentioning events on nl[REDACTED] when talking about extremely similar events here....is that an accurate summary? Restepc (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That would invite a continuation of the discussion about these so-called similaraties, which is precisely what I want to avoid with this alert, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It seems that this is a spill over from nl.wp of a dispute (or series of disputes) between you and this "mob", and therefore NOT mentioning what's happened on nl.wiki isn't likely to be an achievable aim, especially as it appears that one side or the other is point blank lying about a nl.wp arbcom decision. This appears to go way beyond the scope of Wikiquette, and I'm not sure I can help. Restepc (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain, Guido, how what I said to you is a violation of Wikiquette? Also, just for the record, I was not and am not involved in this dispute over at the Dutch Misplaced Pages, nor will I become involved there. See nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/Aecis and nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/82.73.153.49 (my IP). I am aware that there is a dispute over there, yes, but that doesn't make me involved in it. Aecis 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that Aecis it not in any way involved at nl:Misplaced Pages; the same goes for Aleichem and Fram.

The point is, that you are talking about events on nl:Misplaced Pages (and providing wrong info). While I assume you mean well, it invites others to continue talking about it, including myself, and en:Misplaced Pages is simply not the place for that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have talked about the dispute over at nl: because the dispute here is not taking place in a vacuum. Anyone who wants to understand this dispute needs to be aware of where and how it started, which is over at the Dutch Misplaced Pages. What is taking place here is a spillover of that dispute. As I've said above, noone is free from blame. But you make it seem as though everyone is at fault but you. Aecis 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I made the same mistake. That's why I listed myself as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have made very few edits on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, and none relating to this dispute. As for providing wrong info: I have still not seen any evidence that anyone has provided wrong info about that dispute, and I have seen and provided evidence that supports most of the statements made about your situation on the Dutch Misplaced Pages. Whether it is relevant for the dispute here is another discussion, but as long as you claim that other people are lying, providing wrong info, and so on, you can probably expect this to continue. If you don't want to discuss your situation over at the Dutch Misplaced Pages here, the best way may be to ignore what people say about it, and stick to what happens on the English Misplaced Pages: are the books you added relevant (yes, obviously), important enough to mention (doubtful, in my opinion), and should you have been the one to include them (COI problems)? Apart from that, don't discuss other users (spa accusations), ignore topics you consider irrelevant (unless previously uninvolved editors from the En[REDACTED] start asking questions about it of course), and if needed follow our dispute resolution model.Fram (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgent help FOR User:Dawoodabro

I believe this user needs some serious handholding by editors/admins experienced with helping newbies (a task I am poorly qualified for as I am still learning and making mistakes myself). Dawoodabro has created many articles (see contrib list here) related to Pakistan tribal structure and history which could potentially be very encyclopedic. However, many of these articles violate various WP policies including WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and in some cases possibly WP:BLP (when discussing current tribal chiefs by name). I do believe the user's intentions are good faith, as are those of other users who are helping to edit the pages, but there are problems that need to be addressed quickly as the user has recently created a large number of new articles which are sure to end up in the CSD bin.

I would also suggest that the information this user is providing, while crude stubs for the moment, might be worthy of protection/defense from SD nominations as I believe it has real WP:POTENTIAL for development by anthropological and sociopolitical scholars who would have verifiable resources to confirm much of the data. I would be very reluctant to scare off the user and lose the encyclopedic information he/she is trying to contribute -- provided he/she is willing to be educated in the ways of WP. -- Low Sea (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility on Misplaced Pages:List of cabals

I have repeatedly removed a "cabal" listing from Misplaced Pages:List of cabals, but User:Allstarecho continues to add it back, telling me I need to "grow up", and accusing me of stalking. This user has been uncivil about this and refuses to actually discuss, instead, preferring to insults. This stems out of a MfD that resulted in a template of his being deleted as an attack template, him re-writing it, me submitting the re-write for deletion because I wasn't quite comfortable with the re-write and wanting other opinions, which I got and withdrew my nomination. Because of this, he has resorted to declaring that I am stalking him and placing this indirect attack on this page.

I am aware of the big purple box at the top regarding the intended humor of the topic, and that there are bigger things to worry about. However, when one user is the sole subject of the humor, it ceases to be humor and becomes an attack. If I'm wrong in placing this here, that's fine, but this user has a history of incivility and being blocked for it. I don't want him blocked, I just want this attack against me to stay removed. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from WP:ANI) As a side note, Justinm1978 began adding content to the "Gay Cabal" listing on March 16th. His addition is referring to the debate about the userboxes. The following day, Allstarecho added content to the "Boy Scout Cabal" listing in response. Yes, ASE wrote the Boy Scout Cabal section on March 12th. Nothing he wrote could be considered a personal attack, especially since other people have added the same kind of material to cabal listings. Look at the Christian cabal entry. It's harsh compared to what ASE wrote. I just think people need to drop past issues and work on the encyclopedia. Filing this on ANI is a waste of time. WP:LOC is called a humor page for a reason. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do note that I am removing that content I previously added as well, since it was an inappropriate response to an inappropriate contribution. Since you have a strong bias against me already, I ask that you kindly do not participate in this discussion as you are far from neutral.Justinm1978 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, Justinm1978 seems to have an infatuation with my edits since a previous issue regarding a userbox I made that he disagreed with. I will not justify myself. The content at Misplaced Pages:List of cabals speaks for itself. It doesn't mention one single person, nor has it ever done so - so there is no personal attack regarding the Misplaced Pages:List of cabals content. He's just hellbent on making my life on Misplaced Pages miserable by stalking my every move and finding some way to get involved. Further, his lie that I refuse to discuss is proven as such - a lie - by viewing the Misplaced Pages:List of cabals talk page. Justin should read WP:OWN and realize that Misplaced Pages:List of cabals is a humor page and nothing else. And that's all I have to say on the issue. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of "stalking your every move" need some validation if you're going to make that a justification for your incivility. Belittling someone on a talk page and telling them to "grow up" is not discussion. You have made[REDACTED] most unenjoyable for me as well with your insistence on this non-humorous contribution and your assumption that I care deeply about what you are contributing. Agree to disagree and just leave it alone. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Since you have a strong bias against me already, I ask that you kindly do not participate in this discussion as you are far from neutral." Last time I checked, any WP user is free to respond on this page. Also, an example of your intention on irritating ASE is here by messing with his talk page while he was on a WikiBreak. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the re-reverting of a deleted, red-linked category that someone else deleted first? It was my previous understanding that those were supposed to be deleted. How about something credible that shows me editing articles that he is working on. As far as your contributions to this discussion go, I thank you to not poison the well and let someone outside of these issues speak, k? You are far too close to the issue at hand to give an unbiased opinion, and that is why I brought this discussion here. Please respect that. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean when you and someone else took it upon yourselves to remove categories from someone's talk page. It is not your concern what is on someone's talk page. Others agreed. I suggest removing ASE's page from your watchlist, if you haven't done so already. That was the only way you could have known about the original removal of the categories in the first place. Also, I am outside of the issue and I am speaking. I have not been involved in the edit warring on the cabal page, so I am free to respond. Please don't try to silence people and feel free to link to all of the pages you wish. I can do the same. Just let it drop. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words. You would be outside the issue if it weren't for the fact that every time I bring something up (deletion of two of Allstarecho's templates), taking his actions to ANI and Wikiquette, you just happen to show up. Who is stalking again? Let it go, please, and kindly remove yourself from the discussion as you already have a bias against me. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I think you need to calm down Justin. You came here for help for a user being uncivil towards you. Going on like you are, yourself acting uncivil is certainly not going to help. Grsz11 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm aware of the the AfD, ANI, etc. you mentioned is the fact ASE's talk page is on my watchlist and notices are placed there for these discussions, not because I'm "stalking" anyone. Now, I'm off to work on an article. Feel free to respond, but I'm done with this pointless conversation. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User Ahatter1981

When editing the Beyonce page about her personal life and marriage to Jay-Z I am consistently being bullied by a user named Efe and someone named Dan Bard. By adding information about her personal life including her marriage it was edited multiple times daily and I was told to stop " vandalizing" her page. How is that vandalism. Just because the information was not relavant to them it is now vandalism? They are getting their information from the same media and internet sources that I am citing but oh because they have not personally confirmed the marriage these two people spend their time taking the information down twice a day. I should start removing their contributions.

Blanking the page in response is hardly reasonable. Please remember to sign your posts in "talk" pages such as this one. On the other hand, it looks to me as though your edits have often been in good faith. - Denimadept (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User 71.146.83.206

This user has deleted the same single sentence in the Healdsburg, California article three times. The first time, he did it with the comment, "not sure who added this, but this is completely untRue". I reverted it, figuring that it was random vandalism. The second time, he did it with the comment, "dearest DoriSmith this material is false if you believe otherwise you best be prepa". After this, I (1) added a detailed breakdown of the single sentence(!) on the article's talk page, explaining the facts behind every clause, (2) put a brief comment on his talk page asking for discussion to move to the article talk page, and (3) reverted his second deletion. He then deleted the sentence for the third time, with the comment, "this claim is not sourced and you are abusing your privilege of Popups - stop." He left no messages for me on my talk page, his talk page, or the article's talk page.

That line in the article, btw, was originally added in 2005 , and has been in there ever since with only minor modifications.

At no point has he ever explained why he thinks it's untrue, false, or not sourced, or even to what part he objects. I don't want to get into a silly reversion war, but I'm having trouble starting a discussion here. Dori (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the other user is being particularly rude, although it would be helpful of them to engage in discussion on the talk page. The simplest thing would be to source the sentence, if it's unsourced other editors can remove it at any time for that reason. Restepc (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I did source it on the talk page—clause by clause. It seems a little extreme to add that much detail to a single sentence in the article, especially when he'll just delete it again and won't discuss the deletion, or even say what he thinks is incorrect. He won't talk to me, so I'd like to stop the reversion dance and somehow find out what's going on.

As to rudeness (which I hadn't mentioned, but now that you have...), I'm not sure how else to take "dearest" and "you best be prepa"; not to mention his claim that I'm my "abusing" my "privilege of Popups - stop." To the best of my knowledge, popups don't require any privileges. Dori (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The comments you quote are not very respectful, but I find the sentence you want a little confusing. Is it uncommon for a town to be centred on a 19th century plaza if it wasn't founded under Mexican rule? How does the "though" clause modify the rest of the sentence? Also, you say that you sources the claim on the talk page. Disputed content should be sourced on the page itself (I note that the sentence now has two references, but I haven't checked them), and while you did break it down on the talk page, this breakdown only cited one source, which being a "letter to the editor" would probably not count as reliable. Bovlb (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Travb

He seems to be a little angry today. Here he is warned by admin User:William M. Connolley for an earlier incivility today. Now he reverts me with this edit summary after he posted copyright violations. Should I just take this to ANI? He has a history of incivility but no blocks for a while. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Travb's already made a stop at ANI. --Onorem♠Dil 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward, congratulations, in the three years on wikipedia, you are the first person I told to F'off.

I guess after the recent JzG arbcom, where I kept seeing JzG to tell others to f'off and after Mongo told someone to f'off and Mongo's incivility caused him to be blocked for a couple of minutes before supporting editors unblocked him, and after you and Mongo called me a troll, said I should have been kicked off of wikipedia, and that my contributions were crap, I guess some of the incivility just rubbed off, and for that I am sorry. Passive agressive is the way to win edit wars on wikipedia. I should have simply quoted JzG and Mongo telling other users to F'off, then you would have no recourse.

This page is new. I am not sure about how it works. As I mentioned on the ANI (which I posted quickly to make sure I wasn't blocked immediately), the hypocricy and bullying get really tiring here on wikipedia. I have attempted to leave numerous times. sigh. Inclusionist (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In this edit to an RfC, User:DHeyward has advocated blocking Travb indefinitely, saying that his contributions to any article are "essentially nil", and that Travb is a "time-waster". I think a 24 hour block for incivility against DHeyward may be warranted. silly rabbit (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The RFC you are discussing is about WMC's block of Travb for disruption. I recommended that it be extended indefinitely. I was not incivil in any way. --DHeyward (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly, I don't think the people who run this page have any authority to block anyone. Otherwise I would roll out DHeyward's "crap" and "troll" comments. I miss WP:PAIN Inclusionist (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with an Editor

I request help in working with an editor, Domer48, who is adding tags to an article when, in my opinion, they are not appropriate. The article is "A Secret History of the IRA," which is an important book written by Ed Moloney. The tags claim the article contains (1) OR or unverified claims and (2) too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry.

With respect to the former, there are two sentences that are not sourced. The first is the lead sentence which states that the book was written by Moloney. The second notes that a central theme of the book is the role of Gerry Adams in the Irish Republican Movement. The second sentence is supported by two sentences, sourced, that follow. Aside from the fact that a tag claiming there are too many quotations reflects a point of view, the reason there are so many quotations is that Domer48 and a colleague editor of his, One Night in Hackney, have repeatedly reverted any of my edits that were not sourced and/or direct quotations. Thus, this is a situation of edited if I do and edited if I don't.

His revert history comments says, "tags stay until addressed." I have addressed these issues, which were also raised by One Night in Hackney. One issue, for example, is that The Blanket is not a reliable source. Even though this attitude reflects a POV, I went ahead and added sources from reviews that appeared in The Nation and the Sunday Business Post, both very mainstream outlets. And the reviews were written by persons well-known for their knowledge of Northern Ireland.

Thanks in advance to whomever replies to this. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• A Secret History of the IRA

I'm not sure this is a Wikiquette issue, but a content one. At first glance, the article appears deeply unenencylopedic - do we need a list of every chapter and appendix of a book? The lengthy quotes of positive reviews look to me a breach of WP:NPOV, and one source used - The Blanket - has been rightly questioned as a strongly partisan one that needs caution per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Questionable sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestions. I plan to continue to work on the article. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. What's wrong with listing the table of contents? It seems to me that the goal of Misplaced Pages is to provide neutral information for the interested reader. If there is an entry on an album by the Beatles, for example, would the article have the titles of the songs on the album. If no, then it seems fair to not have the chapter titles. If yes, then it seems the table of contents should be there.

With respect to the reviews quoted, should they be neutralized, or should reviews that are less positive be added for balance?

As for The Blanket, we disagree, but that's ok. From what I've seen, The Blanket presents information from a variety of sources. With respect to the particular review, from Liam O Ruairc, his reviews appear in more places than The Blanket.

Again, thank you for the help. WH.

With respect to the reviews quoted, should they be neutralized, or should reviews that are less positive be added for balance?

I'd say both, while trying to quote less, summarise more, and incorporate them in a general narrative.

All I can say is that chapter listings for books aren't the custom here. :Regarding sources, WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints, not merely positive ones. What about Niall Stanage's review, that called it "fascinating but flawed" and mentions the problem of it being "almost impossible for the reader to gauge the veracity of much of the information imparted"? There are many more reviews to be found in NewsBank from mainstream UK papers.

There's also general background to the book that could be mentioned: for instance, the controversy over the book's disputed naming of the late Jean McConville as an informer. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine

I'm interested to know what other users and administrators think about the state of criticisms of capitalism. Granted it's a contentious issue, but there are many articles that stay-on-topic and balanced without getting bogged down in controversy (e.g. criticisms of socialism). There have been discussions concerning the content of the article and how editors believe that the current structuring (point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint...) makes it unreadable. Ultramarine insists that this is necessary for the article to be POV-free. His edits, however, are POV laden and not necessarily what the page is about. The problem is Ultramarine's proclivity to stalk the page, jumping in and making multiple "defender of capitalism" edits after someone adds anything new to the article , . This behavior makes it difficult for new editors to become engaged with the article. Other editors, including User:Giovanni33 and User:BernardL, may be interested in this discussion. Any comments on this would be appreciated. Uwmad (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at just the two diffs you provided it appears Ultramarine removed cited information and added mostly non-cited information. The edits are not balance, they are counter-argument and are unsourced. This is not a content dispute, it is about behaviours (borderline incivility). Ultramarine's edits appear to violate WP:OR and come dangerously close to violating WP:OWN. I think an admin would agree. -- Low Sea (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading diffs. One more than a month old! Look at the latest instead. No cited information removed. Uwmad has sometimes added many unsourced claims. However, both sides have added many references and arguments improving the page during the last month. Thus constructive debate. Regarding the latest content dispute, see the talk page. Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "misleading" about the fact that before your edit the article contained these two citations:

yet afterwards the only "citation" remaining was:

If these citations had simply vanished I might have considered this unintentional but because you specifically removed 1 of 2 citations and changed the format of the other it is emminently clear that this was a clear and deliberate violation of WP:VANDAL (see "Blanking").

Additionally your statement saying these diffs were "misleading" might be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL under Section 2: "Lies, such as deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors". Uwmad showed remarkable restraint. In my opinion he should have reverted your edit, added an explanatory comment on the article talk page, then left a comment on your user talk page with the tag {{subst:uw-delete2}} and requested you to not remove cited material and citations without explanation on the article talk page. You -- as a more experieced editor -- in turn should have left clear explanations on the article talk page as to why you removed specific text, why you changed well formatted citations to less informative weblinks, why you changed specific text within the article, and why you added specific new text which was off-topic to the article (the topic is "Criticism of ...", not "Debate on ..." or "Pros and Cons of ...").

As for your assertion that the more recent talk page reflects a change and now shows "constructive debate" I see that less than 2 days after saying that you were clearly uncivil to Uwmad, succeeding in driving him away. Yes, he too was irritated to the point of uncivil behavior but that does not excuse you -- two wrongs do not make a right. Sheer common sense should provide that when you are already being reviewed for violations of wikiquette (this page) that you would attempt to keep the kettle on a low burner, but instead you showed contempt for the community and succeeded in costing Misplaced Pages a contributing editor. If you cannot exercise simple self-restraint for less than 2 days perhaps an admin should provide you with a cooling off period to think about your actions. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If an admin would agree, where should I take this to? I wholeheartedly agree with the WP:OWN comment for this case -- I'm somewhat new to editing and am grateful that Misplaced Pages has such a policy. Talk:Critique of capitalism will show that Ultramarine has done a good job alienating many editors. He is now the lone "protector" of the page. One editor noted: "I've noticed that every discussion that Ultramarine joins, suddently becomes a battlezone". Not a very inviting environment for people to make an encyclopedia in. The links that I added are not misleading, the first that I gave was Ultramarine's most recent edit, done almost immediately after I had added a brief history section (which was so broad I didn't think controversial). The second was his typical "editing" style -- a reaction to an edit made by someone else, greeting these edits with a hammering of 5 to 10 counteredits. Here's another example. That edit and the second edit were my first two contributions to the page. Not very inviting... Just note that I made several large contributions during March that greatly expanded several sections, adding more than 25 references. I want to contribute but find it exceedingly difficult given Ultramarine's conduct. Uwmad (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes a persistent pattern of behavior (but isn't blatant vandalism or disruption), the proper approach is file a Request for comment. You could also try asking for a third opinion (where someone neutral and uninvolved pops in), or for mediation. (Although both of you would need to agree to the latter option for it to work). Hope that helps, --Bfigura 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that does help. What do you think of this? Just curious. Thanks again. Uwmad (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully Uwmad that is not a fair question to ask anyone in a forum like this. If people wish to volunteer their views (as I did) that is their choice, but to ask for their views when they may wish only to provide impartial advice on how WP works puts them in an uncomfortable position. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Factfindingmission

Dear Wiki administrator,

Mr. Factfindingmission is on a mission. He has deleted a section relevant to the biographical content of the article on L. Paul Bremer without consulting with other editors who have put in their contributions. Mr. Factfindingmission proceeded with comments suggesting that other editors make editorial corrections by his instructions and not bother to make these changes himself. After at least two reverts, Mr. Factfindingmission accused one of the editors of being "not nice" and immature, which is construed as a "personal attack". The editor under attack refuses to edit this article further knowing full well Mr. Factfindingmission will start a "revert war", making the article completely useless. Can someone direct Mr. Factfindingmission to the locale where rules, policies, and ettiquette can be found as one edits in Misplaced Pages?

With Regards, 98.25.253.195 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would see about filing a Third Opinion over at WP:30 to see if someone neutral could add their thoughts (I'm an American who works in the Financial District, so I am by no-means neutral, so I cannot do it). I notice that the reverting has stopped in the last few days, which is good and that you seem to be carrying on a fairly respectful conversation with one another, also. If 3O doesn't work you can always try WP:RFC and file a Request for Comment. Hope this helps! Lazulilasher (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Floyd McKissick, Jr.

Fbm3rd keeps changing his own page to remove any information he doesn't like, even though it is public information and is accurately sourced. Is there a way to keep someone from constantly deleting information? Thanks! Evets70 (talk)

As I stated, first discuss it on the talk page, if the user persists... then a request for intervention would be needed. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks CanadianLinuxUser... I appreciate the info. Evets70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire (talk · contribs)

A reasonable discussion of quality of sources turned uncivil when Jefffire began with the personal attacks by insulting my grasp of science.

• Here he says that I have a "lack of scientific literacy" and accusing me of POV pushing.
• Here after asking him nicely to refactor the previous statement, he calls me "scientifically illiterate" and tells me to stop "pretending to be scientific."
• Here I have asked him once again to refactor and instead he has chosen to go on with his insults about me pretending to be scientific, accuses me of misrepresenting myself, and says that I have "put-upon-knowledge".

Generally, I am finding this editor to be unnecessarily insulting, I would like to see him 1) stop and 2) refactor his statements. I don't need or want or demand any sort of apology. Thanks. -- Levine2112 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we need to re-evaluate the chiropractor's motivations here. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How does that have any relavance to the civity of Jefffire? 202.161.71.161 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

None at all. Not sure why QuackGuru keeps mischaracterizing me a "chiropractor". I am not. Additionally, the link he provides - though not relevant to this posting - I am confident paints a better portrait of me than he thinks. -- Levine2112 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman (talk · contribs)

I recently wrote a message to Wetman about his comments towards me on the talk page of Amazons , where he implied that I wasn't a competent adult and stated that we couldn't have sensible discussion when I disagreed with him on the issue. When I wrote back to him, he replied and again called me incompetent, accused me of having "misplaced self-confidence", implied that my educational background was inferior to his, and compared me to an "aggressive class clown". It is not for my sake that I'm putting in this wikiquette alert, it is for the sake of others. Another editor has told me that Wetman has been rude to him on occasion as well, and I fear that his behavior will start driving away new editors. Asarelah (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman has avoided direct personal attacks here, and has tried to make his inflammatory comments non-specific. However, at the root, he is being quite incivil and needs to stop. Mangojuice 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble which I tried to discuss with him here but he was less than civil. There's more at this location with additional information from User:Polaron. - Denimadept (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, having made some 52,000 edits since September 2003, whose resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply, has surely raised some resentment, particularly by inappropriate laughter and frank, often sharp remarks in response to various dishonesties, pettiness, aggressive behavior, attacks with the WP:CIVILITY club, disinfopage pushing, list-making and other coxcombry. His Talkpage archives will show the nature of his habitual discourse quite plainly, and may be thumbed in order to select out further disgraceful examples of his "inflammatory though non-specific" comments:

User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005

User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005

User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005

User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005

User talk:Wetman/archive1Dec2005

User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006

User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006

User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006

User talk:Wetman/archive7Feb2007

User talk:Wetman/archive25Jun2007

User talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007

User talk:Wetman/archive28Dec2007

User talk:Wetman/archive16April2008

Remarks concerning competency in the field of Greek mythology belong at Talk:Amazons, where the complainant deleted a commonplace statement in July 2007, but did not have sufficient interest in the subject to have it on his Watchlist. Rather than make defensive retorts to individual complaints, Wetman prefers to let the record speak for itself, and to reserve the option of perhaps making some general remarks with broad applications— or perhaps not— once everyone has fully expressed themselves. Wetman (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your record does speak for itself. Here are three people who you've annoyed. I suggest you try harder to be less annoying, as repelling people from Misplaced Pages is not productive. And I can't believe you are totally ignorant of your effect, given, as you say, your record. - Denimadept (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I had kept the Amazons page on my watchlist, I simply didn't notice the remark that you made until recently, which I stated in my initial note to you on the talk page. I am also a woman, not a man, just so you know. I would also like to point out that a neutral third party, MangoJuice, also believes that your behavior has been inappropriate and incivil. Asarelah (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also had a disagreement with him about an addition he made to History of Chester, where he saw no need to add a reference to some material he had added, commenting that the article was mediocre. Of course, it would always remain mediocre if people had this attitude. A reply from him suggested that since the wikilink he had used contained a reference, that would suffice, but recent discussions on WP:Reliable sources confirms that I was correct in stating that this was insufficient. He then ended the discussion by making a statement: "What very high standards for such a mediocre article! Wetman never keeps articles on his Watchlist that are so distinctly "owned", so, that will be all from me at this article." The accusation of ownership was totally unjustified, and a comment by one of the leading contributors to UK articles: User:Jza84 supported the view that his comments were highly uncivil. (diff of exchange on History of Chester page.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A spat I had with him yesterday at Talk:Dorian invasion over my changing a word involved quite a bit of personal attacks and insulting language. He does not play well with others. Too bad, as I actually value his contributions. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, don't mean to imply that he's useless or anything like that, but that he needs to play with others better than he has been doing. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wetman is indeed a very dedicated and obviously intelligent editor, he simply needs to learn to handle disagreements with civility. Asarelah (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with this viewpoint. He needs to be able to deal with disagreements better and accept that others can be correct and he can be wrong occasionally.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sponsership Results Cause My Retinaas to Burn!!

I Hate these Left Page Sponser take up my valuable reading view. It's too small a page to read easily. I hope others join me in protest@@!!@#$$!!

-Angry Anonimous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.185.40 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please explain what on earth you are talking about, I don't follow you at all. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a WQA issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User alert User:Zeuspitar

It appears one user aka Govinda Ramanuja dasa has misunderstanding as far as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and appears to be constantly attacking other editors on a basis that appears to be against WP:5P : (, , Everyone, if he thinks they are ISKCON... and it destructive to the process, while I and others struggle to get what he actually means in order to assume WP:FAITH. Wikidās ॐ 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas has wasted the time of half a dozen editors by elaborate contortions of the sources he cites, and has now learned how to wikilawyer instead of getting his act together. He has so far shown no sign that his contributions contain anything worth the time he takes away from productive contributors. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SynergeticMaggot and his/her interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP

This user did a non-admin close on a this AfD debate that had been open for less than three hours because of their somewhat unique interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. In response to my concerns, expressed on his talk page, that this may not have been an appropriate use of speedy keeping, he basically told me that, although I had nominated the article, I had somehow not expressed an opinion on the subject. A quick look at his talk page, and indeed his own remarks on my talk page, reveal that he makes a habit of this behavior. So basically, I am asking for comment on this rather unorthodox method of closing debates. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been a while since I was more heavily involved in AFd's, but this looks a bit irregular, bordering on bullying. One of the articles accused the nominator of not voting for deletion (despite actually nominating for deletion on the grounds of the article being an advertisement). I would prefer to have a few admins look into this, but it looks .... odd. I'm not sure if this is a wikiquette issue, but it might need some administrator intervention. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its actually not an issue for this board. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to go to WP:RFC because this seemed a more informal place for discussion, but if you would like to move this over there, or wherever it is you do think this conversation belongs, please go right ahead and do so. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You would need a whole bunch of editors to endorse you before an RfC will take place. But this dispute as it were, hasn't even reached informal mediation yet. RfC is not the place to go. WP:ANI is the message board to go to, as LonelyBeacon suggests and if its what you wish to do. Other than that, WP:DRV is the more appropriate place to challenge a closed AfD. Cheers. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever since when did it take a team of admins to endorse an editor for an RFC? This sounds a little like trying to dissuade action because it will take too much work .... much like gaming the system. I think that it sounds like there either needs to be a clarification as to whether or not closing can take place like this, and I would suggest that in light of the editor's smug comments, go straight to WP:ANI. LonelyBeacon (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The most official place to get help with an AfD that you believe was closed incorrectly is WP:DRV. I also believe that any admin who is so moved can revert a speedy close by a non-admin and just re-open the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(to LonelyBeacon)When did I say a team of admins had to support an overturn? I said editors. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(to LonelyBeacon)I'm not gaming the system in fact. Just stating the obvious. An RfC has to be endorsed for it to take place and is rather a waste of time. Plus, there are steps to be taken if an actual dispute is taking place, and informal mediation would need to take place before it. This is how it works. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd reopened I have reversed the closure as the closure doesnt meet the criteria, also noting that a posting to the afd after the closure indicates that editors still have unresolved concerns that can be completed in the afd process. Gnangarra 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It actually does meet the criteria as discussed here. And comments after the fact make no difference, but note the comment was about keeping the article. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SM, I agree that this isn't an etiquette issue; it's a judgement issue. However, your judgement was wrong here. Beeblebrox brought up a concern -- namely, that the page was advertising -- which is certainly an acceptable argument for deletion. He nominated the page for deletion. It is clear to infer that he wants the article deleted, unless he has changed his mind, which he hasn't. You should be more careful in the future: unless a nominator explicitly retracts their nomination or explicitly says they don't have an opinion on the matter, speedy keeps for unanimity are inappropriate. It may seem like you're saving time, but process is important. Mangojuice 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't reclosed the AfD per SNOW/IAR. While I appreciate you showing up on this thread, I think I've made sound judgment in closing. These are only recommended criteria and if the argument for deletion is a weak one, theres no chance it will be deleted. Its an editorial problem, not an AfD problem. NAC, allows for it, if we're quoting essays. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read that discussion and the originating comment at User_talk:SynergeticMaggot#Nonviolent_communication_AfD_closure neither discussion says that the nominator had withdrawn the nomination. The nominator isnt the one who declined the speedy delete request but the person who placed the CSD#G11 request, as such it wasnt a process listing. There is no Speedy keep criteria which can be applied to the discussion, so closing as speedy wasnt possibly. As afd is a discussion and not numbers a well argue position based on advertising and independence of sources as applies to this article may result in deletion. Given this the alternative of WP:SNOW wasnt clear as indicated by the comment after closure, this comment was part of an on going discussion about the sources and as to whether they were sufficient to address independence Gnangarra 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SM, it would have been much better if you had closed this per WP:SNOW than the way you did. AfD closures (and debate closures in general) serve a purpose: they bring a debate to consensus (that is, they present a final solution that everyone can and hopefully will agree to accept, even if they did not personally favor it). Your comments, particularly are wikilawyering and petty dismissiveness that harms the process of bringing a debate to closure. You were clearly misrepresenting Beeblebrox's statements, which would make him feel like he hadn't been understood by the closer, which makes the whole process rather pointless. I can see why he raised an objection. Whereas, if you had simply closed per WP:SNOW, Beeblbrox could have disputed that this was against the rules, but I have a hard time seeing how he could really dispute that your conclusion was correct. What I think was really going on here is that this was a WP:SNOW closure that you justified using WP:SPEEDYKEEP because you are a non-admin. Non-admins are allowed, if cautious, to close debates; you should not use speedy keep as a crutch when it doesn't apply. Mangojuice 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe this wasn't clear enough. I was never using WP:SK as a rationale for closing. True, I didn't give a rationale, my fault entirely. The result was a speedy keep, only. Since it was closed before the 5 day period. To Mango: Nothing at AfD is ever final ;p and I can note at least 100 cases to support that (+/- 10). You're right in your assumptions, although I didn't intend to come off as Beeblebrox took it. I'll consider this thread closed... and I'm taking it off my watchlist. Any comments can be directed to my talk. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

insulting msg

Please see the latest edit to List of Arab Americans with the comment insulting my userid. Apparently by a sockpuppet. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I warned User:Homer saves presidents. Grsz 04:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Clay Bennett/moving the Sonics

I'm having issues with Coz 11. He has called people liars, failed to assume good faith, and other issues on Talk:Clayton Bennett and Talk:Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City. I have previously called Coz 11 out for having a conflict of interest, but other editors thought that wasn't necessary. The problems seem to have continued though. It's also hard to discuss the issue with him because deletes almost all comments from his own page and has said he won't discuss this with me anymore on my talk page. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story's comments

I'll add some more detailed examples to Chicken Wing's comments:

To begin with, Coz's user page has a banner for Save Our Sonics. It is also very likely, through his information he provides, that he is an important member of that organization, so there's already a question of COI.

In addition, he has edited the articles of Clayton Bennett, Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City, and the Seattle Supersonics (before the second article was split from the Sonics page). All of edits have been designed to cast Bennett in a negative point of view. Or, to correct myself, he has edited with a non-NPOV. For example, here, here, here (an almost slanderous statement to a living person, as nothing had been proved yet), and here (removed it despite reliable citations mentioned in thetalk page against Coz's claim), all to the Bennett article. Then you have more edits to the relocation article here, here, and here (removed so-called "speculation" twice, even though it was cited with a reliable source).

However, that is not all of it. He has accused editors of "slant the article" (here and again) and added that David Stern has "zero credibility and is a documented liar". Plus, he has made several inflammatory remarks/borderline insults on Chicken Wing'stalk page.

Chicken Wing and I have warned him several times, but he has removed them every time. I don't have a problem with what he does with his own pages, but repeated warnings have not reached him at all, and I think something needs to be done. Noble Story (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I take every CONSTRUCTIVE comment to heart but I also understand that most of what is going on here is attacking the messenger. As other editors that have dealt with me have stated I am reasonable and willing to work with people who are willing to do the same.I plead quilty to deleting all commentary from my Talk page because I chose to no matter what the tone. What we have here is some people from Oklahoma City who have an agenda to slant all Sonics related articles their direction and do so with a heavy hand. They refuse to discuss potential changes they make the changes then try to attack the person who wants to make the articles more balanced. Chicken Wing has his nose bent out of shape and has targeted me. He has also violated many WP rules but I chose not to participate in a tit for tat war. Sorry, but thems the facts. --Coz (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This just proves my point. Look at all the things that went wrong in this one comment alone.

(1) You accuse people of "attacking the messenger" without evidence. I'm not even sure what you're the messenger for, but nontheless, that's the charge you've made.

(2) Other editors have not said that you are reasonable and willing to work with people. This thread alone shows concerns that I have and user:Noble Story has. user:Bobblehead said that "Coz could definitely do with toning his POV down quite a bit and can be frustrating at times." Okiefromokla agreed that you could tone it down a bit. None of these people are "out to get you." In fact, a couple of those names are much more supportive of your edits than I am. But, the failure to abide within the letter and spirit of the Misplaced Pages rules has to stop.

(3) You accuse people from Oklahoma City of having an agenda. First of all, I'm not from OKC. Secondly, accusing people of having an agenda without any evidence to back it up is very unconstructive. If people were editing with an agenda, they would be in violation of the NPOV rules.

(4) You accuse people of attacking you. I've seen no "attacks" against you. Again, if people have attacked you, then you should have evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you're just defaming other people's Misplaced Pages accounts.

(5) I haven't targeted you. I've only asked that you discontinue editing unconstructively.

(6) You accused me of violating "many WP rules". You should bring these instances to my attention, that way I can correct them. If necessary, an administrator can take action against my rule violations also. However, accusing me of rule violations without any evidence is way out of line.

It's my opinion that Coz's own edit here is evidence of his unwillingness to be more constructive when editing articles with respect to Clayton Bennett and the move of the Sonics franchise. I'm not sure his above post has even one sentence that is accurate or appropriate. Since I can't seem to get through to him on this issue, I'm asking that neutral editors please help out. I don't want to have to ask an administrator to help out. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch

This user began New York Pathological Society, an article I had a concern about leading to the application of the Notability template on the article. From there, a user talk conversation between the editor and I began. It's clear that there are serious issues with interpretation of policy that are subject of a RfC on the society article talk page. It's not a user RfC, so I think this is still appropriate for dealing with the issue of civility.

Citations to several diffs showing behavior of concern to me:

Here is other behavior I wasn't involved in that is of concern:

Erechtheus (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Erechtheus has described my extensively documented and cited criticisms of his behavior and integrity, which have dealt with a number of specific actions he has performed and specific statements he has made, as character assassination. Consequently I would like to have a more concrete explanation of what issues are being brought into this dispute resolution process. If Erechtheus feels the request is appropriate for this venue, and if he feels it is an honest request with the intention of demonstrating the nature of this disagreement to third parties, I would ask that he qualitatively identify or otherwise state in his own words each of the assertions I have made which he believes exceed the bounds of a civil discourse. I would not intend for this list to be binding or complete, but rather that Erechtheus should feel free to add specific allegations against me at any time. I don't intend to be describing any limits to my response - I reserve the right to make any statements on this matter which I see fit and I will definitely bring up my own independent points of discussion - but I will advise Erechtheus that were he to furnish such a list two major subjects in my response would be: To demonstrate in each case that the assertion was not made baselessly, but was supported by evidence citing his other actions and statements (which would not absolve me of incivility, but which is an important aspect of proper talk page etiquette per WP:TALK) To compare the gravity of each assertion to preceding behavior and statements of Erechtheus to examine whether my statements, civil or otherwise, were within boundaries that Erechtheus had himself set in the conversation (this may simply demonstrate that we have both behaved uncivilly but it is relevant to the nature of this conflict, as Erechtheus appears to consider himself unduly and unequally harmed by our exchange - though I would not presume to speak for him on that point.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. What you suggest is contrary to the explicit instructions for use of this process. This is the last time I intend to respond to you here. Erechtheus (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The 2 of you (or even just the original author) could have added quite a bit of content to the article in the past day (its first day?) if this argument wasn't going on. You know... enough to satisfy notability guidelines. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sesshomaru

I've been a lurker several times witnessing this person's actions, and frankly feel intimidated by him to the point where I've avoided making edits on certain things. Please see Talk:Kamehameha for his latest. --Tesscass (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution