Wikipedia: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. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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

User:Snowded

Work in progress; comments welcome

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

Not sure if this is the correct forum so please advise. User Snowded continually makes disparaging remarks about me and I'm pissed off with it:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

I haver not been uncivil to him and would welcome normal debate but all he does is refer to me as an SPA or an SPI and I've had enough of it. Van Speijk (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Its an accurate statement. This is an SPA, following the same pattern as other SPAs on the various British Isles controversies. THe latest case is tagging an article while admitting s/he knew the material was validly sourced. Also reopening a question which was done to death and resolved a few years ago. In the River Shannon case above disrupting a long standing compromise. Its worth noting this exchange involving another editor with experience of this area. We have sock puppets, long term sleeper accountsand accounts that use multiple minor changes and wikipedia forums such as User:Irvine22 who after more than a year was finally blocked and has since become a minor sock farm. If you check the edit history of this user you will see a start up period of a couple of months in 2010 in BI issues, A reemergence in 2011 to support a now blocked editor, then after the two main editors are variously blocked or banned this one becomes active again. The solution to being identified as an SPA is to broaden your editing. --Snowded ^TALK 03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but editors have to discuss difficult topics openly, and when an SPA edits in a troubled area they will receive the sort of attention shown in the diffs of this report. Participants should always assume good faith, and always welcome editors, but if an editor wants to avoid discussion concerning SPA and SPI, all they have to do is demonstrate an interest in developing the encyclopedia without always pursuing the same interest. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All sufficiently new editors (few edits) are likely to be "SPA" pretty much by definition (Solution: Edit in a bunch of unrelated articles)... if there is any real suspicion of being a "sock" then the issue should be raised at WP:SPI and not otherwise. In the case at hand, an order of trout for each with a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a solution to not being described as an SPA. It is not a solution to the rudeness and incivility currently at issue, but you're right about SPA - I expect most editors start out as one. Van Speijk (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Check my edits and you'll see that I'm not actually an "SPA". This label is just being used as an excuse for ill feeling. As for "receiving attention", fine, I don't mind, but that does not excuse the type of incivil comments made by Snowded. There is no excuse for the incvility he uses, SPA or not. I have done nothing against him. I have merely won an argument at River Shannon which he clearly takes exception to. The incivility continues [12]. Yes, he can do what he wants with his talk page, but the edit summary is insulting and aimed directly at me. Van Speijk (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

More [13]. This user can't seem to interact without being incivil, at least not with me. I won't respond to his baiting remarks but maybe someone could actually look objectively at this. Van Speijk (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowded has not been uncivil in any of the diffs you have posted here. He has no case to answer for stating the bleeding obvious. Beware the boomerang if you persist with this issue. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong. He has a history of incivility and even a casual glance at his current talk page confirms this. And what, pray, is "the bleeding obvious"? The "bleeding obvious" that perhaps over half my edits are concerned with one fairly broad area of interest and therefore an editor like Snowded is given carte blanche to direct abuse in my direction? Boomerang? Oh yes, that's the procedure whereby someone raises an issue (like here) and it's ignored in favour probing the activities of the person making the complaint - as here. Waste of space, this page. It implicitly condones the type of activity Snowded engages in. So no help here. I'll just ignore him, completely, as if he doesn't exist. Van Speijk (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to read WP:boomerang a little more carefully. Your post above is a typical example of the sort of thing disussed on that page. You have assumed bad faith by Snowded when none is evident to an uninterested third party. Why did you bring this to this page? If you were after sanctions agains Snowded you have come to the wrong place, you might like to try WP:AN/I, although I suspect you will get no satisfaction there. No, you have come here and exhibited an incredibly thin-skinned reaction to the comments of an established editor who has in actual fact been quite polite considering what he has been responding to. You refuse to consider your part in the exchange. You object to having your own behaviour examined. None of these reflect well upon you. It is time for you to drop this, and just maybe you should consider changing the editing practices you have been using that have led to all this. Or not, I don't really care, but should you continue as before you may eventually find yourself on the receiving end of the sanctions you apparently want applied to Snowded. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want sanctions against him I just want him to act in a civil manner, nothing wrong with that, is there? I'm obviously not going to get it. Firstly because of the type of person he quite obviously is, and secondly becauase of the type of person that hangs out here. As I said above, examine my editing practices by all means, but I can't see what I should do any different - I already edit in more than one area. I've no real wish to continue this fruitless exchange but I can't let yet get away with the absolute shite you've oozed above when you say "who has in actual fact been quite polite considering what he has been responding to". Just what has he been responding to? Allow me to answer: Nothing. That's what he's been responding to. I haven't engaged him in any dialogue save that which is directly concerned with article content and in so doing I have not been incivil with him in any way. You show me one thing I've done or said that could be considered provocative or anything else; there is nothing. So why does he make insulting remarks about me? Simple; because he can, and places like this, which are supposed to deal with his type of problem just don't, maybe because he's an "established editor". Van Speijk (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowded here has spoken to you no different than in the in the DIFFs you provided, and I see nothing uncivil. However, I disagree that that badgering you is something to be dismissed - as Collect said, there is plenty for both of you to consider:

• You (Van Speijk) need to assume good faith and also examine your own behavior. The invitation for you to edit outside of a given topic area is in good faith. Consider doing that.
• Polite disagreement is not incivility, even if these disagreements address your behavior directly, in fact he is being honest about his concerns, that's something we encourage as part of good faith. Claiming they are incivility, however, can be uncivil. Consider your own behavior before considering that of others.
• Now, Snowded, please read WP:BITE again. Van Speijk is a new user by any measure and it can be scary to be accused of being something that as new user can be scary. Even if it isn't a personal attack or uncivil, it can feel that way to new users. That's why we don't bite them. Have some compassion for the noobs. So a trout for you.
• Also, while he might be in-artful in wording, he is asking you to focus on the content not the editor. That's a legitimate request made in good faith. I think you should consider it.
• Without prejudice to your spidey sense, and without looking at the evidence much, I don't see much quacking here about puppetry, an SPA is an SPA and they are allowed. I recently made an error in this regards, and while the SPA was indeed a problem, the editor I suspected as puppetmaster was not. So unless you are willing to take it to SPI, try not to bring this topic up again, and focus on the content, not the editor. If the editor needs focus, instead of discussing it directly, go to the appropriate DR forum, it is clear that you both need to get off each other's backs for a while. There is no better policy than common sense in this regards. --Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

S/he is not a newbe Cerejota, three periods of editing over a couple of years and knowledgeable about process. We also have a long term pattern of socks and meat puppetry around this subject. One group are adept at using different IP addresses and the only way they have been flushed out is on behavioral evidence. Part of that is how they respond when the SPA point is made. Its not a simple SPI investigation. --Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

157 edits is a new editor, even if they span years. It shows insignificant quantity of contributions, so it is unlikely the user has been involved in deep policy disputes. It is a noob in that sense. I understand your point on the "behavioral evidence", but CU uses much more than just IP evidence, so if you open an SPI it might give results. A lesson I learned from the recent SPI I recently opened is that similar patterns of behavior can be a legitimate indicator of good faith agreement, rather than meatpuppetry or socking. So, if you feel you have strong evidence, go to SPI and get the matter cleared up, or don't use the unproven claim as a trout, because it is unproductive. How would you feel if every time there is a disagreement with you, you would be accused of being a puppet simply because you are an anonymous user?--Cerejota (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We may just have to agree to disagree Cerejota, and as you said above you have not really had time to look at what is going on in the area. An SPI requires some identification of who is the sock master, and there are four or five major ones operating here with similar approaches. Sometimes its obvious and an SPI can be made, mostly its not until you start to find the repetition of key phrases, time zones etc. A couple use periodic editing from different physical locations to maintain different accounts and prevent range blocks. Its a mess of sock puppetry, meat puppetry & sleeper accounts. 173 edits or not, three editing periods over a few years primarily as an SPA is going to raise suspicion and challenge. I also note that this editor has not been remotely intimidated or disturbed by reference being made to their SPA nature. They know enough about wikipedia to come here at the first excuse for example, to wax indignant theny go back to very similar edits across a range of articles. The scope for this editor is extended from the RIver Shannon to others since this report was lodged. I understand and respect the lessons you have learnt from your previous experience; please do the same for those of us who have to live with the problem in a controversial area. --Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't really disagree. I am saying, get it over with to cut the noticeboard drama down. I am a battle-scared veteran of some highly controversial areas, and I have found that dealing with persistent SPAs is very difficult, but not ultimately impossible. A CU check if you compile good evidence could be illustrative. You do not need to identify the puppet master, just a potential puppetmaster, usually the first account created from a set. What I am saying is that unless you are in a noticeboard, refrain from saying "you are an spi" or "you are an spa". The only real situation were being an SPA is a bad thing is in !votes and closing admins usually take that into consideration. Its kinda of a Pascal's Wager, if you cannot prove beyond any doubt that they are puppets, better to treat them as they are not. Nothing pisses legit users more than being called puppets (and certainly understandable), so this accusation almost always is disruptive. So go to SPI or just don't bring it up as much.--Cerejota (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment noted Cerejota and for IP based puppets an SPI is fine, for the type we deal with on BI issues you have to work to behavioral evidence and that often means pointing out that an editor is an SPA. You then wait to see what they do. They can say OK, I'm an SPA and lots of SPAs make valid contributions which is fine, its a description whether its good or bad is contextual ; (ii) they can change their pattern, although if that is just trivial edits to create a smokescreen its more dubious (and we see some of that here); (iii) they can run here or ANI (I can tell you the story of the false racism charge that got one experienced editor blocked for a period before common sense prevailed). If they take (iii) it generally says "watch more closely". Personally (and I know this is not wikipedia policy so its an opinion) I think controversial areas should have semi-protection and also some constraint on SPA accounts particularly intermittent ones as with a very few exceptions (and none on the BI pages that I can remember) they are disruptive. --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What happened to commenting on the edits and not the contributor? Why were those remarks made on the talk page instead of at ANI regarding troublesome SPA? The only reason it was mentioned was to take something away from the validity of the edits s it was a personal attack. That did nothing but detract from the actual editing and stir trouble. I agree with the filer though: This is a waste of time. The community has let Snowded do whatever he wants and I doubt that is changing anytime soon. Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes Cptnono I remember, three different panels including ANI and you finally had to give up on your changes to an article. --Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are deflecting again. You "won" by using underhanded tactics like arguing against editors and not their edits, forum shopping, and filibustering to get what you want with no regard for NPOV. So you can enjoy that but at least I am not the only person that sees you for how you are.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's delusional Cptnono. I argued for the established position and that was backed by by the reliable sources and NPOV panels as well as an RfA via ANI. In all those cases the forum shopping was done by people on your side of the argument and I and others responded. If its underhand to argue your case on those forums and refuse to accept edit warring failures to abide by WP:BRD well fine I plea guilty.

Actually, this IS a problem. "Any argument you have is invalid because I think you are a SPA" - is an Ad hominem logical fallacy. When discussing an article, it is the content of the article, the reliability of the sources, etc, that should be discussed. What I see is a lot of "this person can't be right because of who they are" arguments, which shouldn't be valid discussion topics on Wikipedia. Denaar (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Denaar, you should never say that an argument is invalid because someone is an SPA. Fully agree. On the other hand to say that one should not accept a silly compromise that few other editors want just because an SPA is pushing an agenda, well thats a different thing. --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. WP:DUCK and WP:HONESTY suggest that being an SPA is problematic, in particular from the perspective of POV pushing. While focusing on the content is best, often it is inevitable that the context of behavior comes forth - and there is nothing wrong in that as you seem to suggest. My point is that Snowded does have recourse, which are SPI investigations, and he not going for it and instead just making repeated declarations were no enforcement can happen is not helpful. This however doesn't excusse possible puppetry and SPA pov pushing.--Cerejota (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised this debate is continuing here (I have no wish for it to do so), and I'm even more surprised that the idea of an SPA is still being considered. I invite you all who have bothered to offer your opinion to examine my, albeit short, list of contributions and explain how you think it constitutes an SPA - with emphasis on the 'S'. Van Speijk (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You edit only mostly in articles related to Britain, British Islands and Ireland, and to the nomenclature debate this creates. That is SPA behavior as per Duck Test. There is nothing wrong with being a well behaved SPA, but there is with being a puppet. In case it is not clear, at WQA we cannot tell if you are a puppet or not, at SPI they can, and am simply telling Snowded to take it to that venue. I am not saying you are one, just that he continuing to imply so without taking it to formal venue for resolution is not helpful, which is what we try to do at WQA.--Cerejota (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

When someone accuses you of something, your best bet is not to get mad, but to "get even" by proving the allegations wrong, i.e. by providing neutral, well-sourced editing and comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but - Snowed has been told all this information before. He's a repeat offender. It isn't that he calls someone SPA - it's that he uses it over and over in a harassing manner. Instead of arguing the sources being presented, he argues the ideas the users are presenting. It doesn't matter what users think - what's important is what reliable sources state. As I stated in the last discussion - this use of SPA is unacceptable and is not civil behavior. [14] Denaar (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Denaar, I fully accept that there are editors who think its wrong to use the SPA label but I and others disagree. You could raise that at the appropriate forum and see if there is a willingness to change the rules. In the case you reference its worthy of note that the editor who brought the complaint was subsequently blocked for disruptive editing around the BI issue, as have been several other SPAs in that area, I think (but have not checked) we also saw a few socks subsequently; the subject matter area is plagued with them. Bringing a complaint to this place is, as I have said, part of a behavioral pattern. Thanks for finding the link to that by the way --Snowded ^TALK 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This report on Snowded is quite weak. SPAs & Socks have a history of hovering around British Isles topics. The MidnightBlueMan farm comes to mind. Let's close this report as being merely revenge seeking in nature. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is the sort of shit I now find myself up against, simply because I choose to specialise in a particular area of Wikipedia: [15]. Van Speijk (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clashes are inevitable, when other editors specialize in the same areas. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

apologies to whomever started this thread for my defense of Snowed, at times even i have suffered the sting of his sharp tongue. la ditty da, you may wish to have a tutor explain history to you, bla bla bla blahh etc. with a little humor we have come to a civil discourse, while disagreeing on almost every subject that begins with a consonant. i find him to be a well education, informed, alas even friendly, once the thick crusty veneer of wikipedia is cracked, revealing an actual humanoid behind the keys. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

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

---

• Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stephen C. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Intelligent design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My very first time running across long-time editor Hrafn was the occasion of him wholesale reverting five of my edits to the Meyer BLP, where he sits as a primary editor, with his edit summary only mentioning the first edit he reverted (see here). It wasn't long after that that he started resorting to personal attacks. Here he calls me "willfully ignorant." Later on, he calls me a "fanatic" here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ("kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr"). Those are the personal attacks I happen to remember. Now, he continues his tradition of personal attacks by using the scare-epithet "creationist" (see here for the essay "Creating Creationism" by leading historian on creationism Ronald Numbers, where he refers to "creationist" as an epithet: "Since at least the early 1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to "creationists" in his unpublished writings, but the epithet remained relatively uncommon." Even if he happened to know my personal views on creationism--which he doesn't--and my views were supportive of it, he would find himself in trouble with the very first item in WP:NPA policy that is considered to be a personal attack:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse

He neither knows my views on creationsim, nor has any evidence of my views on it (remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). Actually, this is at least the second time he has called me a "creationist," but like previous personal attacks, I didn't care. Now is different as he has made a personal attack in a heavily-read BLPN venue, which attracts a lot of influential admins and non-admin editors. Drrll (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. These are legitimate (although not necessarily true) appreciations of your own behavior and that of others. Please read WP:BOOMERANG. Trust me, if there was anything untoward, any uninvolved admin on the noticeboards you mention would have taken action. At best, Hrafn should focus more on the content and less on the editor, but I see no evidence that his behavior is disruptive and uncollaborative, even if he might consider cooling the rhetoric down a little. Making judgement of other people based on their editing patters is a natural reaction for anyone with a heartbeat - it is up to you to convince the other editor he or she is wrong or to ignore the claims and to concentrate content. Calling some one who is not a "creationist" is unfair if you are not a creationist, but it is not a personal attack, and if its true it is an objective description. --Cerejota (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If "ignorant" and "fanatic" or not personal attacks, I'd sure like to know what you actually regard as a personal attack.

"it is up to you to convince the other editor he or she is wrong or to ignore the claims and to concentrate content": it's not up to me to convince anyone of anything in order to head off potential personal attacks. And while I have largely ignored his namecalling, he went too far in doing so at a very visible venue. Keep in mind that WP:NPA is a policy, not a guideline or essay. Drrll (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Same thing at Leonard Brand with user:DonaldRichardSands. If you don't concede his points he becomes rude, condescending and patronizing.– Lionel ^(talk)

Same thing at Generation of Youth for Christ, Southern Adventist University and other Seventh-day Adventist affiliated pages. I could post possibly 50 quotes very much like the allegations above.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I can find nothing at Southern Adventist University recently at least. Nor at Generation of Youth for Christ but I do see some praise for him on the talk page. So yes, maybe we do need to see those 50 quotes. I'm not defending any of his comments, just noting that I can't find a problem in the last 250 edits for those two articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

They are in the archives of the pages (primary Southern Adventist University) and occurred between 2-5 months ago. I do not know, however, how to access the Talk page archives.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a different example on a User talk page from a few months ago.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Warnign users of copyright violations is not a bad thing if its true. --Cerejota (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that warning users is not a bad thing, however warning users using mocking phrasing like "the complete newbie he's acting like" and "having a hissy" in the title of a section on a user's page in inappropriate and not professional. The problem with Hrafn is that he easily veers into personal attacks that aren't relevant to the issue at hand. There are many nicer ways to say an do things than the way he does, even if he is making the correct editing call.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot a few other personal attacks on me. From his user Talk page:

• "idiots"
• "will he start arguing with himself?"

I was also curious about personal attacks there on other editors. Going back to July:

• "Twit"
• "ignorant"
• "DEADHORSE editor" (edit summary)
• "Please don't evoke the all-too-strong argumentative side of my personality by reminding me of your, and its, existence"

Also, he regularly calls me and other editors various names playing off on our usernames, such as "Deadhorse Drrll" Drrll (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How did admin Dougweller handle this complaint? By even giving Hrafn a warning? No, but by giving him some sympathetic "advice". In his advice to Hrafn, he referred to me and other regular targets of Hrafn's violation of the WP:NPA policy as "rav[ing] on". Dougweller, which dictionary definition of "rave" were you using?:

• "to talk irrationally in or as if in delirium"
• "to speak out wildly"
• "to talk with extreme enthusiasm"

Maybe someone needs to take a looksee at your violations of WP:NPA policy and keep you away from a noticeboard where instead of displaying an interest in enforcing policy, you don't mind engaging in some policy-breaking yourself. Drrll (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about myself (and in fact about experiences off-Wiki although I didn't specify them - Usenet in fact). I was definitely not referring to anyone here, although I guess it's possible to read that into what I wrote without the whole context. What I wrote was "You really need to avoid giving anyone a reason to take you to WQA - I've always felt I get a lot further by trying to be as polite as I can (hard at times) and let the others rave on. It just gives others ammunition against you. Take the high road, see the error of your ways. Not as satisfying at times of course but it will make you a better Wikipedian and I think more productive at what you are trying to do." If you want to take me to ANI to get me banned from this board, go ahead. Right now though I haven't said anything about you although you certainly have said something about me. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, I applaud the spot-on advise you gave Hrafn. (I would call it "diplomatic" rather than "sympathetic.") As a new editor I found Hrafn to be unacceptably offensive; since then I have seen there is much knowledge beneath his curmudgeonly exterior. After learning to ignore his frequent rudeness that for some reason WP tolerates against its own policy, I have come to appreciate his editing skills. He really should work on his people skills, though!

Imho, and deviating a bit, WP needs to enforce its civility policy because there are many long-standing editors who do not adhere to it and without a doubt this is one reason there are fewer contributors. Yopienso (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary for the response to Hrafn at his Talk page was "advice." Thank you for giving out the whole context of what you said here, although I provided an easy way for anyone else here to see the whole context by providing a diff link to your remarks. I hope people do read your whole comments in full context. And then ask themselves if it comports with your claim above that "I was talking about myself." Drrll (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Drrll, Doug goofed on that. Try to focus on his intention and, more importantly, on how you can be part of the answer instead of part of the problem. Just letting trivial stuff go is often a good idea. Yopienso (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The continuing concerns about Hrafn's behavior as raised in this report by Drrll, Lionel Fountainviewkid and others are legitimate and need to be addressed. My experience with Hrafn in late 2010 mirrors their own and brings up that incident for review. At the time, I was working closely with User:Dbigwood, a new user who had a professional knowledge and interest in space science (employed by the Lunar and Planetary Institute), but wasn't familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia. The user had correctly created a stub out of a redirect[16] with the intent to expand it. Hrafn had been maintaining this redirect[17] and when he discovered a new user had created a stub and was working on expanding it, Hrafn reverted all the work by the new user.[18] The user reverted, and I stepped in to help, at which point Hrafn showed up and began to disrupt both the article and the talk page for the next several days. The disruption and attacks he waged on Talk:NASA Astrobiology Institute were noted by several different editors, and his behavior there was about as bad as it can get. At no time did he actually attempt to collaborate with and help the new user at all. Instead, he spent days wikilawyering on the talk page, making rude and angry comments and fighting a maintenance tag war for no known reason. In the above discussion, Cerejota says "I see no evidence that his behavior is disruptive and uncollaborative". For that exact evidence, please see: 1, 2. I realize this is old evidence, but there is a pattern of bad behavior here that needs to be addressed. I recommend that the editors compile their best evidence and file a user RfC. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Being curmudgeon or harsh might not be a good idea, and might lead to misunderstandings and in general a digression from discussion, but here WP:BOOMERANG applies. People are not assuming good faith, or figuring out that they do not have to focus on the user, rather than the content.

Hrafn at most deserves a trout with a generalized appeal to be less harsh with other editors:

But they do not constitute WP:NPA violations. Just because its offensive, it doesn't mean its a personal attack. A personal attack is saying "your head is full of filth" or "you are a pedophile" or "I fuck your mother, and then stand in line for your sister". It is not "Please don't evoke the all-too-strong argumentative side of my personality by reminding me of your, and its, existence" or "twit" or "idiots". These are harsly expressed but legitimate and WP:HONESTY expressions. Hrafn should probably be WP:CIVIL but other editors should also grow thicker skins and ignore his personality and focus on the content. It takes two to fight, and it doesn't help anyone if unless a real pattern of disruptive editing emerges, and unless he doesn't address content at all, you will have to tough it out. He is not getting a pass on the rules, he is following the rules. And not hearing that is a problem in itself.--Cerejota (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He is following the rules? I guess in the loosest general sense, yes possibly. Reverting all the work by a new user and disrupting both article and talk page for several days are not exactly working "collaboratively". And I'm sorry but that goes beyond WP:HONESTY. If I could figure out how to pull up the archive from Southern Adventist University talk page, there is a trove of sentiments and statements very much like what has been posted on here. And you wonder why this fewer contributors is happening? It's editors like Hrafn that have almost led me to abandon Wiki...him and Bello Wello who thankfully went to far and got blocked.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota you have not been listening. Hfran's behavior is completely unacceptable. For an example see talk:Leonard R. Brand. For 10 days Hfran and a new editor, DonaldRichardSands were the only editors there. The abuse leveled at Donald was excessive. So bad in fact an admin, Bishonen, warned him with this[19]: "Please refrain from being funny on Wikipedia. People may spill their coffee all over their keyboards. If you continue to make me laugh, you may be blocked from editing." Bishonen was being facetious. He was referring to the abuse of Donald.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. As it was a bit hard to locate: This seems to be the "abuse" for which Bishonen "warned" Hrafn. I can see how the ludicrous ANI section title Hrafn has personally attacked my faith community, calling it incestuous would have attracted her. Probably knowing Bishonen a bit better than you do, I am pretty sure that this "warning" was no such thing. Shall we ask her? (Or we could ask User:Darwinbish.) Hans Adler 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

She wrote on her talk page that she read the entire talk page at Brand. I assumed she found it disturbing, as I had. I assumed her comment on Hrafn's talk was a facetious warning, not approval. I left a note for her to join us.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In case you have trouble interpreting her response: I think it's safe to say that Bishonen is not a fundamentalist American, so if she was disturbed by anything then it was probably by the blatant anti-reason pushing – something we are simply not used to here in Europe. Hans Adler 17:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Hans, we understand that Americans could not possibly attain the level of reason and sophistication that Europeans have ascended to. By "fundamentalist" do you include those evil evangelical Christians, or just those evil fundamentalist Christians? Drrll (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in hair-splitting on fundamentalists, and I never said that I consider the obstinate refusal of some Christians to use the reason they were so generously granted by God for anything other than conclusion-based arguments and arguments from authority to be evil. I am pretty sure that some American "evangelicals" are what I would consider to be fundamentalists. Presumably there are also those who are not. I have no idea on the relative proportions. Hans Adler 04:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Drrll did take me to ANI asking that action be taking against me (which would be either a block or a ban from here) and that "admins with whom I have had content disputes not involve themselves in this matter". . Admins have every right to be involved in such discussions so long as they are not threatening to use their tools. This looks like an attempt to stop someone (me in this case, but not just me) who disagrees with him from commenting here. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, I was in no way wanting to keep you from defending yourself at ANI. As far as I know, I have never had a "content dispute" at an article with you and that's specifically who I was referring to in the quote of mine you just provided. My primary concern was that admins who have had content disputes in articles with me might not be the most objective arbiters in deciding the outcome of the ANI. Likewise, I said there that I didn't think it was appropriate for admins who regularly work with you or Hrafn to decide the outcome of the ANI.

My concerns ended up not being unfounded, as admin Black Kite, who regularly works with you and at the least knows Hrafn well, endorsed numerous unfounded accusations against me at the ANI thread by Cerejota, then gave his opinion, but not official decision, that "I think this, and the WQA, can be wrapped up now" (without closing the thread or marking it resolved). Then the editor Mathsci, who regularly works with you decided that it was time to close the discussion at ANI with the brief declaration that no administrative action is required, but no further explanation. And Mathsci took that action even though he is not an admin--at the Administrator's noticeboard no less!

Please also see my response to you at ANI at 21:43, 28 August 2011 Drrll (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll's actions, however, must be interpreted in the light of his frustration with an uncivil editor and the fact that WP refuses to curtail his habitual incivility. DonaldRichardSands 08:17, 27 August 2011 and Viriditas 08:58, 27 August 2011 clearly laid out the problem at ANI. On his talk page, Hrafn basically rejects your fine advice, defending himself and not agreeing to change his attitude or habits. "I will attempt to tone down the rhetoric -- but do not guarantee that my underlying argumentative nature won't show through." He is, no doubt, unaware that his "underlying argumentative nature" is not something that, to use DRS's words, everyone else needs to stomach--although DRS and myself and countless others do--but is something that he needs to curb. I believe he is capable of doing so. If he isn't, WP should not continue to tolerate his incivility despite the fact that, otherwise, he is an excellent editor. WP can help him be a better editor and improve the WP itself by insisting Hrafn adhere to policy. Yopienso (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ther eis not a single rule that bans " "underlying argumentative nature". There is however, a rule that tells you to stomach it called WP:AGF. I hate wikilawyering but if people are going to bring up "rules" I am going to bring them up too. Yes, Hfafn needs a trout on the head - but ya'll ned to grow thicker skins. This isn't a support group or a safe space. This is an ecyclopedia. You are bound to meet people you don't like, whose style you don't like, and who disagree with you. Trying to use our dispute resolution process to resolve these disagreements, without any evidence of disruptive behavior, to essentially shut another editor up, is reprehensible, and in fact, disruptive. WP:BOOMERANG--Cerejota (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The rule is against letting it "show through." Yopienso (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Belated response: Talking with Hans, Lionel wrote above that " She [Bishonen] wrote on her talk page that she read the entire talk page at Brand. I assumed she found it disturbing"[20] etc. I'm lost. Lionel, where on my talkpage did I write that I'd read the entire talk page at Brand? I don't recognise the claim, I can't find it, and it wouldn't be true. Am I too sleepy to be editing Wikipedia right now, or did you get me mixed up with someone else? As for my spilling-coffee comment on Hrafn's talk,[21] which you're reading in the light of the post I can't find, that comment was .. a compliment, I guess. I don't know Hrafn, but I thought he sounded understandably rather stressed and bored with the interminable "discussion", and I figured to cheer him up a little by saluting his good jokes. If I'd known my own rather childish witticism was going to be quoted all over the place, I would have tried to be a little funnier .. but at least Hrafn's response showed that he didn't have any trouble understanding what I meant. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think Lionelt was referring to your remarks here. Drrll (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to clarify on Hrafn's behalf that when I referred to his "habitual incivility" I did not mean to imply he is continually uncivil. Ignorance and stubbornness annoy him. So does agenda-pushing that runs contrary to his opinions. Besides his useful contributions to articles and talk pages, he is often helpful to editors who he knows are editing in good faith. My hope is that he will recognize and correct the particular behavior of giving rude answers, including shouting (the use of capital letters and bolding) and "belittling fellow editors" when he perceives ignorance, stubbornness, or agenda-pushing. I think what may be missing isn't so much AGF as patience. Yopienso (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: when provided the opportunity several weeks later to retract his personal attack on me in calling me "ignorant," Hrafn instead responded with "I'm certainly not going to disavow the adjective." here. Drrll (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Put together a list of the most egregious diffs (personal attacks, etc.) and find another editor to certify a user RfC if you wish to pursue it. Otherwise, there is nothing else to discuss here. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

However Drrll, if you do, be prepared to have your own behaviour under the spotlight. Make sure your actions in the matter have been exemplary before you file, lest you find yourself hit on the back of the head by the boomerang. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the advice. Viriditas, when I first came here I was looking for nothing more than a strong warning for Hrafn. I thought I was in the right place since at the top of this page it says, "Avoid intiating a request if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." After the incident with Dougweller, I changed my mind and wanted a short block of Hrafn, so I headed over to ANI. So far, it seems that the admin sentiment there is about the same as it is here--yawning about his behavior.

Nick, I don't know much about an RFC/U, but what I read at the top of that page is that it is an "informal non-binding process." How can such a process result in anything but a warning or rebuke? (though I wouldn't exactly want either at RFC/U or my Talk page. Drrll (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn is one of a large number of users who gets a "free pass" when it comes to civility. There are many reasons for this that I don't really want to go into, but it isn't any one thing, but rather, a combination of many different factors that contributes to the situation. The only way you will ever get the desired response is if your behavior is beyond reproach. The only person you can control with any effectiveness is yourself. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't get a free pass, he just hasn't violated any rule. There is nothing uncivil in telling the obvious truth. --Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The truth can be told civilly or uncivilly. Examples I am NOT attributing to Hrafn but made up to illustrate the point abstractly:

I beg your pardon, but you are blocking my view.

You contemptuous pinhead, if you had half a brain you would realize that ridiculous excuse of a hat you're wearing doesn't let me see a $%@$$ing bit of the #&*%@ stage.

Civility is our rule, and no one should get a free pass to violate it. Yopienso (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Those comments are not uncivil. They are sarcasm. We are allowed, as far as I know, to have a sense of humor...--Cerejota (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn may be occasionally incivil, but Drrll's reports have become near-boomerangs because they started with lists of diffs that did not contain any incivility by Hrafn. It's a bad idea to quote another editor out of context and then hope that those reacting to the report don't read the diffs in context and don't realise, e.g. that the word "idiot" actually occurs in quotation marks in Hrafn's supposedly abusive post, because he quoted it from a different editor. However, anyone reading the context of those diffs must get the impression that Drrll and associates are WP:IDHT artists. Hans Adler 04:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If "willfully ignorant," "fanatic," and "idiot" don't constitute "any incivility by Hrafn" in your mind, I feel sorry for the people who cross your path in the real world. Yeah, I provided diffs rather than just quotes because I knew no one would bother looking at the diffs. Apparently you did think that no one would bother looking at the complete exchange between Hrafn and that "different editor," where yes, he quotes the other editor in referring to the same person, Thomas Nagel as an idiot, but then later in the same post, unequivocally calls editors idiots and with no quotes:

Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do tell me who my "associates" are. I sure could use some backup in a world where many admins seem to be disinterested in enforcing policy against certain editors. Drrll (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:KETTLE (or the equivalent John 8:7, if you prefer). In this very WQA thread you have several times written "w* i*", "f*" and "i*". If I were as delicate as you appear to be I could report you for the very post to which I am responding. What you are quoting is banter between Hrafn and another, consenting editor on Hrafn's talk page. The strength of the word idiot is reduced by far by the way it came up and is used in the dialogue, it is not a personal attack because it can at most be seen as targeted at a very vaguely defined group of people ("smarter idiots" trying to "break into" the article -- the other appearances of idiot cannot possibly be interpreted as applying to you). And editors generally get more lenience on their own talk pages even in conflicts with others (which the dialogue with Jim62sch wasn't even). You have read banter that wasn't meant to be read by you, chose to interpret it in the worst possible way so you could complain about it, and now you are complaining that people mention WP:BOOMERANG. Well, it's not a boomerang yet, but if you continue to exhibit the kind of obstinacy here that seems to have led you into this conflict, then it might well become one. Hans Adler 07:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"it is not a personal attack because it can at most be seen as targeted at a very vaguely defined group of people ("smarter idiots" trying to "break into" the article": I didn't actually think I would have to do this, since anyone can look it up, but for the record, here is the entire exchange between Jim6sch:

Be careful, amigo, Missy is trying to provoke "bad behaviour". Soon, either he or Drll will be screaming "edit war". I'm not sure that Hagel's comments much matter other than to prove that he's a nutter.  :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Nagel since his endorsement of Signature in the Cell. He's basically a philosopher of mind having a hissy fit because scientific empiricism keeps encroaching on his freedom to pontificate on the 'Mysteries of Life™' (shades of the Deep Thought scene from Hitchhikers' Guide). It's difficult to see how any mention of him is merited, let alone expanding it. I don't intend to give them an edit war -- but I certainly don't intend to let their ludicrous claims go unchallenged. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot. But, maybe young and impressionable minds won't.

And yeah, sience is a bitch -- I keep hoping that someone will invent a "transporter" and the the uncertainty principle tells me it can't be done and I too throw a hissy fit. Damn.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't object to idiocy. At least not today. Maybe tomorrow.  :( •Jim62sch

Drrll (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, apparently you're in the same club as Hrafn with regard to many admins. What else could explain your eagerness to lob a list of evidence-less accusations at me on the Administrator noticeboard of all places? If you had a reason to believe you might get called out or worse for your personal attacks and incivility, I think you would have restrained yourself a little more. Instead your baseless allegations actually got the endorsement of yet another admin there.

WP:NPA policy, in answering the question "What is considered to be a personal attack?," includes the following: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

No WP:BOOMERANG references this time? I guess it would have been forthcoming if you were addressing me specifically. I'll ask it here, after mentioning WP:BOOMERANG six times to me in a 24-hour period, do you have a particular fascination with that essay, or do you intend for it to be a threat against me? Drrll (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I think you must be spot on about certain editors getting a free pass with many admins. Otherwise, editors like Hrafn and Cerejota (see above) would think twice before practicing incivility and personal attacks on the very venues that are heavily scrutinized by admins (not just ANI, but BLPN, where Hrafn engaged in namecalling against me without fear of reprisals and in my response there I pointed to several of his personal attacks). Drrll (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand, that unpunished behavior means it is "ok" behavior. If something violates rules warranting a ban or block, action is always taken. There is no impunity here, in fact, there is swift summary action in most cases. The problem is that your accusations are patently false in the eyes of most editors, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary, as Hans Adler explained. Take it from me, one thing is to suspect something, take it to the appropriate forum, and be proved wrong and dropping it, another is to insist in obtaining horsemeat by any means necessary and continuing to repeat the same accusations hoping for a different result. You should accept the community has not found your accusations credible or warranting action beyond a trout, and move on. Failure to do so, and to continue to forum shop trying to get a different answer is indeed disruptive, and will indeed eventually result in action, perhaps in a few weeks or months or even years. Please read and understand WP:IDHT and WP:BOOMERANG (7th time). If you have evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, make a report. Otherwise, kindly strike out an empty accusation in the interest of civility.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will strike out my accusation that you violated WP:NPA policy by making numerous accusations against me without evidence after I see that you have stricken your accusations at ANI. Drrll (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence with full quote:

Yes, as further exploration of all the allegations show strong disagreements but no NPAs. Drrll seems to be seeking to advance his or her position by eliminating effective opposition via bureaucratic means. Hrafn needs to tone it down a little, and give a little less of a fuck but as I said in the WQA, there has not been a single diff given that shows any personal attacks, or shows any pervasive edit warring, and as such, no admin action is needed.

I think WP:BOOMERANG applies. An examination of this discussion and the one at WQA , and of Drrll's editing behavior shows a worrying pattern of disruptive behavior and the meatpuppetry and pile-on of empty accusations (including attacking an admin who has not misused his tools of wrongdoing) are worrying too. Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki? Perhaps I am over reacting, but I think the idea that we all need to get along and if we don't we need to be blocked or banned is very dangerous, and we need to make sure it is understood that assuming good faith is not optional. --Cerejota (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota just keeps piling up the evidence of incivility and personal attacks. In the midst of challenging editors who see Hrafn's incivility as a problem, Cerejota called those editors "dense" here. Drrll (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

None of those are personal attacks - you have a serious miscomprehension as to what a personal attack means in wikipedia. I will give you an example of a personal attack towards me that did lead to blocking[22]. Now, compare that outburst to anything anyone has said to you. You are over-reacting. Period. And saying so is not a personal attack, it is warning you that crying wolf will get you nowhere. Lets put it this way, at this point the well is so poisoned by your actions, and your credibility so low with the community, even actual incivility you report might be ignored because you have cried wolf so much. This is not because there is any conspiracy and cabal, it is because when you cry wolf and there is no wolf, when the actual wolf shows up people won't believe you. Its your own doing. Consider that. My "dense" comment was not particularly directed, and that you feel it was directed at you points at your problems, not mine - it was simply a result of looking at Hrafn's talk page behavior and seeing hilarity after hilarity and not being able to stop laughing. Not everything is about you. Your lack of capacity of understanding that is what leads people to ignore you. As I said, I came is here as a neutral observer with no prejudices, but looking at the behavior of both you and Hrafn shows that you are the problematic editor, not him. --Cerejota (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response to you below. Drrll (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this thread has run its course and should be closed. Anyone interested in the big picture would enjoy reading The No Asshole Rule (2007). However, at the end of the day, we are faced with the conclusion that we really can't change other people. We can only change our reaction to them. And it is in that reaction that we can set the stage for real change to occur. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me wrap up my input here by giving a little background on my history on Wikipedia. I started editing about two years ago. For about two years I nearly exclusively edited politically-oriented articles. During that time, I thought that politically-oriented articles were a contentious place to be involved in editing on Wikipedia. In recent months, I started to edit articles that were related to the issue of intelligent design. Political articles are actually rather peaceful places to edit compared with what goes on in articles dealing with intelligent design and apparently also articles dealing with creationism. In these articles, one encounters much higher levels of article ownership (even from long-time WP editors) and incivility toward anyone who asks questions that may challenge the status quo of the articles. If the person questioning the status quo doesn't go away or back down, they are subjected to increasingly higher levels of incivility, including questioning motives, intelligence, honesty, and good faith.

It is in this context of having worked for nearly two years with political articles, seeing how vastly different things were with articles dealing with intelligent design, including even BLPs of individuals associated with ID, being subjected to incivility by several editors, not just Hrafn, that after numerous instances of incivility in increasingly public WP venues, that I decided to file a WQA complaint against Hrafn--understanding that filing at WQA could not result in a ban, block, or any other formal sanction against Hrafn. After seeing what looked to be a second admin yawning about Hrafn's repeated incivility against multiple editors, I decided that it was time to file an ANI complaint.

Cerejota:

In my two years on WP, this was my very first WQA complaint filed and my very first ANI complaint filed, so your charge that I "have cried wolf so much" is nonsense.

While the example of personal attack that you provided is a much clearer and less subtle example of personal attack, I still contend that some of Hrafn's incivility directed toward me (or that included me with other editors), and some of your incivility directed toward me constitute personal attacks. Not because what you said to me (and I'm not including the "dense" remark; that's simply incivility) are along the lines of the example you provided, but because they fit under what WP:NPA policy language specifies what constitute a personal attack:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

And what were the accusations about personal behavior that lacked evidence did you direct toward me?

• that I seem "to be seeking to advance his or her position by eliminating effective opposition via bureaucratic means"--where's the evidence of my history of doing so?
• that there is "a worrying pattern of disruptive behavior"--where's the evidence of my history of doing so?
• that there is "a worrying pattern of" meatpuppetry--where's the evidence of my history of doing so?
• that it is my "idea that we all need to get along and if we don't we need to be blocked or banned"--where's the evidence of my history of doing so?

You go on in the same post suggesting that "Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki?".

"your credibility so low with the community": on what do you base this assessment? Obviously, from the conversation here and at ANI, it is low with you, two other non-admin editors, and two admin editors.

"As I said, I came is here as a neutral observer with no prejudices": and as I said, I came to the BLP article Stephen C. Meyer with no preconceptions about Hrafn, I came to WQA with no preconceptions about you and Dougweller, and I came to ANI with no preconceptions about Black Kite and Mathsci. Drrll (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to examining your behavior, not your reports - this includes blocking for edit warring and generally boomerang stuff in talk pages - it takes two to tango and you tango well. The cry wolf situation is that it is clear you didnt get what you were seeking to get at WQA so you forum shopped over to ANI. --Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewinding back to the original complaint, Hrafn definitely engaged in personal attacks, but I'm not seeing much of a pattern of offensive conduct. It appears to be a content dispute with deep roots. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Not seeing any personal attacks here. Try not to be so hypersensitive to other people's criticism of you. Get over it, change your diaper, and move on with your life. —SW— ^confess 22:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by SW (User:Snottywong). I only wish I had the time to cut & paste his excellent choice of words to 90% of the petty nonsense that is brought to these noticeboards by thin-skinned whingers. Deterence ^Talk 10:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You're right that the vast majority of complaints to this board either don't involve personal attacks at all, or involve borderline breaches, as here. FYI, calling people, even unnamed "thin-skinned whingers" isn't civil. The purpose of this board is to resolve problems, but very often the discussions inflame them, as is happening here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Figureofnine WP:NPA would not describe any of the actions by Hrafn as "personal attacks" - and best they are bit uncivil. A "personal attack is serious accusation or insult, like calling someone a "faggot" or "nigger". Around here those nuances do count. --Cerejota (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, actually, WP:NPA, after providing examples of personal attacks, says the following:

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.

While Hrafn's personal attacks don't clearly fall under the specific examples given in WP:NPA, they do fall under that language. On the other hand, Cerejota's personal attacks fit both that language and, as a clear example given in WP:NPA, the other language I quoted above at 16:32 on 31 August.

Let's suppose for one moment that there were no personal attacks by Hrafn or Cerejota. This is the Wikiquette assistance noticeboard, not the Personal attack assistance noticeboard. Its description at the top of this page says that it is "a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation." So incivility in general is what matters here, not just incivility involving personal attacks. Drrll (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But the incivility was minor, perhaps borderline. The point I was trying to get across was that this appeared to be a content dispute, primarily. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Drrll, have you really not realized yet that:

1. No one agrees with you that there were any grossly inappropriate personal attacks made on your behalf.
2. Hrafn isn't going to contribute to this discussion.
3. Nothing is going to come of this complaint, or any other similar complaint you make anywhere else on Wikipedia about Hrafn's interactions with you.

So why don't you just save us all some time and drop it, get on with your life, and do something constructive like write an article. —SW— ^converse 00:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and paste in here something I decided not to contribute several days ago in response to --Cerejota (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Here goes:

Two excerpts from our Sarcasm article:

"Sarcasm has been suggested as a possible bullying action in some circumstances."

"In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes.."

But we're getting off-track. Furthermore, as I've just gone through many of his August, 2011, edits, I see Hrafn has been showing remarkable restraint. I've been aiming at incivility in general at WP, which is not fair to Hrafn. I think he has, in fact, greatly modified some of his past manner of speaking that has lodged in my memory. My apologies, Hrafn. Yopienso (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

After returning to this now and looking at Drrll's initial complaint and examples, I believe he misrepresented some of Hrafn's statements. For example, Hrafn said, "I see no point in 'collaborating' with wilful ignorance." Drrll reported that as Hrafn having called him willfully ignorant, which isn't spot-on. He did not complain about incivility, but about personal attacks, which we cannot discern. For my part, I was prejudiced against Hrafn because of some of his previous expressions, even though our most recent interactions (and) were entirely cordial. I asked not to "shout," when, I see now, he had been commenting to Drrll in lower case. He has borne this discussion admirably, and I have done him a disservice in remembering past unpleasantness while failing to note present collegiality. Once again, I apologize, Hrafn, and hope this is closed out. Yopienso (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:McAusten

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

---

• McAusten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2011 AFL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:2011 AFL season#"their" vs. "its" there was considerable discussion over whether Australian football teams should be described as "their" or "its". This discussion seemed to have wound down with a seeming consensus towards "its".

Shortly afterwards McAusten, who had initiated the above discussion but would have seen opinion swing away from his preferred position, changed portions of the article to his preferred usage of "their". This was reverted, then re-reverted by him, despite requests to him to discuss the matter (see [23], [24], [25].

Since then, many efforts have been made on the article's Talk page and at User talk:McAusten.

The problem we now have is that McAusten is ignoring all requests to communicate further on this. He will not post on the article's Talk page, and simply deletes comments on his Talk page without responding. For example, [26] and [27].

(Please excuse any errors in process here. It's my first time.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I must now add that McAusten has just blanked his User Talk page, removing my message advising him of this action, and edited my post above. While his edits of my post could be seen as corrections, I don't regard editing other's posts as ethical behaviour at all. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To refuse to communicate except for screwing around with your posts is not at all appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would argue that McAusten is right on the content issue. "their" is more usually used in the context of sports teams. Having said that edit warring against consensus is not a good thing, but you only have a very very small number of editors involved. I suggest you open an RfA on the question which should settle it. If "its" wins then you can seek enforcement against McAusten if he makes changes after an RfA. In the mean time its a very minor issue so there is no great problem which is used. --Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, it would be "their" rather than "its". I don't know what the customary usage is in Australia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't want to tackle the "its" vs "their" issue here. Those of us involved have already presented our views at Talk:2011 AFL season#"their" vs. "its". While I'm happy to be made aware of other opinions on that matter, and even be convinced that Wikipedia's policy differs from my view, if that is the case, that's not what this is about. The real issue here is the behaviour of McAusten. We have an unresolved issue, with Edit warring, and an editor refusing to participate in all normal forms of communication. That's the problem I'm seeking a solution to. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that an RfA would make the position clear and allow you to ask for sanctions. For the moment while I think McAusten is acting badly, s/he is not actively disrupting Wikipedia. If you want sanctions then you need to make a 3RR report. Remember that does not have to be strictly three reverts on one article in 24 hours. If you can show reverts over multiple articles and link to the discussion and the refusal to discuss you would have a case. Anyone can delete anything (bar a major sanction) from their talk page so I would leave that out. If you delete it, you've read it is the rule --Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, read it, and very pointedly, not responded. (I agree the deletion is not in itself an issue.) What we have is a small group of editors trying hard to follow the rules and act in good faith, and someone else acting disruptively, very poor faith. I will also add that, as I pointed out above, this is my first attempt at seeking help of this kind. Throwing around suggestions of an RfA does not help me. At my stage of education that's just another piece of Wikipedia jargon of which I'm unfamiliar, with a big learning curve in front of me. And I'm not the sinner here! Why is it all so hard to get a silly editor to do better? HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Snowded means RFC (request for comment) rather than RfA (which could stand for "Request for Arbitration" or "Request for Adminship", neither of which would be appropriate for this dispute). A request for comment through talk pages is a way of asking the wider Wikipedia community for assistance in settling a content dispute. It's not at all clear to me that it would be much help in this case, but it might be worth a try.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I shouldn't come here after reading Jimbo's page where RfAs are under discussion. HiLo48, I have left a note on the editor's page. If s/he doesn't engage I'll happily help out if you need to know how to raise something. I'm not sure that asking for a sanction on such a minor issue would really be successful, hence the suggestion of formalising the content issue. Although as I say I think you are wrong on that. --Snowded ^TALK 14:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really looking for sanctions. I would rather find a way to simply get McAusten to re-engage and follow the rules. I just don't understand his behaviour (pretty confident of the "his"). I'm a teacher, and have this constant belief that education can work better than sanctions. Clear advice to him, such as yours, from independent parties, would be my preferred approach. So thank you for that comment on his page. Maybe more from others would help. HiLo48 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"McAusten, NOT User:McAusten", let's take a look here. We all know you're watching the page here, and I'm going to quote you one of the 5 PILLARS of Wikipedia. Its pretty much the highest rule we have here.

Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,723,187 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

Messing around with text when people say User:McAusten isn't really in line with that PILLAR, is it? So, get the corncob out your butt, and start behaving like a reasonable guy and I'm sure people will do same to you. The alternative is that you get to say 'game over', and that's the end of the joke. The decision is going to be yours. -- Avanu (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(As a note, User:McAusten was indef blocked with talk page access revoked.) - SudoGhost 04:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User:SlimVirgin

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

---

• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Verifiability (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Verifiability|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Verifiability|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From what I can tell after being involved in this page discussion a little over a day now, several editors, most apparent to me, SlimVirgin, have hijacked the page discussion and are intent on moving discussion aside and squashing disagreement.

There are a couple dozen changes which span several related pages, and amount to a pattern of edit warring in order to keep discussion supposedly 'on track'. From what I can tell at this point, such behavior has failed to produce results.

I have come into the discussion as a result of someone mentioning it on Jimbo's page, and after a few discussions with editors, it seems apparent that SlimVirgin is acting both as Admin and Editor in this page.

I attempted to personally discuss things with SlimVirgin, who merely brushed me aside. Discussions on the WP:Verifiability Talk page are similarly pushed aside, mostly by SlimVirgin.

Attempts at WP:BRD have met with mere dismissive comments, however, in reviewing the page history, I see that SlimVirgin has felt free to do as she wished. diff 1 - diff 2 - diff 3.

Attempting to implement the wording that Jimbo suggested also met with a dismissive revert by SlimVirgin.

I'd like an opportunity to have a real discussion and real collaboration, but the impression I am getting from SlimVirgin is that she is unwilling to allow other editors to collaborate as they see fit, but merely imposing her will on the discussion, with the disclaimer that it is intended to improve the discussion. From what I can tell in other editor's comments, this has created resentment and a feeling that there is a bit of police state type atmosphere at this point, rather than a free and collaborative exchange of ideas.

While I can see that some of the editors have been dealing with this issue for some time, I feel that there is a developing attitude of WP:Ownership among some of them, most prominently in my mind SlimVirgin.

I'd like her to back off from acting as both Admin and Editor and choose a role for her actions in this page. Her last comment to me was that I was acting like a troll, and yet when I have tried to personally have a dialog with her, it is met with a dismissive attitude.

This comment simply reinforces my belief that she is overly involved and owner-ish at this point, rather than simply trying to engage editors in collaboration.

I'd like SlimVirgin to stop moving and deleting other people's Talk page comments, and to back off from biting people who are also trying to see that some progress gets made in this *minor* Policy amendment. (FYI, not one person is proposing an actual change in policy, but merely a change in phrasing for clarity). -- Avanu (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:It goes a long way to harm your case that you have ignored this: "Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template Template:WQA-notice --Cerejota (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at SlimVirgin's history. I *did*, in fact, notify her, and she almost immediately removed it with the edit summary of 'no more'. So I *also* notified her via my own Talk page, since she recently posted there calling me a troll. I believe that I've done more than what is asked in order to ensure that she's been notified. -- Avanu (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, failed to catch that. I am involved in those talk pages, so I will refrain from further comment.--Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite all right. -- Avanu (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• OK. I have looked at the diffs you have provided and there is no evidence of incivility by anyone there that I can see. Please provide diffs for the actual uncivil behaviour you are complaining about. The rest of this is a content dispute and WQA is not the correct forum for that discussion. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend closure. This is a long, long, long, long, long-running content dispute. In any case, Avanu did not ask SV for permission to edit the policy pages. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless SlimVirgin is the Owner of those pages, I don't see why I need her specific permission. (and yes, I acknowledge that its a policy page, but none of these editors want to change how policy works, only clarify its phrasing)

SV has felt the need to edit that same page (while summarily reverting others), and between her and Unscintillating, its like a little domain for the two of them. I'm simply looking for progress in this but with what I saw in Slim's recent attitude, it really is not conducive to collaborative editing. Silly semantic arguments and bitey inferences are not helpful. I'm trying to introduce a little blood flow into the debate, which seems to have stalled with 12 polls running and at least two dozen threads just about the first sentence. Rather than getting people moving toward a resolution, this just seems to have been allowed to continue, with people yipping and scratching over something that really is rather inconsequential. I want to be able to expect good faith and receive the same in return. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What you expect is never what is or what you get. What you receive is usually based on what you give. Are you going to make me quote The Beatles? There is nothing for WQA to do here. If you want to reach your goal, if you want to achieve a desired outcome, you will need to change your approach. That means avoiding the trap of editorial behavior and focusing solely on building bridges and forming a consensus. This is not a WQA issue. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User:OpenFuture

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

---

User:OpenFuture has accused me User:R-41 of soapboxing and original research on the Nazism discussion page here: [28] and heres the quote of what I found to be a personal attack: "Stop soapboxing and OR:ing. National Socialism as a concept did not appear out of a vacuum in 1919. Give up." OpenFuture. I view these accusations as false. OpenFuture has also told me to "give up" trying to make my argument, even though other users have similar views on recent material that is proposed to be added to the article. Earlier, OpenFuture used sarcasm in what I view a demeaning manner against me, I politely told OpenFuture to rescind and keep a calm head and cooperate and did rescind then and acknowledged the sarcasm. OpenFuture asked me to prove that "national socialism" as an ideology did not exist as a coherent ideology before the prior to Nazi use, with OpenFuture's contention that it existed for a long time before. I found this indirect to search for a negation, but told OpenFuture to review sources that I earlier had added to the ideological origins section of the Nazism article on Johann Plenge, who created a "national socialism" during World War I that was authoritarian in a manner similar to Nazism. A number of scholars can verify that Plenge's arguments for a "national socialism" were the origins of the ideology now known as Nazism. OpenFuture claimed this did not resolve the question, that I did not find the negations. I responded that since the material that was being debated to be added was material predating Nazism, such as references dating to the 19th century, I could not possibly examine them because they were sources predating Nazism and thus any attribution or disattribution of them to Nazism would be original research. After this, OpenFuture accused me of soapboxing, of refusing to acknowledge the "obvious" - that national socialism as related to Nazism dates back into the 19th century, and that I should "give up". I considered these accusations and demands to be aggressive and false (in the case of accusations), and asked OpenFuture to rescind these because I considered it highly offensive - as I have never been accused of soapboxing before, nor blocked, nor reprimanded for anything on Wikipedia. Considering OpenFuture's previous use of sarcasm and now accusations of wrongdoing, I told OpenFuture that I would report these accusations if he/she did not rescind. OpenFuture refused to rescind. OpenFuture claims that WP:STICK applies to her/his claim for me to "give up", but two other users have also challenged the claims of the new material and one has provided a source to disprove some of the material. I think it should be beared in mind that me and OpenFuture have not held any longstanding disagreements or grudges as may be the case in long-term cases. This summarizes what happened as I view it.--R-41 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs would make it a lot easier to assess the relative reasonableness of the claims and counter claims. Also, have you notified OpenFuture of this thread? Also what exactly makes this a wikiquette issue? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You will need to provide more specific diffs, as this is hard to follow without context.--Cerejota (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I informed OpenFuture of this thread. I was unsure as to where to put this, it seemed to be an issue of etiquette for me. It's been a long time since I reported a personal attack, so I am unfamiliar with what to do. Moreover it was a very sudden incident, though it began with use of sarcasm by OpenFuture. The particular quote I showed and the link I gave for it was what I found to be extremely offensive. Prior to that I was bringing up challenges to OpenFuture's claims, they were logical, I don't understand how they could have caused OpenFuture to lay the accusations. Here is the diff where OpenFuture was adding the offensive material, you also will see that he / she is removing an initial sarcastic remark that he / she made involving accusing me of circular argument saying "How lovely circular" [29].--R-41 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as if you are making a claim contradicting sources provided by others (that National Socialism meant something different before and after WWI), and that you need to provide a good source to back that claim up. While OpenFuture is clearly not acting as the apostle of civilty (although he did voluntarily remove the snarky comment about the circularity of your argumentation), reminding you of the policies is not incivil - whether or not you agree that you need that reminder or not. I do not see evidence that OpenFuture has broken and civilty rules. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The main issue to me is that OpenFuture accused me of soapboxing, my edits meet none of the criteria of soapboxing - I am not trying to sell something or produce propaganda. I did not soapbox and there is no evidence of me soapboxing. That accusation by OpenFuture is false and in my view slanderous.--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

.:::There are no clearcut criteria for what is soapboxing and what isn't - so there is no basis for saying that it is slanderous. I think you would do well by interpreting his comment as saying that he feels that you are soapboxing by providing arguments without sources - which you are. You can convince him that you are not soapboxing by providing adequate sources in support of your view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I did provide referenced sources, they were the ones I added to the Nazism article's Ideological origins section on Johann Plenge, who is considered by scholars to have developed the first Nazi-like "national socialism" ideology during World War I. The Wikipedia page on Wikipedia's policies on soapboaxing appears has five criteria for soapboxing, see here: [30]. What I done does not qualify for any of the five. As I hope Wikipedia goes by innocent until proven guilty, OpenFuture has to present a case to accuse me of soapboxing.--R-41 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you post directly from Plenge's writing, or from others commenting on his writing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

apologies to R-41, even though you and i disagree on Nazism, and i understand your frustration with this editor, i humbly ask you withdraw this complaint. I think you will find Openfuture reasonable and fair, even if he can be a bit dismissive, obtuse, and wrong at times. [31] this specific exchange made me have to call my mother. she patiently listened as i explained how unfair and wrong he was, and could not see he was tripped up in his on words, yet convinced it was me who was confused. Mother lead me in an incantation of a demon to whom we both recited a hex on Openfuture, which will most certainly cure him of this style of commenting. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

dude, this seems to be a good case of WP:CHILL - I empathize with you, no one likes being called names etc, but you will have to find a way to collaborate and ignore comments like "go away". Something I try, not always successfully, it to simply focus on the content, and ignore the editor - so if he says "go away", simply don't reply and continue editing. If the behavior goes from the current borderline comabtivity, to actually being disruptive, take it to WP:ANI, in particular because OpenFuture has not participated here, in spite of being notified - you have made a good faith effort to mediate the situation, and he has made the choice to ignore it. Good luck... --Cerejota (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Soapboxing is when you try to use Wikipedia to promote a particular political standpoint. R-41, and several others are intent on trying to eradicate the influence socialism had on national socialism from Wikipedias articles. There is also a user Darkstar1st, who are a radical anti-socialist is intent on pushing the opposite viewpoint, namely that national socialism simply is a form of socialism. What he is doing is also clearly soapbxing. In short, there is a lot of soapboxing going on on that article. If R-41 doesn't want to be accused of soapboxing he needs to stop pushing a particular political standpoint, and look at things cooly and rationally and go with what the sources say. That would solve it. Both sides in this conflict is extremely prone to original research with to be frank, absurd logic. I don't know how to stop that, although I do my best. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you ignore issue of soapboxing as given in these types of articles, and in fact analyze the sourcing and defend it in its merits - that is, focus on the content not the editors? Around here we do the opposite, because, well that's what this page is for - but in article space? Also consider this: having a middle ground position doesn't make you free of soapboxing either - in your zeal to defend what you feel the sourcing is saying, you might be soapboxing a little yourself. We are not unthinking robots, capable of divorcing ourselves from the beliefs we hold dear - and while I share with you trying to find the truth in the sources (rather than in original research), it is inevitable this will happen - it doesn't mean it is right, and of course egregious examples should be called out, specially if disrupting, but I have found that often the disruption caused by soapboxing is not so much the original comment, but the fact it is not ignored to focus on the content. Hope that is helpful.--Cerejota (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I do. Your response seems to assume that this was one of the first things I said to R-41. It wasn't. I do feel that after somebody makes a claim over and over, and I request sources to back that up, it's OK to tell people to stop making the claim they obviously can't back up, in an effort to put the issue to rest. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there an actual complaint here? I think R-41 should examine the number of times on that article talk page that "OR" has been bandied as a claim (albeit often with the implicit meaning "I know it is not the truth, therefore it must be OR no matter the source.") This is not really the right noticeboard for the implicit issues. Anent this, with "National Socialism" appearing in print in the 19th century , one editor said the OED was "wrong" in giving dates before 1931 for the usage because (essentially) "Webster's says it was first used in 1931"! Well, Literary Digest used it before 1931 as well -- but to that editor, that fact is OR -- and Webster's must be the WP:TRUTH. Well - it takes all kinds to make a Wiki. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is false that I am trying to "eradicate" references to socialism on Nazism. I added a reference to the intro that said that Nazism was a form of right-wing socialism and I added material to that article as well on material related to Nazism. So as you can see there is no evidence for me soapboxing. I am not pushing a particular political standpoint at all, nor denying socialist influences on Nazism. I would be the first to acknowledge that there were revolutionary socialists in the Nazi party such as Ernst Rohm, Gregor Strasser, and Joseph Goebbels, not to mention Hitler's own revolutionary socialist leanings in his anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist beliefs. So the accusation is false. Now the User TFD has informed me that OpenFuture behaved in a similar manner to her/him and posted a similar complaint, there seems to be a pattern and it needs to stop.--R-41 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I never said what you assert to be false, I wonder just what the intent here is. As for editors who seem to routinely accuse others of bad faith - I think that sort of behaviour is, itself, more of a problem than what you are upset at. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am responding to something that OpenFuture added to the discussion board a few sections up, I am not saying that you claimed this.--R-41 (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure bringing complaints here and boycotting further content discussion[32] is the best way to respond to claims of OR. In my experience the best way to refute claims of OR is to cite a published reliable source. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture accused me of soapboxing - which means promoting propaganda and advertising a cause or product - that serious accusation is false. I think that discussion with a user that I am currently in conflict over claims that he/she made, will not help the overall discussion, as it could easily become inflamed with more accusations. I am not boycotting further discussion, other users are welcome to contribute and put their points forward, but my discussions with OpenFuture will be minimal until the issue of these serious accusations is resolved. However with that minimal level, I have provided the sources of the claims I made about Plenge to OpenFuture to review and have directly posted them to his discussion page and the talk page of Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And of course, Plenge is not the issue at all, so the sources he provided did still not support the claims he made, just as they didn't the first time. Can we keep this discussion in *one* place, namely Talk:Nazism instead of there, here and on my talk-page? I don't see how repeating everything three times helps us get forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Looneymonkey

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

---

Looneymonkey is in violation of WP:HOUND. He has been disrupting the edits of Starbucksian on Lee Fang and Ruben Hinojosa. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to document this with links to specific edits and explanations of how they are hounding. TFD (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't be ridiculous. Interacting on a grand total of two articles is not in any way hounding. I patrol WP:BLP violations of political figures. Starbucksian has a real misunderstanding of what is appropriate in a BLP and has already been blocked for edit-warring over this. Are you actually going to defend their recent edits to the Ruben Hinojosa article? Any experienced editor would tell you that adding disparaging material (sourced only to blogs) is a violation of WP:BLP. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 Please give diffs and explanations for each of them. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

He has yet to say what the BLP violations are, follows me around after each edit I make, and reverts them. I then complain and then he hits me a three-edit rule violation. Other users notice. He lost the Lee Fang debate and refuses to engage in WP:Consensus.Starbucksian (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starbucksian#September_2011 Using wiki rules to intimidate other editors. Threatening Starbuckian with a block for edit warring. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats not a diff, that's a template. To warn against edit warring. That we all use. You have to do better than that.--Cerejota (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:J3mm0

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

---

• J3mm0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Modica (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Modica|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Normally I'd just brush this off, but I have a feeling this will only continue. Could somebody tell her that threats and other "niceties" are on the inappropriate side. I don't think I should say something about her conduct as it will only agitate her.

On the bright side, "Some very, very unkind things were said about you at my dinner table this evening. Bgwhite, Shape-up or Ship-out." will go on my awards board. Still won't top an email sent to me and other people on an AfD discussion saying, "I'm Jewish and don't believe in hell. After this atrocity, I now believe and you are all going to hell." Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Jim Sukwutput

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

---

• Jim Sukwutput (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• discussion at ITN

I haven't done this in awhile so excuse any technical errors. Basically, Jim constantly attacks me in almost every discussion at ITN. I made my issues known at his talk page after a long discussion at a potential ITN posting. That went no where. To streamline this, I'll just include some sample diffs here:

• ur politicizing of every nomination that pertains to your area of interest, and your endless accusations of "POV" bias against other users who you know nothing about.
  • He was responding to this: Flawed and POV blurb. Mention of report is too ambiguous.
• Wikifan's relentless POV-pushing in this nomination and in the article.
  • My comment can be found above his diff. Hardly "pov-pushing."
• Your obsession with classifying every user based on "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" POV is exactly the problem here. I know at least one other user here who is very much a supporter of the Israeli state, but you treated him as a "pro-Palestinian" simply because he disagreed with you on some specific (and pretty irrelevant) point, then proceeded to accuse him of anti-Israel bigotry. That is simply unacceptable behavior. You're not blatantly breaking any rule, but you are pushing a not-so-subtly concealed political agenda and insulting a lot of well-meaning contributors in the process.

• • I never classified any user as "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian." Nor did I accuse Jim of being antisemitic, or accuse an editor of being a bigot. I requested he take up his criticisms to the appropriate noticeboards but he never does, so I felt this was the best place to go. ANI is an alternative but I'm not seeking punitive damages, I am just tired of being attacked with buzzwords in every discussion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think this falls under WP:ARBPIA - and the various mediation, enforcement, and centralized discussions around that. I do not see personal attacks, just the usual POV warring of the topic area, but I can see your point: it is possibly disrupting the ITN process via WP:BATTLEGROUND - that's a legit concern, but not something WQA can address. You know you and I don't always see eye to eye, so take my advice as you will, but I am trying to be helpful in the limited way WQA allows: raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Candidates as an RfC (Since there have been repeated incidents all limited to that area, RFC/U is too much - and not just with this user, so a wider issue is a stake WP:BATTLEGROUND), request commentary from WP:ARBPIA uninvolved admins etc. And of course, as always, be careful with the WP:BOOMERANG, some of your answers weren't helpful in terms of lowering the temperature: "The other guy started it" is not a license to ill. Only reason I do not close this is because you and I have history (some of it with very similar characteristics), but as you can see I am active at WQA, so this is why I reply. If you want, I can raise the RfC for you if you do not know how the process works etc. I see the user has not been formally notified of WP:ARBPIA so I am doing it - WP:ARBPIA applies to ITN threads on the topic area as the topic area is "broadly construed".--Cerejota (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Turns out non-admins cannot notify, so so I requested an Admin do so--Cerejota (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would be very helpful if you could open the RFC for me. ARBPIA issues tends to lead to AE, which is something I'm not prepared to do and honestly I'm probably not in a fair enough position that would lead to anything conclusive. My goal is hopefully to deter Jim from recognizing my presence in ITN discussions like I'm some pariah, it is really unbecoming and just plain annoying. Perhaps even defamatory. You can see my responses slowly escalated from cordiality to not-in-the-mood-for-this. I like participating in ANI, but I don't like seeing half the discussion be about me as an editor.

There is a difference between claiming a unique edit does not adhere to NPOV standards, to berating other users with descriptions such as "pov warrior." the worst, the worst is his claims that I have accused other editors of being antisemitic. For example, he says "Do you think it is fair to accuse all of us of anti-Semitism, as you have implied repeatedly?." and "But your POV-pushing in the article is making any such support impossible. I strongly suggest that you move away from the article and let other users clean up the POV mess you left behind."

I contributed multiple paragraphs of cited content at 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks, and not a single edit of mine was reverted or disputed as violating NPOV rules. See this discussion for the quotes listed above. Too tired to cite the whole diffs. I am not looking for a war here, I just want some sort of agreement that future accusations of "POV-pushing" or insinuation of poor behavior be filed at the correct noticeboard and not broadcast in content discussions. It poisons the area of discussion and creates a climate of general intolerance IMO. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I was one of the participants to the discussion where this exchange took place. This is just a common case of sniping and biting, and a mild one at that. A few passionate exchanges are to be expected with the natural candour we desire (and need) in the process of building a consensus. User:Wikifan needs to stop running to the admins just because some mild provocation penetrates his thin skin - petty Wikilawyering like this sideshow is infinitely more disruptive than a handful of comments (by BOTH parties) in an ITN discussion. This etiquette notice is a complete waste of everyone's time. Deterence ^Talk 08:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to run to any admin. So you must have missed part of my report or else you would have not made such a statement. IF Jim's behavior continues without a warning and his bold accusations of "POV-warrior" and other attacks go unchallenged, perhaps an uninvolved admin needs to weigh in. Jim admitted I have broken no rules, yet he calls me names on a regular basis. Editors in this area of conflict get banned for less. Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Harden-up and move on. Deterence ^Talk 09:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with deterence on the general point - you can see this in other unrelated WQA I have opined here - but I see this as an ARBPIA issue, where we should be lowering the temperature, not doing the normal stuff. ITN affects the content of the main page, and Wikifan does make a valid point: being made pariah instead of specific edits being critiqued is not particularly useful, and repeated instances of the same smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND. I know the ARBPIA area well, and I know that this happens a lot and gets dealt with harshly when it really interrupts editing (for example, Jayjg got a huge demotion from having pretty much every user right short of Jimbo to being a regular admin for what amounts to WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not think it is a good idea to allow the mess of BS that ARBPIA is into ITN, and if we allow such behavior it will disrupt the seriousness, collegiality, and spirit of cooperation that should inform ITN as a process that affects the main page. If this were about nearly any other area I would {{trout}} both Wikifan and Jim and then send them to pet some kittehs, but this is ITN we speaking about!--Cerejota (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My first comment here. I didn't wish to get into this discussion as it seems a bit pointless, but I see WP:BATTLEGROUND being brought up here a lot and I wish to clarify one thing. I do not have a stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or any other topic in the Middle East, and I couldn't care less what Wikifan's personal perspective on these issues is. I have never (as far as I can remember) edited any article in such an area. However, I do work extensively on ITN, and I comment on many of the nominations there. That is how I managed to get into this semi-dispute with Wikifan. Let me summarize it the way I see it.

What I've noticed during several recent discussions on ITN is that Wikifan almost always arrives at a discussion having taken a "side" and then attempt to push the nomination to that direction. His link above on the southern Israeli attacks is the first incident that I know of. He started a dispute with not one but three admins over the nomination in several issues, in a discussion which I managed to stay out of (we then had a discussion over a separate issue, about his neutrality disputes in the article). After the nomination was not posted, he apparently was displeased and proceeded to move to another completely unrelated nomination where he made a point about alleged double standards regarding using Indian and Israeli sources (see here "while many other stories have been ignored in spite of support" and here "dubious double standards for specific incidents, and admins with vested interests posting stories they support..."). During this discussion I advised him not to use other nominations to prove a point and also to focus less on the alleged "vested interests" of other users and more on the content at stake. Then came this discussion, which he has summarized pretty well.

That is the extent of my involvement with this user. Notice that I have never taken a position for or against his reasoning; in fact, on more than one occasion I agreed with him. My sole issue with him is his quite unnecessary accusations directed at other users on ITN, which were extremely provocative, time-consuming and damaging to our coherence. If ITN has turned into a battleground for the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I have nothing to do with it. If you look at the details of the discussions, you will see that there are at least four admins and three other users who have had disputes with Wikifan (for example see here). That is why I find it extremely ironic that Wikifan seems to be portraying himself as the victim here. This is not my issue - I was not the first one who have commented on Wikifan's recent behavior on ITN, and I wasn't the last. If Wikifan is truly concerned about the responses that he has received from several admins and other users on ITN and think that it is a systematic problem, he should do a RfC on the issue and not single me out as if I am the only one who has had a problem with his remarks. JimSukwutput 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim, you obviously have a side when you accuse other editors of classifying users of being "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" when they never did such a thing. And I didn't get in a "fight" with three admins, several editors supported my suggestions. The diffs speak for themselves. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a "side" on the conflict, and your unwarranted assumption of this is exactly what I meant by "classifying users as being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli". Believe it or not, there are users on Wikipedia who contribute without a personal political agenda. JimSukwutput 19:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim, WP:BATTLEGROUND issues are not solely your fault, but you must recognize there is an inartfulness in your approach. Even neutrality can be a battleground position. ARBPIA is drama central, and when you make the choice to touch it with anything other than a ten foot pole, some of that will rub into you, no matter the great intentions you have. Feel me?

I have empathy for the pro-wikipedia "bias" you express. I am just saying that ARBPIA is so battle-scarred any position that is not firmly entrenched on either side, will get labeled as being for what ever side the current editor being addressed in a critical fashion is not in agreement with, specially if you call them on POV-warring. That is how ARBPIA rolls. Its its own alternate wikipedia were the rules are different - so it can be very disconcerting for editors like yourself to be touched by Its Presence. Accepting this reality in a Zen-like fashion is why WP:ARBPIA sanctions exist. Also why you should try to not engage editors on their behavior, it only leads to incivility. I sometimes do not heed this advice myself, but it doesn't mean it is not sound advice.--Cerejota (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's good advice. I wasn't aware of the particular sensitivity of that issue, so I will tread more lightly when I make a comment on this issue in the future. But I insist that I have nothing to do with this dispute. Wikifan's constant accusations of bias against Israel of other users on ITN is the root of the problem here; I only commented on it because I find it a constant nuisance. JimSukwutput 20:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any real personal attacks here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusing other editors, specifically (naming them) in discussions as "POV-warriors" and suggesting they are sockpuppets for a government is not a PA? Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry, but I concur there are no personal attacks - while I do recognize why they feel like it to you - if someone came at me like that, I would just {{facepalm}} and call them on their BS. --Cerejota (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm still not convinced of course. But Jim's hostility is clearly noted, I don't see how anyone can look at the diffs and think civility. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh there is uncivility, just not personal attacks - and the incivility is somewhat boomerangy, as I explained above (ie you might have been provoked into it, but hey, you bit the lure!). That is why I said trouting to both houses was in order... In general, incivility is any (potentially) disruptive attention on user behavior not related to editing, but it only becomes an issue for enforcement when it is disrupting the community as whole, or when there is consensus to do so.--Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me just point out that I have not in any way claimed that Wikifan is a "sockpuppet for a government" (or a POV-warrior for that matter). In fact, before this comment I have had no idea that Wikifan is an Israeli citizen. Please retract that accusation. You seem to have confused me with one of the many other users whom you have had a dispute with in the same discussion, which I suppose is forgivable.

Let me also point out that Wikifan did accuse me and several other users of some nasty things, such as being a bigot against Israel ("right now your criticisms border on bigotry, not policy..."), which is a pretty strong accusation, especially against an admin like Tariq (whom I believe is a muslim). But Wikifan has claimed that these are not accusations of anti-Semitism, and I am willing to accept that explanation for now, so I'm not going to take that issue any further. JimSukwutput 19:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Jim has never made any personal attacks that I have seen, and you certainly haven't linked to any. Your last diff looks like a reference by Jim to your labelling of a complaint made by Tariqabjotu ("this complaint is trivial (and probably bigoted)" who was rightly identifying a sourcing problem (which still exists) in that article. Your reactions to criticism of your work are over-sensitive and often involve unwarranted attacks on other editors. It's you that needs an attitude adjustment, not Jim. Nightw 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing problem was dubious because the article was supported by reliable sources (and has been greatly expanded night). That article posting was opposed by Jim and others because they said it had too many Israeli sources, even though they were RS. But then in another posting, those same exact users supported a posting about a story in India, even though 70% of the sources were from India news sites, many non-RSs. So I concluded the issue was not about sources, but Israel as a country (hence, bigoted). So where are my attacks specifically? As shown, Jim made baseless accusations - that I classified editors based on their perceived opinions (never) and accused editors of being antisemitic (never happened, and users have been banned for saying such things). Jim constantly targets me as an editor, nobody else does. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

First you admit that you called another editor a "bigot" and then you deny ever classifying editors based on their perceived opinions. ??? Look up "bigot" in the dictionary. Also, sourcing a story about activism in India to the Indian media is a bit different from sourcing a story about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to the Israeli media. Multiple editors voiced concerns with the sourcing, and according to you all of those editors are "bigots". And you still refuse to apologise or concede anything. Nightw 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I never admitted to calling another editor a bigot, I said, I repeat - that rejecting a source based on their country of origin is bigoted. Is it not? Yes, multiple editors voiced concerns over the sourcing, opposing the blurb because the article had a lot of sources from Israeli papers (though reliable sources). Yet, the same editors had no problem with the story on India, even though the article relied almost entirely on India-related sources, many of which were not even reliable sources. So, IMO the issue wasn't simply about sources. I will of course strike any comments where I accused editors of being bigots and/or antisemitic if you link them. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This post embodies the entire problem at hand. Do you really not understand that your actions were in extreme bad faith and have turned ITN into a battleground? You relentlessly classify other users based on their perceived personal opinions or "bigoted views", yet you refuse to admit that you have done any such thing. Here you say you have never classified editors based on their perceived opinions, yet right above you say "Jim, you obviously have a side..." [in the conflict]. Then you admit to disrupting another nomination to expose alleged double-standards and anti-Israeli bigotry, but you insist that I am targeting you for pointing this out, even though your real issue is with the "others" - including 4 admins and dozens of other commentators on that section, who you frequently confuse with me. You claim that I opposed the article because of sourcing issues - I have done no such thing, although Tariq did (see my actual reason for opposing here). You claim that I have accused you of being a puppet of the Israeli government - I have done no such thing, although User:Mkativerat might have. As I've said above, I am far from the only person who you have had a conflict with on ITN, and if you find that the community is rude or uncivil to you, please address that in an open way rather than sneaking in a WQA against a particular user behind the back. JimSukwutput 19:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I never classified any users based on their personal opinions, ever. You said you had nothing to do with ARBPIA but constantly mention Israel/Palestine in your edits. That is part of the topic area. Where do you get the "4 admins" and dozens of other commentators? No admins or editors joined your accusations against me, issues about sources were totally independent of this. How are my actions in extreme bad faith? I was the one who originally brought up bad faith issues when you attacked my response as "POV-pushing." My very first post in the latest proposal you describe as POV pushing, seriously man. Just read the diffs I posted above. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I said I have no opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; I bring it up because you are constantly accusing others of having a bigotry against Israel (presumably those who support the Palestinian position). And let me just say that I have no idea what WP:ARBPIA is. Can someone explain? JimSukwutput 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I have never accused specific editors of having bigotry against Israel (and not presumably those who support the "Palestinian position" - that is your synthesis). I linked ARBPIA several times in the discussion but here it is again. Basically, the area of conflict you refer to is subject to different rules than other areas of Wikipedia. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a set of discretionary remedies by the Arbitration Committee to limit edit-warring on pages related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. If you're notified of the sanctions, you are subject to its restrictions (1RR and other things) when editing in the case's area of conflict. Since you have not yet been notified, you're not subject to it. Wikifan has been, and he's violated it four times. Nightw 20:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"How are my actions in extreme bad faith?" Labelling multiple editors as "bigots" is both a personal attack and a blatant accusation of bias. Drop the act and redact your accusations. Nightw 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Your missing the timeline. The issue over sources was independent of this conflict. And I never *deliberately* attacked other editors as bigots - but said, explicitly, that rejecting a source based on their country of origin is bigoted. If you can link me to a diff where I said an editor was a bigot and/or antisemitic I will of course strike those comments. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no consensus either way for considering [{WP:ARBPIA]] as applying to ITN/C threads that are about ARBPIA topics - already an admin who usually administers WP:ARBPIA issues denied my request for notification of sanctions on these grounds. So enforcement on Wikifan could be disputed. I raised an RfC on the matter, which you object- I suggest you let the RfC round its course and see were consensus lies. Otherwise, your position is incorrect. --Cerejota (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikifan, I call your attention to this by Jim, posted above: I wasn't aware of the particular sensitivity of that issue, so I will tread more lightly when I make a comment on this issue in the future. But I insist that I have nothing to do with this dispute. Wikifan's constant accusations of bias against Israel of other users on ITN is the root of the problem here; I only commented on it because I find it a constant nuisance. - Disregarding the WP:BOOMERANG issues, unless you have any other evidence to provide, I am inclined to close this WQA as "Jim made aware of existence of ARBPIA, he promises to be more sensitive to these issues - Wikifan reminded of ARBPIA sanctions, and that AE can be sought" or something of the sort. There is no more horsemeat to be obtained here - Jim has made a promise to modify behavior, which is the best you can hope at WQA.--Cerejota (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cerejota I am content with that - though dispute with the premise that I made "constant" accusations of bias against Israel and that is the root of the problem. This specific report is based on a recent proposal where no mention of bias against Israel is made. In any case, I made a proposal at Jim's talk to end this mutually. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Opened RfC at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#RfC:_Should_WP:ITN_area_discussions_on_items_in_the_WP:ARBPIA_topic_area_be_subjected_to_WP:ARBPIA_itself.3F.--Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Split

Jim has agreed to end the dispute. Any objections? Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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