Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Contents

User:74.33.197.125

This is reference to the article Jacob Klock (colonel). This user is engaging in a personal attack on an external website [[1]]. User has placed a link to this website in the discussion page. User may have recruited a "meat puppet". I don't care that much what happens to this article. Based upon my interaction and the fact that the user is willing to escalate the dispute to an external website I don't feel it is safe for me to have any further interaction with this user, since I believe this user is capable and willing to post personally damaging information about me on an external website. BradMajors (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll

Resolved. User has apologized for what was really not an uncivil comment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably should not have participated in the discussion at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, as it in hindsight was not likely to lead to an improvment of the article. However, User:Filll's response seems a bit over the top. Thank you. Ra2007 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See also this response when I provided a link from the Economist. Ra2007 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact that this editor took offense at me wondering if he was joking by complaining about an AfD 18 months ago (and referring to it using an acronym as though everyone should know what he was referring to; I had to search hard to guess what he even meant and I still might not be correct), and then implying some sort of terrible conspiracy and skullduggery behind the high Google rankings of Wikipedia articles says a lot about this editor. Even more is said by the fact that this editor did not even know to place this complaint at the bottom of the complaints, rather than the top. I apologize if I have somehow offended anyone, but I believe that this should not be taken seriously. If I am wrong, please let me know.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Filll's comments. Claiming, without proof or substantiation, that Google is in collision with Wikipedia, conspiring to promote something or another - that's a pretty serious claim. I might have guessed you were joking. "A bit over the top" may characterize his response, but you set such a tone by making an accusation that was way over the top. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a bizarre claim, it sounds almost as if it's Daniel Brandt's conspiracy theory! Guy (Help!) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User: Randy Blackamoor

On November 6, 2007, this editor was blocked for personal attacks as noted on his Talk Page left at my User Talk: LonelyBeacon, which I have since deleted but are still viewable in the edit history. Since then, there have been at least three instances of incivility:[2], [3], and [4]. The second and third cases were personal attacks, with the second case involving the statement you are an abhorrent person who wants to sell water to sick people and you should kill yourself at the first opportunity. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has been following me around to various pages because he mistakenly believes I referred to him with an anti-gay slur. He has no grounding the context of most of the pages I have worked on, and has absolutely no qualification to judge whether anyone's edits, or the tone of their discussion, is commensurate with the issues at hand. If anyone should be disciplined, it is him, for trying to get the Wikipedia administrators to enforce his delusional grudges. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: This is not an administrator board. Point 2: He can edit any page he wants - if you think he's following you, you're being paranoid (and if he were following you, it shouldn't matter - there's nothing wrong with editing the same pages as another user). Point 3: His "mistaken belief" and his "following [you]" is irrelevant. Your comments are way out of line. Control your behavior, or you may be banned for such inappropriate comments. There's no excuse. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your expertise on the homeopathy fraud, on collegiate quizbowl, or on television stations in Houston? You don't know what's appropriate for those articles any more than LonelyBeacon does. Trying to adjudicate who is being reasonable or intemperate in their comments when you have no basis on which to judge which claims regarding an article's subject are "good faith" and which are preposterous or false is the exact problem that LonelyBeacon has. The idea that having a lot of edits on Wikipedia actually makes you knowledgeable about anything besides the best ways to game the system of Wikipedia cliques (e.g., to carry out vendettas against people whom you incorrectly believe insulted you) is the fundamental hubris of this project. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seriously think any of what you just wrote justifies calling someone "an abhorrent person" do you? Or that someone would be incorrect in believing that's an insult? Everyone is allowed to edit all of the articles here. It's hard to get more egalitarian than that. Maybe some chilling out is in order? Rray (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's fully justified, and again you are refusing to familiarize yourself with the background facts and get context. Homeopathy kills people; people who promote it make money by duping others into committing suicide. There is a moral responsibility here, which conveniently dovetails with the supposed goal of having factually correct articles on Wikipedia. It's ridiculous that we have pro-homeopathy people editing the homoepathy article; it's exactly equivalent to trying to stay "neutral" as to the question of whether the Holocaust happened, and having a two-page debate with Holocaust deniers every time you wanted to edit that article. You would be aware of these things if you knew about the actual subjects of the articles in question, and weren't trying to play referee based on knowledge of nothing but Wikipedia procedures, which of course is no knowledge at all. I called that person an abhorrent person because he IS an abhorrent person--but as in many other aspects of Wikipedia, the actual truth is seemingly very low on the list of what is valued here. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What I think you fail to realize is that your arguments can and should be able to stand on their own merits. Making personal attacks like that just reduces your ability to make the changes that you want to see, because it will result in your being blocked from editing. If you can't edit, how can you help make the article more truthful? My suggestion is to try to be pragmatic and actually do something constructive instead of getting yourself blocked. Rray (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I want you to explain why I should HAVE to "argue" with people who believe in homeopathy just to edit true, cited things into the homeopathy article, any more than I should have to argue with Holocaust deniers to edit true, cited things into the Holocaust article. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't "have" to do anything. Everyone who contributes here is a volunteer, so nothing you do here is compulsory. But if you make personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing. That's just reality here. Good luck to you, however you decide to handle the situation. Rray (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Davesf

Recently, I've been trying to clean up the article on Randell Mills, a pseudoscientist who claims to have violated much of modern physics. He is notable in that he has raised fifty million dollars, which he is spending freely. I have greatly revised the article to adhere to WP:NPOV and the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience. Davesf has taken issue with several of my changes, claiming 'this is the most incredible POV hacket job'. I do not have a problem with his holding this opinion, although I disagree with it. However, he has said many other things which I begin to consider personal attacks. Could you please review his postings to Talk:Randell Mills and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#Randell Mills and advise me if his edits are past the bounds of acceptability? Michaelbusch (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm sure the discussion is frustrating to you, it seems fairly civil. What language did you understand as a personal attack? Egfrank (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I just looked for all the uses of the word "POV" on the page.
  • The phrase "this is the most incredible POV hatchet job" occurs in an either/or statement by User:Davesf: "either Michaelbusch is NPOV or this is....". The intent appears to be rhetorical, however with the implication that the later is true. I can see how that would be perceived as rude.
  • However, User:Michaelbusch has several times labeled others as POV pushers. I can also see how that would be perceived as rude.
Perhaps the solution here is to focus on discussing the reliability of sources rather than the reliability of each other? Claims and counter-claims of POV pushing are rarely productive. Egfrank (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you need help determining what sources are reliable, you might want to try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Egfrank (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Davesf has included such statements as claiming that I have an 'agenda of removing anything that is insufficiently derogatory towards Mills'. This is not justified, and I am afraid that I dislike it when people make false claims that I have a vendetta. Regarding POV-pushing: I'm afraid anyone who would support blatantly false statements has to be pushing some form of POV. If Mills' claims were not complete nonsense, which they are, then Davesf's edits might be justified. As it is, he has accused me of a vendetta when I have only been trying to make Wikipedia in accordance with reality. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, but civility isn't about truth, but how we say what we believe (or know) is true. Only a fool says what he or she does not believe. You all believe what you are saying is true and my guess is you all probably dislike having that delegitimized by claims of POV pushing.
In general, claims of POV pushing whether justified or unjustified simply cloud the air and create bad feelings. More importantly, Wikipedia content disputes (which this is) are not resolved by who shouts "POV pusher" more emphatically - so you have nothing to fear from the other editors' claims and you only make yourself less convincing by your own. Which is not a good thing since you are trying to improve the article and you will need all the help you can get.
For POV pushing claim to be convincing to a third party, you would need evidence - e.g. that someone is either refusing to use sources (see WP:V, WP:NOR), persistently using poor quality sources to justify a point of view (see WP:SOURCES, WP:RS), granting undue weight to marginal sources (see WP:UNDUE) or misreading/misrepresenting sources (see WP:SYNTH). Which gets us back to focusing on the sources and not the other editors.
This is IMHO a classic content dispute. If you cannot resolve among yourselves how to source this article (or you think the other party is making patently ridiculous sourcing choices that would have your CalTech professors' hair stand on end), you have several options:
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - for a third opinion on source quality - sometimes when we've been in a long dispute one side closes their ears to the other and a third voice can open them up.
  • Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - lists various options for dispute resolution including third opinions, RfC's (Request for Comment), informal mediation, formal mediation, and Arbcom - generally best to try these in order. Dispute resolution isn't just for grey areas. It can also be used for a reality check when one editor thinks the other has a rather strange understanding of Wikipedia policy.
Best of luck, Egfrank (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:124.186.231.205, User:124.185.68.29, User:121.222.134.233, User:58.169.183.64

Resolved. Not an etiquette issue so much as vandalism, but the AIV blocked the offending IPs and this seems to be resolved. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All related. Started on December 9 after I reverted vandalism to The Courier-Mail, then the next day to Children's Court of Queensland, both related to a current event (being this). My user page was edited/vandalised on both days, and again today with this (showing multiple edits reversed). All warned, and now still being edited/vandalised as I write this.  SEO75 [talk] 11:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. User:58.169.183.64, User:124.185.68.29 and User:124.186.231.205 blocked for 31 hours (thank you User:Kralizec!).  SEO75 [talk] 11:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IrishLass0128

Resolved. user:IrishLass0128 has apologised.

(moved from AN/I) —Random832 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • [5] my original post (that started all this)
  • [6] removal. Accuses me of an "inflammatory posting", does not understand what user talk pages are for.
  • [7] response on my talk page
  • exchange on her talk page - archived with edit summaries of "taking out the trash"[8] and "dumping the garbage"[9].
  • User_talk:CelticGreen#One edit removed - exchange on another user's talk page. Had also removed a previous comment from someone else that I wasn't aware of at the time I commented with the edit summary "Undid vandalism" [10]. Accuses me of "acting as a superior person" just for trying to help someone correct a common math mistake.
  • see also User_talk:Taemyr#Your_recent_edits.

I think these diffs speak for themselves. —Random832 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I cleaned up my talk page and archived materials. Warn me if you want. That's fine. I just met rudeness with the same. IrishLass (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Archiving stuff from your talk page is not a problem. Calling it "trash" and "garbage" is. —Random832 16:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any need for admin action on this. Altho, I don't see that the original post was rude. And, we should not meet rudeness with the same, even if the rudeness does actually exist. Friday (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Very true. I should have just removed the comment that I knew would piss off CelticGreen (she's already railed against more than one person over the issue) as she has requested of me and I of her and left it at that. My apologies for addressing the person, but not for doing what has been asked of me. IrishLass (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when you removed the original comment, you labeled it as vandalism in your edit summary. [11] It was in no way vandalism. Please watch your edit summaries. They seem misleading and uncivil. Jeffpw (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That was yesterday. Many miles of river have passed under that bridge. IrishLass (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As I've acknowledged this "issue" can we mark this as resolved and I'll consider myself warned. IrishLass (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of each side (and I think that severe incivility is putting it rather strongly - If I were asked to put a label on it, then "testy", "grumpy" or "grouchy" would be as far as I would go!), it ought to have been clear from the start that no admin actions were required here. As such, WP:WQA would have been a better place to take this. Mayalld (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is this is for conflict resolution. The only conflict now is in the mind of the originator. I've moved on. I've said as much and done as much (with the exception of making this statement). I'll let others deal with him over his comments. Regardless of his impressions, I was trying to keep the peace.IrishLass (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

Having had the benefit of viewing this already when it was posted at AN/I, it seems to me that;

  1. User:Random832 wasn't acting in any way improperly by posting the original comment to User talk:IrishLass0128
  2. User:IrishLass0128 over-reacted, and was irritable, and borderline uncivil in subsequent talk page comments
  3. An edit summary referring to trash or rubbish is capable of being seen as uncivil, although it is far from clear that it was intended in that way. According to the writers idiom it could simply mean "stuff that I don't need any longer"
  4. User:Random832 over-reacted in taking a storm in a teacup to WP:ANI
  5. User:IrishLass0128 has appologised
  6. Both users are editors in good standing

Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Suggested resolution;

  1. User:IrishLass0128 should accept that other editors are allowed to send messages to her talk page, and that such messages can take issue with things she has said elsewhere.
  2. User:IrishLass0128 should accept that the use of terms such as trash, rubbish or junk in edit summaries may be taken as uncivil by other editors, even if not intended that way, and should avoid these terms.
  3. User:Random832 should accept that whilst Wikipedia has a policy that requires us to be civil, making a big deal out of a minor breach of WP:CIVIL can potentially be more damaging than the original incivility. De minimis applies!
  4. User:Random832 should attempt to be concilliatory when another editor takes offence unexpectedly
  5. Both users should draw a line under this and carry on with their contributions

Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to walk away and go on about my business. I know this is of no solace, but I didn't "delete" any comments from Random, I moved them to my archive page. This shows I read them and filed them away, but I did not delete them. One edit got lost for a time, but it is now in my archives. When I archive, I acknowledge that a discussion should go no further as the only place it can go is down. Deleting it all together, to me, is wrong but there are times you know that continuing to speak will only cause the problems to get worse. It's like my talk page is stuff I'm using and archive is stuff I'm done with. I could just have easily said "moving it to storage" and probably upset Random just as much. Either way, I would have upset him by the simple fact that I "deleted" it. So, moving on. I'll go clean up woefully needed pages and move on. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The analysis doesn't seem to take into account behavior at User_talk:CelticGreen (I never accused the user of "deleting" anything from her own talk page, since that was archived), including, in addition to the actual removal, the accusation of making an "inflammatory" post, and the apparent belief that users (namely CelticGreen) have a right not to be approached on their talk page about things they don't want to hear about, even when they are legitimate concerns. Also, the accusation that I'm "presenting myself as a superior person" simply for insisting that 3500 is 50% of 7000 rather than being .5%—Random832 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't see where the user has apologized either, other than "I'll consider myself warned" (and she seems to think the issue is about archiving material from her own talk page, which was about the _least_ of the issues I brought up, and only then due to the edit summaries) —Random832 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In the discussion on this page, she says My apologies for addressing the person, but not for doing what has been asked of me.
  • It seems to me that the heart of this is that IrishLass has used wording in edit summaries that are potentially uncivil.
  • Neither the act of archiving your comments from her own talk page, nor removing comments from User talk:CelticGreen if the two have agreed this between themselves are a problem
  • Whilst the wording in the edit summaries is potentially uncivil, it could also be read in a more charitable light.
  • At the end of the day, this is really not an issue that ought to have come this far. Disengagement was the answer.
Mayalld (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. You are all taking Wikipedia far too seriously. So if a user has a few incivil edit summaries, that's not need to drag this discussion out with step-by-step analysis and resolution headers. What's done is done; Irish has apologized, let's move on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want to address the whole removing comments from my page. I have asked her to do that if she sees something she knows I'll flame at and since there was already an issue over the percentage thing, she was right to remove it. She emailed me first, so I knew, but she did it so I wouldn't get my foot caught in my mouth telling people where to go. Sorry such a simple favor that I asked to be done caused such an issue, but it might have gotten bigger and more noses out of joint if the comments had been left. CelticGreen (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus

Stuck. Taric came to ask whether Eusebeus's comments were civil. He has been answered, but there is no consensus about whether Eusebeus's comments were civil or not. Editors have expressed their belief that this matter seems to have degraded into a word-by-word peer-review, well outside reading of WP:CIVIL, sensible or otherwise. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) & Taric25 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus, made the following comment on my talk page.

“Ok Taric, let's review your transgressions here:
  1. You have filed what is among the most fatuous sockpuppet notices ever recorded. It is incumbent upon you to have solid evidence for a sockpuppet case. I am going to assume in good faith that you are too new to know what that means and that in making such an accusation against a seasoned regular with 25,000 + edits you are simply a victim of your own ignorance. Your sockpuppet case has been deleted by a rouge admin. You should thank him profusely for helping clean up your mess and post a notice of apology on TTN's talk page. And you should do that now.
  2. There is no requirement for a user page to keep up this, that or any tag that the user does not want. Got that? You're ignorant sockpuppet filing is now compounded by a juvenile reversion of a tag that no longer applies. I am going to assume woeful ignorance in this as well, instead of the more serious case of deliberate vandalism. But that will now cease as well. Got it?
  3. 3RR. You are in danger of being blocked. That would be salutary in my view, but at any event, consider this a warning. in fact, I am probably going to report you to 3RR, since it is an electric fence rule and you are clearly over the line.
So let me summarise: your sockpuppet allegation is completely without merit and comes across as whining adolescent exercise because you didn't get your way in a content dispute, as does your childish 3RR on a user's talk page. Read our rules and abide by them. You will now stop this and find something more productive to do. Got it? Eusebeus (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)” (diff)

Is this comment uncivil? I'm not sure how to proceed. Please see User talk:TTN, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, and please advise. Taric25 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs (copy the URL of (last) in the revision history)? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, you may want to look at the history for User:TTN's userpage.
21:11, 4 December 2007, I add {{sockpuppeteer}}, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Tagging. My edit summary is "{{sockpuppeteer}}".
02:55, 5 December 2007 User:Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "Undid revision 175783905 by Taric25 (talk)".
07:38, 5 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 175846854 by Eusebeus (talk) Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, the notice may only be removed after at least 10 days".
05:05, 6 December 2007 Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "Not when it's a completely bogus claim. See WP:TEMPLAR and be warned that sockpuppetry is a serious accusation. Have better evidence next time for your suspicions". Notice WP:TEMPLAR an essay, neither policy nor guideline.
15:32, 6 December 2007 User:Maniwar reverts. The edit summary is "Reverted 1 edit by Eusebeus; Wait until issue is resolved, per Taric25's last comment. using TW"
17:00, 6 December 2007 User:Seraphim Whipp reverts. The edit summary is "Undid. "The templates serve as a convenient shorthand only and are not part of this policy" from Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Tagging. Sorry if I've misunderstood this."
17:00, 6 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 176179456 by Seraphim Whipp (talk) I am very serious by the evidence I have presented."
17:16, 7 December 2007 Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "sockpuppet case was dismissed. This is vandalism. STOP FORTHWITH!"
17:45, 7 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 176396657 by Eusebeus (talk) The case was not dismissed, and the case's deletion is up for review."
Current revision (as of 17:50, 7 December 2007) Seraphim Whipp reverts. The edit summary is "Per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Treatment_of_the_editor Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the an editor in goodstanding"
Are editors, like TTN, in good standing if they have three RfAs? Please advise. Taric25 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
At first glance, he appears to be making appropriate points. He may be a bit frank, but at least from what I see, it's not terribly uncivil. I mean, it's potential as uncivil (or less) as filing a sockpuppet complaint (depending on context). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is some missing history here. User Eusebeus seems to be a bit hypocritical when he has come (if not already broken) close to breaking the 3RR himself. There is an issue here and here with another user, TTN. Eusebeus has been the chief defender for this user, and that is why he gave the strong warnings on Taric25's user page. Some things to clarify:
  1. the 25,000+ edits that Eusebeus points out for TTN is under scrutiny by RfA here[12] and here[13], here[14] and lastly here[15] as being disruptive.
  2. the sock puppet issue is being reviewed here, so it is uncertain whether Taric25's actions are wrong or right at this point.
  3. The so called "rouge admin" that Eusebeus says deleted the article was in fact notified of the issue by Eusebeus here[16] and again here[17]. Please note the uncivil language that he chooses to use " ...he is apparently not blessed by abundant self-awareness " in asking for JzG's help.
  4. Eusebeus committed a similar offense here[18] and was mildly reprimanded on his own talk page by Punkguy182.
I do not support blocking either party or the sock puppet accusation by Taric25, but I do want to bring the missing evidence to the table so the full picture can be seen by all. This is just a side bar issue of the bigger issues surrounding user TTN. [added later] and really is not about either of these two, so I would say forget this and let the issues with TTN play out. Things just got a bit over heated, in my opinion. --Maniwar (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I also think neither myself nor Eusebeus should be blocked. I am curious if Eusebeus' comment is considered uncivil and what do to about it. I agree that this whole situation happened because TTN and I were not able to come to a consensus on List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, however, I do not believe he should asked for cleanup at WP:VG/C only to use a sockpuppet list the article at AfD, thereby disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That is why I listed it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and that is where this situation between Eusebeus and I arose. Taric25 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course I am not going to be blocked. You are labouring under yet another ignorant misapprehension if you think this forum has such authority. And I would hope interested editors remind Taric that not only are my comments in no way a breach of civility, but further that filing a misinformed sockpuppet accusation is tantamount to a personal attack and is grounds for sanction and censure. My remarks are fully justified. Eusebeus (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
What about the alternative of BOTH of you being uncivil? Someone (uncivilly and falsely) accuses you of sockpuppetry, and you become uncivil right back. Rather than edit war over a bogus suspected scok puppet tag, maybe you should have filed a report at AN/I? Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but anyway.Ngchen (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Please be sure to review the evidence. I did not accuse Eusebeus of sockpuppetry. I accused TTN of sockpuppetry, and I do not believe I did so falsely, since I presented what I believe to be a good amount of evidence. Also, this is suspected sock puppetry, because I believe the evidence warrants suspicion. I would like the community, not me all by myself, to examine the evidence and make a decision. Never during my course of action did I believe I was being uncivil, because I believe I read the related policies and procedures and always followed them my best as I could interpret them. For example, Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry indicates the use of sockpuppetry templates. I placed the template on TTN's userpage, because I had seen users do that before, and I honestly believed that's what I should do to. When Eusebeus reverted my edit without a descriptive edit summary, I reverted with the relevant policy in the edit summary. It was at this point it became an edit war involving four editors, because we interpreted the policy differently (except for Eusebeus, who did not cite policy). I did not file a claim with WP:ANI, because the pages indicated that I should use WP:DRV and this page before I consider ANI. Taric25 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Please understand it is never my intention to make a personal attack. I believed that I had a good reason to be suspicious based on the evidence I gathered, so I brought my suspicion to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets to allow the community to examine them. It was never my intention to circumvent AfD or anything like that. In fact, User:Guyinblack25 was the most vocal at the article's entry on AfD, not me. Furthermore, Guyinblack25 is extremely diligent in his efforts from WP:VG/C to help, and users praised that the article is looking better already, just during the course of the AfD. Also, if you believe that your comments are justified, then please be sure to cite policies and guidelines and use detailed edit summaries. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The only question for me is how much longer we put up with Taric25's querulousness before he gets blocked for it. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It is never my intention to be quarrelsome. I did not understand why you deleted the case I presented without archiving it, and that is why I posted it for deletion review. It is never my intention to disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point. I honestly believe that Henke37 is a sockpuppet of TTN, and that is why I presented the evidence. All I'm asking is time, at least 10 days per WP:SOCK, for the community to examine the case and let a decision be made. Whatever decision the community makes, I would like WP:SSP to follow process and archive the discussion, just like it does with all the others, not delete it. If you believe otherwise, then please see the SSP's entry on WP:DRV and argue why you believe you were right to delete it without CSD, PROD, and AfD. I will be more than willing to respond to your comments. If you believe that TTN should not have {{sockpuppeteer}} on his userpage, then please discuss it on his talk page, and I will be more than willing to reply to your comments. Taric25 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A block would be a most appropriate form of sanction for the nasty personal attacks and "who me?" gaming of the system this user is systematically attempting. He has wasted too much time with these childish antics and jejune fractiousness. Should this be solicited at AN/I? Eusebeus (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
To anyone who read what Eusebeus just wrote above, is that uncivil? Please advise. Taric25 (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. It seems as though Eusebeus was trying to make constructive commentary on your editing, something that is perfectly appropriate (if not absolutely necessary). He seems to have been acting in good faith, and correctly, in opposing your repeated addition of the sockpuppet tag (even after the deletion of the case). You should really read WP:CIVIL and try to get a better understanding of what incivility actually is - asking us every time Eusebeus says something whether it's civil is pretty strange. This board is a place to discuss the conduct of others, as are user talk pages. His comments are not personal attacks or inappropriate, and you've got to consider his criticism as something more than some sort of hostility that you must reject and even bring here to hash out. He's trying to explain how your actions are inappropriate, and has assumed good faith even if his tone is a bit less than sugar-coated. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but I was refering to his tone. I don't understand how words like “nasty”, “childish antics”, and “jejune fractiousness” are civil, or how accusing me of “personal attacks” and “gaming of the system” is assuming good faith. Also, I had already read Wikipedia:Civility, thank you. You should read Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, since the overwhelming consensus is to overturn the case's deletion, so this asserts my intepretation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppets to include the tag after JzG deleted the case. I am asking if Eusebeus' comments are civil or uncivil because I am trying to understand what the community thinks. Taric25 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You are asking and I am telling. Saying you are gaming the system is not a personal attack. Calling you "a big fat ugly moron who should leave Wikipedia" is. There is a difference. Commenting on your behavior ("antics" or "gaming") is appropriate and allowed on the WQA and elsewhere. It is relevant and he doesn't have to candy-coat what he has to say to keep it from being a personal attack. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a personal attack. I am basically asking if this is propper Wikiquette. Is Eusebeus assuming bad faith? Also, you did not answer the first part of my question. I stil do not understand how words like “nasty” and “jejune fractiousness” are civil. Aren't we supposed to use words like “please” and “thank you” instead? You claim that users do not have to “candy-coat” what they have to say, but I do not understand why it's okay to be impolite. Taric25 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I know what you're asking and I'm explaining to you the answer. You were being nasty and you arebeing fractious. Saying "your actions are immature and you are disruptive" is not uncivil. Saying "you're a big baby and you should kiss my ass" is. There's a difference. He's trying to make a relevant point about your editing - it's not incivility. You came here to ask the question - if you don't want any answer other than "yes, he's being uncivil" then you should really let it go. Sure, many Wikipedians are over-polite but etiquette is not the same as saying "please" and "thank you." --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if Eusebeus believes I am being nasty and fractious, it is never a good idea for anyone, even you, to say that to another user. I believe civil response would be, “Hello, I noticed your recent edits to User:TTN's userpage. I do not you support adding the sockpuppet tag because [insert specific part of policy or guideline, not an essay, asserting why you believe that and why here], and I have removed the tag. I understand that you may consider adding it back, but before you do, would you please discuss it on his talkpage? If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.”, not calling me "fatuous", "too new to know what… [solid evidence] means", "a victim of your own ignorance", that "You should thank" "a rouge admin" "profusely for helping clean up your mess", "You're ignorant", "juvenile", "woeful ignorance", "You are in danger of being blocked. That would be salutary in my view", "completely without merit", "as whining adolescent", and "childish". None of that helps Wikipedia. Period. I am absolutely shocked that you think it's perfectly ok to call someone "nasty", no matter what the reason. It's rude; it's impolite, and it's uncivil. If a user does not agree with another user's edits, then the users should discuss calmly and politely citing specific portions of policies and guidlines and why they believe that, not call each other nasty for any reason whatsoever. Also, per Wikipedia:Etiquette, the users should use detailed edit summaries and discuss their edits on the talk page if someone disagrees, something Eusebeus failed to do time and time again. Since you have stated that it was ok for Eusebeus to call me nasty, I do not believe you are qualified to answer this query and am requesting comment. Taric25 (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
At the polite request of User:Egfrank on my talk page, I have withdrawn the RfC. Taric25 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest we close this, Taric25's querulousness is unhelpful here. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not attempting to be quarrelsome. I'm trying to understand what the community defines as civil and uncivil. Taric25 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Focus on civility

As user:Taric25 has pointed out - the validity of the warning is beside the point. The only issue is how it was delivered. Given that this is a civility board, I think we need to hear that. The civility goal here is to find a wording that both User:Taric25 and User:Eusebeus can find acceptable.


I'd like to see the two of you negotiate a wording that is mutually acceptable but still communicates what User:Eusebeus feels needs to be said. I'm going to start the process by repeating User:Eusebeus's statement with some parts crossed out. Now, for User:Taric25: two questions:

  • Would you have found the following acceptably civil? As you think about the answer, please keep in mind that no warning is ever going to feel great, so we're looking here for an acceptable wording that preserves the content of the warning rather than something that feels good.
  • User:Eusebeus is clearly pretty frustrated. By removing these phrases I've also removed much of what communicated this frustration. Can you suggest an alternate way for this user to have worded his/her frustration so that you would have heard it clearly?


“Ok Taric, let's review your transgressions here:
  1. You have filed what is among the most fatuous sockpuppet notices ever recorded. It is incumbent upon you to have solid evidence for a sockpuppet case. I am going to assume in good faith that you are too new to know what that means and that in making such an accusation against a seasoned regular with 25,000 + edits you are simply a victim of your own ignorance. Your sockpuppet case has been deleted by a rouge admin. You should thank him profusely for helping clean up your mess and post a notice of apology on TTN's talk page. And you should do that now.
  2. There is no requirement for a user page to keep up this, that or any tag that the user does not want. Got that? You're ignorant sockpuppet filing is now compounded by a juvenile reversion of a tag that no longer applies. I am going to assume woeful ignorance in this as well, instead of the more serious case of deliberate vandalism. But that will now cease as well. Got it?
  3. 3RR. You are in danger of being blocked. That would be salutary in my view, but at any event, consider this a warning. in fact, I am probably going to report you to 3RR, since it is an electric fence rule and you are clearly over the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 December 2007
I would have found the following acceptably civil, or at least close to it. I would have changed “Got it?” to “If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.” “I am probably going to report you to 3RR, since it is an electric fence rule and you are clearly over the line.” to “Please understand that someone, including myself, may report you to 3RR, since it is an electric fence rule and that Wikipedian may believe you are over the line. Thank you.” It still doesn’t feel great, but I believe that is an acceptable wording that preserves the content of the warning. Taric25 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Now your turn User:Eusebeus - would User:Taric25's suggestions allow you to have communicated the warning and its importance? If not, what would you add? Please keep in mind that we are trying to come up with a mutually agreeable wording. Egfrank (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is absurd. Nit-picking every single word when civility is not about word choice. Striking things like the words "in fact"? Are you serious? When someone comments on some clearly bizarre behavior, it should be honest and frank. And you strike "ignorant" in one place but leave it in another. This is not what civility is supposed to become - ruthless deconstruction of every single thing anyone ever says. It creates the opportunity for any minor conflict to explode into a flurry of "well you said this and you said that and this particular word I consider uncivil." Eusebeus had something to say about Taric's sockpuppet accusations. This was not a personal attack, it was not commentary on something outside of Taric's own actions, and if someone is juvenile, we're allowed to say so. The sockpuppet complaint was grossly misinformed. Am I being uncivil by saying so? Absolutely not. "Cleaning up [someone's] mess" is a common way to refer to administrative duties ("wield the mop" much?). This complaint has spiraled into silly nit-picking when civility and NPA are not invitations to comb everyone's comments to find things that you could spin to be rude, mean, or whatever, when people are in fact making well-needed commentary on some rather odd behavior. This complaint started with "I am curious if Eusebeus' comment is considered uncivil and what do to about it." Answer: Not really, even if it was a little frank. Take his advice as little or as much as you'd like. Your actions seem quite questionable, and he has questioned them. The fact that he didn't do so in flowery prose is not evidence of personal attacks, incivility, or anything of the sort. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The material I crossed out simply separated "tone" material from content material as much as was feasible without rewording the message. This lets Taric25 comment on civility issues while still recognizing the content of the message. And it lets Eusebeus explore alternate ways of being forceful. Egfrank (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the point is that "tone" and word-choice are not to be nit-picked. That's not what civility requires. Picking through a person's word choice in the hopes of taking offense does not seem like a great way to be productive, and is going to create problems, not solve them. This user came here asking if this was even an example of incivility or not. Picking apart every single word Eusebeus said is not productive - it's a red herring. Eusebeus made relevant commetns about the Taric's behavior. His tone is his to make. If his tone was not flowers and puppies and fields of sunshine, so be it. "Please" and "thank you" are not required to be civil, nor is any other sort of "tone" - so long as the comments are relevant, and are not attacks on Taric but rather (necessary) commentary on his actions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll add that there is no need to "come up with a mutually agreeable wording." This isn't articlespace, it's talk space. Eusebeus's comments do not need to be worded in a way that is "mutually agreeable." --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you believe that the words "please" and "thank you" are not required to be civil, then you really are not qualified to judge civility. It is always a good idea to use words such as "please" and "thank you" when one Wikipedian disagrees with another. Being polite strengthens your message by focusing on the problem rather than the rage it caused, which causes further rage that hurts Wikipedia. It is never, ever, ever ok to call someone "nasty" or resort to any other name calling, such as refering to someone's size, race/nationality/citizenship, sex/gender, sexuality, or age. For example, it is never ok to call someone "childish", "jejune", "juvenile", or "immature", because those terms are demeaning towards youths, just like "bitch" is demeaning towards women, which is still uncivil even if the user is elderly or male. Those words hurt people's feelings. This invariably causes a user's depressed attitude towards the project as a whole and hurts Wikipedia. It is much better to just carefully select words in the first place to explain the situation in a way that both parties can mutually agree is calm and polite. Sure, it may not feel great, because no one likes a warning, but it will get the message across a lot more clearly, since it focuses on the issue rather than inciting rage and causing even more problems. Taric25 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. Find something else to nit-pick at, please. Per WP:CIVIL, there is no guideline or policy, or even sentence, that states the words "please" and "thank you" must be used to be civil. I've disagreed with many Wikipedians, but I don't go around saying pretty please or gracious thank you. As for the tit-for-tat nonsense that is going on, you have dragged this on long enough that it is now a moot point; how much longer are you going to continue to debate this? If it really bothered you and violated WP:CIVIL, this would be at WP:ANI, not at WP:WQA. If he made a mistake, let it slide and go find something else to edit. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm shocked to find you've misquoted WP:CIVIL. Per Wikipedia:Civility#Reducing the impact,
“Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.”
Please be sure to refer to the policy, because it has wide acceptance among editors who consider it a standard that all users should follow. Also, I read WP:ANI before I came here. Do you know what it says in nearly all bold letters in a big lavender box at the top of the page?
“To report impolite or difficult communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts.” Taric25 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Taric, that section of WP:CIVIL is a set of guidelines/suggestions about how you are supposed to respond to incivility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and Eusebeus believed I was acting uncivily, not to mention that he believes I made totally baseless accusations, so I believe that applies. Taric25 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that I have not had a chance to review the evidence file (now deleted) on the alleged sockpuppetry of TTN, I would like to make the following observations which hopefully will be my last.
First, allegations of sockpuppetry are serious. Since I haven't looked at the evidence file, I have no idea how credible the claims against TTN were, and whether or not the claims were made in good faith. If there was a reasonable basis for making the claim, then IMO assumming good faith applies, and the vitriol spewed at Taric25 was totally inappropriate. OTOH, if the sockpuppetry allegation had no real basis, then Taric25 is in the wrong. For something along these lines though, IMO he should've been reported to AN/I for making bogus charges rather than be flamed the way he was.
Second, related to this are notions of edit warring and the prohibition against it. There is a page describing what the suspect in a suspected sockpuppetry case can do. Everyone should abide by those rules. Again, if the allegations had no basis, then the user initiating them ought to face severe sanctions.
Finally, complaints against one or more admins perhaps can begin here. IMO the admins handled this case poorly in two ways. (1) They flamed away, without explaining their rationale as to why the sockpuppetry claims were unmerited, and (2) they never addressed the civility issue. Admins are held to a higher standard as ArbCom has repeatedly noted, and IIRC if tehre is an issue with the misuse of admin powers, it should go to the User conduct RfC or ArbCom.Ngchen (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and that is why I would like the community to examine the evidence I have presented. I have also apologized to both Eusebeus at User talk:Eusebeus#Apology‎ and TTN at User talk:TTN#Apology for my edit warring on TTN's userpage. I did not apologize for reporting TTN at SSP, because I really do believe he is guilty of sockpuppeteering. Taric25 (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Your evidence for the latter is thin at best. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Xoloz overturned your your deletion writing, “Deletion overturned. if the claim is indeed deliberately malicious, archiving it helps build evidence against the filer; if it merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevent future such errors. It is not yet clear whether the claim is meritless, in any case. Beyond blanket assertions, no one has presented any evidence on that basis here to justify the deletion.” User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has examined the evidence and determined TTN is not guilty of sockpuppeteering, and I will not to contest the decision. Taric25 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Macktheknifeau

Resolved. Both users have been advised of ways they could have handled this better and agreed to disengage from each other. --jonny-mt 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau maintains what he calls a "people who fail and noobs" list here in his archive, and I am a party of it.

The dispute happened when I nominated Cold War Crisis for AfD(Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_Crisis). This user, who was keenly in the interest of defending the article, repeatedly ridiculed an example i made that I felt was needed to show the unreliability of blogs/reviews. I then said that his sources weren't adequate, and he replied with sources, but phrased it in a very condescending tone, while not being logically connected in any way. I looked at the talk page, which he put up a tag claiming he "saved" the article from AfD when it was still up for discussion. I dissected his paragraph, told him he was being pretentious about that claim, and told him that his editing was inadequate because he failed to post his sources onto the actual article. However, because he did provide sources, I added them to the article and retracted the AfD, thinking that the issue now is not a question of deletion, but how to improve the article.

Macktheknifeau seemed to think that since I retracted the AfD of an article he "saved", he has somehow "won" and "I lost", while making myself an "arse"(User talk:AKFrost). He also told me i was being incivil when I told him his editing was inadequate and that he was being pretentious.

I accused him of inadequate editing because he thinks that just by providing a source to an AfD, somehow the AfD has already been defeated.

He under no way added his sources to the article, which is why I told him he was being pretentious about his claim about "saving the article" (which still had no citations or external sources at the time. There were two magazines named, but no page numbers or scans were linked (he provided the scans, but he didn't bother to put them up)). All this I told him in my accusation.

He further asked me, in a very sarcastic manner, to tell him how to measure up his edits to my editing of "crappy japanese children's cartoon," referring to my Bleach edits (User talk:AKFrost).

I replied to him in his talk page, which he promptly declared that he doesn't care, and moved it to an archive which has the heading of "Archive of people who are noob and/or fail."([19]).

I feel that this is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL, and that while I may have acted in a manner of questionable civility, his actions are by no means the right answer to it. I thank you for your comments. AKFrost (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diff's to simplify the discussion? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Serious Business. Alert the Internet! Let me first point out that AkFrost is one of those fun happy-go-lucky types who have to try and dissect every single word in an article, quote them all, and then reply in big words, whilst ignoring anyone who he disagrees with.

1. AkFrost claimed the people who ran the game of the page I had made had bribed the sources I had included in the article. This is blatant lack of Good Faith. None of the articles I had used were "blogs" anyway. I don't see what the problem with the magazine scans were, I thought that it would be some kind of IP breach and the type of "non-free" images that get deleted in the hundreds every month.

2. His entire basis of my claim of "pretension" in my userpage was false. 2a. He believes I was mocking his own AfD and claiming it had failed before it was finished. No. I had the "saved from AfD" up for months previous, when I re wrote the original article when it was brought up on an AfD after being started by fans of the mod who were not familiar with wiki articles. Sorry AKFrost, but you were not what I was referring to. Once the Article was improved again, and the AfD finished, I wrote that I had saved it from two AfD. A simple check of the history would have made AKFrost perfectly clear that I was not stroking his ego.

3. I don't see how he can summon me up on charges of "incivility" when he was on the one who called the hundreds of edits I had made "Pretentious" and "Inadequate". I simply compared my own edits, ranging in areas for Militaria, Sports, Food/Cooking, Technology, Gaming, Television as well as participating in wikipedia administrative issues (such as debates on content/consensus, participating in AfDs, improving articles and so on), to AKFrost's edits, which appear to be limited to a crappy Japanese children's cartoon. If AKFrost wants to charge my edits with being inadequate and pretentious, I will damn sure show him where he has gone wrong.

4. The people in the archive are or were noob and/or fail, and I show that in the section. I was under the impression an "archive" for a userpage was only able to be seen by the user themselves. I will edit the archive section heading as this is clearly not the case. In fact, I've done it now.

5. Anything else? Oh. I don't see what this is going to achieve. I'm not going to change my editing style because of some over-serious wiki-lawyer screaming HELP HELP I'M BEING INCIVILITATED! and I don't think anything I've done warrants any sort of ban. My edits are on the whole good, well sourced and useful for the articles being edited, and nothing a few randoms like AKFrost might say will change that.

I move for this to be closed immediately (can I AfD this "Wikiquette" alert?.Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Um. No. I did not accuse anyone of buying any columns. I'm stating that it's a possibility which means that in order to be completely reliable, it has to have sources from places other than just columns, which was what the article only had as sources. Again, you've based your harassment off an incorrect assumption, and you accuse me of the same thing?
What you did for Cold War Crisis was inadequate. You may have made a lot of useful edits before this point, but those don't matter, what I saw was you providing sources without adding to the article, and then proceeded to call it a done deal. If that doesn't show inadequacy, I don't know what does. AKFrost (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I rarely log into this account when I make my edits. You making a judgement on me based on my edit history is completely baseless. I never bothered to look into the AfD process or anything else during the majority of the time here on wikipedia, and if you think that makes me an editor of lesser caliber than you, it's again extremely pretentious. AKFrost (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think this might have been a misunderstanding: I meant your handling of the CWC article was inadequate, not your entire edit history, which I didn't bother to look at because I don't believe in past quality would somehow make current quality better than what it is. If you have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, good for you, but that does not cover your editing of CWC. Until I tagged the entire article with "Citation needed" after I retracted the AfD, it had nothing even resembling a citation. Again, is that adequate editing of someone of claims he saved the article? AKFrost (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using the annoying page indents. 1. "They could have easily just bribed one of the columnists at those sites to write reviews." AKFrost (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC). But noooo you never accused anyone of buying columns. Strike 1.

2. When did I call it a "done deal"? Everyone should know that wiki articles are constantly improved and update. But since it's now survived TWO AfD's, I think I've done a pretty adequate job on it. Instead of looking for citations and improving the article on your own, you decided to plaster it with "citation needed" and then drag myself and other editors into a pointless, failure of an AfD. I always thought it best to improve wikipedia by construction, rather than knocking editors down and calling their work "inadequate" and "pretentious" especially if I can't be bothered to improve an article on my own. Strike 2.

3. So you admit you are a Sock Puppet? Strike 3 yooooooooour outta here!. If I had the time I'd report you to the admins/checkuser, but I'm not a sad wiki-lawyer like yourself.

In short, this user goes out of his way to be obstinate, often acting without good faith or with civility towards articles and users.

I move that aKfrost be censured, and that his account is investigated for any possible sock-puppetry on any of the articles for which he has been involved in AfD's or disputes. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you're not making any sense whatsoever. Did you happen to see this line: "I am not accusing the modders of buying or authoring the columns. I am using that to dispute the reliability of columns as a source.AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)" Or did you deliberately miss it just to misconstrue the facts?

From what I can see from your second point, you think there should be someone to finish your job for you after you move it in the general direction? Also, how many people own the magazines you posted, especially seeing that it's in German? This is your failure to assume good faith. You assumed that I nominated the AfD just to get it deleted without any attempt to try to improve it. Well, if you don't know already. Not everyone has your level of access to materials concerning an obscure mod. I tried to find sources that I feel are reliable, and I didn't find any. Now, my interpretation of reliable might not be the same as yours, but that does not mean I'm just there to disrupt. That's why they have AfD's, so people can discuss its merits, not to have an edit war.

Your last comment makes no sense whatsoever. I edit anonymously as an IP, how does that make me a sockpuppet? Do you even know what a sockpuppet is? In fact, you need to read your own arguments. I'm tired of trying to explain everything to you, especially given the fact that you choose to ignore everything I say. AKFrost (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I could post another point by point destruction of AKFrosts moronic ramblings, but I'm not going to bother. Like I said before, nothing that is going to be said here will effect me. AKfrost, go edit some children's cartoon articles and then AfD articles you lack the intelligence to improve which to you that means an instant AfD. Oh noes it's in German! AFD AFD AFD! To any admins who might read this, AKFrost is someone who take wikipedia mega-seriously and also failed to constructively improve the notable articles he dragged into an AfD. He has also admitted to being uncivil towards me (whilst being completely mistaken in the reason he needed to insult me), and if he wants to play with fire by insulting people he should expect to get burnt. To be honest, I think he needs to harden up and not go crying about "Civility" to the admins when he tries to bully/insult someone who then hits back. Peace Out. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Now that we have that out of our systems, is it possible to get some diffs? I've looked through some of the pages linked, and at first glance it seems that the vast majority of the incivility is on Mactheknifeau's side, but he's made some claims against AKfrost above and should have a chance to present evidence of those claims. Diffs will also make it easier for commenting editors to get an idea of what is going on without having to dig through old pages scattered all over the project. Incidentally, let's move to indents from here on out rather than horizontal lines to better separate the fighting from the solution. --jonny-mt 09:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've presented all my evidence. As for his claims against me, aside from what I admitted to in my posts here, they are all false AFAIK. AKFrost (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've presented all my evidence. As for his claims against me, aside from what I admitted to in my posts here (the archive name), they are all false AFAIK. Also, this is (from the top of the article) meant to be "an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors". AKFrost can make his communications very easy and simple, by not bothering me again. I'm personally going to go down that route, and in fact already would have if he had left well enough alone and called me neither pretentious or inadequate Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My attempt at being neutral at this Case

For what it was worth, I'll try to provide the facts to the case. I'll keep the comments to a minimum. I don't quite understand what you mean by diffs, so I'll just copy the disputed stuff verbatim.

  • During this Afd, I made this remark, which in hindsight was not very tactful and easily misinterpreted: "They could have easily just bribed one of the columnists at those sites to write reviews." They referring to the creators of the mod. My rationale was that because it is a possible thing they could do (albeit very unlikely because having a wiki article is not really an accomplishment that they could go to lengths to falsify), we should exercise more caution before claiming these sources are reliable.
  • I followed it sometime later with a bolded explanation after another editor complained, "I am not accusing the modders of buying or authoring the columns. I am using that to dispute the reliability of columns as a source." At the time Mack was not a party to the debate. He added his first entry on December fifth, while my edit was December 1st.
  • Mack then entered, claiming he re-wrote the article. It can be viewed at the diffs here [20]. His full text:
Keep CWC, re-write the rest I re-wrote the CWC page from it's original incarnation, I don't really have any idea about the other mods notability, as I don't play the original game, I don't have anything to do with any of these mods or the community, and thus don't know the notability or possible notability of the non-CWC mods. CWC has clear notability, real-world and online articles by well known magazines and websites, as well as actually releasing their mod (it's not vapourware). What makes a book notable? What makes a anime TV show notable? What makes a person notable? What makes a band notable? I can't go and say "I don't know who these bands are, they are non-notable, and what makes them notable anyway" on a band's page, so there is no excuse for it here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"
(He may have meant from the last AfD which I was unaware of, but I don't know.)
  • The editor Oni Ookami Alfador posts the following comment, which I'm assuming is what Mack got my first statement from. For what it's worth, it's here: "Better be careful there... according to AKF, the videogame illuminati have infiltrated the magazines and news sites!--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"
  • I replied, not really satisfied with the result and his claim of a save:
"Comment How do you demonstrate the reliability and independence of those sources? And as of time of writing, CWC still doesn't have any citations. The sources cited are:
  * http://planetcnc.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Previews.Detail&id=36
  * August Edition of PC Games Magazine.
  * August Edition of PC Action Magazine.
It goes without saying that the magazine citations are of questionable relevance because nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from these megazines. I didn't bother reading the column, but it's still problematic to assume reliability on this one post. Can anyone provide more instances of CWC in other forums? I believe WP:N requests for significant coverage. These three sources hardly seem significant if you can't even tell us what it said. I actually disagree with Huon, Shockwave at least put up some semblence of an article with citations, whereas CWC have nothing. AKFrost (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"
  • His reply: "Comment um.... the articles establish it's notabilty, and the article is written around the facts of the mod itself. "nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from the magazines"... what does that matter? The magazines showed the mod, the article shows what the mod is. Unless the reverse vampires and the rand corporation infilitrated the magazines as well Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)" The bolded part I found was annoying, because that's not what I meant, but he's beating a dead horse.
  • My response: "* Comment um.... no. Unless you can provide the page which the magazines refer to the mods, you can't establish the relevance of the magazines. On top of that, the article lacks citations. WP:NOR Requires every claim/statement to be sourced and property cited. How about providing a page scan, or even just a quote or a page number? I'm certain most people who post here, especially those who vote for keep, would have a vested interest in these mods, and perhaps have the magazines to provide more sources. The burden of proof is on you to establish verifiability and relevance. You can't just put a random magazine and claim it talks about the mods without a proper citation. If these magazine sources are valid, then it would be trivial to provide page numbers and quotes, something I'm not seeing in these articles, despite having its notability challenged back in november. AKFrost (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references. They clearly required page numbers from printed material. AKFrost (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"
  • At this point, I believe he got annoyed at me. His response:
"*Comment "Notability challenged"? I see nothing to that effect at all. In short, the mod is notable, the articles shown are from notable magazines or websites. There is NO reason to delete this article. Yes, it can be improved. But so can every other article. As well as that, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references is "Generally" accepted and "is not set in stone" and should be treated with common sense and The occasional execption. I think this is clearly a case where common-sense should prevail and the exception made. These clearly show it did receive the printed press coverage. Please, if you have another wacky conspiracy theory, maybe the mod makers paid the game magazines to do the article, or maybe it's photoshopped and ninjaed into the full magazine by a elite stealth team of modders, do share with us.
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/pca1.jpg
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/pcg1.jpg
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs1.jpg
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs2.jpg
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs3.jpg
Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"
  • At this point, I was extremely ticked off that he again pulled the thing out. So I dissected his post. If this is bad practice, I apologize.
"* Was it so difficult for you to provide the scans so you could substantiate your claim? Or do you think that making snide comments about what I said somehow make the article worth a keep? Can you get back on topic and stop beating a dead horse. Now, please. Put these on the article and have done with it. Finally, WP:IAR and WP:UCS only applies if you have good reason, which, again, you've neglected to state. I can't read your mind, and I certainly did not know the existence of these prints until now. Don't assume that what you know, everybody else knows. Bring out the evidence. AKFrost (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Finally, you'll note your style of debate is fundamentally flawed. I will dissect what you said and hopefully it will become clear on you.
  • ""Notability challenged"? I see nothing to that effect at all." This is your personal opinion. Your opinion counts no more than mine, do not make it sound like it's a fact, or somehow your judgment makes it right.
  • " In short, the mod is notable, the articles shown are from notable magazines or websites. " Again, this is a claim. I don't care how self-evident you think your arguments are. Don't assume I can fill in all your blanks for you. Why is it notable? What articles? What websites? Can you please specify?
  • "There is NO reason to delete this article." Based on previous faulty logic, you have not convinced me at all.
  • "Yes, it can be improved. But so can every other article." Is this even necessary? Am I even debating this point? I agree it can be improved, and if you haven't noticed yet, the reason I asked for evidence is to improve the article. What you had before does not satisfy WP:N in any way. When you argue, you have to use hard facts, not something easily fabricated (This being putting the name of a magazine without any scans, page numbers, etc, which was the case at the time.)
  • "As well as that, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references is "Generally" accepted and "is not set in stone" and should be treated with common sense and The occasional execption. I think this is clearly a case where common-sense should prevail and the exception made." Just because it's "Generally" , "is not set in stone" and the existence of WP:IAR does not mean they don't apply at all. Rather, you'll have to show us why it doesn't apply. Since you provided the scans and page numbers, these policies can be followed. I don't know what you're trying to argue, but whatever it is doesn't make any sense.
* "These clearly show it did receive the printed press coverage." Again, what are "these"? Do I have to play guess what it is every time I talk to you? Can you please be specific?
  • "Please, if you have another wacky conspiracy theory, maybe the mod makers paid the game magazines to do the article, or maybe it's photoshopped and ninjaed into the full magazine by a elite stealth team of modders, do share with us." Um. I don't, and this fails WP:Civility. I don't know why you think it's okay to make such comments repeatedly, but it doesn't help the discussion any.
  • Finally, When I went to your talk page, you claimed you saved CWC already. This issue is not dead yet. You're being pretentious about your own editing, inadequate as it is. AKFrost (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"
  • I then added his sources to the article as sources and retracted the AfD on CWC and Shockwave, satisfied that these articles finally have some kind of citation. The next day, I find this message in my talk:
""You're being about your own editing, inadequate as it is." AKFrost 07:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That is not very nice of you. If you had bothered to look at the history of either the article itself, or my userpage, you might find that I was referring to the first AFD this article was saved from. It would have most certainly been deleted had I not rewritten it the first time, and I am glad it has survived your pointless AFD. I have now updated the userpage to reflect the change in AFD's saved from the previous "One", to the current state of "Two". Looks like I right either way. It also looks like you made a bit of an arse of yourself with your claims of my pretension.
I'm sorry if my editing is inadequate to you, how I can measure up to your edits on a crappy japanese childrens cartoon followed by your AFD nomination which you lost. Please.. Please. Tell me how to become a better editor.
Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"
  • Normally, I would have just let it slide, after all, everyone likes to taunt their defeated opponents. He had the sources, my AfD wasn't valid, etc, etc. However, the bolded parts ticked me off yet again, and I decided to pursue it further. I posted the following on his page:
"* Um, I did not lose the AfD because there is nothing winning or losing about AfD's. The point of AfD's is to bring it to attention to people who care that their article fails a quality, and that if they don't improve the article, it should be deleted. You provided sources for the claims, so I retracted the AfD. I don't know what meaning you hold about "losing" the AfD. As far as I'm concerned, there was no win or loss. Wikipedia has two of its articles improved, nothing more.
  • What you have here is a failure to Assume good faith. I am not nominating the articles because I have a personal vendetta against any of them, but rather they aren't up to par with other articles and doesn't seem to have anybody updating it to conform. Had I not nominated the AfD, are you really going to provide the scans that convinced me of its notability? Again, you suffer from the assumption that you don't have to explain yourself because everything you do is self-evident. Well, guess what, nobody can read your mind. If you don't speak it, it will be ignored.
  • As for accusing me of incivility, I distinctly remember you beating the dead horse about my statement that it is possible that the articles can be bribed. If you actually read WP:CIVIL to begin with, you'd notice that rudeness is the first thing on the list. Also, what you wrote on my Userpage was complete taunting. I don't know what made you think you can talk down to me, or that somehow rules only apply to me and you're free to ignore everything if it doesn't suit you.
  • Finally, You realize you can get censured just for your comments about me being an arse and that Bleach is a "crappy japanese childrens cartoon". You'll notice that Bleach is making more money than your mod ever will. You have no right to belittle a multi-million dollar franchise while pushing your own freeware, beta-stage game. To each his own. You don't like Bleach, that doesn't mean it's crappy. Again, you're pushing your own judgments over other people and construing as fact. You think it's crappy? Well, substantiate it, why is it crappy? (Not why YOU think it's crappy. Your thoughts count no more than mine).
  • Neither of what you did is even remotely allowed by WP:Civil You accuse me of being incivil about pointing out that you can't edit adequately (going so far as posting sources on the AfD page but not the main page).
  • Again, you're still being pretentious, that somehow your judgment is better than mine. In fact, the only edit you made after I nominated the AfD was add a claim (which you substantiated later, after I accused you of being pretentious). that alone does not make the article any more improved. In fact, if there is anything that saved the article, it's me putting your links up as sources. Nobody will go to the AfD to look for sources, they would expect it in article.
  • From what I've seen below, you yourself aren't under fire from just myself. For once, consider your own faults before making accusations that someone else is being an arse.
  • Finally, enjoy your own hollow "victory" know that you only won because I retracted the claim. I am interested in improving wikipedia, while you're here apparently just to push your own views. Compromise is a skill you will need to learn. AKFrost (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"

(Not exact the most calm and civil, I understand)

  • His reply: "Don't care As an aside, it's not my mod, I don't play the game it's based from or even own it. And if I did, it would not bother to me if it was not making money, because mod makers do not make mods to make money. Bleach is a crap japanese childrens cartoon. Retracting the claim? Either way you lose.I've been "underfire" from 1 other person like yourself who thinks they know everything. Now go away. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)"

He then moved it to his archive, titled: "people who fail and noobs".

I hope this makes it more clear. AKFrost (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This does help, thanks. From reading through the conversation above, the AfD you linked to, and your respective talk pages, it seems like the best thing for the time being is to simply disengage from each other for a while. Mactheknifeau has suggested this above, and I've left a message on his talk page to see if he's still all right with this as a solution. If he agrees and you agree, I think we can consider this matter settled.
I also suggested that he watch his civility in the future, as one need only look above to see that it's not exactly under control right now. That being said, I think there are lessons to be learned on both sides here. From reading through the AfD, it seems that you tended to badger some of the people voting "keep"--as of right now, more than a quarter of your total contributions are to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold War Crisis. I think the same advice I gave to Macktheknifeau applies--present your evidence, add some related commentary, and let the facts speak for themselves. If you feel someone's opinion is not fully qualified or they are not aware of all the facts, simply ask them for clarification or politely point out what they may have missed. Otherwise you risk coming across as combative or pushy, which is not conductive to XfD discussions.
As for the issue of the talk page archive, he's changed the title to "Archive of my very best wiki-friends whose truth and knowledge shine across the world wide web." It's not exactly subtle sarcasm, but neither does it seem worth getting too worked up about. I simply suggest you ignore it--after all, your contributions are what define you as an editor, not the title of a talk page archive. --jonny-mt 03:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with the disengage. Thanks to Jonny-Mt for taking the time to deal with this. Stay alert, but not alarmed. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
AKFrost has also agreed to disengage, so I think we can consider this resolved. --jonny-mt 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IrishLass0128 2

Resolved. all parties just need to chill out, AGF and stop trying to show how bad the other is

I tried to ask CelticGreen about the above (i.e. _why_ does she see this as something she would 'flame at', etc; I would have asked here but the thread was closed) and IrishLass0128 removed[21] my question twice[22]. All I want to do is be able to ask a simple question without interference from a third party. This sort of interference with communication is NOT acceptable according to WP:TPG. —Random832 16:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the laugh. Right above your post CG specifically states for me to remove such posts. She's never going to address it. Why can't you move on and maybe someone should report you on this page. You seem intent to cause problems. Why is that? You've been told the percentage thing is inflammatory by two of us. She knows you put it there, she knows I removed it. Text messaging, it's a beautiful thing! IrishLass (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"Inflammatory" is not a matter of opinion, and calling something inflammatory when it is not is, itself, inflammatory. Use a different adjective if you want to get across the point that it's not wanted. —Random832 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Inflammatory is anything that pisses someone off. Being told for the X number of times something will piss someone off. Look what little it takes to inflame you to report me. That means my actions, that were asked to be done, were inflammatory to you but not to CG or myself. Inflammatory is in the eye of the beholder. IrishLass (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
All I did was ask why. I just wanted to know that one simple thing - WHY isn't she willing to listen to people? Is that so much to ask for an explanation —Random832 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note for context that both users apparently have a history of being confrontational and reading others' actions in the worst possible light. Note that the first thread listed there was also closed with "Please either continue the discussion with users on their talk pages", but that's impossible if one user will edit war to keep legitimate concerns off the other's talk page. That the other user asked for it does _not_ legitimize it, it just adds WP:OWN to the list of things wrong with it.—Random832 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're funny. Where have I been warned? History of denotes long standing issue, not things that happened in the last 24 hours that you conveniently interpret incorrectly. You're looking for trouble just to make trouble. IrishLass (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Not receiving a warning doesn't mean you did nothing wrong, and the village pump thread is half a week old. But anyway I was just pointing it out so people can draw their own conclusions. —Random832 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You said "long history" you did not indicate "two incidents this week" you're making things up to make me look bad. You're the percentage guy, 6000 plus edits, 10 problems between the two of us, what's that percentage? IrishLass (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say "long history" - I did not use the word "long" - and my point was, your behavior in both of those recent incidents (I can't go looking for past incidents because won't you just accuse me of stalking? so I'm limited to the ones that I actually saw as they happened) says a lot about your attitude towards your fellow editors. —Random832 16:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My attitude toward my fellow editors, eh? Did you actually read my part of the Tagging thread or the additional off thread, talk page comments that were exchanged. Did you see the numerous times I asked we keep the peace? You're assuming a lot, but that's fine. I'm done. I've never encountered you before, you went looking for CG on her talk page to chastise her for her math skills, that's what started all this. I'll let you continue to chastise her math even though she has said it would cause problems. It takes two to be in a conflict. You can fight alone now, I'm so done. IrishLass (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I love this comment from above: Sorry, but my main issue with your question is that you've directed it only at me. Conflicts don't occur with only one person. –panda (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Panda is right, it takes two for conflict. I'll walk away, again, and leave you to your game. IrishLass (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue, it is inappropriate for you to delete other people's comments from CG's talk page. The fact that she requested this is moot, considering she does not own her talk page. You do not have the right, as a third party, to bar someone from discussion with someone else. CG is perfectly capable of deleting any unwanted comments from her talk page herself.--Atlan (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't delete it, I moved it, as requested and if someone I've worked with requests I do something and publicly says to do it, do it. This is the first time anyone said it was wrong. If doing so wrong, fine, but is this really necessary? Could Random not have found someone neutral to come to my talk page or done it himself? I did notice in all the areas I've been referred to that "conflicts should first be addressed on talk pages" yet Random has done no such thing. He appears to believe making mountains out of molehills is more productive than following guidelines. I mean, really is this productive or counter productive? He's now put a big target on my back and made potentially false statements (i.e. history of conflict). Really, you would think this could have been handled differently, as he was told yesterday when he started the first incident report. This is the third in less than 24 hours. Additionally, admin Mayalld stated clearly that: Neither the act of archiving your comments from her own talk page, nor removing comments from User talk:CelticGreen if the two have agreed this between themselves are a problem. So it is clear that an admin stated archiving the comments was an acceptable act. IrishLass (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
But isn't Random bringing up the issue on a talk page now, like you say he isn't doing? How do you expect any kind of resolution to end this matter with, if you archive any attempt at discussion right away? As for Mayalld (who is by the way, not an administrator), he is right. But you should not interpret what he said as a blank check to remove messages from CG's talk page at a whim. In this case, it's not really appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, wow, everyone needs to chill out.

  • Random: try to understand that CelticGreen was under a lot of stress and felt attacked from multiple sides, and during that time made a math error that was, frankly, not important. As someone who was taught a lot of math to a lot of people, I can say there are people that get stressed out by math and feel attacked by people who aggressively try to correct them. This may be necessary if their math error was actually important but in this case, her point was still valid: 11 out of 7000 edits, whatever percentage that is, is a tiny amount. At this point trying to discuss the math error with her is like having an argument for argument's sake, totally off-topic and an unwanted follow-up to an unpleasant conversation. There's the answer to your question, and I'm sure Celtic will correct me if I'm not completely on target here. Move on. You aren't going to be able to get everyone to understand everything you know: sometimes it's just not the right time or place.
  • Irish: You are making a lot of really unhelpful comments here. I know you've gotten stressed out by the whole situation and other related ones. You have to realize that removing comments from someone's talk page, even when you've been asked / given permission to, is pretty unorthodox and you should not be surprised to see someone asking you why you've done it. The proper response in a situation like that is to remain calm and reasonable, continue to assume good faith, and remove yourself from the situation when you notice your ability to do that start to fade. Comments like "Thank you for the laugh" and "you seem intent to cause problems" are inflammatory. What you have to realize here is that Random simply, legitimately doesn't understand what was inflammatory about his comments that you removed. If you had simply taken the time to try to explain it to him in a calm, civil way, while continuing to assume good faith, this would not have resulted in another Wikiquette report.
  • Celtic: If you really feel so stressed out that you need to ask someone else to remove comments off your talk page in case you see them first and explode in fury, you need to take a Wikibreak, or at least have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Mangojuicetalk 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another analysis

I'm in agreement with Mangojuice here! A dose of chilling out all round is the order of the day. In fact, the main thing that is needed on all sides is to assume good faith. Whatever somebody does or says, look at it and ask yourself "what is the most charitable explanation I can offer for the other part doing what they have just done" Let me give examples (I don't know if the explanations are true or not, but in the spirit of AGF, they are worth making)

Action AGF explanation
Random makes a comment on a user talk page correcting something that has been said on another page, instead of making the point in that discussion (as would be conventional) Random wishes to make the point discretely, rather than drawing public attention to the mistake
IrishLass removes a comment from CelticGreen's talk page, instead of leaving it for CelticGreen (as would be conventional) IrishLass is doing this with CelticGreen's consent, because they have agreed that it will assist CelticGreen to maintain civility towards others
IrishLass describes a comment as inflamatory in an edit summary IrishLass is using the term in the sense of "likely to inflame", without passing any judgement as to whether the liklihood is the fault of the person posting the comment or the person it was intended for.

And so on.

Equally, all parties should attempt to avoid doing things that will strain the others' capabilities to AGF, so should avoid doing all the things in the table above!

  • Don't take bits of discussions to a users talk page if you know it irritates them.
  • Take extra care to avoid using terminology that could be considered uncivil in edit summaries. Pick more neutral language instead.
  • Avoid making a big deal out of anything the other has done. OK, so you didn't like it, but nobody died. Mutter something therapeutically uncivil under your breath, and move on.

Above all, avoid a public airing of minor grievances.

  • Don't bring every case of minor incivility up for a full blown investigation
  • If the other side does just that, then accept that you may have got it wrong, and publicly resolve to try to avoid getting it wrong again, without any "ah, but he did it first"

Continued bickering like this is not making any of the protagonists look good, because this situation can only continue to cause a problem whilst both sides continue on their current course.

I don't believe that there is much more that can usefully be said on these cases. The answers are here if the protagonists will take them on board, and I'm closing this case as resolved on that basis. I would urge that both sides resolve not to bring further cases for a period of two weeks, and concentrate instead on working productively.

Mayalld (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:MeMutu

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereSee WP:SSP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that this user: [23] (MeMutu) Is just a new account of this already indefinitely-blocked user: [[24]] (Dennis-From-Accounts) Does this notification go here, or not? If not, would someone who is more knowledgeable please forward it to the proper authorities? Thanks muchly. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you see what appears to be an obvious sockpuppet that needs administrative attention, please report to WP:SSP. Maser (Talk!) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)