Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:55, 31 October 2009

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

What's with the blocking of the accounts of deceased users?

This is what I'm worried about. I've seen this on their ] page and find that they were indefinitely blocked! Any guidelines referring to this matter?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be thought of as disrespectful in any way. If anything, I suppose the motivation is likely to be to ensure that the passwords aren't cracked and then these accounts used in a way that is disrespectful. I don't know if there are guidelines or discussions about this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Another point is that the computer belonging to a deceased Wikipedian is likely to be used by another person (possibly after the computer is sold), and the computer may contain details of the Misplaced Pages account allowing an unauthorized person to impersonate the former Wikipedian. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You could be right.

On a completely unrelated note, can I ask users to add the number of colons?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo

User:Juliancolton may have retired. You need to do what any pusher worth his salt would do. Go over there and get high with him on Misplaced Pages again. Before the say-no-to-Wiki folks succeed in performing an intervention with him and he gets too high a count on his days of Wiki sobriety.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Mr Wales hasn't editing this page in going on a fornight. You think he and Julian are in a program together?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom RFC

Hi Jimmy. fyi, there is an RFC about the structure of Arbcom 2010: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. Your unique perspective/views would be a valuable addition to the RFC. --John Vandenberg 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiLit

Have you had a chance to check out Andrew Dalby's book The World and Misplaced Pages? Is it any good? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet. But he's offered to send me a copy, and so I expect that I shall.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Current interpretation of Policy & Guidelines allows dishonest, unreasoning & stupid behaviour, shallow analysis & incompetence to harm the project. Also group wikihounding, attempted “wiki-murder”, conspiracy of silence & inaction

Initiated by HarryAlffa (talk) at 17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• HarryAlffa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Serendipodous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Hans Adler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)/Disembrangler
• Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)/Andy Walsh
• Shereth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GTBacchus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Wikiproject Solar System
• All admins on WP:ANI from 15 October, 2009 – 20 October, 2009.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by HarryAlffa

The current interpretation and enforcement of WP:Consensus is harming the project. Despite Policy dictating otherwise, admins have equated democracy with consensus. Shallow analysis by admins mean they simply head-count in disputes, and give zero weight to reason.

It is clear to me that an axiom of WP:Consensus is “There can be no consensus against reason”, but this has fallen by the wayside.

Temporary injunctions

To prevent them continuing to wikihound me, I request a temporary injunction of:

• Ckatz
• Serendipodous
• Ruslik

preventing them from reverting any of my edits on any page in any namespace; preventing them from involving themselves, in any way, in any page in any namespace I might involve myself in, unless they have previously contributed creatively. The test for “creatively” being a paragraph or more of text contributed by them, & excludes any reverts or copy-editing. Evidence follows on this page.

I request a temporary injunction of HansAdler in identical terms to that above, the evidence being his explicit declaration

I would revert any such relatively big edit by this editor on sight...

— HansAdler

Further evidence of Hans Adler dishonest behaviour follows on in this testimony.

Ckatz Cabal

The current membership of the Ckatz Cabal (as far as I can determine it) is;

• Ckatz
• Serendipodous
• Ruslik
• YellowMonkey

They have been wikihounding me for some months now.

In one of Ckatz's lying personal attacks he said of me, “... and (at one point) almost drove off one of the most dedicated editors in the Astronomy section“. I'd be interested to see the diff to prove this, or is it just a plain lie? If he insists it's not a lie and there is no such diff, then it must be concluded that it was off-wiki, which directly supports my view of their behaviour as cabalism.

Conspiracy of silence & inaction – Systemic corruption

This ANI was raised by me on 15 October, 2009.

No administrator took any action on this, despite their presence on the pages. This is a conspiracy of silence and inaction which is systemic corruption. No one is prepared to take action on other administrators, despite the blatant lies and deception perpetrated by Ruslik & Ckatz.

Admin Jehochman then silenced and threatened me, by declaring the item closed, and attacking me in a propoganda style in the closure of the ANI. Why he ignored the dishonesty by Ruslik & Ckatz he will have to explain, but it flies in the face of

WP:AGF does not require ignoring actual evidence...

— Jehochman

In the real world people are sanctioned for lying. It should be the same here. ...we can certainly sanction them for actively trying to be deceptive.

— Jehochman

Admin Jehochman has recently become a father (congratulations & good wishes to him and his family) so perhaps this is a misjudgement brought on through lack of sleep etc.

Follow up

I've only just spotted this, which was also conveniently ignored by all and sundry, and seemed on the face of it to express genuine and legitimate concern about Ckatz.

Straw man

Straw men are anathema to Misplaced Pages, they show prima fascia evidence of bad faith because the author of a straw man argument must understand the argument he opposes, then he must deliberately misrepresent it. Straw man constructors should face an immediate 24hr ban.

Dick Cheney & Karl Rove

Would people such as these with their reputations for deceit and dishonesty be welcome contributors to Misplaced Pages? Would anyone bringing that kind of political sensibility be welcome? So You Think You Can Douche illustrates the kind of deceit, no matter how subtle, which should not be tolerated in Misplaced Pages.

Solar System FAR

This self-evidently fails WP:Lead.

I would suggest that, according to the Peter Principle, YellowMonkey has been promoted to his level of incompetence, and should be removed immediately from assessment duties.

Ckatz and Serendipodous have obviously been acting in bad faith, the proof is the Solar System FAR. I had been trying since July 2008 to get the lead changed; my edit summary of this first hurried edit, ”added planets and dwarf planets in order from Sun - stop confusion of novices that all the Dwarf Planets were beyond Neptune!“, this was met with a reversion and false description by Serindipodous in his edit summary, “No need to repeat information. The intro makes clear where the asteroid belt, kuiper belt and scattered disc are”. The description of the edits made, frequently don't match the reality of the edits. These two simply can/will not listen to reason.

Within five metaphorical minutes of me taking it to FAR in April this year, the lead was completely rewritten by Serendipodous. Bad faith is the inescapable conclusion.

In the FAR, with the first contributor agreeing with my points on the lead, he re-wrote the lead and replied to me

There. I've had a go at rewriting it. No doubt you'll hate it.

— Serendipodous

Such childish petulance is ill-becoming of anyone.

Serendipodous's manipulation even extends to the talk page archiving – things he perceives are “against” the Cabal are hurriedly archived, things he perceives are “for “ the Cabal are kept for extended periods.

One Examination in Minutia

I could bore you with a number of forensic examinations of Serendipodous responses to me, but here's one; his second contribution to the FAR above.

He critiqued the lead for the Solar System I had written. I really can't express how jaw-droppingly stupid I found his analysis to be, but what really got me were the lies;

1. saying it said, “outer space begins at the heliopause “
2. saying it omitted a note; the alternative non-capitalisation of Solar System

You might just forgive the first, as my text could be regarded as ambiguous, “This medium between the stars, most commonly thought of as outer space”, but you have to work hard to make it equal the lie he tells. You couldn't say between the stars isn't outer space. The second is just not truthful, the non-capitalisation of Solar System was included in the first line of the lead. Technically I did remove the superscript note, but his description is a lie in anyone's book. Then there's the “too Earth-centric” comment! Even now I'm shaking my head and laughing! Ooh! The Earth's mentioned three times! Ah, come on! You have to give me one mention! So, two extra? Hmm, one to mention life, and another to mention the plane of the ecliptic, guess which planet defines this plane. Then there's the Pluto got demoted comment. What? Anthropomorphise much?

It is this kind of bone-headedness, lying & smearing I experienced from the Ckatz Cabal which is a danger to the project. As to the stupidity, is it stupidity, or just stretching a point to breaking, motivated by unpleasantness?

Ckatz lies? Ckatz deceptive?

In the FAR and the talk page (archive) Ckatz said, “First, per the observations of several other editors, we should centralize this discussion at Talk:Solar System.”. There is no such observation made by any editor at either of these locations.

Note his seemingly reasonable tone, this is a ruse. This apparent reasonableness is at total odds with his usual non-participation in the talk page, he realises it won't be just the usual suspects watching the talk page, so he adjusts his behaviour until he feels comfortable to be himself again.

But even so look at the marvellous sleight-of-hand he has performed – he claims he doesn't want the lead going back and forth between versions – except for one last time by him, back to the version of the lead he “cleaned up” after “thanks for a great start” in his edit summary to Serendipodous, the Cabal in control again.

Serendipodous, dishonest?

In the FAR on 1 May, 2009 he said, “HarryAlffa only started this FAR to make a statement. The statement is made. The issue he raised has been resolved. Now all we're doing is arguing about semantics.”

He starts off with a plain, dishonest personal attack. Simply reading the FAR before this contribution makes it plain that I was not “just making a statement” - this is a lying accusation of WP:POINT. Then an outright lie – the issue is resolved – actually two lies in one lie; there was more than one issue, and none had been resolved.

Later the same day he said, “What about Ruslik0, Kheider or Jay32183? They've all made exactly the same points I did when we first 'met'.”, which just isn't true. I then responded with, “Could you respond to the logical reasoning above please?“ - which of course he never did.

Ruslik hysterical?

Ruslik made a number of hysterical accusations, including Forum Shoppping for my taking the article to FAR! I asked him to acknowledge/withdraw the accusations, but this was not forthcoming.

Ruslik & Serendipodous anti-scientific

In the Solar system talk page archive, Gas, Ice & Rock section. I commented on the non self-consistency of the article.

Ruslik makes a point

Under no circumstances this classification can be based on boiling points. This is simply meaningless. Boiling points strongly depend on pressure, while melting points do not. What pressure do you assume, when you talk about boiling points? In the vacuum the liquid phase does not exist at all, so, what are you going to boil?

— Ruslik

Showing he has no idea how to think scientificly. I can't begin to tell you how dumb his comments are here, I responded

Maybe standard pressure is what Planetary Science Research Discoveries presumes when defining volatiles using boiling point.

— HarryAlffa

Including a link to an image for his education, and provided a reference which uses boiling point rather than melting point.

Serendipodous congratulates Ruslik on finding a reference. Note the tone of the comment, it sounds like Serendipodous knows Ruslik's had to work hard to find it – I wonder how he knows that; they've been conspiring collaborating working together (off-Wiki?). The reference is only available to subscribers.

The Planetary Science Research Discoveries website is listed in the External links section of Asteroid, Mars, Mercury, Meteorite & (get this) Solar System. Yet still Serendipodous & Ruslik reject my suggestion, then search for a reference to overturn it. Making your mind up about something, then searching (for 3 days?) until you get some evidence to support it; this is the very opposite of scientific methodology. Compound this with ignoring a website listed by the Solar System article itself makes it dishonest as well.

Ruslik later refused to provide a quote from this source backing up his claim.

Stalked by Ckatz, Serendipodous, Ruslik & YellowMonkey

Three are working as a tag-team, with Ckatz directing the lesser minds of Ruslik & Serendipodous, and YellowMonkey as Ckatz meatpuppet for blocks.

Please note that your continued efforts to harass someone you've had a disagreement with are unacceptable. It is one thing if you wish to mirror my contribution list and fix genuine errors that exist in the articles.. That course of action, while creepy, is not a concern. However, it is another matter entirely when you begin to interfere with legitimate actions. Please stop, before this requires further measures.

— Ckatz

Ckatz on Sun

On 22 April, 2009 I made a wikilink in the lead to black smoker#Ecosystems from the phrase “sunlight, supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis”, within 25 minutes Ckatz showed up to revert it with edit summary, “rv. per link guidelines (links should be intuitive)” - a perverted interpretation of the guideline, defying common sense.

He has allowed his motivation of wikihounding me to harm the article, and rob the reader.

Serendipodous on Solar System aurora

On 22 April, 2009 I corrected fundamental errors, which had been in the article since Serendipodous introduced them on 17 February 2007 and 22 June 2006. I think this shows he is someone who is operating beyond his capacity. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, and given that this text has existed in this form for so long, a fundamental inability to understand even a simple scientific theory. Perhaps there is a prize if you are the first to spot that he is in fact a Chinese Room operator or AI? It also says little of, and a great deal about, the other self-appointed custodians of this article, that such errors where harboured for so long.

Within an hour Serendipodous turned up to make a petty change. Having clearly been completely wrong in his original description, he then decides he is qualified to make changes? No, he makes changes as part of the campaign of harassment.

Ruslik on Jupiter mass

On 6 May, 2009, I made a series of three contributions , within 24 hours Ruslik turns up to revert, having never previously contributed to the article.

Ckatz on WP:Link

I made a contribution on 8 May, 2009, later that same evening Ckatz reverted me. He hadn't touched the article since 1 February, 2009, and his last contribution to the talk page was 28 February, 2009.

Ckatz on WP:MoS

On 8 May, 2009, I made a contribution, within 10 minutes Ckatz had reverted me, having never previously contributed to the article.

He makes no contribution to the talk page.

He eventually gets around to the talk page, look at the archive and you will see him lie his head off.

Here is one extracted thread from the dialogue:

Harry: … He seems to be following me around and being awkward for the sake of it. Maybe? ...

Ckatz: Harry, drop the persecution complex please. … BTW, it is hardly "following" if you edit pages I've long been a part of …

Harry: … I noticed you said, "long been part of". I take it you want us to think you've been here recently and also for a long time. If in fact it's been some time since you last contributed here, then it's quite some coincidence you showing up to have a go at me on my first time here. Do you care to tell the ladies and gentlemen when it was you last contributed to the article, and the talk page?

Ckatz (sarcastically): … it is very unusual for Ckatz to take an interest in MoS-related issues, especially those related to linking …

Harry: … You followed me here from WP:Link talk page …

Ckatz: … If you wish to entertain delusions about people "following" you, pursuing imaginary agendas, well, that is your choice ...

Now he's calling me delusional, personal attack with a lie – again. Even the most carefully deceptive liars slips up now and then. There was no mention of links by anyone in this discussion until Ckatz, “especially those related to linking”, showing that he did indeed stalk me from the WP:Link pages.

Claims he has “long been a part of” the MoS, the logs show this is a lie. He is a wikistalker.

The full dialogue also shows a false accusation personal attack.

Ckatz on Sidereal time

On 28 May I made a contribution, within an hour and a half ,'''Ckatz''' turns up to make a reversion, having never previously contributed to the article.

Ruslik on Help:Self link

On 16 July, 2009 (a Friday) I made two edits . Ruslik turned up on the Sunday, 19 July, 2009 to revert having never before edited the page since it's creation in November 2005.

His edit summary was, “self links should not be used for this purpose“. You have to shake your head and laugh at him.

On 2 October, 2009 I overhalled this page, about 10 minutes later Ruslik reverted

On 6, October 2009, I reverted with an edit summary of, “Please. No Wikihounding.”, within the hour, Ruslik had reverted

On 16 October, 2009 I restored my overhall, an hour later Ruslik undid me.

As well as the wikihounding there are the infuriatingly unintelligent edit summaries:

• self links should not be used for this purpose
• There is no need to write about HTML in this help page
• No need to overcomplicate this
• I see no need to add information about <strong> tags to this page

Please don't dismiss this as edit warring, no. It is harassment. I have been genuinely trying to improve this page, while Ruslik's desire is to hound me, grasping at straws to justify his reverts.

Ckatz, Ruslik & Serendipodous on Trans-Neptune object, Talk page

I made a contribution to the Trans-Neptune object article on the 8 June 2009, one a style change, the other substantive, and raising the substantive point in the talk page. Ckatz reverted the style change the same day, Serendipodous the other on the 17 June, both having never previously contributed to the article, nor the talk page.

On 22 July 2009, after I restored the alternative term in the article, within 20 minutes Ruslik undid me, with no discussion on the talk page, and not only misleading in his edit summary about the numbers, but illogical as well. I then reverted back giving logical reasoning. Within an hour Ckatz had reverted again, with an edit summary of “Establish consensus on the talk page first, please”, having still never himself contributed to the talk page.

At 16:53, 2 August, 2009 I made a contribution to the talk page

At 16:56 on 2 August, 2009 I reverted the edit by Ckatz, with an edit summary of “Consensus by "system of good reasons" ie. logic”. Within an hour Ruslik had undone this, with an edit summary of “This is unscientific rarely used term”, which, depending on your definition of rare, is incorrect, and not dependant on what your meaning of scientific is, is a dishonest assessment. Whatever way you look at it, his is a bad faith edit. He made no contribution to the talk page. I reverted back again, but included a dozen or so refs using the term, with an edit summary of “Restore good faith edit”. Within 20 minutes Ruslik reverted, with an edit summary of “This is vandalism”.

At this point I gave up.

Then, on 14 August, I started an RFC and included the alternate name in the article.

I deliberately set an intellectual trap for Ruslik. I expected him to be the one to respond first to the RfC, and I expected him to be unable to understand the question. I was right.

Ruslik is playing dumb (or is just plain) to be useful on any science article. I'm sure there will be cries of personal attack, but for the good of the project I claim protection under Ignore All The Rules. The first concern of the project is the project, community building, which involves protecting editors feelings, is a side effect of this.

I call for Ruslik to be banned from all Science articles.

Blatant, Coordinated Harassment

The complete refusal of either Ckatz, Serendipodous, or Ruslik to engage in the talk page, and their tag-team reversion of my edits shows a wilful and vindictive, coordinated campaign of harassment. And that's just on this one article.

It was during this RfC that YellowMonkey blocked me for a week.

Ruslik on HTML

On 12 July, 2009 I made a series of three contributions, , within 24 hours Ruslik turned up to tag a section unreferenced. Which I removed after providing some refs

On 13 & 14 July, 2009 I made another series of edits.

On 30 august, 2009 Ruslik reverted one of my edits, then threw in an {unreferenced} tag just to be awkward.

Ruslik had never previously contributed to the article.

Ruslik on Misplaced Pages:How to edit a page

On the 13 & 16 July 2009, I had done quite a bit of work on this article, which was summarily removed on 19 July, 2009, by Ruslik having never previously contributed to the article, nor the talk page.

Exercising such personal animosity to the cost of new wikipedians is particularly troubling.

On 16 October I made a series of edits to restore the damage, within 25 minutes Ruslik had reverted, with another infuriatingly unintelligent edit summary, “Please, stop inserting your personal opinion into this page”.

Really, how long can someone displaying such low intelligence be allowed to stomp around on editors contributions?

As I was writing this someone undid Ruslik with edit summary of, “What's "personal opinion" about the addition?”. Exactly.

Within a couple of hours he made a couple of edits, and also two days later, made a series of edits, with edit summaries of;

• simpler language
• there is no place for "should" here
• simplifying
• the table and subsection duplicates the information at the end of the article and MOS
• better title for this section
• see also
• further information

I invite you to compare the two versions, before this series and after.

You will see that this is just a revert.

He has used a series of edits with reasonable sounding edit summaries to deliberately deceive. This is simply lying.

On Misplaced Pages talk:How to edit a page, section opened by another editor questioning the “personal opinion”, Ruslik tells the following lie, “The style is different from the rest of the page. It is written from the second person, while the page from the third.”. The whole page was written in the second-person narrative, his additions (overwriting mine) are written in the third person. After that poor analysis, or lie, is his further analysis worth listening to? I think not. He has shown utter bad faith, and unintelligent “reasoning”, which is really a scrabbling around to justify this harassment.

Ruslik on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)

On 8 August, 2009 I made this edit within 7 minutes '''Ruslik''' showed up to harass me with a useless contribution

I then realised I'd put it in the wrong place.

On 8 August, 2009 I made this edit, Ruslik''' turned up within 1 minute to harass me with a useless contribution.

Ruslik on Kuiper belt

On 18 August, 2009 I made two edits, with references , within 3 hours Ruslik reverted me.

His last edit to the article before this was 21 July, 2008.

Ruslik & Ckatz on Aurora

On 27 August, 2009 I corrected the auroral mechanisms section with an edit summary of, “Correct confusion and contradiction. Copy-edit”, within 15 minutes Ruslik had reverted me, claiming in his edit summary, “You removed so much information that I ought to revert”. This brought the total number of edits he made to the article in it's entire history to 2, both reversions. He again shows an inherent inability to analyse or even comprehend the material.

I was in the process of putting together references for my contribution, but I gave up, because frankly, what the fuck was the point? Instead I was confident, or at least hopeful, that with the involvement of the Wikiproject Physics, someone would spot this and undo Ruslik. My faith was misplaced.

On 3rd October I tried again with pretty much the same edit, within eight hours Ckatz had reverted with an edit summary, “restore more encyclopedic text”. Unbelievable! I in turn undid him with an edit summary of, “Restore corrections. No wikihounding please.”. About 15 minutes later Ruslik undid me.

On 6 October I undid Ruslik with an edit summary, “Please. No group Wikihounding.”. Then made a minor change with regard to his previous edit summary. Within 35 minutes Ruslik undid me, with an edit summary of, “You should learn classical electrodynamics before you make such changes”.

On 10 October I undid Ruslik, then made a series of four edits adding references and one copy-edit. The next day Ruslik reverted me with an edit summary of, “I do not agree with removal of information”.

The next day another user reverted Ruslik with an edit summary of “don't remove cited mateial”. Ckatz then reverted with an edit summary of, “It was reverted because the rewrite was not of the same quality as the previous version.”.

It is clear that Ckatz and Ruslik are determined to hound me, and will lie and deceive in their edit summaries in a vain attempt to justify the hounding.

Ruslik on Refractory (astronomy)

I created this article exactly one year since the edit below.

On 28 August, 2009 tidied up the reference for this article, within 24 hours '''Ruslik had substantially changed the article in a 30 minute 3 edit session , and supplied as a reference a book on the Russian language Google Books site.

Aware that I was being stalked, I went back to check the article, and then undid, and left an edit summary of “restored more accessible reference“, and with it's more accessible language.

The next morning '''Ruslik''' had reverted with an edit summary of “Please, do not revert my edits without explanation ”, .

Ruslik had never before contributed to the article.

Ruslik on WP:Consensus

I wanted to restore “Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.” from the previous stable version, as well as add, “If reasons are offered to support a position, but that position is opposed, then counter-reasons should be given or different conclusions explained; non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian”.

On 17 September, 2009 I made those additions

About 35 minutes later Ruslik reverted, having never before contributed to the page.

On 3 October 2009 I made two edits as I described above, the next day Ckatz reverted.

Ckatz on Template:MoS-guideline

On 21 September I made this edit, with edit summary of “BRD”, and started a thread on the talk page. Within an hour Ckatz turned up to revert, and said on the talk page, “Please don't muck about with important templates.“

On the talk page, 30 September, my last reply to Ckatz, “This invites honest debate. Which I think excludes you, Serindipodus & Ruslik, who have been tag-team reverting me for some months now.”

Ruslik on Sun path

On 2 October I made this edit, within 4 hours Ruslik undid

Spin Doctor: Ckatz

User Ckatz seems to me to have this kind of undesirable, political sensibility, and having looked at his earliest contributions, it reinforces my suspicion that he was/is involved in partisan politics, and brings those corrupt values into the world of Misplaced Pages. I also doubt that Ckatz was his first Misplaced Pages account, his earliest edits are suspiciously competent and confident – an edit to a template within two days of his first contribution.

Ckatz has a tendency to remove material instead of tagging it.;

Agreed that it is likely, but unproven; I've removed it for now until we can find a citation. --Ckatz 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is likely to drive off good-faith contributors. Talk page contributions by Ckatz, are hard to find being so rare, which is why this one is from 2008.

I have found this uncommunicative stance of his irksome, because there is no way to engage with him. Last year on the Solar System article he simply turned up out of the blue, edited the article, declared consensus, then accused me of disruptive behaviour if his edits were even questioned. It seemed to me obvious that there was communication happening off-wiki, but my “accusations of cabalism” were held to be “another example of my disruptive behaviour”. The longest discussions by him with me have been on wikialerts & ANI's either raised others by me or against me by the cabal, where their descriptions of me are accurately described as propaganda.

YellowMonkey

At the Solar System FAR I clearly outlined some of the improvements needed, and reasons, for the article to not pass FAR. YellowMonkey passed it despite my objections being unresolved, perhaps following the lie by Serendipodous that objections were resolved.

YellowMonkey has been either incompetent or corrupt in his actions, and I call for him to be removed from FA assessment duties immediately.

YellowMonkey treated me incivilly when I asked him politely for some narrative on his passing of the Solar System at the FAR, but gave no meaningful response.

I would appreciate an elucidation of your thinking, on these two points only, to help me understand your estimation of this article. Cheers :)

— HarryAlffa

He then ignored me, deleting my question without reply.

Block motivated by pique?

Having treated me ignorantly, his next involvement with me was to block me, without warning or notification, for a week, citing battlegrounding. This was while I was defending myself on a WP:AN I raised, legitimately, on another editor – and while three other admins were in attendance. I have asked, politely, for some sort of narrative from YellowMonkey for the block:

• 16 June, 2009: Email

Battlegrounding is not a fair description of my responses to attacks on myself in the WP:ANI I correctly raised on another user. Was I supposed to just accept all of it without reply? I am rather surprised that you got involved in this, since you ruled in the FA on the Solar System, then completely ignored me when I politely asked you a reasonable and self limiting question on it.

I don't think it unreasonable to ask you for a few quotes of the things I said which you decided justified this block. Like WP:Consensus I expect a "system of good reasons" from you.

• 19 June, 2009: Email

I just don't get your description. Could you give me a narrative of your thought process which led you to this conclusion? I trust this is not an unreasonable request?

Your use of the word persistent leads me to hope that a time-line would be part of this.

Cheers

Harry

• 23 June, 2009: YellowMonkey talk page

YellowMonkey, you blocked me. I ask again. Could you provide a narrative of your thought process, and a time line? Is this an unreasonable request? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your conduct on the RFC and the talk page, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::This is not an explanation. A narrative of your thoughts, quoting my contributions (with diffs) which prompted them please. Is this an unreasonable request? HarryAlffa (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

but despite these attempts there has been no useful response, which is similar to the incivil behaviour towards me before the block.

I would suggest that YellowMonkey be compelled to give a narrative & timeline for this block of me.

I have received private correspondence alleging that YellowMonkey protects articles he has been working on if anyone even copy-edits them. It seems he takes offence at any questioning, and has even blocked people for copy-editing articles. Has he taken offence at me, and put the boot in at the earliest opportunity? Is this a typical instance of abuse of power by him?

His next involvement with me was another block of a week, at the behest of the Ckatz Cabal, while the cabal was involved in it's latest wikihounding activities, and raised this. The logs show that my blocking was the first thing YellowMonkey did online, and his only activity on the AN page that day.

YellowMonkey has acted as the Ckatz Cabal's meat-puppet for blocks, and I call for him to be desysoped immediately.

Unblock refused

I found the responses of Sandstein and Daniel Case smug, smartarse and to show shallow analysis, as well as incivillity from Daniel Case when he refused to engage when I asked him for examples of my alleged battlegrounding.

I found the response of Mangojuice & Ultraexactzz to indicate that they have an erroneous view of WP:Consensus. They displayed no understanding of the problem in TNO talk, and exercised no judgement on simple group-nay-saying against reasoned argument by myself. Mangojuice & Ultraexactzz failed to see that an underlying assumption of the pillars is that editors must be able to reason & that they must be willing to reason.

Perhaps these four admins will review their positions in light of the wikihounding by the Ckatz Cabal.

Wikiproject Solar System Incompetence

Both the current lead, and indeed the previous lead, and the erroneous aurora description in the Solar System article show long term incompetence or neglectfulness of everyone in the Wikiproject Solar System.

The current Solar System lead has this second sentence:

“The Sun's retinue of objects circle it ''in a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic plane'', most of the mass of which is contained within eight relatively solitary planets whose orbits are almost circular.”

The highlighted part of this sentence encapsulates for me the total lack of comprehension of the subject by the Solar System Ckatz Cabal - (Serendipodous, Ckatz & Ruslik).

Look up;

• Accretion disk, Debris disk, Disc (galaxy), Protoplanetary disk & Scattered disc
• Plane (geometry)
• Plane of the ecliptic

This prime piece of idiocy was written by Serendipodous, was labelled as a “minor edit” by Serendipodus, after the lead was copy-edited by Ckatz, and endorsed by Ruslik and others, including YellowMonkey who later passed it as FA. To have worked on this article for years, and be unable to see why it is nonsense immediately is not only jaw-dropping, but a litmus test of the intellectual capabilities of Serendipodous, Ckatz & Ruslik who actively participated in it's production and approval, and who have failed to spot this gross error. This small textual change was missed by me at the time, but it is a major error, and remains in the article to this day. The fact that it has remained since 24 April, when the edit was made, and was present at passing of FAR by YellowMonkey on 12 May, 2009, shows the utter incompetence and lack of comprehension of these regular editors. There was an edit here which rearranged the sentence somewhat, but kept the same error.

These three have shown themselves to be Chinese room operators, shuffling information from sources, with little to zero comprehension of the material.

The Ckatz Cabal's action are a “fending off” exercise, and they again show a complete, collective lack of empathy for the reader. The writing shows they simply cannot review their contributions without realising that what they are trying to say requires facts and familiarity which the reader cannot be expected to have, nor which they have given.

In short they are incompetent.

Throughout the history of the Solar System article, Ckatz has taken negligible part in the talk page – in complete contrast to his editing of the article; calling consensus in his edit summaries, despite ongoing conversations in the talk page.

Ckatz's almost universal refusal to participate in talk pages indicates to me that he should be banned from editing any article. Being forced to participate in actual on-wiki discussion (as opposed to off-wiki cabalism) may engender a more wiki-friendly interaction from him.

Ckatz is deceitful, notice the difference in tone of the FAR, he speaks as if he is an independent observer fairly judging a discussion. It is his intention to convey this impression to other, truly uninvolved editors, who accept it through their shallow analysis and acceptance of “authority” conveyed by Ckatz's admin status. Such deceit is repellent in any editor, but in an admin it is repugnant.

I call for Ckatz to be desysoped immediately.

For the protection of the Solar System article, I call for these three users to be topic banned from it. For the protection of the Solar System article and the main articles it summarises, I call for these three users to be topic banned from it and it's main articles. For the protection of all science articles, I call for these three users to be topic banned from all articles in the Science category.

Misplaced Pages talk:Linking/Archive 5

I think the only two people who showed any intellectual engagement in the sections I've linked below are myself and User:Tcncv. Most of the rest display simple unreasoning knee-jerk rejection.

Dishonest Behaviour

Ruslik was obviously still carrying invective from the Solar System FAR, and his contributions again show that a complete lack of understanding doesn't get in the way of his pontificating erroneously on any subject.

The “General principles” section, started on 7 May 2009, contains good dialogue, and much information provided by myself, and a good piece of investigating by Tcncv, which I congratulated him for. There was a slightly unpleasant note from Ruslik on 19 May, 2009 “I am happy that your finally reached a consensus with yourself “.

But the RfC, started 21 May, 2009, contains instances of dishonest straw man tactics and misrepresentation from editors;

• Hans Adler made a total of four contributions. The second he incivilly “plonked” me.
• Hans Adler's third contribution was straw man dishonesty, lies and misrepresentation;

  You sound like a computer programmer who tries to push through an unpopular code formatting convention at his workplace and, having failed, wants to abolish formatting conventions altogether. This is simply not OK, especially in an environment in which everybody is responsible for every bit of code. People get irritated when confronted with a convention they are not used to, and making one (1) of our 150,000 active editors happy is not a good reason to reduce uniformity. As to your assertions that one needs to have a background in certain web technologies to be worthy of discussing with you – I do, I don't see the relevance at all (it's like arguing that you need to have a detailed understanding of the target platform to be taken seriously about indentation of C code), and I can easily counter it with the assertion that a good grasp of the theory of formal languages is even more vital since we are talking about strings over an alphabet.

  — Hans Adler

• Hans Adler's fourth contribution was “Thanks for finally ending this silly thread“.
• Rd232/Disembrangler, “... It's not going to be changed to suit you.“, “a discussion which you have successfully poisoned with your arrogant and argumentative obstreperousness”.
• LaserBrain, “you seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with you as absurdly clueless“. On the bold button - “Are you going convince the Mediawiki developers to change the function of that button to wikilink?”

From the quote above you will see Hans Adler implies a familiarity or good grasp of programming languages and formal language. Taking him at his word we must conclude that he is somewhat skilled at removing ambiguity from communication. His misrepresentations and deceitful descriptions if not already considered to be lies certainly must be so considered with his implied skill at precision in language.

I stand by my reply to his attack,

You are making a Straw man argument, which I regard as a form of dishonesty, particularly the way you have employed it here. What is it I'm trying to abolish exactly? It is you (you can take that as plural if you like) who have succeeded in abolishing the self-link use, specially created for the purpose by the programmers of Mediawiki, in wiki-markup - with zero good reasons. It is false to describe this as a "code formatting convention", to know this and yet to proclaim it is a lie. This is simply not OK, especially in an environment in which everybody assumes good faith. The Nazis where all for uniformity, but dressing our 60,000 active editors in Nazi uniforms just to make you happy is just not on.
Your second paragraph - Straw man again, like a politician. You have given an entirely dishonest description of the spirit and fact of my position and how I expressed it in my previous contribution here. I clearly and respectfully suggested to any reader who came our way that it would be a good idea to have good knowledge of relevant fields of knowledge before they expressed an opinion on the self-link subject. For you to say that I said anyone is unworthy to debate with me is another lie. You are clearly operating in bad faith, so I cannot trust anything you say, even your proclaimed inability to see any relevance - I am not going to waste any more time countering your arguments given in bad faith. Shame on you.

— HarryAlffa

I would later be accused of implying by this that he was a Nazi, I would appreciate a finding of fact that this was clearly not the case.

Rd232 was unjustified in his mischarecterisations, implying my motives were selfish, or that I have more arrogance than that required by any editor to contribute to an article. Any arrogance he perceives, beyond that required to contribute to any article, is simply confidence born of knowledge and understanding of the subject.

LaserBrain's, “you seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with you as absurdly clueless“ completely misrepresented me to the point of deceit or lying.

The RfC tag was removed manually, by involved editors, a total of three times. The first time was by Kotnisky, at which I protested, and another agreed that it should stay. The second time was by Hans Adler, and the third was by Kotniski again. The second and third times where in close proximity and the ANI I raised on both overlapped a little – see next section.

Shereth incompetence & shallow analysis

I raised two ANI on two users who removed the RfC tag after it was agreed that the bot should be allowed to kill it. These two users, Hans Adler & Kotniski, contributed little to the discussions, and I mixed them up at the start of the ANI's.

I raised a WP:ANI when Hans Adler removed the RfC tag, where there was lying & misrepresentation from Ruslik, and further deviousness from Hans Adler – although if it was anyone else I'd describe his as a smartarse justification salted with humour, but he has shown me later that he is a little challenged in his laughter faculties.

Administrator Shereth was incompetent in handling this. His first response to this is worrying in itself.

As a participant in the discussion, User:Hans Adler really shouldn't have "closed" the RfC by removing the tag. That said, the discussion had clearly reached its end some time ago and there is no sense in leaving the tag on and there is certainly no point in re-adding it after the fact. Maybe he shouldn't have removed it but you shouldn't have restored it; two wrongs do not make a right. I would advise you both to stop fussing over the tag and let it be.

The only sensible thing about it is the first sentence, and he should have stopped there.

The subsequent dialogue contains my critique of Shereth attitude, so I won't repeat it here, but I stand by what I said, but will point out Shereth was biased, siding with the aggressor – Hans Adler – by minimising his disruption, and by criticising me.

• Shereth was wrong to say, “you shouldn't have restored it; two wrongs do not make a right“, for restoring the RfC tag
• Shereth was guilty of shallow analysis in concluding that I should not have restored the RfC tag when I and another had agreed that it should stay until the bot killed it
• Shereth was incorrect when writing that only myself and Hans Adler had contributed after 1 June, 2009 – there were three others
• Shereth was guilty of incompetence in miscounting contributions
• Shereth was wrong to say that the RfC had clearly reached it's end
• Shereth was wrong to make excuses for Hans Adler - because in Shereth's opinion the RfC had reached it's end
• Shereth was wrong to continually minimise the importance of the 30 day Policy for an RfC
• Shereth was wrong to say to Hans Adler, “I don't believe your removal of the tag is half as terrible a problem as it is being made out to be here”
• Shereth was wrong to say, “the issue keeps getting dragged up from the dead”, in reference to a later, but overlaping, ANI
• Shereth was guilty of absurdity to accuse me of “starting to border on tendentious ”
• Shereth was wrong to say to me, “not a forum for your personal vindication and you are exhausting the good will of the community“ - an illustration of the asymmetric attitude displayed to me versus Hans Adler.

Shereth was effectively changing the RfC 30 day Policy on the hoof. If someone complains about a break with Policy an administrator should not come across as, “well, that Policy is a bit pointless really” - an exaggerated interpretation of Sherith's views, but you understand the point. I won't reiterate my critique of Sherith in that regard here, but it goes toward evaluating his competence, and I stand by the critique. I was particularly offended by his comment, “ not a forum for your personal vindication “, which is rather in contrast to his attitude that it was later OK as a forum for a mob attack on me. Shereth might also have challenged Ruslik on his dishonesty I pointed out on the page. More shallow analysis on Shereth's part.

Shereth further incompetence & shallow analysis

I raised a second WP:ANI when Kotniski removed the RfC tag for the second time despite agreement that it should stay until killed by the bot, where he immediately pretends that his concern was to help other “genuinely important” RfCs get attention – the truth was he removed it because he disagreed with it. He also managed a personal attack “self-indulgent attention-seeking “, and a propaganda deceit of the discussion and my part in it.

Hans Adler then repeats and expands the lies he told in the RfC,

Such a user should not be given a forum for soapboxing about invisible technical details of MOS, where he can demand that other editors learn about various web technologies before disagreeing with him.

— Hans Adler

I stand by my reply to him,

It cannot be described as an "invisible technical details". There is a footnote in WP:link about this "invisible technical details". Again, dishonest straw man, using a plural when it is a singular, and when did I demand others learn anything? I simply suggested that it would be a good foundation on which to come to a conclusion. You are dishonestly describing my contributions - please don't do this.

— HarryAlffa

SheffieldSteel dishonesty, perversion, hypocrisy & Wikidrama

I found this section, by SheffieldSteel, an astonishing attack on me,

Goodness me. The sooner that RfC is archived, the better. Seeing it is only going to dissuade other editors from discussing anything, if they suspect that HarryAlffa may be involved. Rather than providing diffs, I'll say that most of HA's comments in this section seem to be uncivil and/or non-collegial in nature.

This is a smug, smartarse, unhelpful contribution rounded off by a lie, “most comments uncivil”. I counted my signature occurring 24 times in that section, which dates from 22 May – 26 May, with a dozen other contributors, when I asked her to show this incivility she presented only two numbered points - giving the lie to “most”. There was more dishonesty in choosing to miss out Ruslik's fundamental error germane to my responses to both Ruslik, and to Kotniski's support of him – and to describe any of these comments as incivil is perverse, particularly my attempt at some levity with LaserBrain which she quoted.

“I'm trying hard to resist making a joke about 60watt bulb-brain :)“

There was also, “Yes, I'm sure you've heard it before.” in the wikicode as a code-comment attached to this light-hearted comment. But LaserBrain still wilfully, unreasonably took offence at this, asking if this was an insult.

“No insult, just a little pun on your name - the clue was in the word "joke", here's a link so you can look it up.”

It was completely unreasonable for SheffieldSteel to describe this as incivility.

If I show just a little more honesty toward her – here are some quotes showing her hypocrisy:

A sense of humour and a willingness to not take oneself too seriously - the only requirements for membership - are conducive to the mental health of individual members as well as to building a better Misplaced Pages

— SheffieldSteel

Please re-read WP:V and WP:NPOV until you understand them. Then come back here...

— SheffieldSteel

... Guardian4truth cannot tell the difference (or is too lazy to make the distinction) between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory".

— SheffieldSteel

The other “evidence” against me she provides is the drive-by shooting by JamesBWatson! It is extraordinarily perverted to describe my response as incivility.

ShefieldSteel is a criticism in search of a target, born perhaps of boredom that there are no new articles to be written;

It is much harder to create new articles, in my opinion, because (with a few exceptions) all the best subjects already have articles.

— SheffieldSteel

I would say, if true, it means the vast majority of interesting articles have