Revision as of 22:44, 2 June 2011

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

Active alerts

Uncivil conduct by User:Conte di Cavour

• Conte di Cavour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

General note: CrimsonBlack (signature) and GustoBLSJP (old username) are both User:CrimsonSabbath. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Conte di Cavour labeled my edits as "vandalism" and made personal attacks on his User talk:Conte di Cavour, even with my sourced, well discussed and impersonal arguments on Talk:Italy.

diffs

diffs Talk: Italy

CrimsonBlack 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As for what I remember, I only reverted some deletions by GuboBLSJP, because the user insisted to delete parts that are supplied with reliable sources. I never reverted the contributions of this user, nor made personal attacks. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am GustoBLSJP. I only deleted the redundancies and kept most of the text. Before my contribution, i stated on the talk page of the article various times. The idea proposed was not the appropriate. The data must be neutral. I always showed the sources.

CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonSabbath (talk • contribs)

I'm not asking for any kind of penalty for this User. I just want that my future contributions be respected, and the deletion of the talk i had with the cited User, on his "Talk page". I don't want any kind of association with such User.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User:Conte di Cavour and User:Brutaldeluxe seem justified in undoing at least some of your edits. For example, in this edit, you removed sourced information citing "it's harmful to the NPOV". But, WP:NPOV tells us that to "avoid stating opinions as facts," and the text you deleted did not state, "Italy is the 'sick man of Europe'". No, it simply pointed out that it has been referred to as the "sick man of Europe", and there are references for proof. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). To quote Conte di Cavour, "You have deleted a lot of parts just because you didn't agree with them, but in case of sourced statements you simply can't do it". Guoguo12--Talk--  19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not protesting for the edits of the article. I had insert parts with sources, discussed the subjects and helped to turn the article more Neutral. I really think the article could be improved, as i stated.

User:Conte di Cavour misunderstood my edits as vandalism, maybe for not reading my inserts on Talk: Italy.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See "Economy section rationalization" on Talk: Italy. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) I realize that you are trying to improve the article and I thank you for your contributions. I also acknowledge that Conte di Cavour is reacting to your edits in an uncivil manner (swearing, shouting, etc., see user talk) and that considering your good faith edits vandalism are violations of WP:AGF. Even edit warring is not vandalism. However, you must understand that neutral does not mean unbiased. It means that all verifiable viewpoints are fairly represented. "Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say" (WP:V). However, calling your edits "vandalism" is certainly incorrect. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and opinion, Guoguo12.

This section must be ended, to not get tiresome.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I have sent Conte di Cavour a follow-up message summarizing this discussion. I hope that both you and Conte di Cavour will continue to edit and improve this encyclopedia. I especially hope that you will remain undaunted by your recent conflicts and I thank you for keeping cool and remaining civil. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize with Crimson/Gusto for having exaggerated. I hope that now everything is settled. Thanks a lot to Guoguo12.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try to control more my edits and discuss more on the subjects.

Thank you, Guoguo12. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GenKnowitall

• GenKnowitall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Center of gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I (Melchoir) have been involved in a content dispute with GenKnowitall for about two days. His attitude is partially responsible for the difficulty I'm having in resolving the dispute, because it is so taxing to interact with him. Rather than provide diffs, I'll just point to Talk:Center of gravity. Melchoir (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you are having difficulty adhering to the discussion and editing process, Melchoir, preferring to simply hijack an article and make substantive and objectionable revisions without discussion, where the article is being actively discussed and edited. Some of your material is good and may be included, with prior discussion. Yet you have been repeatedly asked to participate by submitting a proposal for discussion, which you have not done. Please submit such in discussion instead of complaining about how 'taxing' it is to collaborate. Additionally, resolving a 'dispute' first requires that there be a bona fide dispute not just disagreement, offer a position that is properly stated and supported by some authority, and then engage in good faith with responsive answer to replies to resolve it. There should there be a real (as opposed to fabricated ) dispute between authority, otherwise it is just a food fight. This has been explained to you. Please participate in the editorial process instead of what you have been doing.

I have little sympathy for your complaint Melchoir, as you were involved in a previous incarnation of the article, based plainly on a flawed understanding of the subject, trampled an article by a previous author, mucking editing up so badly an entire deletion was the only sensible exit. You wish to do that again. No, sorry, the subject deserves better. Your behavior so far has not been exemplary, and except for the fact that I believe and hope you have good contributions to make to the article I would have made complaint about you. I submitted an article which you agree is correct as stated. I have treated you respectfully and in good faith. Join the discussion with your proposals and engage in good faith editing. GenKnowitall (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

GenKnowitall's contributions indicate he is unfamiliar with the WP:Consensus model; I've commented on the specific content dispute on the talk page. Additionally I've left warning for his personal attack on another editor on the talk page. As this is primarily a content dispute I don't think there's a lot more to be done here. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gerardw, but will post the following which I had prepared.

GenKnowitall's first edit was three weeks ago, so it is not surprising that their understanding of procedures is incomplete. I have not investigated the content dispute or much of the discussion because this comment is sufficient to show a problem: the term "vandalism" has a specific meaning here, and must not be used to describe good-faith edits; do not comment on an editor's background ("graduate student")—article talk pages are to discuss content; terms such as "You were on notice" and "I will seek your removal" are highly inappropriate in the context used. Subject experts are welcome, but they need to demonstrate their expertise by providing reliable sources that support their edits, and by responding to points raised (and there should be multiple sources for such a well known topic as this; see WP:DUE or possibly even WP:REDFLAG). Misplaced Pages requires collaboration and when an editor reasonably requests a reason for an edit (as was the case with the diff just given), the reason must be supplied. There is no urgent reason to revert an article back to one's favored position—instead, editors should provide explanations on the talk page and allow a reasonable time for responses. I would have thought there were plenty of good editors watching this article, but if more input is needed, post a comment at WT:WikiProject Physics. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

So... if we're done here, I can take this page off my watchlist. :-) Melchoir (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A dispute over editing process arose, compounded by the actions by two people who were not involved in the article and whose sole apparent purpose of entry was to precipitate a technical edit war. Article content cannot be seriously disputed, examined, or improved where collaborative process is so thwarted. Instead an admin has entered, agreed to mediate, and will practically decide process. Complaints may be made, but the above seem neither formal complaint nor official action on a complaint, nor good faith attempt to resolve anything, so are perhaps best understood as continuation of the edit war while admin actions are decided. GenKnowitall (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Two uninvolved and experienced editors confirmed above that you are mistaken. New editors are allowed a lot of rope, but you need to quickly understand WP:CIVIL because this comment is not acceptable. If you think about a typical unmoderated newsgroup where the majority of content consists of personal attacks, it will be apparent why Misplaced Pages enforces the comment on the edits, not the editor procedure (that is, it is ok to claim an edit is misguided although you will be ignored if no policy-compliant reason is provided, but it is not ok to claim that an editor is misguided). Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Unwarranted Accusations by Boringbob4wk

• Boringbob4wk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both on my talk page and at that of playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, User:Boringbob4wk, whose contributions date only to April but who claims to have been on Wikiepdia longer, has called my fully discussed, good-faith edits vandalism at least three times (these two , ) plus an edit summary (). Aside from meat-puppet/sock-puppet issues I will take up elsewhere, he attacked me for reverting, with explanation, an anonymous IP (one of several with the same initial IP address) who had removed citation requests from uncited claims; turned fully cited footnotes into a bare number and link; and inserted uncited claims within foonoted passages, along with numerous style errors, and promotional WP:PEACOCK terms and tone.

You'll see from my responses throughout that I've remained polite and temperate.

I'm sure my reputation and full record can handle the unwarranted attacks, but this type of slanderous, uncivil behavior should not be condoned. Before he does this to others, I believe someone should make clear to him that abusive posts and unwarranted accusations are not allowed.

If possible, I would like him to voluntarily remove his abusive posts from my talk page and state on the Aguirre-Sacasa page that good-faith edits are not vandalism

Thank you for any help you can give on this. It is much appreciated. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Boringbob4wk, accusing an editor of vandalism because you disagree with the content is a personal attack and not in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies, so please stop. Gerardw (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, there are a few issues beyond just that:

• Assuming good faith went out the window somewhat hand-in-hand with the personal attack in Boringbob4wk's first edit summary/edit to the article. This is also important since they reference the level one warning templtes in their post to Tenebrae.
• Both the section heading and content of their post on Tenebrea's talk page show a serious misunderstanding of what vandalism is. There also seems to be a disconnect on how biographies of living people are handled. Mainly that {{citation needed}} is rarely used and removing questioned or questionable material immediately is the common practice.
• Teanabrae's assertion about Boringbob4wk removing post's to their own talk page, , is a little worrying. Since Boringbob4wk only commented to Tenebrae's post, , the assertion comes off as hyperbola at best.
• Bringing a user talk spat to an article talk page is rarely warranted. At best, referencing user talk pages should be to point out the points have been discussed previously, that's it. A section on the bio's talk page expanding on why certain edits have been made is fine. Hammering the accusation, or making one, isn't.
• One last thing, Boringbob4wk should take another look at the warning templates, how they are worded, and how they escalate. Their post to Tenebrae, the more it is looked at, appears to be an attempt to browbeat or shame an editor away from an article rather than correct, in this case non-existent, problematic editing practices.

- J Greb (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct about my misreading Boringbob4wk's talk page. When I went to add a post the first time, it looked as if my first post had disappeared, and so I re-added it. There may have been an "Edit conflict" page in between that confused me. I do take back that assertion.

The rest of my statements, as you note, remain accurate. Thanks for noticing and for commenting. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And now I see he is slandering me to another editor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things in direct response to Tenebrae:

1. You still need to rethink dragging the accusations onto the article's talk page. I realize the accusation stings but the article's talk page is not the place to vent or add drama. If you feel the reasons for the edits need more explanation than can be provided in an edit summary, fine. Stick to the content of the edits and why they are valid or needed. If you need to comment on another editor's edits, stick to the content and why there is an issue. Leave commenting on other editor's comments on you personally to the user talk pages and venues like this.
2. As noted on my talk page, the post to GoingBatty was made prior to this thread. That in no way excuses it, but you need to be careful in placing the order of events. You may have just seen the post - I missed it in the contribution history as well - but it had been done at the time of the original attacks.

And to Boringbob4wk:

• Accusing an editor of vandalism on an unrelated page such as is much worse than doing it on the related talk pages - the article's, their own, and WP:AIV. If you are going to ask an editor to check edits, pages, or re-run a bot on a page, it can and should be done without accusation about third party contributions or motives.
• And weaseling around it like here is as bad. If you want to discus the content of the edits, use the article's talk page. If not, see the above point to you and point one to Tenebrae.
• Having a page semi-protected only prevents unregistered - IPs - and extremely new registered editors from changing the page. It does not affect your ability to edit the page. If an IP wishes an edit made, the can request it on the article's talk page. The tone of your post suggests you are acting on behalf of another. They can ask for themselves.
• While the post to GoingBatty was part of the initial posts attacking Tenebrae, the one to Crit is a new attack. To repeat: If you believe or have proof vandalism, file it at AIV. If you have a strong case to present of an editor being biased in there editing file it at WP:AN/I. Do not just attack them on third party user talk pages.

- J Greb (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, JG, for taking the time and effort to make a thoughtful, detailed reply. You're right about the article's talk page: I would not have 'ported the post over to it had not the vandalism accusation appeared in the article's edit-summary/history.

I do appreciate your noting to Boringbob4wk the seriousness of his actions. I hope he takes his Misplaced Pages presence seriously enough to come here and see this. With my regards, as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen that this editor has been blocked for his various actions, and I'm grateful that your post to him as to why was so detailed and specific. I've probably said this before, but taking on admin responsibilities adds so much more time and work to one's voluntary contributions to this encyclopedia. I remain very impressed by seeing both in your admin duties and as just a regular member of WikiProject Comics that you don't cut corners and that you take the time to give specific, point-by-point posts. Even if one disagrees with your point of view on one particular topic or another, as I'm sure I have in the past, anyone would have to say — I certainly have said and do say — that your points are always reasonable, clear and well thought-out. I continue to learn from all my veteran Project colleagues. Seriously. Thanks for all your work. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73 and Nickelback

Ok so he is putting up some false information at the Nickelback Misplaced Pages and I don't like that. Also, ever time I change it to the correct information he reverts it to the false information, please block him for false info. Oh and he is stalking me every time I do an edit. Also, he is harassing me because he thinks I'm Picklesatwar which I'm not, but he keeps harassing me saying the two words "you are".  ; Nickelbackrules1518 ; (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC);

(See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickelbackrules1518)

I am an involed editor in this situation and have tried to communicate with the above editor . Nickelbackrules1518 has been directed to Talk:Nickelback#On going problems on many occasions and despite my efforts to start a civil conversation he/she simply does not respond. . . Not all the addition merit reversal in my opinion, however others have raised concerns about the edits as a whole.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that Nickelbackrules1518 and Picklesatwar have indeed been shown to be the same editor and have both been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, we have tried a number of times to work with "Nickelbackrules", but rather than engaging in numerous discussions we have started on the discussion page, he choses to ignore them, and instead break WP:3RR and engage in sockpuppetry (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nickelbackrules1518) I never harass him, I merely tell him to stop breaking wikipedia policy, and to discuss things on the talk page. Then, he has the nerve to report me here, and without notifying me. *sigh* Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, we would have notified you had there been something discuss. Gerardw (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Steven Walling

• Steven Walling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joseph Farah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm beginning to have a hard time assuming good faith with this user, so I was hoping someone could talk me down, have a word with him, or both. He's repeatedly reverted me on Joseph Farah with a (IMO spurious) explanation that it violated WP:SELF, and then WP:BLP. I understand his desire to protect Misplaced Pages, and those reverts aren't the behavior I'm seeking guidance in responding to-- the content is already under review at BLPN. Rather, it's the manner in which he's conducted himself in the making of those reverts that has made me feel uncomfortable.

I began to feel attacked and delegitimized when Steven reverted my edits with the comment "per WP:SELF" and accused me of being disengenuous on his talk, but without comment on the article's talk page. When I requested that he self-revert and discuss on Talk:Joseph Farah, he instead characterized my arguments as "stupid," "cynical," and "ridiculous.". I subsequently re-added the material, prompting another revert with an edit summary authoritatively forbiding others (presumably me) to include the sourced material, and a talk-page admonishment that my contribution was "not acceptable. End of story."

As he was originally involved in this discussion by User:JakeInJoisey requesting "administrative oversight" of my contributions, and as he declares on his talk page that he's a WMF employee, and due to what I perceived to be the inappropriately authoritative tone he was taking, I suggested that his behavior appeared to be less that of a volunteer editor on equal footing to myself, and more that of an employee of the WMF oversighting an article. This was met with an accusation that I'd made ad-hominem arguments, along with another declarative statement asserting that my edits violate WP:BLP, and that he had brought them to BLP noticeboard for further attention. That seems disingenuous to me, as the request he brought to BLP/N was for a general review of "the latest batch of contributions by anon", and did not repeat his previous assertion that the edits were prima facia violative of BLP policy.

I guess, in short, I'm feeling as though this user hasn't assumed my good faith, and that he's referentially implying authority in a manner which disempowers me as an editor, and precludes collaboration on an equitable basis. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's what's going on: Another editor asked me to get involved because of a BLP concern (They did not get involved themselves.) Now that the anon is failing to successfully argue for their opinion, and has been reverted in part or whole by two other editors as well as myself, they've simply moved on to making ad hominem accusations against me. To be clear about "authority" or having someone "disempowered": I have not used my sysop rights, and I already reiterated on my user page and on the talk page that I'm using my volunteer account and it's not a Foundation issue. I have done nothing to prevent this anonymous editor from participating in Misplaced Pages, or even suggest that they cannot or should not be editing. That's nonsense. While the dispute continued, I went to the noticeboard for outside input rather than revert again, which is meant to prevent edit warring between them and myself. In short: I find this to be a frivolous attempt to try and divert the issue from content to contributors. Steven Walling 23:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that it's been "reverted in part or whole by two other editors" is an outright fabrication. It's been reverted in part by only one other editor, pending discussion on WP:BLP/N. I defy you to provide diffs that prove otherwise. I'm increasingly concerned at your failure to recognize the referential power implied by mentioning your status as a sysop. I'm also disturbed by your repeated failure to assume good faith, as evidenced by this most recent characterization of my concern as "frivolous." It's disingenuous to suggest that repeated reversion and misleading talk-page commentary do "nothing to prevent this anonymous editor from participating in Misplaced Pages." You've been both condescending and dismissive since the inception of this conversation; it's highly unbecoming of an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly as someone in the middle of a heated debate with me, you're not in the best position to make a clear judgement about what is and isn't appropriate or becoming. Also, it really has nothing to do with being an admin, as adminship is not an editorial position and gives me no right to make an executive decision about the content. As for the diffs, everyone can see the history of the page: you continue to edit war back and forth over multiple issues in the article. Steven Walling 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your accusation that I'm "edit warring"-- diffs or it didn't happen. Regarding your claim that I'm not in the best position to make a clear judgment about what is and isn't appropriate or becoming: you are 100% correct, but I suggest you're similarly compromised. That is why I initiated this WQA discussion in the first place. I would appreciate comment from uninvolved users. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• uninvolved User:Off2riorob. Stephen has not made a single edit or comment that requires dispute resolution. This is a simple content and policy discussion that is now at a noticeboard (BLP) and the article talkpage already and there is nothing at all in Stephens actions that deserves dispute resolution at all, in fact IMO his actions have been exemplary in this situation. As for the edit warring comments about IP:24 - the user WP:BOLDly added the content and it was disputed and removed and the IP:24 re added it twice against bold - revert - discuss - WP:BRD Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We appear to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the term "uninvolved." In my view, you are not. You should disclose your involvement in the issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved and have a complete NPOV position on partisan Republican and Democrat content and Barack Obhama conspiracy content. I am a UK residence acting here as a neural experienced contributor to this issue and at the WP:BLPN thread, from assessing and investigating the IP:24 users contributions I am also commenting now here. I am also not a online supporter or friend or connected contributor to the S Welling account. I have made only one quite minor edit to the Joseph Farah BLP as such I am completely uninvolved WP:UNINVOLVED - Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec - please use 'preview') WP:BRD isn't policy, and you are clearly not completely uninvolved. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because you attack me doesn't make me involved. Policy or not - its good practice and as I said - I am uninvolved and S Walling has zero editing issues to reply to here Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That was borderline incoherent. Did you even check the diff? It's hardly my attacking you-- it's your edit, in which you alter a comment you made and I'd replied to in a way that altered the context. And WP:UNINVOLVED isn't relevant unless you're secretly an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You continue with your worthless personal attacking battlefield comments and imo you are simply being disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Involved editor comment: I'm not seeing any evidence of wrongdoing on Steven Walling's part. Gerardw (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Original submitter comment: To be very, very clear, the wrongdoing I'm alleging is that the user under discussion reverted my edits without being prepared to engage in a extended discussion, and that he employed dogmatism, arguments from authority, and personal aspersions to the end of bolstering his position. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Icex15 and User:Night of the Big Wind

• Icex15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs)

I am in a dispute with Icex15 (talk · contribs). He is driving me nuts with his behaviour. He started yesterday with editing on WP, good enough to start immediately with an editwar and 24 hours block. Now he is back and haunting me over a rude remark (polite version: I told him to start using his brain) that was already removed by an admin. I gave him advice over how to sign his edits on talkpages (no effect), over the mentoring project (no effect) and to read the information in the welcoming template (plain refused). He is getting under my skin...
Effected pages:

Revision history of Columbidae: 9 reverts, no discussion

Revision history of User talk:Night of the Big Wind

Revision history of User talk:Icex15

User contributions ICex15

By now I get the idea that is a plain vandal or worse, a troll.
This goes straight out of hand, so I need your help/advice. Please! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also in a dispute with Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs). I was only replying to a comment he made on my message that wasn't towards him. I was writing my message in my appealing block section explaining what happened to the people who review block appeals, and he kept the dispute going by leaving a message under it. He said to me use your F****ng brain which I found to be offensive he was basically called me stupid/idiot which was a personal attack which violates Misplaced Pages's No Personal Attacks, and Civility Codes, and he also told me to stop whining which I though was disrespectful as well.

He keeps telling me I need to follow the rules, but I think he needs to follow the rules as well. What he said was it doesn't matter if he breaks the rules, because he is an experienced editor. I am not going to listen to his advice on how to edit, because he was rude and disrespectful towards me. I might listen to another experienced Misplaced Pages editor who's civil, respectful, and polite on advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icex15 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 May 2011

This appears to be about Columbidae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (I added the unsigned and this link to assist the discussion). Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! I just noticed that this section is a result of the previous section (#User:Icex15). I suggest that no further discussion should take place here (instead, comments about both editors belong in the above section). Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Merged the two request. It is a symptom of the problem that this happened. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an easy WQA case:

Night of the Big Wind: Please do not use plain language because Misplaced Pages operates on the basis that there is good in all of us. Of course no one is a troll here, but when a comment is indistinguishable from that which might have been left by a troll, it is best to not respond.

Icex15: This user appears to be incompatible with Misplaced Pages. First two edits: diff1, diff2. Remaining edits are to repeatedly post an undue and pointless comment diff3, and to ask users why the the undue and pointless comment was removed. Multiple editors have reverted the comment, and the user was blocked, and shows no signs of stopping. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob

• Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WIkipedia:Wikiquette alerts (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:BLP/N (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User repeatedly claims to be uninvolved in the User:Steven Walling issue on WQA, despite that being demonstrably not the case. User also refactored his own comments on BLPN in a way that altered the discussion's context, and responded to a request that he clarify which content was in place when, per WP:REDACT, with an accusation that I'm being pointy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And then he characterized my concern as "worthless." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's pretty much my point. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I fear I do not see what precise violation of Wikiquette actually occurred here. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How about adding an accusation that I "attacked" this user to a comment that I'd already responded to? It dramatically alters the context of my reply, and a user who simply reads the page has no idea that my response is not, in fact, intended to be responsive to that accusation. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate the tea, though. ;-). 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also - I dispute there is any violations worthy of report or dispute resolution in this report and I completely reject it and will not respond again. As such via my rejection this noticeboards value is degraded and anyone who considers the report valid is welcome to escalate the report. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That really doesn't make sense -- your participation doesn't determine WQA's value. Regardless of that, this report is appears to be simply retaliatory and most unfounded. It does appear Off2riorob refactored his comment after someone replied, which isn't quite copacetic. Gerardw (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• This petty issue is a waste of precious time and anon has failed to make out claims of involvement, be it during this WQA or in the one filed yesterday (and it is becoming disruptive). Off2riorob, stop feeding the anon with excuses to end up involved in some silly dispute with you when you can just revert the amendment, or if you feel you must include it, make it as a separate sentence with a separate signature (in brackets or something if you want to include it in the same reply). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem with Wikiquette here. Move on. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

For posterity, I disagree. A tennet of WP:Wikiquette is "Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles)," which the user under discussion flagrantly failed to do. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bullmoosebell

Bullmoosebell (talk · contribs)

There is a user named Bullmoosebell. Because he was the last who edited a page I asked him something to his talk page. Instead of telling me he cannot do it, he rudely deleted my comments. When I asked him to be more polite, he sent me a comment from which I understood he hadn't even understand what I was asking. Then I begged him to answer but he deleted me and didn't answer. Please do something to make him a)More polite and b)To understand what I ask. (I am user IP 178.128.75.48 but I changed today. I am the same person)--46.12.45.67 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not read too much into what happened. Misplaced Pages is a very big place, and it is very likely that Bullmoosebell did not know what your comment (apparently this) referred to. Someone else who had more time might have replied and asked you what article you meant, and what you were suggesting, however on this occasion that did not occur. A user is entitled to remove (almost) any message from their talk page without explanation, and your message might have been quite puzzling, so the easiest course was to remove it. Repeating the message just gives an impression of unduly pressing some point, and you should not expect a volunteer editor to respond to some issue that you want raised. Next time, please put a new section at the article talk page. If you want to alert an active editor (although that should not be necessary if they are watching the article), you could post on the user's talk page with a link to the article talk. Example wikitext: ] which displays like this: Talk:List of current United States Senators.

In conclusion, unless you have something more specific to mention, I do not think there is an issue which needs consideration here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am BullMooseBell. As I stated in my comment to IP address 178.128.75.48 (now IP address 46.12.45.67), initiating a discussion pertaining to a specific article should be posted on that article's discussion page (where any user with that article on their watch-list can provide input). I am not inclined to entertain a discussion with any persons directly on my talk page, especially if the user does not even have a registered account. Understand, it is not my prerogative to upset you, though your continued pursuit of a response from me reflects your feelings have been hurt. However, communication with defamatory remarks, after I gave you guidance on how to accomplish the task, can be perceived as offensive and will not be tolerated. This has been explained to you by many other users, as well. Frankly, your conduct is immature and I am unwilling to assist you considering you are making this a personal matter. If you wish to discuss the content of an article, post a new discussion on the talk page of the article. Attacking another user will not allow you to achieve your desired results. —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

So this wasn't the first interaction between the IP and Bullmoosebell? Where did you (Bullmoosebell) make the comment initiating a discussion pertaining to a specific article should be posted on that article's discussion page Gerardw (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does this matter and why are we still discussing this? A non-registered user is upset because they feel I was rude to them, which is completely subjective. They asked a question and I guided them to the article's discussion page. In a vilified stance, the IP user contacted me multiple times after guidance was provided. I felt their comments did not warrant a response considering their efforts should have been focused on the article, not attacking me. This whole line of discussion is trivial and a waste of our time. If you wish to research the discussion, simply read the User talk pages. Bullmoosebell (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. No gross (or even moderate) incivility here. See for examples of posts from the other IP on Bullmoosebell's talk page (which were difficult for me to understand). OhNoitsJamie 22:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We are still here because you chose to comment. I'm asking because it appears you simply reverted their comment on your talk page without comment -- so I'm asking where you directed them to the article talk page. Why does their status as registered or non-registered matter? Gerardw (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jake Fuersturm

1. Any time either Jake, Mike, or Erik reverts (either rollback, undo, or an edit that undos the previous change) a Star Trek universe related edit made by the other and the original editor objects, you go to discussion with a 1:0 revert count (i.e. the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reverted edit) and a 1:1 revert count if 14 days have passed, due to the presumption of consensus as per WP:SILENCE. You agree not to do anything about that until a consensus is reached on the article talk page. If consensus cannot be reached between you, you'll ask for a third opinion. You will refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content.
2. You also will refrain from posting any other Star Trek edit (talk page edits excepted, for obvious reasons) while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent any instances of WP:POINT (whether real or perceived).

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

• Jake Fuersturm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Jake_Fuersturm (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jake Fuersturm initiated an edit war on May 28 over content that he added on May 22. I reverted one of his reverts to an earlier state that USER:MikeWazowski had done.

Jake repeatedly demonstrated issues of WP:OWN with the article. In addition Jake filed a bogus 3RR against me for two reverts when he had already had four reverts in the article. Jake's argument was that the earlier revert MikeWazowski had should count against me for a 3RR violation. In the notes of the 3RR he filed against me a third party admin (Kuru) advised Jake against reverting further which he followed. However, Jake has continued to make inflamatory and sometimes taunting remarks. Some hightlights include (many others are in his recent contribs). In the last example Jake claimed he was "having fun" when calling me sanctimonious.

Another bit of WP:POINT, other than from filing a 3RR against me when I had only two reverts, was when Jake started a discussion at WP:SPI about opening a socket puppet investigation on himself after I observed the coincidence of an anonymous editor with no previous edits in the article suddenly appearing to defend Jake. The discussion continued at SPI until another admin (Shirik) told him to "drop it". .

It should be noted that I offered WP:TEA to Jake twice in an attempt to reset the interaction between us. I also pointed out to Jake that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, as he seemed to believe . These jestures did not prove to be very successful.

Jake has been disrupting Misplaced Pages for a few days now, despite repeated warnings from at least two admins and two warnings against uncivil behavior from me. Jake's approach of making content changes and then edit warring over those changes once they're reverted appears to now be continuing here. His edit notes there are particularly pointed. Erikeltic 20:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that I haven't posted an edit to the article in question in almost 72 hours is hardly being disruptive.

I would contend that Erik's decision to F9 this image simply to make a point is what's disruptive -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a Wikiquette alert. Your continuing disruptive behavior will speak for itself. Erikeltic 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik, what did Mike say about Ad hominem attacks? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I find this particularly disingenuous given Erik's own history with regard to Wikquette alerts, and the fact that he himself has been blocked twice in the past for edit warring, the most recent occurrence being a scant two weeks ago. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks aren't warranted, Jake. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"He did it too" is not excuse, not even for me. I learned my lesson, now you must learn yours. Erikeltic 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike - would you agree that Erik's decision to bring this entirely unrelated edit into the Wikquette alert to be a an Ad hominem attack? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that the subject under consideration is your recent actions/poor attitude towards others who disagree with you, no, I do not. It has a direct bearing on the situation, whereas your comment was basically an attempt to deflect blame by making another editor look bad using an unrelated matter. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't exactly consider you to be an unbiased commenter here, all things considered. And this Wikquette alert relates to the Spock article, not to the America: The Story of Us article. Feel free to open another Wikquette alert for that one if you feel justified in doing do, but I think that would just be continuing the distuption. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No Jake. This Wikiquette alert relates to you and your recent actions. Erikeltic 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - What's disruptive is that Erik has insisted in posting this Wikquette alert when consensus was reached on the edit in question, but he insists on carrying the debate into another forum simply to further his point -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand Jake. It is your continued uncivil and disruptive behavior that has sparked this alert. Nothing else. Erikeltic 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What's disruptive was your insistence on continuing to post to my talk page just to beat a dead horse. And then continuing it here when I shut it down. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That is in error. My last comment on your talk page was at 14:31. You archived it at 15:37. In between both of those events you made these comments and started yet another edit war. This was well after I attempted to be very civil with you. Clearly my attempt to offer you some tea failed. That is why we are here now. Erikeltic 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Erik, your continued posting on Jake's talk page wasn't wise or helpful. Generally, if an editor isn't reception to discussion on their talk page, you should just walk away. Gerardw (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I concede that you are correct, however, Jake never told me I could not continue the conversation on his talk page & seemed to invite continued discussion with his edits until the very end with the "last word". That was when I said okay and didn't comment on his talk page again. I had planned to drop it, but he made more uncivil comments (previously cited) and started another edit war. My last post to his talk page was to inform him to this alert. Erikeltic 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik - you said yourself that "The discussion is over for me and I refuse to participate in any more finger pointing or needless escalations of a dead issue." . -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The "wisdom" part is in grokking when it's time to leave before the editor makes an explicit request. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Erik insist's on bringing up non-Spock related issues, and overall editor behaviour, I would note that repeated user talk page posting is exactly what led to Erik last blocking -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with your continued poor behavior? Erikeltic 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that it takes two to tango. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to a question posted by you. It would have been rude to ignore it. Unless it was a deliberate attempt to draw me back in? Hm? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As as for another edit war - the edit war started with someone else (Mike)'s reversion of my edit - and last I checked it's one revert for me, and two for him. So who's edit warring? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how you can never percieve yourself to be in the wrong - which is exactly what's causing you problems. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how you and Erik can accuse me of that, but not see it in yourselves. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that when you add material to a Wiki page and it is reverted by another editor that you should go to the talk page and begin a discussion with the other editor, not just undo the revert? It's a pretty basic principle here. Do you understand that process? Undoing the revert and treating it like a race to see who ends up on top before the 3RR is counter productive to a group effort. Do you understand that? Erikeltic 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One revert for me, two for him. Case closed. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, I did start a discussion - probably not on the correct talk page, but it was a talk page nonetheless -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No Jake, you had at least three, possibly four reverts as Kuru observed to you in the 3RR you filed. The link to that is above. Erikeltic 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so you mean the case where you insisted on posting a revert AFTER I'd already started the related talk page discussion? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You really don't seem to "get it." When you make an edit (in this case the edit was on May 22) and another editor reverts your edit, it is not your duty to then undo the revert and restore the changes you made but you must discuss them on the talk page first. This has been your MO throughout and is what you are currently engaged in in the "America" article. Erikeltic 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This statement that Jake "enjoys sparring" and calling Erik "sanctimonious" isn't good. Jake, do you think you could dial it down a bit? Gerardw (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerard - with respect, that wouldn't have happened if he didn't decide to visit my talk page continuously to beat a dead horse -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't actually work that way. An editor is responsible for what they post regardless of what other editors do. Gerardw (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Can we agree that Erik will stay off Jake's talk page, and Jake will refrain from making comments about Erik, and all go our separate ways? Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If this includes Jake staying out of Trek-related articles, then I too can live with that. I have been involved with editing these articles long before Jake was an editor at Misplaced Pages. He clearly has issues with several of the "regular" editors on the Trek articles, so working with him in the future may prove difficult for anyone. Otherwise, it is my opinion that Jake's actions warrant an edit block for 24-72 hours minimum. Jake must also pledge to stop edit warring. Erikeltic 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik, was this your intention all along? If you're going to insist that I refrain from editing Star Trek articles then I withdraw my earlier response to Gerard.

I'm also not sure how Erik defines "regular" editor, when I've been a far more regular editor than both him AND Mike. I would note that from April 1, 2011 onwards, I added ~19K worth of material to Spock, whereas the last time either Mike or Erik (the "regular" editors) posted an edit to this article that wasn't a revert or a minor edit was July 2009. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, my intention was to engage you with respect and civility. My edits speak for me, as do yours. Erikeltic 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The attempt to CSD this file simply to make a point is hardly civil on your part -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would accept a temporary edit block if Erik is subject to one of the same duration. I believe that's customary in cases such as these. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done absolutely nothing that warrants an edit block Jake. You on the other hand have. Don't attempt to deflect blame on to me and "drag me down with you" over your inability to conduct yourself properly. Erikeltic 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't have continued as long as it had if you hadn't decided to drop by and continue the dispute on my talk page today. And for the record, that's the second time you've done that, the first bring on Sunday.

The fact that you're also proposing a topic ban suggests to me that you've been acting in anything but good faith. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was on your talk page to try to reset with you, that's it. It was your continued uncivil behavior after that discussion ended that prompted this alert. You had clearly learned nothing and still haven't. I firmly believe you need to blocked from editing for at least 24 hours if not 72. Your continued behavior is disruptive. Your responses here have deflected your actions on to me and Mike and you clearly do not understand that Misplaced Pages or its policies. Erikeltic 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand them just fine - you attempt to turn this into a full-blown topic ban demonstrates your lack of understanding (and judgment). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Then take a 24 hour block all on your own, accept responsiblity for your actions, and never edit war again. Believe me, I don't want you to have a topic ban. In both of my attempts to reset with you I told you how I looked forward to working with you, and you continued to be uncivil and disruptive. Your so fond of pointing out my past blocks; why refuse to accept responsibility for your actions? Erikeltic 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I would point out that when someone truly comes along to bury the hatchet, then don't generally caveat their comments with a critique of the person they trying to bury the hatchet with. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Erik: Why would a block be imposed on anyone? Jake just agreed to drop the personal attack-ish comments. Blocks are not punitive. Additionally the very top of this page states clearly avoid filing a report if you're looking to get someone blocked. Additionally your comments indicate WP:OWNERSHIP issues. I'm sorry, I can't help you.

Jake: despite Erik's lack of cooperation, I'll suggest you refrain from personal comments anyway. For one thing, it's Misplaced Pages policy. Additionally, if you run into future conflicts it provides the other editor with dirt to throw at you, confounding the underlying dispute/disagreement.

Both of you: you should talk edits out on the talk page without worrying about who reverted who last. If you can't come to an agreement, open an WP:RFC. Continued squabbling could result in an admin slapping full page protection on the article, and there's a chance they'll pick the wrong version to protect.Gerardw (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You offered a solution, I responded. I only brought this alert in the hope that Jake would learn from this. Clearly he has not and will not. That's too bad. Erikeltic 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And I responded as well. Quickly and simply. It was only Erik that insisted on all the pre-conditions. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How exactly can we go our "separate ways" when we work on the same articles? So basically if I agree and show up in Spock again, I'm in violation of the agreement? That's the only reason I said that; I've repeatedly tried to reset with you only to be taunted and treated without civility for my efforts. Again & again you shift blame for your actions on to others and bring up things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. Erikeltic 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And I point out again, except for minor edits and a handful of reversions, you haven't touched Spock in almost two years. So are we really working on the same articles? Or is this just more tendentiousness? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to try to deflect blame and state "facts" about other people, it would help is you actually knew what you were talking about. A simple search of his edit contributions shows that Erikeltic edited the Spock article multiple times in 2011 (February, March and May), and multiple times in 2010 (March, July, August, September, October). Please, look before you type next time. You're not doing yourself any favors. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Please, look before you type next time." I suggest you follow your advice. As I stated quite clearly, edits other than minor edits and a handful of reversions -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, but it's pretty obvious at this point that Jake is either unwilling or unable to conduct himself properly and those that should care don't. He has already discredited himself in the eyes of his fellow editors and I suspect he is going to have a difficult time moving forward. It's a shame for him, but the continued debate is uttelry pointless. Here he is--in this latest response above--deflecting once again. Pity. Erikeltic 22:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik - you're the one who asserted: "How exactly can we go our "separate ways" when we work on the same articles?". How is my direct response to that a deflection. What is a deflection however, is your continued attempts to impugn me rather than thinking on the proposal below. - Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, now I can add wikihounding to the list of Jake's recent behavior. I asked an admin a simple, non-binding question and Jake takes that as an invite to start up on the admin's talk page? Seriously? And he is the same person feigning injury for an so-called unwanted discussion (so-calle after the fact) on his own talk page? There is simply no end to it. Erikeltic 23:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I've similarly caught Erik snooping my edits. Furthermore, I shouldn't have to remind Erik that Misplaced Pages edits are open to all to see, and for good reason. Although Erik attempts to spin it otherwise, all he is doing is tantamount to canvassing. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal, part deux

How about this:

1. any time either of us (Erik or Jake) reverts (and let's be clear - this isn't just hitting the "undo" button) a Star Trek universe related edit made by the other, and the original editor objects, we go to discussion with a 1:1 revert count (i.e. the article goes back to status quo prior to the first revert). And we agree not to do anything about that until a consensus is reached on the article talk page.
2. we also refrain from posting any other Star Trek edit (talk page edits excepted, for obvious reasons) while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent any instances of WP:POINT (whether real or perceived).

-- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, do we need to include Mike on this, given that the two of you seem to have been allied in the Spock dispute with me? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not allied with anyone. Quit trying to present yourself as the blameless persecuted one - it's not working. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Other than Gerardw (neutral third party) you're the only two posting opposite me here. You're also the only two who posted on the deletion of the Kogan/Young Spock picture (until SarekofVulcan posted his opinion this afternoon). And you're the only two to post reversions on the Texas Supreme Court quotation that started all this. What am I to think? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor hereThis proposal seems quite fair and reasonable in my honest opinion. I would request all three of ya'all quit letting personal opinions of each other influence your remarks and making accusations and simply adopt or reject the proposal.--v/r - TP 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it also require Jake to stop wikihounding me and starting edit wars over material he includes that other editors find objectionable? Jake has stated (quoted above) that basically reverts are a race to whoever gets to 3RR first, so in this compromise he'd just revert back to whatever version he felt to include without any need for consensus. (period). Erikeltic 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposal appropriately covers reverting, but if you'd like the words to say "edit war" specifically, than I proposed the following:

1. Any time either Jake, Mike, or Erik reverts (either rollback, undo, or an edit that undos the previous change) a Star Trek universe related edit made by the other and the original editor objects, you go to discussion with a 1:0 revert count (i.e. the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reverted edit) and a 1:1 revert count if 14 days have passed, due to the presumption of consensus as per WP:SILENCE. You agree not to do anything about that until a consensus is reached on the article talk page. If consensus cannot be reached between you, you'll ask for a third opinion. You will refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content.
2. You also will refrain from posting any other Star Trek edit (talk page edits excepted, for obvious reasons) while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent any instances of WP:POINT (whether real or perceived).

Is that agreeable? Again, please avoid personal attacks and focus on the proposal. Accusations, whether true or not, do not help close this issue.--v/r - TP 00:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that sounds fine. Erikeltic 00:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I clarified what "edit" meant in the first sentence. Please review.--v/r - TP 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Sounds fine to me, but before I agree - can you please clarify what you mean by "the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reverted edit", because that sounds a bit like "the article goes back to status quo prior to the first edit" rather than "the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reversion".
2. Am I correct in saying that this is simply a rewording of my original proposal (for clarity, rather than content) - if that's the case, then why did Erik object to my original proposal, but accept this one? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that it would go back to the status quo prior to the first edit. Erikeltic 00:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is not what the intent of my proposal was. If that's the case, then it's 2:1 reversion, not 1:1 -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It all comes back WP:BRD, doesn't it? If an editor makes an edit that the other finds objectionable, it goes back to the status quo until a consensus is reached. Why is that so objectionable to you? Tell me again about flat refusals and preconditions. Erikeltic 00:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Erik has it right. It goes back to the status quo before the first objectionable edit. The way you had it, Erik, it would have gone back to the first objectionable edit instead of before that edit.--v/r - TP 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be right in line with WP:BRD and is a-okay with me. Erikeltic 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stay on topic? Erikeltic 00:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am - I am clarifying whether or not any substantive change was made to my proposal, or if it was simply cosmetic. Your attempt to deflect here suggests to me that you only accepted the revised proposal because you perceive there to be an advantage in your favour. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not cosmetic alone, no, although I did fix up a few sentences. I added the bit about "edits" to disambiguate whether only rollback or undo is considered applicable to this agreement to include edits that change or remove what the other had inserted. I also changed what I mention in your first question. Again, please focus on the proposal and your agreement/objection to it. There is no need to worry about the other. I'm willing to work the in between here.--v/r - TP 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So then the wording of the proposal should be amended, as it's obviously not a 1:1 revert count, but rather a 1:0. Which, incidentally, is not the intent of my original proposal. But I'm willing to compromise here. However, given consensus is presumed via WP:SILENCE, I think there should be some time constraint placed upon this, to prevent someone making a revert too long after the fact. So something along the lines of 1:0 (which is consistent with WP:BRD) within the first 14 days (just throwing a number out there), and 1:1 after that? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and I've updated mythe proposal to reflect that. Can we get agreement?--v/r - TP 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Just to make it explicit, could you add "and a 1:1 revert count if 14 days have passed, due to the presumption of consensus as per WP:SILENCE" or something along those lines? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Again seems fair. 14 days is plenty of visibility. Erik/Mike, does that proposal seem fair?--v/r - TP 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, here is the current form of the proposal:

1. Any time either Jake, Mike, or Erik reverts (either rollback, undo, or an edit that undos the previous change) a Star Trek universe related edit made by the other and the original editor objects, you go to discussion with a 1:0 revert count (i.e. the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reverted edit) and a 1:1 revert count if 14 days have passed, due to the presumption of consensus as per WP:SILENCE. You agree not to do anything about that until a consensus is reached on the article talk page. If consensus cannot be reached between you, you'll ask for a third opinion. You will refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content.
2. You also will refrain from posting any other Star Trek edit (talk page edits excepted, for obvious reasons) while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent any instances of WP:POINT (whether real or perceived).

Thoughts?--v/r - TP 01:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like pre-existing Misplaced Pages policy. It works for me. The only thing I would also ask for is clarification that there will be no wikihounding of any kind during an open discussion. Erikeltic 01:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Erik - I think that's sort of covered by the 2nd bullet of the proposal; or rather it is the intent to prevent Wikihouding in Star Trek related articles. I dont think this proposal prevent further Wikiquette alerts in the future if there is Wikihounding. I can say that if you need anymore third opinions in the future, I will volunteer. I am a part-time Trekkie and I, surprisingly, haven't involved myself in any Star Trek related articles so I am fairly uninvolved. I am willing to mediate any discussions you two (three) have that you can't seem to find consensus on with a trek-aware background. I would like to suggest that you two try finding common ground. I think you can both agree that you are passionate about Star Trek and that might be the foundation for a friendship. Friends don't have to agree, they only have to appreciate the other user.--v/r - TP 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

For what it's worth, Geradw--the "neutral third party" that initially handled this alert--was awarded a barnstar for diplomacy by Jake moments after calling me an asshole for this edit . Seriously!? I open a Wikiquette to get called an asshole by the "neutral" third party editor? That's simply appalling. Erikeltic 01:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we just need to let bygones be bygones.--v/r - TP 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I see, so if I were to call someone an asshole--what would happen then? If I were to tell another editor to fuck off, how'd that go? Bygones be bygones? It just happened. Fine. I'll drop it, but Geradw's behavior is unacceptable and he/she/it is clearly not neutral. Erikeltic 01:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I was planning the Barn long before you and Gerardw decided to have at it. The timing was simply unfortunate as I wanted to wait until things were pretty much fini. Doesn't mean that he didn't make efforts to help resolve things - which you rejected outright because you were asking for a lot more than he was putting on the table. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Gents, let's prevent this issue from flaring again by letting it go.--v/r - TP 01:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Dave3457

• Dave3457 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Femininity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having a dispute with Dave3457 at the article Femininity. The tone of this dispute has been very uncivil, in my opinion, from the beginning. There's really no progress being made and any help would be really appreciated. I really just want to discuss the specific changes and reliable sources, but Dave3457 has been accusing me of a lot of negative motivations which I disagree with and I find unfair. Even if I do have some biases (I'm not going to say that I am a 100% neutral person, I doubt anyone is) I think the only useful thing is to discuss the actual changes and sources and not the other editor. I've tried being friendly and pointing out AGF, I've tried being firm, and I've also advertised this dispute at some Wikiprojects and the NPOV noticeboard. Below are some examples. Thanks. 12345Aronoel (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any obvious Wikiquette issues here. It's clearly a content dispute, and Dave3457 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda. OhNoitsJamie 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe I have an agenda. How should I move forward? --Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a WP:THIRD opinion would convince you otherwise. This is really a content-dispute. OhNoitsJamie 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Dave and Aronoel seem to be editing in good faith. They just happen to be presenting two different, but valid sides of an issue. I think the discussion would benefit from a de-escalation of bad-faith accusations and more effort to keep the discussion at a respectful and collaborative tone. I would encourage Dave to refrain from the "agenda" rhetoric, and especially refrain from insulting Aronoel with comments about his/her edits being "absolutely laughable", etc. The debate should be focused on the quality of the sources, not on personal accusations about "agendas". Everyone has opinions and those opinions affect what people contribute to Misplaced Pages. As long as people are adhering to Misplaced Pages policy, that's usually OK. In other words, debate the content (and sources), not the editor. Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone comment further about my behavior in this dispute? For example, how I should have handled it differently, or how I should respond to accusations that I have an agenda? --Aronoel (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Should have not edit warred. Should have not replying to Dave's explanations with more questions and "I don't understand"s. Should have gone WP:THIRD or WP:RFC when it became clear your were unlikely to agree between yourselves. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think I could do 3O because I already posted a request for comment at the NPOV noticeboard. In the future I will just stop discussing it until I can get more uninvolved editors to comment. --Aronoel (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's usually a good idea, especially if you feel tempted to edit war otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You just ruled in my favor in the above dispute but...

According to Misplaced Pages protocol, am I aloud to accuse someone of bias editing on a talk page? Personally I'd like to think that we are all "big boys and girls" , but on the other hand I can see how it could result in a kind of "melt down". On one level Aronoel is right in that I was focusing on the editor rather than the edits. On the other hand everything I said was true and she is doing harm to Misplaced Pages's good name, (whether she realizes it or not) and it would be helpful if other editors understood the motivations for her edits and her editing tactics and thus kept an eye on her.

In short, while you ruled in my favor in a big way, I suspect that I may have been in the wrong when I publicly accused her of having an agenda even though she did. In my opinion, I have all kinds of evidence that she is letting her biases effect her editing and that she is even being disingenuous in her edit summaries, but I’m thinking that I may have crossed the line first.

Again, in your ruling you said “ Dave3475 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda.” Are you sure that I can do that on the talk page?

I have to be honest, while I should take the time to try and expose her, I'm thinking in hindsight, as she suggests, I may have gone about it the wrong way.
Dave3457 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF says to assume that the other editor is doing what they feel is to the benefit of Misplaced Pages. The ruling was not in your favor, it was in Misplaced Pages's favor. You should move on from this. Don't try to "expose" anyone, the effort will harm Misplaced Pages more in the long run than whatever you feel is wrong with Aronoel. Just let it go and move on from here focusing on the edits and assuming the best in others.--v/r - TP 02:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained at WP:ATTACK "the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

TP What I meant by exposing her was that I plan to go through the proper channels.

I would point out that WP:AGF only works if everyone actually is editing in good faith. The fact of the matter is that Misplaced Pages is an extremely powerful tool for those who desire to move public consciousness in a desired direction. And no, I obviously did win the judgment, but neither am I here gloating.

Kaldari I agree with your recent changes to the feminine talk page and the position on Attack pages however there has to exist a channel with which to expose people you believe are not editing in good faith. Presumably this is the Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave, as I said, attempting to "expose" people is harmful to Misplaced Pages in the long run. Keep in mind that you have a biased point of view against someone you've had conflict with. You feel they are editing in bad faith because of that bias. That is why WP:AGF is most important here. You need to assume that despite what you feel is the truth, that there is the possibility that they feel they are editing in good faith and you need to acknowledge that. Another good principal is WP:DGAF. Just let it go. It will reflect just as poorly on you if you can't get over this incident. I say that with the utmost respect and interest in your well being as a non-involved editor.--v/r - TP 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st

• Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Owain the 1st has made multiple personal attacks over the last few hours. I received a probationary period based on WP:ARBPIA for asserting that another editor was a liar. I don't think this needs to escalate that far (unless no action is taken) but I am asking for an admin to redact the comments (or simply strike) and make it clear to the editor that ARBPIA 4.1.2 (Decorum) is supposed to be enforced.

• (asserting that another editor is a liar is certainly not acceptable. The other editor took offence to what looked like a rhetorical and snide question but there was no excuse for saying it was "lies")
• (this one is just annoying but it is rude)
• (commenting on the assumed intentions of another editor is usually prohibited)

Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

notified

Cptnono is hounding me over 3 pages for many hours.Here on my user talk page where he was told not to comment on a thread that was about a different subject but continued anyway, I deleted most of it here .He is also following me on another two threads namely here and here

I would add that your first claim has already been struck through by you here Owain the 1st (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Looks like a storm in a tea cup to me. The first is in response to an accusation, the second is trivial and the third is mild compared with other comments on controversial articles which are not brought here. Aside from asking everyone to moderate their language I can't see that any action is required --Snowded 07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any comments worthy of the label "personal attack". WP:DR please. Prodego 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Then this will go to AE. He is not allowed to assert other editors are liars. Period. If an admin does not want to tell him that then I hope he gets topic banned instead.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith yourself - just because editing gets heated, as it does sometimes, doesn't mean one should run to WP:WQA. Instead, stay calm and cool. If you cannot do that you may want to try contributing in a less controversial area. Prodego 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good advise, and I would be think hard about the consequences of taking a trivial issue to AE --Snowded 05:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil Conduct by user: AndyTheGrump

• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Ed Miliband

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ed_Miliband&diff=432021300&oldid=432020008

Andythegrump is telling established editors to "Fuck Off". This incivility and violation of wikietiquette needs to be addressed. Gimpman (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User has already been warned for it. No further action needed. Prodego 03:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Notified the AndyTheGroup as courtesy; issue already discussed on his talk page.Gerardw (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ye, I realise it was a breach of Wikiquette. It needs to be looked at in context though. Bus stop is repeating exactly the same problematic behaviour that has already seen him topic-banned twice, and it makes normal discussions practically impossible. This is clearly more damaging to the project than bad language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Unclear what point you're trying to make here. If (hypothetically) Bus Stop's behavior is 4d on an arbitrary Misplaced Pages damage scale, and the incivility is 1d, are you saying 5d is the same as 4d? A better answer if an editor does 4d worth of damage it's best to limit the damage to 4d. There is no context in which incivility is helpful to Misplaced Pages. Gerardw (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a plea in mitigation, rather than an attempt to justify it. And no, it probably isn't helpful to Misplaced Pages, but it was helpful to me. If the choice comes down to telling Bus stop where he can put his endless Wikilawyering misrepresentations of policy (etc, etc,...) and me giving up on Misplaced Pages entirely so he can turn it into Bus stop's compendium of anybody a 'reliable source' says is Jewish, then the question of whether it is good for Misplaced Pages is best answered by others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A false dichotomy. Telling him to fuck off and being told by others that your behavior is unacceptable is not likely to mitigate his behavior. I recommend WP:SHUN if you can (it's less work than the other options) or RFCU, as has been suggested on your talk page. Gerardw (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: The expletive at issue has been used many times on WP, and many times by admins on WP, without any finding more than t is uncivil, but not extraordinarily uncivil. WP:FUCK sould be excised if the word is to be forbidden, as well as over three thousand places in project space alone, and over six thousand times in articles. AtG may well have been grumpy, but it takes more than one expletive to do anything more than tell everyone to enjoy a cup of tea. Iterated incvility may be a problem - one expletive here is not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Meaning (and appropriateness) depends on context. If an editor says a comment is fuckin' stupid, that's coarse but tolerable, if they say fuck off, it's not. It's not the word, it's the attack. Gerardw (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

See wih the comments "While crude, even fuck off is not a personal attack, only a moron would think so ", whilst an editor in the minority opined "Of course telling another editor to piss off is rude and uncivil. Don't overthink it." has an extensive colloquy thereon. This seems, in fact, to be a nicely recurring discussion on WQA, but always with the result that a single instance does not rise to any actionable level, although continued use of such language could so rise. Your mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A non-sequitor. Of course it isn't actionable -- my first edit(s) to this WQA was to mark it resolved, as AtG already told by two editors on his talk page his behavior was unacceptable. It's just not a good idea. Gerardw (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OP is yet another brand new editor attacking AndyTheGrump and wanting to insert an ethnic category into this article. Another was blocked as a sock 3 days ago. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OP? Gerardw (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Gimpman, the original poster. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Scott Mac

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

This editor is calling me "idiotic", a "troll," and announcing assumptions of bad faith. His comments to me on his Talk page:

• "Grow up"
• "I'm not assuming good faith, no. Because it patent you are not acting in good faith.... Hypocrisy, trolling, disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a (or several contradictory) points. You seem to be cruising for a ban. So, if that's what you want up the ante again and someone will oblige. If it perchance isn't then change the tactics. These ones make you look idiotic"
• "Assume good faith does not mean we are blind when your antics patently lack it."

In discussion of a cocnern about an attack page:

• "First, this post is troll. Mindbunny has being using his own userspace to comment on living people and been blocked for it. He is also, AFAIK in a dispute with SlimVirgin. So, this is hypocrisy and posturing"

Another noticeboard:

• "You are being played." (i.e., I am "playing" and manipulating other editors)

Notes.

1. The editor is an admin
2. The editor has a userbox that states "This user doesn't give a flying *!*? about your Wikiquette alerts." Mindbunny (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• and 3. The editor is being relatively restrained in responding to purposefully provocative and disruptive behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully endorse the addition of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's point number three. Mindbunny, what is it that you are contributing to this Great Encyclopedia of Knowledge other than drama? --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• per WP:BOOMERANG, if I responded to this, it would only be to propose a community ban of Mindbunny.--Scott Mac 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground is another policy that we have. Scott might have been a little on the candid side but he made some succinct and valid points. I recommend you find common ground with people and move forward positively. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of etiquette is to to make it possible to find that common ground. Exactly how should I find a common ground with someone calls me an idiotic troll? The drama-creation is due to those who make personal attacks, not those who point out problems. The idea that an admin is entitled to call editors idiotic trolls even if the editors are misbehaving is untenable. Mindbunny (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink

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

This is an editor that seems to have had quite a long-term problem with civility, assuming good faith and so on 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 20102011 2011 2011 (particularly nasty and with an edit-summary worth a second glance)

So far today, he's accused me of disruptive editing + "making impotent insults" and being "illiterate" + given me a template warning for "using improper humour" on a page where I did absolutely no such thing + referring to me as "TrolleryTag" and failing to provide evidence for his allegation of improper humour

I'd appreciate it if somebody could point out that this isn't a terribly impressive trend. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending swarm has not gone without notice. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I try not to feed the trolls, so I'll be brief - consider this my sole contribution to this discussion. It seems TreasuryTag, after barging into the kitchen (so to speak) by labeling my contributions to a MfD as, quote, long, dull tirade(s) is now shocked - simply SHOCKED - to find that he can't take the heat. I'm sure his neglecting to mention the location of this entire "dispute" (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist) is simply coincidence, and certainly not a deliberate attempt to mislead others in his little WikiWar. Should I also mention that TreasuryTag, this outspoken opponent of User Talk templates, had no problem dumping this lovely template on the talk page of an editor who's been around nearly as long as he? In short, I find it quite surprising that such an evidently sensitive, easily upset snowflake would be capable of such provocative statements and actions. Badger Drink (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution