User talk:Ned Scott/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Uncivil language by Wiki San Roze

Repeated personal attacks were made by Wikiality123. In spite of request to stop them an uncivil comment is made as follows on discussion page of Hogenakkal Falls article.

No more trolling will be tolerated and with this I shall stop answering your BS, since its just wasting my precious wikipedia time (which I hardly get between my work). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naadapriya (talk • contribs)

Without spending a long time wading through the contribs, this report (posted by User:Naadapriya) seems to be an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute on Talk:Hogenakkal_Falls. I note that the page is now protected, and hope that dispute resolution will resolve the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to get a'upper hand'. I am just reporting an abusive language by an editor. Admn opinions are requested about above improper language.Naadapriya (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide a WP:DIFF showing the uncivil remark? All I can find are examples of Wikiality123 being tirelessly polite to you. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Please read following sentence. Is use of 'BS' acceptable??

No more trolling will be tolerated and with this I shall stop answering your BS, since its just wasting my precious wikipedia time (which I hardly get between my work). You shall be replied to ONLY if you raise any sensible issues. If you start reverting and vandalising then you shall reep the consequences at WP:AN/I. Yes, a warning with all due respect. FYI I already have a feed back from a non-Indian admin on this issue, since I wanted to know if I am the one being stuborn here. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks Naadapriya (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question about this thread, and also issued a civility warning. I hope that, from this point on, there will be no incivility from anyone involved. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me SheffieldSteel. The BS I was refering to was WP:Bullshit. As you may be aware too, it is not a personal attack to comment on edits. More over the overall dispute is pretty open for all to read there. Even in the message that this user has pasted here, I was concluding the statement with with all due respect. I have summarised the action of user:Naadapriya in the user's own talk page itself[1]. I understand what you mean when you said how frustrated you may feel with another editor. Nevertheless, as you or anyone can see, I warned the user that if he/she goes on with the trolling I would go to AN/I and this user has done it before I would do that. I reckon refering to WP:BS is not uncivil, if so I do apologise. FYI you can also refer to this where user:Naadapriya claims refering to him/her as she is a personal attack. Afterall Priya in India is a common female name and the other user's confusion is very valid. The point is, this user has raised flags here just to get his/her own stance stronger. I would request the admin's here to look into the facts themselves if they wish and think I may be over reacting. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually since am here I would also like to point out this message from the user:Naadapriya, obviously as soon as you left you left your message on my talk page, since as you yourself said- gaining upper hand. Isn't this uncivil as it is said Lies, such as deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors. I think it is upto you guys here to decide what is right after looking into it. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that warning message a clear case of harassment?Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
May be I should add one question to my reply. Are the admins going to allow AN/I be misused by an editor to gain upperhand by falsly acusing another editor?. The ball is really in your court chaps. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to update on what is now happening in the Hogenakkal falls article to the admins here:
The falls, as the first three references in the article which are from government website would indicate, comes under Tamil Nadu jurisdiction. This user:Naadapriya from the beginning has been stating that this falls belongs to two states, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. We have been showing him loads of references, but for some reason the user refuses to change the stance. This morning the user started vandalising the article, expecting me to slow down after an AN/I. [2] [3] . The three references provided on top are each from one government body namely: State government bodies of 1, Tamil Nadu and 2, Karnataka, and 3, Law ministry of Government of India. Is this user working for the good of this article? I assume it is open for all to see. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of responding to two issues that were pointed out from Wikipedia perspective, Wikiality123 is showing unrelated references. He has repeatedly deleted the valid edits made based on the lead sentence of Govt reference and Map shown in the article regarding the location of the falls. Unnecessarily he is the dragging the discussion here when it is in progress on the article's page. Also he is soliciting views from selected editors to get support for his POV. I will not make any further comments about the on going discussion on this page unless Admns want to.Naadapriya (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us split your alegation, can we?

Firstly

Naadapriya has said; Instead of responding to two issues that were pointed out from Wikipedia perspective, Wikiality123 is showing unrelated references.. The two points you raised were

The two points raised are here [4]

But as anyone can see, all of then were answered several times by people there, including me[5], [6]

Second

The user has claimed He has repeatedly deleted the valid edits made based on the lead sentence of Govt reference and Map shown in the article regarding the location of the falls.
In actual matter of fact it was Naadapriya who changed content which was earlier on as per government citations [7]. His stance was based on another citation [8], which is firstly is not a govt site and further more, that citation by itself says further down to the contrary what Naadapriya claims. Id est Naadapriya is insisting that the waterfalls is on the border of the states and hence both jurisdiction as per the sentence Situated on the Karnataka - Tamil Nadu border... in the latter citation. Nevertheless the same reference goes on to say later that Hogenakal Falls is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful places in Tamil Nadu state. His/her alegation that it was me who removed material based on Government website citations is a blatant lie.

Third

Naadapriya's comment Unnecessarily he is the dragging the discussion here when it is in progress on the article's page. I didn't bring it to AN/I, it was Naadapriya who started this AN/I and if I am to reply to this alegation, I will have to explain the circumstances. To say that am draging it here is obvious twisting it.

Fourth

The major alegation Also he is soliciting views from selected editors to get support for his POV.
First let me know, after reading everything here, who is trying to push his/her own POV? More over it is a shame that even after explaining to the editor that I chose those editors simply because this is a case of dispute between two states in India, so its best to have a non-Indian editor to comment. Isn't asking comment the recommended protocol in wikipedia dispure resolution? Even after all this I had been civil enough to tell him/her that If you still think the section on the project doesn't belong here, please take the next step in dispute resolution, as in Ask at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page..... secondly, I'm not dismissing your argument still. [9]It is obvious that I was still respecting his/her point of view and was not dismissing the claim even after the third opinion.[10] Do you think I should have been more civil? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 10:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that, unless further incidents of incivility or disruption occur, there is no admin action required at this time, and that the parties should pursue our dispute resolution procedures, which I'm prepared to help with, if they wish. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but is it wrong to refer to WP:Bullshit? Is it right to leave such false warning messages [11] on a user talk page? Isn't that WP:HUSH? The user knew well that I will bring it to AN/I (as you can see that I warned the user several times about it) and brought it here so that if I do will seem like a tit for tat response. I will be really unsatisfied with the way wikipedia works in spite of all the patience I have shown to this particular user (even you were able to appreciate that). Seriously SheffieldSteel, the user needs to be warned about his/her current behaviour for the good of wikipedia. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima

During the past two days, Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has shown repeated, extreme incivility towards multiple editors on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. In a discussion about the length of the article (which reasonable people can disagree on, but in which the consensus is against Ottava Rima), Ottava Rima has told several longtime editors that if they disagree with his interpretation of WP:SIZE as it applies to this article, they should "leave Wikipedia". Examples include this statement to Wasted Time R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), this additional statement to Wasted Time R, this statement to Tvoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and this statement to both Szyslak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tvoz.

Bear in mind that WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, and that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article currently measures about 9,500 words and 59 kB of readable prose, both within the "6,000 to 10,000 words" and "A rule of thumb"/under 60KB guideline for acceptable length, albeit at the high end. Thus, a good case can be made that Ottava Rima is not even correct about his contentions of the article being in violation of WP:SIZE, and indeed a number of other editors have indicated they have no problem with the article size. And even if it were against WP:SIZE guidelines, telling multiple editors to "leave Wikipedia" is far from an appropriate way of dealing with it. As evidence that there are differing interpretations of WP:SIZE among different articles and circumstances, there are currently at least 10 existing FA articles longer than this one. So the point is again, this is clearly an issue about which reasonable editors can disagree. The issue for ANI is not the article size disagreement itself, but Ottava Rima's extreme incivility in dealing with the disagreement.

You can find plenty of other rude, incivil, and uncollegial Ottava Rima comments throughout Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Article length and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Trivia in notes.

A little while ago, Onorem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) warned Ottava Rima about the "leave Wikipedia" comments on User talk:Ottava Rima, but Ottava Rima deleted the warning with the comment "Wikianarchists don't belong on Wikipedia, and if people can't follow community standards, then they should go elsewhere". An exchange followed at User talk:Onorem in which Ottava Rima told Onorem to leave Wikipedia.

This is not the first time Ottava Rima has gotten into civility and other issues. User talk:Ottava Rima is sanitized now, but looking at Ottava Rima's block log, or at back versions of the talk page such as this from three weeks ago, shows lots of complaints, blocks, etc. along what seem to be similar lines. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say, Wasted, you sure know how to twist what is being said into something completely different. It should be noted that you have made over 1,000 edits to that page and that you are complaining because it needs to be trimmed. There is no other evidence to this case required beside this simple fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And Wasted, please show where this is appropriate, especially when that person has very little to do with any of your actions, except that you are trying to bring in an outside complaint that was not issued by the other or cared to be issued by the other, when the main topic is your article in which you edited over 1,000 times and refuse to trim down. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The instructions at the top of this page said that I was supposed to inform everybody that I mentioned in my notice, so I did. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The instructions do not say to add people who do not actually deal with the topic at hand, but are added in order to make the topic seem larger than it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The topic is you telling people to leave Wikipedia, which you did to Onorem with this edit here, in which you also called him/her a "Wiki anarchist". Wasted Time R (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you try and not misquote me or misconstrue what I have said? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if this is Arbcom-banned user Sadi Carnot? He shares the same obsession with how Wikipedia articles must be strictly limited in length. I could be wrong, though. Right now, it's just an idea. szyslak (t) 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article put up for FA Review. The article would not load on two of my computers. The first because it was dialup and took over two minutes. The second because of the excessive formatting across the page. The user was unwilling to take any of that into consideration, and constantly made claims that were not true according to MoS. Instead of wanting to cut down the page to make it readable by others, he refused to and started misattributing what the policy actually stated on the issue. This is an WP:OWN problem. Furthermore, I have never been blocked for incivility. My blocks were based on RR violations and have nothing to do with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's probably not very helpful to suggest right now. With so many users it's very possible to have multiple groups that have similar attitudes, so unless we have some actual technical evidence, I would hold back on the sock accusations. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, looking at the two's edits, I don't see any overlap in areas of interest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ryulong, it must be noted that Szyslak is one of those who commented from the Hillary Clinton page. Such accusations seem to result only from a complaint issued against an FA candidate that did not meet the MoS guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left Ottava a note on his talk page, telling him to try not to sweat this kind of stuff on pages as active as the Clinton page. He's got a point that it is pretty long, but it's a very hot page right now, so it's not really uncommon. I don't think any admin action is needed right now, just a little context a helpful note. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the article is really too long, but whether an editor should be telling other editors to "leave Wikipedia" and other incivilities when they don't agree with his interpretation of a guideline. Tvoz |talk 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz is one of the editors from the Hillary Clinton page. And yes, if people disagree with the MoS, then the best option for them is to move to another Wiki. The same thing is told to those who want to write purely in-universe. There are Wikis that cater to such people. It is not an insult. It is a plain fact that there are others that are far more accommodating to such viewpoints. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You might not see it as an insult, but it's really not something you should say to other editors. No matter how much we believe ourselves to be right, and no matter how much we actually are right, we are working with volunteers here, and it's far better to make a strong argument for your view than to tell someone off. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I understand that, which is why I told Ottava that it was best not to let this kind of thing bother him. It's very easy to get passionate about these articles, especially now with the elections and all. At the same time, that high activity makes these articles harder to manage, which adds frustration to the passion. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not passionate about it. I don't care about the page. I'm not an editor on the Hillary Clinton page. I am an FA Reviewer. It was put up for FA Review. I made the comment that was exact. People disagreed with it, made claims about the MoS which were demonstrated to be false, and claimed things about the size that was demonstrated by myself following MoS guidelines to show size as to be false. Thats the extent and if they don't want to trim it, then it wont pass into FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, then we might just have a communication problem here. Editors are seeing your comments as very aggressive, but you didn't mean it that way, perhaps. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Wasted Time R and the other editors who actually maintain the Hillary Clinton article weren't trying to get it to FA, and the FA nominator hasn't even edited the article. It's also worth noting that the "demonstrated to be false" is a matter of interpretation. The objection here isn't to the fact that you made a complaint about the article's length, it's about the vitriol with which you attacked those who interpreted the size guideline differently from the way you do.
Ottava, you've only been editing here on a regular basis a few months. Wasted Time R has been working on Wikipedia since 2005. While "seniority" doesn't give anyone any rights here, it might be worth your while to consider whether it's appropriate to take this sort of my-way-or-the-highway attitude against such a prolific contributor, who's been featured in the media as the very model of a modern Wikipedian. Or, to put it another way: some humility might not go amiss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I have only been edited as a registered user since last Fall. There is a difference. Furthermore, seniority is no excuse for excessive page length. Not even Bill Clinton is as long as Hillary's page, and Bill has more historic notability than his wife, seeing as how he was President for 2 terms and governor for 2 terms. And Vitriol? That is a lovely way to associate to my words which is obviously lacking. My words are empty, cold, and to the point. If an editor is unwilling to trim down an excessively large article, then there is a problem. WP:OWN clearly covers such situations. And "demonstrated to be false" is completely correct, seeing as how using the MoS guidelines to find prose size was put into effect, "edited" in, reverted back, and shows 64k for all who wish to see. Readability guidelines on Size clearly state "50k" for being the appropriate top for readers. This isn't splitting hairs. This is a large difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And Josiah, do strike your comments. We all know of those featured in the media as "good Wikipedians" who turned out to be nothing but deceivers. Being in the media for editing Wikipedia means nothing and pointing out such goes against the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I find that offensive, as someone who has also been interviewed about Wikipedia editing. Josiah's comment about Wasted Time R's integrity is on point. And I find it odd at best to attack someone for having made 1000 edits to an article; to me it is an indication of conscientious care taht should be praised. And the accusation of ownership is invalid, if one takes a look at the history. Tvoz |talk 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You can find someone offensive as much as possible, but being interviewed is not a determiner of "quality" as an editor, nor does it give you special privileges. 1,000 edits is a strong indicator to willingness of WP:OWN. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've said more than once that you should follow your conscience in your recommendation for the FAC - if you don't think it's ready for FA, then oppose it. That is not what the objection is to your behavior, as has been said repeatedly by several editors on the page. Tvoz |talk 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You can say all you want about my behavior, but there is nothing there except that you disagree with my comments and have no grounds to issue a response against them than to trump up a charge that does not actually exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Policy, especially the manual of style, is not a suicide pact. Telling users "obey it or leave" is not at all constructive. We do whatever is in the best interest of the project. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Unwilling to edit a document to make it legible by a significant amount of people is important to Wikipedia. It doesn't need to be a suicide pact, but that is a primary basis of respect. By refusing to trim down the article appropriately, the article mocks Wikipedia, and there are violations of WP:OWN, WP:FRINGE, What Wikipedia is not and many other rules. The article did not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. There are other communities for different standards. It is appropriate that, if they strongly believe in not following the MoS guidelines, that they move to those communities because they will be more comfortable there. However, if you don't believe in the MoS like you claim, please make a complaint against the MoS there. However, it reflects community consensus and should be respected as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting way off topic. The issue here is incivility by Ottava Rima, not the content dispute. The details of the argument on the article page should have nothing to do with the amount of civility involved. Ottava Rima telling experienced editors they should leave wikipedia if they don't agree with your views on something is uncivil and unproductive, and doesn't help to gain consensus on your views. Please understand that was the concern behind this ANI post, regardless of the circumstances involving the article. Redrocket (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the two cannot be separated, because I told them that if they didn't like the MoS, that they are better suited to a different Wikipedia. That was construed to be incivil, even though it meets none of the incivility requirements nor is anything approaching incivility. An experienced editor would be willing to cut down an extremely larger article to fit in with MoS, not constantly misquote the rule, misstate the size of an article, and show severe WP:OWN problems. I suggest you redact your words until you acknowledge the fact that there was unwillingness to edit an article coming from an editor who made over 1,000 edits to said article. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, you could have made your point about the length of the article without suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you must redact their comments or leave Wikipedia. I'm not a huge fan of WP:IAR, but this seems to me to be exactly the sort of inflexible rule-mongering that justifies its existence. See also Wikipedia:Use common sense. Your demands that every editor must share your particular interpretation of a guideline or leave Wikipedia are unproductive and disproportionate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please refrain from misrepresenting me again? I did not ask everyone to "redact", but only the comments that were outright wrong or did not belong. Secondly, if someone strongly believes in having a very larger article, then yes, they should find another Wikipedia. The article lengths top out for a reason, and that reason is that there are physical limitations to what length people can read articles. This is not stylistic. This is basic principle. I have not demanded anything from other users. You have placed that upon me in an additional misrepresentation of my position. I would suggest that you follow WP:CIVIL and stop adding words to my position that have never appeared there. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, "everyone" is an exaggeration. But there does seem to be a pattern of pedantic inflexibility here. (And I know from pedantry!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A pattern developed from one page that results from a FA Review? My concern was a legitimate concern. People brought up issues such as "MoS really says this" or "my tool says this", which were explained via the guideline. I don't really see where you can develop a pattern of behavior. My computer actually did freeze twice from trying to load the page. That is a legitimate concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And Josiah, I know you, and you might actually remember me. Its complicated to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note from an uninvolved editor. For the record, Ottava, your previous blocks mostly had to do with legal threats, not 3RR violations. Also, you should realize that nobody, not you, not Jimbo, nobody on Wikipedia can order an editor to make changes to an article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. That is wrong. My previous blocks had only one "legal threat" that was a block that was withdrawn, but mostly about 3RR, which can be proven by a clear copy and paste. 2. I never "ordered" anyone. I brought up the issue in a comment, and the editor in question said that the MoS said something completely different than what it did, and kept trying to add claims about the size that were demonstrated to be false. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your extensive block log shows two or three separate blocks for edit warring (hard to count because of resets.) And at least two (plus resets) for a legal threat that was apparently made, withdrawn and then restated. I'm getting this from looking at the block log, not digging through your edits to find the threats themselves. So I may have been wrong about the word "mostly". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong. There were two total blocks. Please follow the timing of the blocks in order to see which is which. The rest are extensions. Furthermore, the one extension was withdrawn. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note This topic is misplaced. The appropriate place for "civility" issues is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Furthermore, the use of "extreme" in the title heading is unproven POV on an issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, if it were only a civility issue, that might be true. However, you insist on saying it's not civility but rather a content and policy dispute, so this seems to be a good place for it.
As far as I see, the two are separate issues. Even if it were a violation (which other editors disagree with), it does not entitle you to be uncivil. In all honesty, you defending your position by telling more experienced editors to go edit some other wiki just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. You may be correct in saying it is not technically uncivil, however, it does seem rude and a really foolish way of attempting to get other people to agree with your interpretation of things.
Honestly, after reading you telling everyone else to redact their comments, then and you defending your position by defining the responsibilities of other editors, I don't think you care at all about being civil or gaining consensus. Good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Content and policy disputes go to the Village Pump or RfC. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And Redrocket, you are really not WP:AGF. And "telling everyone"? I didn't tell "everyone". Please stop making claims to things that do not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of assuming good faith, you are certainly not doing that. Your comment, whether it was intentional or not, came across as rude and uncivil. Rather than acknowledge that you might have misspoken or your comments might have been taken in a different way than you intended, you refuse to listen to the other editors explain how your words came across.
Honestly, if you would just look at your actions and see that the way you tell other editors (all of whom are also volunteers here) that they should go somewhere else isn't really a friendly way to treat them, this would all be over. Clinging to your belief that since there was a content/policy dispute justifies being rude to people isn't going to help. Redrocket (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If your claims are true, please provide evidence in which I didn't attempt to work with the editors and prove beyond a doubt where in the policy my claims are coming from and show, especially on the page, how the size format is different from the programs that they are running. I don't think you have any grounds to claim that I haven't assumed good faith, as I have not made any claims about anyone until far after it has been demonstrated an unwillingness to cut down the article length. If you think my comments are rude, then you think they are rude. But it is obvious that you are unwilling to WP:AGF from your own words, and that is a reason why you think my comments are rude. Furthermore, "volunteering" isn't an excuse to ignore a legitimate concern about page length size. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I must also question the legitimacy of your claiming my actions were rude when you, yourself, have stated: "Seriously, just leave already. Redrocket (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)" on your own talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Ah, thanks for stalking me. You are now bringing up out-of-context comments I made to a banned user who was trolling my page looking for an argument.

This is crossing over into wikilawyering in the extreme, so let's just boil it down. Ottava Rima, several other editors found your comments to be rude and uncivil. Regardless of the content/policy dispute, can you see where telling them to go to some other wiki could have been taken in a manner that would make them think you were being rude or uncivil? Redrocket (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses. You set up a standard that you, yourself does not follow. So what will it be? Still accuse me of being rude, while you, yourself, have made such equal comments? Or are there now two standards, one for yourself and one for those who are part of the opposite side of a dispute from what you believe in? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My comments were to a trolling vandal who would be banned within a few hours. Yours were to editors who are far more experienced than you, and clearly not vandals or trolls.
And thanks for refusing to answer the question. I'm going to assume that was a "yeah, I know I was being uncivil, but I still think I can talk my way out of it." Again, have fun with all that. Redrocket (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot, you believe that there is a different standard of approaching people. I, however, only recommended based on their own feelings about the policy. I didn't say that they weren't welcome. I suggested other suitable ways to deal with their desire not to be under the influence of MoS. It would seem that your intention would be quite different from mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that WP:DNFT is probably applicable here. The question then arises, if not feeding, what action should be taken? Loren.wilton (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the use of "troll" in any kind of context of this thread would be derogatory and thus contradicting WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with LW, call it what you would like, but I'm about done here. The user refuses to discuss his actions without tying it into some crusade of being uncivil in the name of wikipolicy, so I doubt there's anything we can do at this point. He's been blocked before, so let's just leave him be with a fresh length of rope and see what he does with it. Redrocket (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Red, do you honestly not see the incivility of your tone, especially there, and the hypocrisy that it demonstrates? You have already stated that you were unwilling to WP:AGF. If you think that bringing up a legitimate concern is a "crusade", then you better take your concern to the appropriate forum, like Village Pump Policy. I do not believe that consensus will side with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment Is this topic even necessary at this point? I believe that the above user has aired his concern quite a lot. If he really felt that my suggestions were uncivil, then he could have brought them to Wikiquette alerts. However, he believed they were "extreme incivility", which has no real meaning. What does he want? An apology for my recommending him to go to another Wiki if he disagrees with the MoS? If so, that could have been handled by a simple message on my talk page from the user. This, however, is not an "incident". There is no damage to the encyclopedia, and it obviously hasn't stopped his editing or affected his editing in any kind of way. For the most part, he has ignored my comments and concerns, and has moved on to important matters like arguing over the true eye color of Hillary Clinton and if that belongs in the article. There seems to be no point to this but to draw attention to other admin, use his background and history, and act in a way that isn't really suitable to helping the encyclopedia. I have not insulted. I have not bullied. I have brought up a legitimate concern, and I have stated the obvious: if you are unhappy with Wikipedia's policies, the easy way to deal with it is to go to another Wiki. Is that is rude? Then I guess the truth is rude. But it is not incivil to state the truth, especially in such a cold manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you're upset at the way wikipedia handles these civility concerns, you probably should just go edit some other wik...
Nah, never mind. I can't bring myself to do it. Just forget it, and let's close the topic. Redrocket (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, if you're having trouble seeing what you're doing wrong try looking at this diff or this one where you order another editor to change an article according to your instructions, something I have never seen done by an editor on Wikipedia. Then you might take a look at this in which you claim that other users "will be forced to trim down their articles" if you decide they're too long. Forced? Really? By whom? And how? Since when are editors "forced" to do things on Wikipedia? Own much? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Order? I don't think you can apply "order" at all. I'm quite confused how you can even begin to construe any of those words as an "order" of any kind. "If then" clauses are definitely not orders, and saying "you can" do something is not an order. Please, you have already misrepresented by blocking record. Could you stop misrepresenting the rest now? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And that "forced" comment is conditioned on "FA review", with the implied "if you want to pass this will be required". But that was obvious from the context. So I ask again, please stop misconstruing my words to say what they do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Its a simple fix. Do it.—I've seen such orders from an admin enforcing policy, but surely someone reviewing for FA should make recommendations or suggestions? Saying The MoS is rather certain. If you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia implies that one understands neither the distinction between guidelines and policy, nor the wiki process. I can only imagine the chilling effect this thread will have on any other editor considering an FA submission. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:McLeod1

Resolved. User Warned. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The user has uploaded a number of images which all have been copyright violations (See User talk:McLeod1) and has been warned yesterday (23rd April) that if they continued that they would be banned. I've put this here as I'm unsure where to put this. Bidgee (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference, McLeod1 (talk · contribs). I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've final-warned the user. I'm seeing some indications that they might not fully understand our policies, but the lack of response to warnings is troubling. I'll also delete the image, if it has not already been CSD'd. Per WP:AGF and WP:BITE, I'm happy to help them if they need some guidance on what is acceptable and what is not - but, if they make one more edit that includes copyvio, by all means - block away. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Bidgee (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued revert warring and continued incivility of User:RedSpruce

User:RedSpruce has continued revert warring in article: G. David Schine. He doesn't like the quote function being used in the citations and continues to remove them. AT RS request there was an RFC to determine whether quotes in citations was helpful for the article, or distracting, and two people responded that they benefited the article rather than distracted the reader. User:TonyTheTiger and User:Alansohn responded to the RFC with comments or by reverting the deletion of the quotes.

This appeared in the article: "He remained active in the private sector as a businessman and an entrepreneur, working in the hotel, music, and film industries, and he was a founding member of the Young Presidents' Organization."[1]

  1. ^ McNees, Pat. YPO: The First 50 Years.

The cited reference makes no mention of Schine as a "founding member" of Young Presidents' Organization. So, I would say that going through the article and adding citations, and providing the actual quote, if the citation matches the information in the article is helpful and not distracting to the reader. The revert warring doesn't improve the article, only careful research, and careful fact checking does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous ANIs include:

Removal of quotes from article:

Removal of quotes from article post RFC:

Removal of quotes from article pre RFC:

Removal of quotes from article pre RFC:

The above report was made by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Hiberniantears (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fine-art-images.net

Dear administrators! The site www.fine-art-images.net is blocked as spammer. But the site theme is illustrations of works of art and can be useful to the Wikipedia. Please, help to understand the reason of entering of a site in the spam list. I am the beginner. Please, explain if I make incorrect actions and help me to unblock fine-art-images.net. Thank you in advance. (Art Images) 17:58, 24 April 2008

Strange. No such username. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
But it looks like Art Images (talk · contribs) does - The user's sig is missing a space, but the piped text that is displayed is correct. I'll have a look, but I would mention that external links fall under the External Link policy, which would be worth a look before re-adding any links. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the request, but could you point out where you are trying to add this link? What articles, in what context, would the link add to the article? I see you have only added it once, on 2 April, and have no further edits until today. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)