User talk:Cheeser1/WQA Archive

NOTICE: This page is an archive! Modifications to this page will be reverted. Please go to my main talk page to post new messages, when necessary. Issues in this archive are generally more-or-less resolved.

User talk:Cheeser1 My Talkpage Main Archive "Curricula" Debacle WQA Archive Math Archive Music Archive

I was wondering if you could give me a hand with this. I was hoping we were done with the whole thing, and now it seems to be a bit out of control. I don't believe I should be the one to respond, but this user's behavior has gone from bad to worse fast. If there's another user or a different WP page to go to, point me there. Thanks for your help. --Cheeser1 03:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly frank, I'd rather not - not because I'm reluctant to get involved with ugly situations (that would be a pretty lousy quality in a Wikiquette volunteer), but because I don't see it doing any good, and it may actually do some harm. The user seems to really enjoy violating

Sarcasticidealist 03:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I understand your desire to not comment - it's one I share. Unfortunately (for me), this user seems to have singled me out as the cause of his problems - a sort of "shoot the messenger" approach to Wikipedia conduct policies I suppose. I'm not sure how to respond to the last response, which was composed entirely of completely unfounded

WP:GF still applies, even here, but it seems less and less likely that this user is interested in behaving appropriately at all. I am reluctant to initiate the RFC/U, if for no other reason than my own unfamiliarity with the process. Hopefully the dust will settle from this. I'll sleep on it, and tomorrow, if things are any worse, or if I feel like it's necessary, I'll let you know about the RFC/U. --Cheeser1 04:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've given the situation some thought and I'm writing this to say I'm willing to resolve this conflict here and now by admitting I violated

]

In light of this apology, I'd be strongly inclined to suggest that you refrain from making use of

Sarcasticidealist 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional note from me: If you're satisfied with this apology, Cheeser1, could you please leave a comment to that effect on the

Wikiquette Alert? That'll allow us to properly close the WQA as Resolved (currently, it's marked as Stuck). Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yup, I've been a bit busy, and this is one of the few things on Wikipedia today that require thought (you know, as opposed to simpler discussions and rvv stuff, which only take a few seconds). --Cheeser1 02:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberia, I would be happy to forgive you. Wikipedia can be a frustrating place, and it often feels like a battle whenever a conflict, disagreement, or difference of opinion comes up. I've had my share of moments where I've been frustrated, and I've acted irrationally too - everybody does, sometimes. In the end, it doesn't matter who's been the bad guy, because we're all here to contribute constructively and work together. I'm glad that our discussions have been resolved, and you understand why and how this whole thing unfolded. I can imagine how hard it is to make this apology, and I appreciate it. Best, --Cheeser1 02:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Peace. Cyberia23 04:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. If you can provide a list of diffs regarding Epbr123's behaviors, it would go a long way to helping us solve the issues that are currently present. Since you've been involved with the issues longer than I have (I've only just come into this, read through it all, and made my mind up based off what I've seen), I think you would be more helpful than I ever could. :-) Just post diffs on the

]

I'll get on it when I have a bit more time. Possibly sometime tonight, more likely sometime tomorrow. --Cheeser1 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) Anything you can do to help would definitely be appreciated. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your edit to WQA. Great work. Must've been difficult, but I believe that you've pretty much given examples of Epbr123's abhorrent conduct. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Nice work, Cheeser1. Xihr 03:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I seem to be having some trouble with the last couple of alerts I've taken on (I must be losing my touch), and I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at them and inject another voice into the discussions. They are

.

(My apologies if this note is redundant - personally, once I see that another volunteer has taken on a case, I usually stop paying attention to it. Since I assume that everybody else is the same as me, I'm assuming that nobody else is reading those alerts anymore, and that this sort of active solicitation of help is required.) —Preceding

]

Our recent interactions

Please don't get me wrong—I realize you are trying to get to the bottom of User:Wiccawikka's complaint. I've never had a problem with an admin before and don't intend to start now. You can review my edit history and talk pages to see that I do not make a habit of "harassing" other editors. I might step on toes now and again from patrolling new pages and AfD, but this set-to with Tweety21 is a first and believe me when I say I'd just as soon have it be my last. If you need me to clarify any of my actions or whatever, please just ask me. Precious Roy 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to be clear and explanatory when you accuse someone. I have assumed, as one should, that this user is not a sockpuppet. Even with evidence to the contrary, one should assume good faith until you're sure that it's a sockpuppet. When you make this accusation, you should explain to the user what a sockpuppet is (this user didn't know) and justify your actions (explain the circumstantial evidence that led you to file an RFCU). If you're right on the RFCU, then it won't matter either way, but if you're wrong, then you've been pretty accusatory to an inexperienced Wikipedian, without really explaining yourself or helping her even understand what you're accusing her of. --Cheeser1 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser1, a word of advice: Please make sure that you keep yourself in check when helping others resolve disputes. While I appreciate your helping with WQA in general, I've noticed that your tone has lately become a bit more confrontational than it really needs to be (phrasing such as "You can explain these? You better..."). That can do more to harm the process than to help, and I think Precious Roy's concerns are perfectly valid in this case. My point is that there are more polite and civil ways to address WQAs than what I've seen recently.

That said, I don't want to discourage you at all from helping out - we always need people to help out with DR, especially when others who have been helping take breaks from the process (like I've been doing lately). Keep it up - just keep it cool. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use emphasis for emphasis, it's not meant to convey tone (if I wanted to be mad, I guess I'd TYPE LIKE THIS). You know? I've been too busy in real life I guess to really spend time being super-thorough. My primary concern in this matter is that Precious Roy was not only making his accusations in a complaint against him, he was the first to respond. WiccaWikka might be a sockpuppet, in which case this is all a waste. But if not, which is what we must assume, there was a reasonable complaint lodged. I was doing my best to respond, and to give WiccaWikka the benefit of the doubt. The tone of my response, either as I wrote it or as you read it, may be harsh. I will certainly consider it. But WiccaWikka was accused of sockpuppetry, without explanation. She came to us to ask why she was being accused and dismissed at every turn, only to find that the first response is Precious Roy, who does no better in explaining himself or what's going on - which he should have done in the first place. --Cheeser1 21:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the situation that you responded to, or your assessment of it. I'm just saying that it's very important to keep yourself neutral in your responses. The tone of your response to Roy came across to me as unnecessarily harsh, which gave you the appearance of taking WiccaWikka's side right off the bat. I'd suggest for future reference that a better response might be "Thank you for responding. To help us help you better, please provide some diffs and more detail about the issue. Otherwise, we cannot help you." (This applies to ALL sides of a dispute when people raise complaints in DR.) You can make it clear that you feel a sockpuppet accusation is unfounded, while at the same time maintaining a neutral stance toward the dispute and keeping your language polite - Roy said in the WQA that he felt like you jumped all over him, and I believe that has more to do with your tone than the substance of what you said. Just keep it in mind when you respond. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I only responded at the Wikiquette complaint after someone (that I mistakenly assumed to be an admin) (ok, it was you) indicated they thought I was accusing Wiccawikka of sockpuppetry merely because she !voted "keep" in an AfD I had initiated. As I've said before, I've never been on the bad side of an admin and wanted reassure him/you that wasn't the case. The impression I got was that you were giving all of the benefit of the doubt to Wiccawikka and none of it to me, assuming, yes, bad faith on my part. Precious Roy 01:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Having been dealing with Tweety21 at close range for the better part of a month now, I "know" that it's her but obviously I don't really know. You're right, I should have used

WP:AGF here. It's just that since it was the day after dealing with Gayunicorn I was running a little low on good faith. Going forward, I'll be sure to treat suspected sock puppets with a little more finesse. If you have any other suggestions on dealing with this in the future, I'd be happy to hear them. Thanks, Precious Roy 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

WQA

Regarding the WQA at

. Do you think it's a good idea to re-open the WQA?

Thanks, Orpheus 10:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - it appears that while he wants to work constructively, he continues to defy sensibility. The WQA is more a place to resolve disputes about civility, personal attacks, etc. If there are serious content disputes, and issues with what is/isn't a reliable source, you might want to file a request for comment on this article. I know he's still pretty abrasive "you are wrong" "point out your errors" etc, but at the heart of this is a problem with him (mis)understanding WP:RS. I've left a comment there too. --Cheeser1 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I guess the reason I was thinking about going back to WQA is that there seems to be way too much

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

going on. The content dispute at the bottom of this isn't major, it's something that could and should be sorted in about a week with reasonable people contributing. Personally, I'm fed up with having to repeat myself so much, and sick of being continually called unconstructive and unhelpful. The main problem is that it's making it very, very tough to assume good faith. Having an extra person involved does help though, so cheers for your input.

Orpheus 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having fun yet? It's been like this since July without pause or change of direction. Orpheus 08:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccawikka 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Hi Cheeser1, Roy again is up to his harassment, leaving harassing comments in new debate for reopening Coven (short film) and leaving abusive comments on other users talk pages about me, please advise! have left a report about this and this is the comment he left on someone s page: (below comment by Precious roy) My pleasure. Music is the one area where I would dare claim advanced levels of expertise (20 years working in music, don'tcha know). Every once in a while I've gone behind an editor's back and created an article that had already been declined. In most cases I had to do a little extra work because references or content wasn't up to WP snuff (like today). I've been busy dealing with a sock whose user has been a thorn in my side for about a month now. It's my own fault for getting involved but it bums me out that I could've been doing actual helpful stuff around WP but instead spent most of the day dealing with nonsense. C'est la vie. Precious Roy 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Wiccawikka 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles that have been deleted, intending to "go behind [someone's] back" is a gross violation of policy. Precious Roy may have jumped to conclusions about your being a sockpuppet, but the more you drag out this problem, the more it is. You don't eve know he was talking about you - more likely he was talking about Tweety21. He isn't harassing you, and he isn't attacking Wicca. The AfD is over. If you want to appeal it, fine, but you should expect opposition (especially from previous participants), and there are a number of circumstances that raise some well-warranted suspicion. I actually agreed with Precious Roy in his suspicion, once he took the time to explain his accusation. The only problem I had with his accusation of sockpuppetry was that he didn't explain himself to you or others regarding the accusation. Now that he has, you'll have to deal with the fact that circumstances make you look very suspicious. --Cheeser1 17:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't resist sticking my nose in—"I've gone behind an editor's back and created an article that had already been declined" is a reference to

WP:AFC, where I am a regular. Sometimes articles are presented without proper references or whatnot and are justifiably declined by other editors. Of those, I occasionally spot something that can easily be brought up to standards with just a little extra work on my part. The above quoted posting was a reply to this message from a fellow AFC regular, whose back I had gone behind) It's not about sneaking around re-creating deleted articles; just wanted to clarify. Cheers! Precious Roy 18:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I was actually referring to any attempt Wiccawikka might make to recreate that article. Clearly, that part is irrelevant - it's always hard to sift through what Wiccawikka says and what you say, since she has a habit of signing in the wrong place and/or lifting quotes without properly contextualizing/attributing them. *sigh* --Cheeser1 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my world ; ) Precious Roy 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser - the question of RS may be significant with regard to that web-site, but I'm more interested in the Wikiquette issue for starters.

Here's how I see it - the touch-stone for race-hate websites is the Institute of Historical Review (since everyone agrees we'd not link there). The question boils down to "Is this as bad or worse than David Irving?". The Wikiquette issue becomes "Should I revert with a comment about race-hate sites"?, and, if other editors persist in including that link, should I then take it to RfC, AN, AN/I or direct to ArbCom and seek to have them blocked? PR^talk 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you have looked into the history of this link farther than just what is written on the discussion page. The original link (which was also removed as spam by a previous editor) was to a different webaddress and was added by an anonymous IP so there is no way to know who added it. When the webaddress changed it was altered by

]

Actually, if you check, I re-added it because you removed it without consensus or policy support. You made a unilateral edit, and some very strong accusations. It wasn't even Scrooby who linked to his own website - so he's not violating WP:EL, he's simply abiding by WP:CONS. --Cheeser1 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're accusing Scrooby of making personal attacks, please provide diffs. You might assume they're sockpuppets, but I'm not going to since we're

consensus process just because you think somebody might be a puppet. That's making quite a leap. --Cheeser1 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have only just seen you notes above and am a bit pressed for time. So I am typing this in a hurry. Scrooby has made personal attacks on my talk page and the EWS talk page. Ouillah has also made personal attacks and used some of the same language as Scrooby. Scrooby attempted to canvass User:ClockworkSoul before going to the WQA. Most of your questions above are discussed at the new thread that I have opened here [1]. Please feel free to add your thoughts there. Please also see my note here [2] because, as with Sarcasticidealist I appreciate the time that you have taken in this situation. One last thing before I have to go I hope that you will note that Scrooby did not let the consensus process finish (or even attempt to start it except at WQA) before adding back links to his webpage. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a few uninvolved editors to contribute to a discussion is not canvassing. It's seeking outside opinions, to help build consensus. And when you make disputed edits and others disagree, your edits are supposed to be reverted until consensus is established. Reverting his revert was the first shot fired in what has become an edit war. --Cheeser1 22:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are no longer involved in this but I thought that you should be aware of the following. On the sockpuppet request page that wknight94 found this was the first time that you could find when the website was entered on the EWS page. The IP was from Montreal, Canada. You will note that the entry was made on August 8, 2006. Upon doing a little further research it turns out that there was an earlier attempt to add the webpage in question. In fact it turns out that the first time that it was entered was here [3] on July 4, 2006. CRCulver deleted it as linkspam (unfortunately it looks as though this member is no longer editing at wikipedia.) A brief edit war over its inclusion ensued culminating in this [4]. You will note that the IP address is 143.167.143.177. This address tracks to Sheffield, England. When you combine that with this information [5] you will find that it is possible (I would say probable) that Scrooby was involved from the start. The connection to Montreal will remain unknown, but, it may have been easier for Scrooby to repeatedly swear on a stack of bibles (which may be shrinking) that he didn't make the original entry when he was aware of who had made it. I have noted this on the sockpuppet case page (in an altered form) but rather than make you search for it I wanted to put all of the information here in light of the numerous legal threats that Scrooby has made. MarnetteD | Talk 14:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C1, just wanted to say I appreciate your good temperament and handling of a tough situation (re: this). Your wiki-activities are a credit to that board. Supportively, R. Baley 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm just trying to do my best to keep things going. :) --Cheeser1 00:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have the appearance on being an expert at usage of images based on your opinions thus far, and since you have made edits related to that, I want to ask your opinion to make sure I'm perfectly clear on your position. You stated . . . fair use is for CD/DVD covers, not the entire insert. These are copyrighted, and cannot be reproduced, in whole or in part, on Wikipedia. So you're stating that a user can use the outside cover, but not the inside material, is that correct? Also, where did you find this policy, and is that a verbatim quote or did you paraphrase? I read that the limit on size is 20MB, do you agree with that?--Bamadude 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is fair use law. The cover (not the insert) of the DVD is allowed, but only when used to identify the DVD, and only if accompanying critical commentary on the DVD. You have reproduced parts of the insert that are not covered by fair use, and you intend to use them as a source of information - to allow the reader to access their contents, not just to identify the DVD, and with no critical commentary provided. That is well outside the realm of fair use. Copyright violations are not tolerated on Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, show me where that wording is stated in WP policy that the mere portrayal of an image is not fair usage and must be accompanied by critical commentary. Secondly, the article has critical commentary about it in the form of the episode order and the description of each episode, and even if it didn't, it could easily be added if that were true. Thirdly, I'm not talking about the insert, I'm talking about the cover, the back outside cover of the DVD, so please follow the bouncing ball on the argument and don't go off on a tangent as I don't see where your argument holds water.--Bamadude 01:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please read

this policy. Secondly, "episode order" is not critical commentary. And finally, the front cover of the DVD package is the only thing covered by fair use. Anything else found in the materials is not covered, and even if it were, it's not being used appropriately - it's not even necessary: you are supposed to simply cite the source, not scan it and upload it to Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Point out exactly where in that policy that you're getting your statements from. Also where does it state that only the "front cover" is allowed --- where does it say the back cover is not fair use? Why do you continue to create & manipulate policy that for the most part doesn't exist and start tangential discussions to obfuscate the facts? FYI, the user who original said the DVD cover supported his own episode order used the DVD cover as a source, and I uploaded it to prove that he was wrong, so please read the archive and understand the point of the argument before you make a statement about it.--Bamadude 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try photobucket next time. Wikipedia is not the place for you to upload copyrighted material unless the meet all of the fair-use criteria. --Cheeser1 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be more of your interpretation of WP policy or a statement of WP policy that doesn't exist. What part of the "fair use rationale" do you believe the image does not meet? I don't see any problem with it; let me help you with a verbatim quote from

]

Except that it's not a valid fair use rationale. --Cheeser1 03:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your response --- what about it is invalid? Please state your source verbatim with cut-and-paste, no more paraphrasing or policy opinions.--Bamadude 04:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already said so yourself: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). There is no critical commentary, it is not for the purposes of identification. Furthermore, if you scroll up from there on

the policy page it says: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. A text list would serve this purpose - there is no requirement that you upload sources to prove yourself. Citing them is enough. If any one of these requirements is not met, the image fails fair-use policies and must be deleted. It fails several. I've explained this repeatedly, but your hostile and confrontational attitude seem to have kept you from heeding my words or the policies I've been citing (seriously, if I cite a policy and paraphrase it for you, what more do you want?). --Cheeser1 04:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you like to end this right here, right now, with you winning pretty much everything you wanted? I have a great deal for you:

• You go to
  WP:MFD#User:Bamadude
  and withdraw your complaint and apologize to the group for the disruption; I'll do the same.

• You go to
  WP:WQA#User:Bamadude_.26_User:Clarityfiend
  and withdraw your comments and apologize to the group for the disruption and for stepping into an edit war that you had no place being a part of; I'll do the same.

• You go to Image_talk:TAXI-SEASON1-OUTSIDECOVER.jpg and state that the disagreement has been settled in favor of speedy deletion, and I'll do the same and remove my "holdon" dispute tag; the image will be deleted soon thereafter by an administrator.

• You go to my user talk page and withdraw your complaints as being settled, and I'll do the same & archive it.

• You go to the Taxi talk page and state the matter has been resolved & I'll do the same.

• I'll go to the Taxi article and remove the image link to the image in the WP image library.

• You go to
  WP:RFP
  --- another user requested protection of the Taxi article. State that the page doesn't need protection and that the disagreement has been settled and apologize to the group for the disruption, and I'll do the same.

Let me know --- we have better things to do than this and it's very childish, don't you think?--Bamadude 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to settle the content dispute. However, the complaints at the MfD and WQA are related to your incivility and your highly inappropriate userpage. I cannot, in good conscience, recall such complaints. They are well warranted. I also don't like the fact that you've asked me to admit fault and retract complaints against you in order to settle a content dispute. This isn't a plea bargain or some sort of bartering. It's not really appropriate to try to use one ongoing dispute (the content dispute) as leverage in another (complaints about your incivility and inappropriate userpage). --Cheeser1 04:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is all just your opinion, just as all disputes are; opinions as who is right or wrong. I would say that your response to my olive branch is also uncivil. I'm just trying to help cease a dispute, but you can have it anyway you want it.--Bamadude 04:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cheeser - sorry for abandoning you all weekend with this file. Looks like you've handled it well, but if I can be of any use to you, please let me know (the links you posted earlier on my talk page all seem to be inapplicable now - the WQA alert's closed, the user page has been speedy deleted, and the image has been deleted). If you want to go

Sarcasticidealist 00:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'm hoping that this user gets the message and will contribute constructively and civilly in the future. Best. --Cheeser1 00:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I might briefly prevail on you to answer a question? As someone with an academic past, I am only interested in writing good edits to difficult pages. I dislike being dragged into arbitration or indeed of dragging others into it. I was hauled recently into a "Wikiquette" debate, which wasted valuable time. The person who tends to do this repeatedly, not only with myself, basically complains at the huge effort he has to exert to get past other editors who worry that the material he provides is ill-sourced and highly POV. Recently, on the

. I seemed to be the only one to note this, but I dislike breaking rules, and try to play by them, even if this requires me to denounce myself for inadvertent infringements, as in that case.

It turned out I hadn't broken the rule (I still don't understand it: perhaps because of my age, and because I concentrate on book sourcing, not on the minutiae of bureaucratic regulations often dubiously exploited to push through strongarming edits, and have little time to master these intricacies, since I trust my academic background gives me instincts about POV sufficiently strong to be wary of them), but that my interlocutor had. I expected to be suspended, and wasn't. I checked my interlocutor's page, and neither had he. I wondered if my self-denunciation had ever been acted upon, by the intermediary. Checking I found he had duly reported both of us as being in possible violation. The administrator only found Jaakobou in violation, and gave him a 24 hour suspension. Yet, I know that suspensions of this kind are invariably posted on the User's page, and there was no such notification visible on Jaakobou's page. I checked the administrator's page, who had suspended him, Penwhale, and found out that another administrator Swatjester had told Penwhale he had unblocked, after two hours, the 24 hours sanction because Jaakobou had convinced him it was unjust (the reasons were quite personal). I looked for a trace of Jaakobou's request to User_talk:Swatjester throughout, and could not find an inkling. I presumed therefore that the request to cancel was made by private mail, to someone Jaakobou knows, or trusts, since Swatjester's page gives a very curious curriculum for someone asked to judge the matter, since he is a marine with several tours in Iraq (no harm in that, in itself) and Jaakobou is strongly anti-Arab. I asked Penwhale if this were licit (I don't enable my own email on Wiki on scruple, since I believe everything should be visible, esp. since we are anonymous, in decisions made). I also asked him how a sanction of 24 hours suspension imposed by him was not notified on Jaakobou's page, nor evidence given that the sanction had been lifted. Penwhale's reply is vague, he admits he forgot to post the sanction, and says someone on the administrator's board trawling regularly through complaints will notice this and take appropriate measures.

I must say I find this all disconcerting. To work on Wiki is trying enough at times, with the intermittent disruptiveness of tendentious arguments that reflect ignorance of method more than malice, but a joy when one can draft articles with swift and intelligent collaboration among colleagues. But if, as would appear in this solitary and obscure case, it can occur that when a conflict takes place, the party proved innocent is still marked down as troublesome (on the Hebron page), while the guilty party can finesse everything off the page by making private arrangements with friendly administrators to cover up an infraction, then I must reconsider the seriousness of the project and my involvement in it.

I address this note to you because I was impressed with the equanimity of your comment on the Wikiquette page, (2) do not wish to take actions on the administrative board since, as you note, they are time-consuming mostly of people who would be happier working constructively (3) I may be subject to the hallucinations of age, and simply have missed something. (4) You are apparently young, mathematically minded, and, I take it, without intending flattery, able to see the logical nub of things beyond the chitchat.

I've already, merely explaining the incident, wasted much of your time. Could you do me a courtesy, and simply glance at this I.e. what happened between 21:07 and 21.57? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=next&oldid=165035561 And perhaps Penwhale's talk page (a short series of exchanges on both the suspension and unblocking) and give me an informed opinion as to whether or not the proper procedure was observed?

I would appreciate, finally, you replying here,if you can spare 5 minutes to glance at this. Probably this is a matter of the confusions of old age, and I do not want to broadcast my doubts, which would happen were you to reply on my page, which is read by many of those involved, and if read there, would probably just stir another futile series of verbal sparrings I dearly hope to avoid. With best regards, and apologies if this is an unwelcome intrusion on your valuable time Nishidani 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I believe there is little one can do about the unblock. You are correct, though, that he violated the rule and you didn't. And he was blocked. The fact that he was unblocked is another matter, and however fair or unfair it was, there's not much we can do about it. A single 24-hour 3RR block is minor, and overturning one is not really something that could be construed as anything improper. The fact that the block warning wasn't here isn't even the fault of swatjester, so there's no way to infer that any such cover up was intended. However, the fact that you've taken notice of the incident is helpful. It is unclear if that was the intention, but any "cover up" or attempt to minimalize this event that may have been intended has failed. Records of the block exist, and Wikipedia will always have a history including those discussions. Unfortunately, if an administrator is contacted to review such a block, s/he can simply unblock immediately - there is no procedure necessary, although a more formal block review process exists. I would like to say that you are certainly acting appropriately in this manner - going so far as to report yourself for a violation of 3RR (even if you were mistaken, and no violation had occurred). I can't comment extensively on the content dispute, but I can't imagine how your insistence on reliable scholarly sources are so misconstrued. If you'd like any comment on anything else, let me know. --Cheeser1 03:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed, Cheeser1. It is a relief to know there are young people about who know the rules, the technology, and have sharp judgements, and pitch in with a bit of time and advice when one is flustered and requests an objective review of some niggling point whose propriety or logic evades one.

No, I would not dare to ask you to comment on anything else. Indeed keep well, and far from the pages I've happened on! I don't expect to be hauled before boards that often. It's nice to know however that I can consult informally somebody if someone else throws the book at me, and I can't figure out why! Best regards Nishidani 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take all but Greg L's original complaint out of WQA and move it to the talk page, leaving behind a note that discussion on the issues is at

]

Wikietiquette alert

From User talk:TenPoundHammer:
I wanted to thank you for being gracious and mature in your response(s) to the complaint. It's encouraging to see an editor handle such a situation so well. Happy editing. --Cheeser1 03:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome -- it was barely even a petty offense but still I felt that it was worth apologizing for. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Eusebeus:
I wanted to let you know that I've marked this WQA alert as stuck. While I am of the opinion that your actions were not uncivil, I would like to let you know that in the future, you could probably avoid having to entertain such (erroneous) accusations so much if you were more diplomatic. While this is not required, it may reduce the amount of conflict you run into. I hope you take this as a learning experience, even if you would not be considered at fault. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser, thanks for your comments. I am disinclined to be diplomatic with users whose disingenuousness makes me view their actions with considerable suspicion and who commit such flagrant violations of policy under the guise of an "aw shucks" attitude. I am especially concerned that someone who is apparently too naive to understand what a sockpuppet is or rules governing user pages can nonetheless adroitly use wikiquette and DRV, inter alia. Btw, don't forget to smack me down for my incivility & idiocy on the Firefly talk page! Eusebeus (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your disinclination, I was just hoping to give you a few optional pointers, to shore up the discussion - I don't want to see it drag out any longer, in any case. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser, not sure if you have my talk page on your watchlist, but so you know Jack Merridew can make whatever edits to it that he sees fit as if it were his own, so no need to revert. Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to have userpages pile up on my Watchlist, as I comment on them. I'll keep that in mind. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take extreme offence to your advice. This is not about disagreement. This is about confrontational behaviour on the part of MShake. I have every right to tell him to stay away from me under those circumstances. Please close the WQA. I will not be taking a break because I don't need to. Thank you. !!

]

I cannot "close the WQA." The alerts board is an informal process to seek advice. If you don't want advice, don't ask for it. Lashing out at me isn't going to help you move on any better. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going on about?

]

Read

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It has nothing to do with external links or any other policy, only AfD procedure. And it's an essay. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

From User talk:Domer48:
In response to this issue, I'm going to ask that you not include disputed links. Until the matter is

]

I suggest you back up your Accusations here, or remove your comments! Failing that, I'll remove them. --Domer48 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your userpage. You can remove whatever comments you want. However, this is my userpage, and all I'm doing is asking you to stop edit warring. You want to get in a huff about how I'm accusing you of something, feel free, but the fact is that you're inserting disputed links without establishing a consensus. There are a number of opinions about these links, and many cite

so be it, I'm just trying to get you to work more productively. If you refuse to do so, that's your prerogative. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"Throwing it around telling everyone that their opinion doesn't matter because they "don't like" something is not appropriate and doesn't assume much good faith" Now are you going to back this up with some diff, or are you going to waffel! Tell you what, never mind, I'm not going to waste my time with y. --Domer48 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to provide you with diffs of what you yourself said. But I can, if you choose to be obstinate. Wikipedia is a community-built encyclopedia. You don't get to decide who you "waste [your] time with." You're being disruptive by edit warring. There are clear community-set guidelines about how not to edit war and about why those links are at least questionable. Until you establish a consensus in favor of including the links, you need to stop adding them. That's really all there is to it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link you have there, is weather on not the references being discussed are

]

The WQA complaint is about your conduct. Your conduct is inappropriate - your edit-warring over links is inappropriate, and your misuse of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a reliable source discussion is also inappropriate. You're trying to find an irrelevant (and incorrect) inconsistency in some part of my argument - this is really not the issue. You continue to be combative and rude, and that's fine, but I'm trying my best to explain to you how to stop being disruptive and combative, and if all I get is why don't you just "admit [you're] wrong" because "I'm not going to waste my time with y[ou]", then it's really your loss. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that Domer48 was WP:SHOPPING for another user, so I've gone and added the page for an RfC, which you can view here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't notice, I made many edits to User talk:I AM JOHN SMITH. First, I individually added the two sections "List of songs in Rock Band" & "Boston (band)" today (December 15, 2007). Only after that did I add back the old comments ("Artistic gymnastics" section) from December 6, 2007. I understand why you deleted the one section, but why were the comments I added today deleted? It doesn't make any sense. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared as though JOHN SMITH blanked his page, and does so when any comments are added. You added everything back, plus more. It's hard to sift trough what you added, and what you re-added, since you're not supposed to be doing both. Not to mention making three separate new threads on someone's (blank) talk page within an hour. PS I'm a huge fan of using bold for emphasis/clarity, but chill out. You don't have to bold half your message. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See explination on my talk page. I'll make a link if you want.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see someone whittling away at WQA :-) Tends to be a bit underrepresented at WP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the worst volunteer job at an all-volunteer encyclopedia. Somebody's got to do it, and it's a good way to procrastinate on all that real work I have to do without thinking hard enough to write articles. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something to do at "real work" as well! Worst volunteer job, perhaps. But it makes a lasting contribution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this [better worded version] out, and give me your opinion.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not

fork this discussion. There is a TfD discussion and a discussion at your userpage going on. Minor rewording will not salvage a template with no conceivable purpose on Wikipedia. This is not what templates are for, not at all. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The "fork" page is a little vague

By "fork" do you mean side discussions that only belong on a single page? Don't discuss it anywhere else? Dam, you guys sure uptight.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order for Wikipedia to function, it's much easier when there aren't a half-dozen versions of the same discussion. Please don't insult people for respecting the community-accepted guidelines on how to best run this project. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You guys" doesn't specifically mention anyone. See what I mean by "uptight"?I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You" is the second person pronoun, which refers to me, if no one else. Again, asking you to participate constructively is not "uptight." --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi and thanks for joining in warning the user. Don't forget to sign with tildes, though ;) and merry holiday break Pundit|utter 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though its archived, I've got a clear example of incivility/personal attacks - [6]. Will ^(talk) 23:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [7] et al, don't stress about it too much. I've been keeping a close eye on him for a while now as well. I have my suspicions when it comes to what he's really trying to do here, but in any case, don't feel that you need to be the only one watching over some of his more, uh, unusual activities. If he's really trying to make legit contributions, it may be helpful to ease up a little... and if he's doing something else, there're plenty of people who'll notice and correct it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm recovering from some medical issues, and so I've got plenty of time to sit around and do Wikipedia (when I'm not sleeping). I'm just spending some of that time trying to steer John in the right direction, because he does seem to want to be a constructive contributor, he's just going about it all wrong. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you spare a few minutes to comment on my Mediation Committee request

]

I'd be happy to comment (actually, I just did). Personally though I don't think I'm really able to put in time on the Mediation Committee, not at this point. Maybe in a few months (or maybe much further down the line), but not just yet. I don't have the time (otherwise I probably would, there are alot of disputes that need clearing up, I'm sure). --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, your assistance will not be forgotten if you choose to apply at a later date. Thank you, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you cheeser1 for your advice. I am going to ignore this user to the best of my ability but I have done this for 3-months and he is still rambling on accusing me of libeling him and using proxy accounts (in a different country) though I have not touched or viewed his page until a few days ago since October. I would like to see him get reprimanded for conflict of interest yet no one has taken the initiative to do this yet.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have helped. I wouldn't worry too much about his accusations - anyone with any sense sees things for what they are, and you're not in any danger of having problems except those you'd encounter by continuing to let him bother you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser1, thanks for the help. I've not encountered this before, so I wasn't sure if this all met the threshold of doing something about it. I just want the articles to be better, but sometimes it's a lot harder than it needs to be. Cheers. Fireproeng (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If it helps, you may want to consider taking a break from editing articles related to the conflict. It's always good to get your mind off things a bit. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that in the past, it's good advice. Unfortunately, his and my main fields of expertise and experience overlap, so my main contributions are going to be in articles in which he is editing. I really don't get upset by this, I just thought I should get the opinions of others in the hope he will listen to them. I think he reacts pretty emotionally to my suggestions at this point, and I'm trying to be empathetic. Fireproeng (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For being the talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks! It's really a testament to the bizarre situation I'm in right now - I can't remember the last time I had this much free time. Thanks, Wikipedia, for being addictive and using up all my free time! :) --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses on WQA. You've made some excellent points in your comment [8]. I guess a good solution would be for me to have a number of prewritten responses to add to my collection. It's just that I rarely have the need for them, so haven't bothered. Other suggestions are welcome. --

]

Cheeser1, in reply to Seicer's concerns (regarding scope, not content) I've escalated the Wikiquette item to this RfC concerning Ronz's behaviour. I'm not familiar with Wikieditor9999's situation, but if you had a comment about the Wikiquette I created regarding Ronz, I've missed it; please point me to it or reply at the RfC. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were made primarily (if not exclusively) in response to the late-coming complaints of wikieditor9999. His complaint about Ronz is frivolous, as of yet. He presented no evidence of misconduct, and instead cited the following things as "harassment" or other misconduct:

• Ronz fixes an unsigned comment of his
• Ronz points out the four
  single purpose accounts that are editing Cayra
• Ronz removes unsourced, unremarkable lists of "product features" from Cayra
• Ronz points users to WP:N and other policies, and encourages them to use the
  WP:DR
  process as they see fit if they don't like the explanation he's giving them regarding the notability of Cayra
• Ronz points out that this software is in beta (or less) (based on the almost universal software versioning conventions, not to mention the obvious betaware state of Cayra) in his AfD nomination
• Ronz, allegedly, is responsible for a short lapse in contributions from some of the aforementioned SPAs

As far as I'm concerned, wikieditor9999 has nothing substantive to contribute to this RFC/U, or to any other alertboard or part of the dispute resolution process. These accusations are all immediately trivial, frivolous, and clearly motivated by the ongoing content dispute - which should be settled by the AfD anyway (since it appears consensus will be to delete, barring any miraculous fix-up of the article to meet WP:N in some way). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have no comment whatsoever on the other complaints about Ronz's behavior. I only have to say that this complaint of wikieditor9999's seems unrelated and has no merit whatsoever. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm glad I don't have to keep parallel conversations going on unrelated topics, but I'm sure I'll avoid the Collatz thing. But I'll do elementary number theory in a pinch, I'm sure lots of us will. Pete St.John (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to why I started this discussion before it was taken on a tangent: You make some good points. I'd like to hear suggestions or examples on how to deal with such situations as you described in your comment. --

talk) 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Basically, if issues are heated, try to take the high road. When I do that, sometimes I have to tell myself "it's the right thing." Other times I trick myself by telling myself "if you take the high road, then the other guy looks like the jerk and you win." And then later I realize that I tricked myself into doing the right thing for the wrong reason. When I'm in a dispute, sometimes I steer clear of the usual stuff - I don't ask people to refactor, but if I did, I wouldn't do it to someone I'm in the middle of a dispute with. It's not that it's wrong, or inappropriate, but it might sting a little. I would avoid pointing out any unrelated/procedural stuff until it's cooled down. Imagine you're in the middle of a heated political debate in front of thousands of people, and right in the middle of nowhere, your opponent tells you that your car is illegally parked in a handicapped spot, and asks you to go move it. I'm not sure if that analogy works for you, but the best idea is basically to stick to the issue at hand, even when everybody else is veering off. Sometimes, people respond to me in a way that I can't really respond to - and so I don't, or I simply ask them to stick to the issue at hand (example, although the "it will be removed" is not normally applicable). I'm not sure what in specific you mean, and I did not review the entire complaint (only the frivolous/bad-faith stuff by wikieditor9999, who's digging himself quite a hole at this point), so if you have a specific circumstance in mind, point me to it or give me a hypothetical, and I'll take a look. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all. I just wanted you to expound a bit on what you already had written, so this is perfect. Thanks for your time, and all the help with the Cayra situation. --

talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm very happy to have helped. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some insight at WQA regarding Cculber007 (talk · contribs)? He has a long list of incivility and multiple blocks that date back two years, along with legal threats and a notice of "one last chance." Should I file this at ANI? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult case. The language problem doesn't help at all. I'll try to take a better look at some point, but I wouldn't be opposed to tossing this one to the ANI. He makes alot of threats, and has actually demanded administrator intervention - maybe he should be careful what he wishes for. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and posted it on there. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cheeser1. Locke Cole pointed me to your post here. I wonder if you know how I can clear my name in a faulty checkuser case? Asking for another one does not seem to be available to me (aren't allowed to ask for one on yourself). What is the appeals process, as I did not seem to see one? (As for the content of your post related to the article, I had already dissected 5 or 6 news articles that were presented on the talk page as supporting an exclusivity only position and they (the articles) all followed the model of the original press release in reporting the full story of exclusivity not beginning until June 1. Locke Cole was present for this discussion above, as were most of the other editors currently in the room.) Proctor spock (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do another example. My imaginary band signs with RCA records, with a contract beginning Feb 1. That still means I'm signed to them, and news sources will be reporting "Imaginary Rock Band signs with RCA." Not "Imaginary Rock Band will be exclusive with RCA but only after Feb. 1 and until then they are technically not started yet on their work with RCA even though they have a contract and so they should not be ... etc." Placing unnecessary qualifiers on things like the exclusive deal between Sony and Blu-Ray puts undue and irrelevant weight on the fact that they used to not be exclusive. All the news reports I checked seemed to be reporting "Sony and Blu-Ray exclusive." Now, they mentioned the date of the switch, but that's not the point. Now, I'm not an expert on the content dispute, and this is just my assessment, but that's not the subject of this complaint.

The real issue is the fact that you're upset about the results of a checkuser. Unfortunately, checkusers are not really subjective (as far as I know, it's pretty much checking, hence "checkuser"), and there's no appeals process (I don't think so anyway). The two of you (you and an account that is likely also you) are editing with the exact same position in the exact same discussion, and you're making assertions about how your position has a majority (when in fact, I see several editors disagreeing with you) and that opens the door for people to remind us that you are, in fact, likely to be the same user. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Warner Brothers is not and should not have been the subject. The real issue is that civility is not being maintained when another editor insists on calling two opposing editors sock puppets of each other. A checkuser, unless you can cite something in Wiki policy that says otherwise, does not give him the right to label us sock puppets. That result is the domain of the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets process. The case there has not yet completed. A conclusion has not been reached. Locke Cole is not free to name call me and the other editor by this epithet. And you really should be supporting civility on that talk page rather than maintaining the position that his name calling is okay. That is why I filed case in the first place.Proctor spock (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Checkuser is on step up from SSP. A checkuser has confirmed that you are likely to be sockpuppets. Saying so, whenever you claim numerical advantage in a discussion, is totally warranted. That's what happened. And filing a WQA complaint isn't open season for you to refute what I say based on the fact that I am allegedly not "supporting civility." "Sockpuppet" is not an epithet or a personal attack, it's a term used on Wikipedia for people who are determined to be editing in a particular fashion - you are likely to be such a person (that's not my opinion, that's what the checkuser case determined). Saying so is not a breach of civility when you opened the door yourself. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and please point me to the Wikipedia policy that says the result of a request for checkuser is the same as a completed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets process. No, they are not logically equivalent. When a term does not apply to you, and the term is negative, and other editors, now it appears yourself included, are determined to hurl it at you, it does not support civility. What door did I open? Proctor spock (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. First of all, don't argue about "logical equivalence." Nobody said they were "logically equivalent." SSP is NOT the only place people are determined to be sockpuppets. For someone who admits to not understand the process, you sure are willing to assert that you do understand the process when you want to assert your innocence. Checkusers are also used to determine sockpuppetry. You are likely to be a sockpuppet (or the other one is, whatever). That's what was determined. And when you go into debates and start a back and forth between you, what is likely the other you, and other editors and then assert that you have a numerical advantage, majority, consensus, or plurality, then you are opening the door for them to remind us "oh wait, you're likely to be the same user, so don't assert numerical superiority." When one of you makes an edit, and it is reverted, and the other reverts it back, that's invitation for you to be reverted on the basis of edit warring (regardless of the fact that you are likely sockpuppets, but especially because you are). If you file a complaint "He called me a sockpuppet" and the response you get is "Well, you are likely to be a sockpuppet, and it was relevant to the discussion," what more do you want? I'm not going to discuss this further. I'm not here for you to complain at or accuse, especially when your accusations are frivolous and deliberately misrepresent how the SSP/RFCU process works. Go bark up some other tree. And read up on

WP:CIVIL because, once again, if you being a sockpuppet is relevant, then there's nothing wrong with mentioning it. Just because you think it doesn't "support civility" doesn't mean anything - I've read those talk pages, and you're at least as uncivil as anyone else in a debate that should have been settled long ago. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your input

I am a subject matter expert recognized by the U.S. Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and have requested editorial assistance to help find my way through Wikipedia style guidelines.

I have recently generously spend days trying to add energy-related material that the DOE and ORNL selected me to prepare and present.

The History of how almost-all of my Wikipedia contributions have been block deleted, without even reading them, is clearly documented for any other editor to see.

Self-appointed unhealful editors with less knowledge of the subject matter have used personal attacks and public profanity in their comments to me. Surely I am not the only one they have done this to.

The one who filed this complaint has apologized online for his fits of blind rage. His deletions of my valid, cited input have been reversed by other more-helpful editors. It is he who should be sanctioned. I have hesitated to file a

WP:RFC

, but with the support of others, I think that the time may have arrived. I've read the HELP on negotiation, but I do need some assistance in this matter.

One thing is particularly curious. It appears from the History, that he is on Wikipedia editing over 60 hours a week. I do not understand "why" or "who" motivates him, but how can that be, unless a special interest group is paying him to insert their desired bias into Wikipedia, while leaving the viewpoints he represents in the system. If someone is not paying him to insert his bias, then has he nothing better to do?

Clearly, the documentation shows that he is extremely biased against my recognized alternative energy point of view. He applies rules to my input that he does not apply to others who support his bias.

His exact words to me were "Wikipedia is full of crap" and the editors who contribute to it are "jackasses." Is this in the spirit of the Wikipedia Welcome credo? He insultingly used other offensive religious profanity to make his points to me.

I do not consider what I am writing to be a "persoanl attack", but rather documentation of unexplained (apparently paid) biased editing, which I believe should be sanctioned.

If you can help me channel my obvious frustration in a more productive way, I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

If you would like to know more about my previous success and integrity, please Google: Larry Hartweg [email protected] The conflict is with the bad editor, not with me.

Please delete this message from public view, after you have read it. You may forward this for anyone to discuss, but please remove my name first.

Escientist (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you must cite a reliable source for the content you add to Wikipedia. Please read

this policy. You, personally, are not a reliable source. Furthermore, everything you put on Wikipedia is forever in public view. I cannot expunge this message, nor would I - your communication on Wikipedia should not be clandestine or "this message will self destruct" or anything of that sort. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

escientist's commentary

having read with interest

]

I would suggest you just let it go. If the problem continues, just report it to the appropriate

dispute resolution (or other) process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your cool response. I have requested editorial assistance multiple times, as I am slowly learning subtle Wikipedia issues, which I am trying to respect. I'm not sure what the ambiguous cryptic “H^H” or "WTF am i supposed to do" really means. In the Wikipedia disambiguation for WTF, the top definition says a profane "expression of confusion or annoyance." I think both apply here. We should indeed let his own words and edits speak for themselves. He certainly cannot deny what I documented in my previous note to you, and this note is obviously more of the same. I'll be happy to "just let it go" if he will just stop deleting my qualified Recent ORNL.gov reference, well-cited, generous input, as I slowly learn the issues of Wikipedia style (which are applied differently by different editors).

If he still needs assistance in knowing what to do, I have suggested that he help me edit my style, instead of deleting it. I invite and greatly appreciate CONSTRUCTIVE Wikipedia editorial assistance. Destructive, self-appointed editorial power is not helpful to anyone. I very much like the article on “Wikipedia: Editorial oversight and control” – Would that all editors respected it. What can I do to help make Wikipedia a better place? I greatly appreciate Wikipedia being the twelfth most popular website in the world, distributing valuable information to millions. I accept your invitation to contribute, but I still need help working with diverse conflicting editorial opinions. Escientist (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more uncivil attacks. lovely. unsourced, POV commentary cannot be allowed to stand within published wikipedia articles in order to assist an editor in learning. it is policy that such material must be deleted, aggressively, in jimbo wales's own words -

talk) 19:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Epilogue

The request for checkuser has been revised and the outcome is " Inconclusive". I thought you would want to know. Proctor spock (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really interest me because it's not relevant to your complaint. When someone files a legitimate RFCU and it comes out likely, and this person says so when you try to assert some numerical advantage in a discussion, you don't have any grounds to file a complaint. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess now you're subject to the withering attack by Guido. Welcome! He used to have a list of editors that he "ignores" with the date he started ignoring them. It was amusing. Well, enjoy and thanks for your thoughtful comments to me. Please understand that standing up to editors like Guido take a certain amount of fortitude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered difficulties on the WQA before - editors who file complaints, like those who are the subject of complaints, often project their dispute onto anyone who responds. However, the important thing to remember is that incivility must be met with civility. I hope the advice that I (and others) gave you on the WQA is put to good use. Regards, --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I'm going to get drunk. Just a couple of points. You do need to read that Gnixon has done this to me and other editors about a dozen times. I'm kind of tired of the Wiki-lawyering by him. I should ignore him, but he gets under my skin way too easily, probably because he's smarter than the typical Creationist, meaning it's hard to ignore. Just a bit of pushback to your comments on the WQA. I really don't appreciate being told to take a break (not sure of your exact language, because I'm too lazy to go look it up). I think you presume that I'm sitting here with a scotch in one hand and an Ak-47 in the other, ready to take out the the local Post Office. In fact, I quite enjoy Wikipedia, and figuring out ways to stand up to the Gnixon's of the project. I've learned a lesson here with him (which I have in the past, but forgot to implement). Revert his POV, make a polite statement about it, then ignore his subtle trash-talking. And it is subtle, that's why I contend many of his comments ARE veiled attacks. As for Guido, he's not so subtle. His buttons are easy to push, not that I intentionally push them, because the after-effects lasts for days. Otherwise, I'm going to take your advice on politeness to the rude POV warriors of the world.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just spent 20 minutes just reviewing Guido's contribution history. I seriously don't see how he hasn't been sanctioned by ARBCOM yet. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By asking you to take a break, I am not necessarily questioning your contributions. Check

WP:COOL was written. I have no image of you sitting anywhere, with anything in your hand. I just want you to keep your conduct in check - it will make it easier for you to make your positive contributions to articles, and easier for you (and others) to deal with the other editors in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You're probably right, but hell, I'm a volunteer (like you, unless, there's a secret payment you're getting, then I'm going to complain). I'm not sure why I should put up with Guido and Gnixon. In real life, I'd probably never even run into either of them, and if I do, I'm pretty much the same exact personality. Unless it's a cute girl. I'll put up with almost anything.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Payment? I wish. Unfortunately, unless Guido and Gnixon are blocked or banned (which doesn't seem likely or necessary), you kind of have to "put up with" them. Now, the closest thing you're going to get to not "putting up with" them is to address them civilly, and only when necessary or relevant to building an encyclopedia. Turning the other cheek should be the sixth pillar of Wikipedia, I sometimes think. I know it's hard, and it seems unfair, but the less you respond to that stuff, the less it's going to happen at all, and then everybody can focus on content and building Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not know this, but I'm not a Christian, so turning the other cheek isn't familiar to me. Many of my family are dead from "turning the other cheek." I'll tell my kids one thing: Nazis killed your family because the took away their rights one little step at a time. I draw the line on pseudoscience and on religious dogma taking precedence over science. BUT, I'll try this cheek thing. And I'm assuming you don't mean that I the check I should expose isn't from mooning.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm referring to the cheeks on your face. I'm not saying you should turn your cheek at things in real life, like Nazis or persecution or whatever, but don't forget, this is just the internet. By ignoring or rising above incivility, you'll have an easier time making this encyclopedia work the way it should. Turning the other cheek has meaning for people beyond Christian dogma - I myself am not a person of faith, but that doesn't mean I am not familiar with the possible positive use of some religions' beliefs and teachings. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, he's been

reported for 3RR again. Based on his assumptions on my talk page that I have been "bandwagoning," I highly doubt he'll correct his actions even after another block. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Re the most recent WQA against you

Hi Cheeser. I know I've left you similar comments in the past, but I think it's appropriate to do so again. After reviewing the WQA complaint against you by User:Nraden and looking at his talk page, I believe he has a point. So I'll try to address it here.

Neil's complaint, as I saw it, was that you were harassing him and being uncivil towards him while in the process of talking to him about his own behavior. I think that, in fact, you did go just a bit overboard in trying to get your point across to him. Valid as the point may be, you have a tendency to be very direct and blunt with people, and some people don't respond well to that. In addition, I think you tend to pursue these issues much longer than is really necessary or feasible, at least with some people, and that can get people mad at you when you don't intend for them to be.

I wouldn't call Neil's complaint against you completely frivolous, and as I mentioned before, when you're the one being accused, it's probably best to let someone else handle it - the first thing anyone who is being accused of something wants to do is to defend him/herself, and a natural response is to basically say "That's ridiculous", because you don't believe you did anything wrong. That's why I said that you should let another person handle it - that way, if it really is a case of you not doing anything wrong, you'll have a neutral party saying so. Otherwise, you'll just end up in an argument that's likely to make things worse.

In short, my advice is to back off on the trigger a little, realize that you do tend to get pretty hot-headed at times, and don't be afraid to ask for help from other WQA volunteers when you become personally involved in a dispute. I think it'll help you, and in a way it'll help the rest of us too.

Thanks for reading. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening me with reporting me to the authorities (be it Wikipedia or RL authorities) in response to me telling him to behave warranted a response. This user has serious issues with how he contributes (or not) to Wikipedia, and now he's threatening to take action against me (which you have responded to) because he fundamentally does not understand how to behave, nor how to respond when asked to behave appropriately. If he is not willing to change that, then he should not be putting himself out in the open on Wikipedia. Spending his time here only to comment on an article with which he has a serious COI, being uncivil and threatening other people, if that's getting him in trouble (here or IRL) and he doesn't like it, then he's the one who needs to stop (he's responsible for his own actions) - and if he has no other interest in Wikipedia, then maybe he can leave. I don't appreciate you misquoting/misrepresenting me at the WQA either, because I was not commanding Raden to leave, only pointing out that he can keep himself out of trouble by doing one of many things (leaving Wiki being one option).

You might think you're helping, but you're just validating him, and now he feels like he's won because his complaint at the WQA got him what he wanted. It's not my responsibility to sugar-coat what I say for people who can't respond well to bluntness or honesty. It's their responsibility to respond appropriately. Civility does not stoop to baby-talking, hand-holding, or sugar-coating. I also, once again, find it absurd that you insist that I may not respond to a WQA complaint against me. Accused parties are always allowed to comment, and they almost always do. As for "ask for help" I kept the WQA complaint against Raden up-to-date and indicated that he and I had been having a lengthy, unproductive discussion wherein I was met with hostility and accusation (instead of "oh, okay, I won't wish harm on other people anymore"). If this is the kind of support I get for being the most active person on the WQA, then fuck it, I'm done. You can put your own neck out there to get attacked by hostile people, because I'm not going to do it if this frivolous retaliation is going to get validation at every turn, from an administrator no less. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa, hold on, I'm not trying to validate his behavior. I agree that he was out of line as well. I'm just saying that you should be mindful of the way you respond to people in these sorts of situations. This is far from the first time I've seen people comment on how direct and blunt you tend to be with them, and I've always been a little uneasy with that. I'm not asking you to stop helping out - you are helping, and most of the time nobody has any problem with your responses. I'm just mentioning that there are times when you do tend to take things too personally and/or get too hot-headed. That's all I'm trying to do.

All I'm trying to say is that I think, personally, that there are better ways of approaching these situations sometimes. Being more diplomatic even to people who are really hostile can do much more to resolve hostilities than responding in kind - to be honest, some of the stuff I saw you saying in Nraden's talk page came across to me just as hostile as what he was saying. I'm not saying he's right, nor am I saying he has a right to treat anyone that way. But just because he's doing it doesn't mean you have to as well. That's all I'm saying.

Please take a moment to see how you responded to me. I made a good-faith, friendly suggestion on how you might avoid stuff like this in the future, and you're threatening to leave and berating me over it. Don't you think that if I'd responded like that to you over a friendly suggestion from you, it'd make you kinda upset? I'm certainly not perfect, and if I've misrepresented you in the WQA, I apologize and I'll correct it. But please realize that we're all on the same side here, and it's not necessary to get so upset about this stuff. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is like the third time within a span of only a week or two that I've had people file frivolous complaints against me or whatever for doing my job at the WQA. I'm sick of people abusing the process, gaming the system, and if I'm too blunt in responding to what they've done wrong, then yes, I'm not necessarily responding in the absolute most perfect way, but I am not Jesus. I am not in the business of being perfect. I obviously don't think you're validating Raden's initial behavior, but you're validating his gaming the system. I'm fed up with people filing WQAs in retaliation for WQAs. It's absurd, and the fact that I'm so active at the WQA has done nothing but make me a target for harassment from these people, so I feel like stopping. I probably have better things to do, be it other Wiki-stuff or real life stuff. Good lord, I was accused of being in collusion with the original complaining editor to ruin her his reputation IRL. I'm just tired of this nonsense, and I am no longer willing to deal with it. I'm sorry that my tension is so apparent. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, I do think you do a good job at WQA, and if you decided to leave it permanently, I would miss you, as would the other regulars I'm sure. But I do think it might be good for you to take a break from it - if it's stressing you out that much, then taking a break can certainly do no harm.

Just keep in mind that other WQA'ers and admins are around to see these things as well, and trust us to be able to tell the difference between a WQA that has merit and one that doesn't. In this particular case, I think you let Nraden get under your skin a little too much, and it gave him the opening to "game the system" that he wanted. In fairness, I've gotten really hot-headed in arguments as well, and I'm honestly surprised that nobody filed a WQA or AN complaint against me in those situations, that I know of.

But my point is that in the two WQAs I've seen recently that were turned around on you, the first one was clearly frivolous and had no merit, while the second one did have a small amount, in my opinion. As one WQA'er to another, I'm just trying to let you know what I see going on that is negatively affecting you. And like I said, perhaps a break from it would be a good idea.

Just consider coming back when you're ready. You do good work, and the rest of us appreciate it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do appreciate your feedback and I don't consider anything like this permanent - I may come back, I may not, but as of this moment right now, I'm just not interested in it anymore. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the way I see it, if someone were to file a WQA against me because I'd told them to observe NPA or AGF, of course I'd be offended and think that the complaint was totally frivolous. But I would calmly state my case as to what I said, ask the person why they felt I was violating those policies, and let other people draw their own conclusions. I rarely get mad about this sort of thing anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why you have a mop and I never could, I suppose. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could eventually. You have a good grasp of how things should work here on WP, and I've never seen you outright blow it on anything. Like I said, I think you just need to remain calm in situations like this - trust me, as an admin, you'd be getting a lot more of it. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if it makes any difference, I left Nraden a detailed message explaining my opinion about the matter. It's visible both here and here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the followthrough on this. I'm sorry, to you and others but moreso to myself, that I let this stuff get under my skin. I just hope I don't enjoy the break so much that I get distracted and forget to come back. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser1, I had no idea that this nonsense was continued here, as I didn't watch your page. After being under attack like this it's probably a good idea to take a well-deserved break until they have found a new target, such as me. If you want the feedback of an inexperienced editor: I think the only thing that really qualifies as a mistake from your side was responding at all to friendly fire; and that was nothing compared to thoughtlessly exposing you to it in such a situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't comprehend how I'm being accused of using the word "escalating" in some cruel fashion when Zenwhat doesn't even know how to use it correctly, as if he's going to go "escalate the mountain." My head is still spinning. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't know why people are allowed to turn WQA on it's head, by permitting (retaliatory) complaints to be filed against people who work there in the first place. If someone has a complaint about someone who's only there to help, they should be directed to the talk page of the volunteer facilitator. In the event there's no resolution on the talk page, they can take it to ANI, a separate place with fresh eyes. R. Baley (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I mentioned further up, the first complaint against Cheeser1 was clearly frivolous and had no merit, but IMO the second one did have some (albeit a small amount). I do apologize if this came across as me joining in some witch hunt against Cheeser - it really was not intended that way. I was trying to handle that case in the same way that it would be handled for anyone being brought to light there - just because we help out on WQA doesn't mean legitimate complaints can't be filed against us. Pure retaliation is one thing, but having a case is another one, and we still have to be able to tell the difference. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It came across to me the way you meant it - I think the "witch hunt" interpretation was easy to overlook for a reasonable observer. Saying "that was nothing compared to" was a bit careless: I was thinking about the consequences of the many mistakes that we all made here, rather than how easy it would have been to avoid them. And yes, it's possible that the drama would not have occurred without the curse/threat confusion or with a clear apology for that.

But I agree with R. Baley's point. I was not aware of this before, but since the purpose of WQA is to deal with the relatively simple cases in a non-confrontational way (please correct me if I got this wrong, I haven't been around for long), it's probably not a good idea to let it handle any accusations against mediators and the way they handle a case.

In cases of (partially) justified complaints it would be more useful to get feedback from an administrative noticeboard: People who are active there are much more experienced, and the matter is less likely to evolve into something that can be perceived as a brawl "all mediators" vs. "all troublemakers". In the worst case scenario it may even become necessary to convince a mediator to find a more productive way of helping the project. It's hard to see how to this could be done productivley on WQA.

In cases where the accusation is completely unjustified I would hope to get a quick response without much fuss. The underlying cases are likely to be escalated to this point sooner or later anyway. Quickly moving this kind of thread to a different venue also prevents undermining mediators' credibility. After all, we have a large proportion of people who get into trouble because they are ready to jump to conclusions. I don't think we can explain to them why "no smoke without fire" doesn't apply if it concerns a mediator who told them an unpleasant truth.

If I ever get attacked in this way I think I will move the accusation to the WQA talk page and escalate it to AN/I. And before doing these things I will explain to the accuser that I do it for reasons of fairness. Does this sound reasonable? --Hans Adler (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(rp to KS) I don't question your ability to tell the difference. I just think a fresh forum is called for if things can't be worked out on the talk pages between a mediator and another editor. If the complaint is "retaliatory" that needs to be shut down so you can operate more efficiently. If the complaint is justified, then the mediator may need to find other things to do, but s/he might also just need to be told to "knock it off" by independent, outside editors. I would say more, but I think HA made some terrific points above, and my comments would be redundant. Best regards, R. Baley (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this addition to the Wiley Protocol discussion page: {{

]

(Non-reply) I refactored this out of the WQA discussion above, since this statement by Nraden is not related to that discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the lack of balance here? Debv prowls the internet trying to discredit Wiley, but this guys removes the COI template for her. Neil Raden (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't even read WP:COI. You are married to the person who invented this protocol. The template is obviously relevant, and if using it were abusive, it wouldn't exist. Get over it. You have a persecution complex or what? --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object that you included me, but not Debv, who runs hate sites trying to discredit Wiley. If that isn't COI, I don't know what is. And frankly, given your poisonous attitude, you're statrting to look COI too. If you include me, you have to include her. Neil Raden (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Stop trolling my page accusing me of poisonous attitudes and nonexistent conflicts of interest. Get a life. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser,

First a request - could you and Neil Raden (Hi Neil, you're probably reading this too and it applies to you) please discuss on his, or someone else's page, not on mine? I'd rather not have the acrimony spoil the gush of joy I get every time I see someone's left me a message. That particular shade of orange has generalized to the rest of my life, resulting in an odd reaction whenever I use my orange highlighter. Also, it's my talk page, and the issues between the two of you are only peripheral to me, and better served on a more appropriate page.

Second, Debv arguably does have a COI on the WP pages ( in my opinion; Neil obviously does). Both her and Neil have agreed to not edit the pages, instead editing through neutral proxies. Usually me. I've agreed to this as it's only fair since I'm the one insisting that both have COI issues and should not edit directly and I monitor the pages. Neil has an obviously strong point of view, you've run into it, and he does tend to raise hackles (Neil, something to work on perhaps). Despite this, I have never seen evidence of him violating WP:COI on the main page by editing. He's persistent, opinionated, and pushy, but has stuck to the letter and spirit of the COI restrictions (in my mind, and I'm not inclined to grant him a lot of slack on this). I'm very happy to have another editor and their opinions on the WP talk page, but it would be helpful (to me at least), if you could accomodate Neil as well. He obviously has a strong COI and POV because of his relationship to Wiley, but he's also a source of information and links. Further, from his perspective he is always seeing people say rather unpleasant things about his wife. We don't have to accomodate his suggested edits if we don't think they're warranted, and if he tries then he'll be blocked and reverted very quickly. But in my mind there is merit to listening, changing if necessary, and civily pointing out why the changes don't work. It's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. WLU (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me WLU, but I don't think you understand this situation. You go on at length about how Raden has not violated WP:COI. Good. That has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand. He has been, at times, intensely hostile and inappropriate in his conduct. I responded to an alert about him at the WQA and now he is crusading against me - filing frivolous complaints, threatening me with vague, undefined action, demanding that other users ban or block me, and now he goes to you to beg of you to intervene because I dare call him an SPA (going so far as to fake interest in other articles by editing several of them on the same day he insists that he has broad interests outside of his SPA zone). I told him to drop his complaints against me because he's been told repeatedly that they are without merit, and I explained that he should stop hounding me about it and stop requesting that other people take action against me - as he did with you. Please don't affirm or validate his continued harassment and forum-shopping his retaliatory vendetta against me unless you're at least more familiar with the situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps you've taken Neil's apology for "brining [me] to your doorstep" but I'm not the one who's stopped to forumshopping my frivolous, retaliatory complaints to any editor I can get to listen. I'm thinking of retracting my SPA accusation at this point, since Raden now clearly has two purposes - commenting on the protocol and hounding me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's definitely hostile. He tends to have a chip on his shoulder. I've called him on being a SPA multiple times. He's never gone to the point of filing complaints against me, but I could see it happening. He's probably asking me for help because I can speak both wikipedia and POV-push and have sucessfully managed to integrate his input to the page within the context and limitations of wikipedia and it's policies. For most of his interactions, I've been his primary point of contact and have been willing to work with him. But it's also possible for others to work with him. I'm relatively indifferent to how it plays out between you two and if the hostility keeps ratchetting up, someone'll probably get blocked or banned (almost certainly him, but irrespective). The whole Debv Christmas wishes thing was probably a combination of bad judgement and over-reaction on both their parts, as both have a history of off-wiki fighting and on-wiki insult hurling. Their history goes back much further than the WQA alert. I've left a note on his page saying he should basically shut up and leave both alone. The only thing that keeps me talking to him is that he has been useful in the past for good suggestions on how to improve specific pages (notably the ones related to Wiley). And since I'm trying to help build wiki, I'm willing to put up with more shit than other editors who are useless except for spamming their own ideas. Anyway, I probably won't respond on this point anymore, but if you've any other info you think is useful for me, I've a talk page. WLU (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up--I didn't realize. Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Hopefully you'll have better luck on the WQA than I did. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will take some much needed time off and come back to WP with fresh eyes. Your reasons stated is one reason why I have curtailed most of my WQA replies, after receiving quite a few nasty e-mails regarding some criticisms that I lobbed. There is always help needed at 30 and elsewhere, which can provide a unique and different opportunity in assisting other Wikipedians. Please let me know if I can be of some assistance; I would hate to lose a valued and worthy contributor to the project. Cheers Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser1, Thanks for your contribution to the

]

SSP can handle reports of suspected sockpuppetry that isn't going on exactly today. Edit warring that is dancing around the 3RR line can be reported to the AN/I instead - the spirit of 3RR doesn't allow people to game the system on that stuff. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long one, so I appreciate your time and hope you will not find it too tiresome.

I enjoy reading user pages as much as I enjoy contributing to Wikipidia (not lately). I was fascinated by your response in my Wikiquette alerts request, more so because you are a mathematician. While I am not one, I do enjoy logic, and really though that it can usually prevail given common sense, but have been proven wrong here in Wikipedia. Indeed, it is the numbers that count! :o)

Unlike those that complained against me because they simply want me to abandon a line of discussion they find inconvenient for their lack of supporting sources (to say the least), my complaint was initiated because another administrator pointed me to the place, and because it genuinely does deal with the issue of civility. Placing dozens of dispute templates on articles was not actually uncivil to anyone, though may have been an abuse of template use (I note there is no guidance on this).

A consensus could not be reached because the two users concerned refused to participate in talk (like turning one's back to the speaker; seems mildly uncivil), and the other user desisted because he is up for a project coordinator election, and decided to quit before he is shown to be completely lacking in integrity.

is maybe applicable to the issue of template use, but completely inapplicable to the pursuit to better define Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A policy is the Wikipedia's own way of making a point (considered a standard that all users should follow), and emphasizing this point is hardly disruptive, but in fact in my POV enhances the Wikipedia experience by providing clearer standards to participants, and thus avoiding disputes (in real world this is the function of the law).

The point I made is a fundamental one. In terms of mathematics it means: should only the characters/notations accepted for use in mathematical use be used in all mathematical calculations, or should professionals from other disciplines use any characters they find convenient when using mathematics because they are more familiar with the characters of their own discipline? Another way of looking at the issue is: does mathematics as a discipline have a sufficient range of notation to express itself, even when used in disciplines outside of the scope of pure mathematics?

You have your

when mathematics are used in music? In fact the musical notation is a greater "threat" for physicists since it deals with measurement of sound frequencies, pitches, etc.

In any case, I agree with you that getting involved in disputes is not for the faint hearted. I appreciate your participation in mine, but I seem to think that you may have approached it in somewhat of hasty assessment. I can not be so hasty. My project will contribute several hundred articles, many set in Eastern Europe. I can't change my preference for study of history, so I need to achieve a result that will not result in my project "dying from a 1000 cuts" as another user put it, and from giving start to many more future disputes that seem prevalent in this area of article creation. Cheers--

]

??? There shouldn't be two discussions for the exact same dispute on any noticeboard. It's silly. I appreciate that you feel like you should be the one filing the complaint, instead of the one in the header, but I can assure you that it really doesn't matter. There is no reason for you to get caught up in some ridiculous argument about process, procedure, or whatever else, but there was simply nothing in your complaint that required WQA attention, and it was the exact same dispute as a thread posted the same day as yours. I also appreciate you taking the time to explain, at length, the content dispute, but I have no interest in participating in that dispute and have little idea why you dropped this giant essay on my talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you failed to see the difference between the two complaints, and you though there was nothing in my complaint that required WQA attention, then I am not only fascinated but greatly puzzled at why I even bother to take time posting it. I will not use WQA again ever if this is the "hearing" I can expect. Just delete everything I wrote. You probably missed the point anyway.--

comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Like I already explained to you, this is not a "hearing" or a courtroom of any sort - you don't have to try to make yourself the plaintiff, instead of the defendant. People were willing to sort out any incivility at the original thread relating to your dispute, but you filed a duplicate in order to make counter-complaints, and when asked to consolidate the two you have inexplicably lashed out at everyone at the WQA???? This is absurd. Stop trying to make it sound like you were abused or ignored, because you weren't. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the above forum, civility is important. It would seem from your recent comments, and the statements on your user page, to be a thankless task. Defusing these situations is important, and it is certain that many editors feel frustrated, so perhaps you could abstain from commenting on either them, or on WQA. Your rationale in closing some may be sound, but if have taken umbrage with anothers comments, it may be more appropriate to allow another to do this. Regards, cygnis insignis 20:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I stand by virtually each and every contribution I've made to the WQA. When a WQA report becomes hostile, uncivil, unproductive, or wildly off-topic, manually archiving the thread is standard practice. Any regular WQA respondent is well aware of the fact that sometimes users who either file the report or are the subject thereof become hostile, rude, or uncooperative, or make it clear that they will not stop posting unconstructive comments at the WQA (especially when they are lashing out at third-party opinions due to some angst over the fact that such opinions do not agree with them). Demanding that I step down or recuse myself somehow because such users take issue with me, as an otherwise uninvolved party, is ludicrous. If I were an admin and blocked someone for 3RR, would I have to recuse myself or overturn the block and ask some other uninvolved admin to re-blokc if that user posted harassing messages on my talk page or at

WP:AN/3RR? Absolutely not. How is this different? [note: this is a rhetorical question.] --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have not made a demand, ludicrous or otherwise. I do not agree with some of your statements, or with the way in which you have closed some alerts. In any case, one does not overturn one's own actions, one reverts them. Regarding your analogy: an admin should not use the tools once s/he becomes a party in a dispute, that is an accepted policy. Another party's opinion is more likely to lead to resolution than defending oneself. That is the forum's strength. I will not persist in discussing this, but you should not be surprised that people are feeling a bit frustrated by the time it gets to WQA. I do not think an editor, rightly or wrongly aggravated by your closing, would like to read about your own indignation. I do not think it will reduce the amount of conflict and subsequent disruption. cygnis insignis 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was never a party to any dispute, at least not any recent dispute. Lashing out at a WQA respondent does not make that respondent a party to the dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watch WQA reasonably closely, this

dispute came to include yourself, and your user page. You became defensive, used intemperate language, and made an unsubstantiated accusation. When asked about the latter, you responded This discussion has degraded and is no longer serving to address the problem at hand - your incivility. I'm closing this. My point is this: process would have been better served if another uninvolved user then closed it, hopefully addressing and defusing the situation. You might think about avoiding making declarations about how weary of WQA you are, it does nothing to inspire trust in people whose faith has been challenged. I hope you will accept my comments in good faith. cygnis insignis 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It only came to "include [my]self" when the user in question lashed out at me for expressing an opinion that he might be at fault. How the hell does that make me anything but what I was before - a previously uninvolved third party? And if you don't want me to be weary of the WQA, then stop badgering me about this nonsense huh? Maybe that would help. People often become weary of what goes on at alertboards - gaming the system, frivolous complaints, backlash, etc. Demanding that I recuse myself when backlash occurs, let alone never speak of it is absolutely stupid, and I am genuinely curious as to why you've decided to tell me what to do. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding at

]

Thanks re MFD

Cheeser1, thanks for removing the MfD tag at

]

No prob. Figured you forgot. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to want to read much, much more to what I've written than I do. I don't think "nobody looks at the big picture" and "How is this one of the issues that plagues the WQA?" properly characterize anything I've said. I feel like I've touched a raw nerve with you. Sorry, but in no way did I mean to. How do we get this discussion calmed down to the point where it can continue constructively? --

]

The MfD was stocked with people ranting and raving (for some, I exaggerate, for others this is true) about how bad the WQA is and how it's broken, failed, miserable, toothless. The result was to overturn a speedy keep and then get a "keep and reform" (whatever that means). You presented something as (one of) the problem(s) - WQA respondents do not consider the context of complaints or assess the behavior of all involved parties. Since this is my talkspace, I will be frank: that assertion is patently false. If anything, we go out of our way to do so on virtually every notice on the board. That's all there is to it. We asked you to explain and give examples, but (with all due respect) you sort of talked circles around us instead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response.

Again, it's not that respondents never consider the context, it's that they're not as consistent as they could be.

Yes, the MfD was a mess. Go look at my comment if you haven't done so already. Still, I think WQA needs some work to deal with the gaming that's running rampant across Wikipedia lately.

There is at least one complaint currently on the noticeboard where all of the issues I've brought up apply. Maybe no one wants to feed the trolls? --

talk) 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But we do deal with it. Nothing you've brought up involves anything but a complaint that was more-or-less appropriately handled. Unless you expect us to fullprotect the WQA, we can't prevent "gaming" and we have to AGF whenever possible - we have to be cordial, courteous, and as fair as possible even if the complaint is frivolous or rude.

Sorry, now you're avoiding the problem. "There is at least one complaint currently on the noticeboard where all of the issues I've brought up apply." No one is doing a thing about it. That's a problem. --

talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It might be convenient if Ronz specified the complaint to which he alludes, but regarding

this current WQA, it would be (an incremental) success to me if only someone definitely warned Ronz regarding the aggregate effect of individually unactionable anti-consensus rhetoric. Pete St.John (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Pete here that you can't wave your hands at what you think is one singular example of an issue in a WQA that hasn't been addressed yet (the complaint, I assume, is not archived or closed yet). This isn't Where's Waldo, Ronz - which complaint is it, what problems does it have, how is that something we can address, and is this really some systematic problem with the WQA? We're not on a scavenger hunt or mind-reading expedition - either you tell us your concerns with specific explanations and examples, or if none exist, then drop the issue. You have an issue with the way things are handled at the WQA, in general, meets your demands for thorough examinations of context, histories, etc. The fact that one still open complaint hasn't been fully addressed yet does not indicate a huge problem, and is clearly not a part of the MfD-generated concerns. Please end this discussion by either not replying, or posting nothing but a link to this WQA you think needs more attention. Anything else would be completely counterproductive, and I'm tired of this Where's Waldo, cat-and-mouse rhetorical game I've been lured into playing. This is not the issue of reform from the MfD and you refuse to answer straight questions or cite archived complaints that actually demonstrate your concerns, and I've been patient all I can be. I'm sorry if these complaints were brought in good faith, but they have little valid premise and I'm not going to waste my time with this (non)issue anymore. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I'm sure you are following, but I made this AN/I. I think the issues are bigger than the instance, but it's a big enough instance IMO. Pete St.John (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the above issue? As far as I can tell, you're the only one connecting my conversation with Ronz to your complaint against him. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just addressed similar at the WQA, and I'm happy to drop it (here), but: First, the conversation here illustrates my own complaint (IMO); the WQA to which Ronz vaguely refers could (ironically? exactly?) refer to "my" WQA (which actually began, in this instance, as my moving his complaint about me from my user space, refering to my complaint against him); and finally, that some of his complaint about the WQA process itself may pertain for me, that is, WQA's inability to detect and respond to diffuse misbehaviour. But the insinuations, references to references, generalities, etc (to which I am also party besides just Ronz) make me dizzy, too. Pete St.John (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser, I'm going to do some more archiving at WQA later today, unless somebody objects. Do you want me to grab the ones you've tagged today as well? R. Baley (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no new comments or activity on those threads, feel free. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no more messages and I consider the dispute closed. I do not want to push things further. Thank you for your help.Afil (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

• If you think getting in a snide last word, (with an incivil little wikilink!) and edit comment and then manually "archiving" a thread is in the least civil, then you should stay far, far, away from WQA.
• If you think that an assessment that both parties are being distracted was accurate, you should stay far, far away from any sort of dispute resolution.

I have previously spent a great deal of my time agitating for civility on this project, and I can tell you you're going about it in absolutely the wrong way. Perhaps you might want to divert your attention to some other part of projectspace. Relata refero (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is highly contradictory. You berate me for concluding that you have not been uncivil and then come to me and demand that I stop working at the WQA because you know better than me about civility? How much sense does that make? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI retaliating against WQA respondents puts you in pretty bad company. I suggest you let it go, since you "won" your case anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]