This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

WQA Archive index

I had been publicly accused of making a personal attack in a talk page for Colin McRae by user:madchester, i have done no such thing as was upset and being accused in public talk page about a person who had only just been killed. I told madchester what i thought and gave him an opportunity to apologise and he accused me a second time of a personal attack. I have asked him for an apology and some evidence of my personal attack and the evidence he gave does not come anywhere near a personal attack.

But then, to top it all off user: meateater has stuck his nose in matters and decided to give me a final warning before i get blocked for making a personal attack!!!! I am raging and demand an apology on the talk page where i have been accused.

See my talk page, meateater talk page and madchester talk page for details and someone please help me out.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 ( talk) 13:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that you are being warned with due cause. Your talk page clearly has both incidents listed, and while the first is a minor personal attack directed at other people in general ( "anyone with any brain size"), the second one is vulgar and directed quite pointedly at another user ( the "stick out of your ass" one). If you were unaware, you should be now - personal attacks like this are not allowed on Wikipedia. You actually can be banned for such behavior. He may have been a bit too assertive about it, but he's right - your conduct was perhaps out of line. When asked to not make such attacks, you responded with a worse attack. That is inappropriate. You should cool down and contribute constructively from this point on. -- Cheeser1 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is not an attack on anyone, let alone a personal attack. It is a common phrase that means something is so obvious. It was not used in a reply to any other user, it was not directed at any or all previous posters on the talk page. So how can you agree that was a personal attack when it was not. I was accused publicly of making a personal attack on the talk page of someone who had just been killed in an accident - do you expect me to be happy about that? Of course i told my accuser to get the stick from his ass - a perfectly reasonable response to be honest in the circumstances.

Please remember to sign your posts by placing four ~'s after your post. DurinsBane87 13:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a post that included a common phrase, my post was not directed at anyone in particular, my post was not a response to a previous post, you tell me where in the wiki guidlines it says that i should be publicly warned? In fact the guidlines clearly state that the best course of action would have been to ignore my comment, nobody can ever claim to know the intentions meant behind a sentance - a friendly question would have been enough - but a public accusation on the talk page of someone who had only been dead a few hours????? So i cannot accept your response to this at all i am afraid. 58.167.213.128 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not a reasonable response. Please read the policy about personal attacks. The death of this person seems to be unduly affecting your judgment in this matter - I suggest you take a break from all this. There should be no question that "pull the stick out of your ass" is a personal attack. Such vulgar language is not appropriate either. -- Cheeser1 13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the "pull the stick out your ass" line, we are discussing the reason why the user first accused me of making a personal attack. And even if we were where do you get off saying that Ass is vulgar language? you cannot be serious? What is clearly happening here is a simple case of phrases are fine and innocent in some cultures being deemed unacceptable by someone from another culture.

And no, i have no vested interst in the subject death and certainly not enough to affect my judgement, again you seem to be jumping to conclusions. The following is how user:madchester should have dealt with his miguided thoughts that i had made any kind of personal attack...

Responding to personal attacks

Initial options Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding. While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although templates have been used at times for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation is often better received. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior. Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.

It also clearly states...

Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack

58.167.213.128 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if the accusation was incorrect, it was still justified - there was a clear reason given, and that reason was arguably valid. Please keep in mind that people are trying to help you contribute constructively. Turning around and accusing them of something is not going to help. Take people's criticism as constructive criticism and move on. Learn not to be so brash in your tone - comments like that might not seem like personal attacks to you, and maybe you feel a bit bothered when someone asks you to stop talking like that, but you should seriously consider what people are telling you. Asking you to stop talking like that does not breach Wikipedia etiquette. If you want to discuss it with the complaining party, do so civilly and peacefully. Saying things like "pull the stick out of your ass" will not get you very far, and makes you filing a complaint about him a sham, at best. Nobody's going to take seriously the claim that "pull the stick out of your ass" is not a personal attack, and that saying that it is becomes a personal attack against you. Accept the fact that your language was brash and insulting. Take it as a lesson. That is the point. You started this complaint by insisting that you are "raging." I suggest you cool down, and take this as a lesson about personal conduct - how to behave appropriately and nicely on Wikipedia. Nobody's "sticking [their] nose" anywhere. Try to remember that we're all here to try to contribute constructively, and we're trying to make sure you do so effectively. -- Cheeser1 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is fine, at least i know where things stand on Wikipedia now, i am allowed to write on publicly viewed talk pages accusing people of anything i want with no recourse and no need to apologise for anything - what a fantastic site this is - i shall have fun. Thanks for your help. 58.167.213.128 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. Responding to perceived persecution by lashing out (sarcastically as you just have, or with comments involving "pull that stick out of your ass") is hardly appropriate. You made personal attacks on the talk page - a reasonable response was also made there. However, the warnings, in strict accordance with the guidelines, were made on your talk page. You ignored them, or rather, used them as an opportunity to make more personal attacks. When that failed to satisfy you, you brought a complaint here, in which you have insisted that your vulgar personal attacks are appropriate. Now your behavior is growing uncivil again. I suggest you stop it at once. -- Cheeser1 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator, I need to warn editors (especially new ones) about breaches in Wiki-policy. Going around on a talk page with comments like "anyone with any brain size" belittles the intelligence on the editors working on that article. The point of the warning is to make an editor aware of his/her actions and to prevent future inappropriate behaviour. Not understanding or agreeing with that particular policy doesn't mean an editor should escalate the situation by making further personal attacks. Please, please don't take warning messages personally; they are meant to improve your Wikipedia contributions. -- Madchester 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So then as an administrator you should be aware that the guildines ask you to warn editors by way of a "friendly note on their talk page, not on the talk page of the article in question" Had you followed these simple guidlines you could of saved all of this fuss, and you would not have needed to get someone else to threaten me with being blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 ( talk) 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The block warning was left on your talk page, as would have been appropriate. The one dragging this out and making a fuss is you, by filing this complaint. -- Cheeser1 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I was going to ask User:FCYTravis about something, but his user and discussion pages are locked. He did two things I other things I think were qestionable: he censored a comment from Talk:Star_Wars_kid, with this left: "I have removed your absolutely inappropriate and disgusting comparisons from this page, BlueLotas. Do not replace them. Despicable." I think an administrator (especailly) shouldn't edit another user's comment on a discussion page, provided it was written in good faith. Second, but minor, FCYTravis removed content from a comment after signing it (also in the same page). I just want to see if anyone else thinks he might be out of line. 69.12.143.197 06:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Could you provide some diffs to the incidents you're talking about (the deletion of your comment from the talk page and his removal of his comments post-signature)? In the first case, there is a narrow range of circumstances in which it's acceptable to edit another user's comments. In the second, it's generally acceptable to edit your own comments provided that there haven't been any responses and only a small amount of time has elapsed. Still, I'll be able to provide more specific comments after I see some diffs. Sarcasticidealist 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait - is this what you're talking about? If so, I have to say that I fully agree with you. I think the comparison was perhaps slightly over the top (and not all together relevant, since Hitler isn't subject to WP:BLP), but that certainly doesn't justify its removal under any policy of which I am aware. I'll drop him a note on his talk page asking for an explanation. Sarcasticidealist 06:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The removed content wasn't mine, its removal just bothered me. Yes, that was it, and I commented from a different IP (I'm not always on the same computer or in the same place) that BLP wouldn't apply. I agree, the comment was the best, but that doesn't warrant its removal. Here's the edit he made to his comment: Edited comment 69.12.143.197 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that's essentially not an issue. The revision was made seven minutes after his original comment. While there was a response in between his original comment and his revision, it's quite possible that he decided to revise his comment before the response and just copied and pasted when the edit conflict screen came up. While it's possible that he edited his comment to remove the "four years ago" bit after somebody provided a more recent news story, I think given the short time differences WP:AGF requires that we assume otherwise in this case. Sarcasticidealist 07:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course BLP applies. The BLP policy applies to Wikipedia as a whole, anywhere. There are no exceptions to it. FCYTravis 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP obviously applies to the Star Wars Kid, and I didn't say otherwise (I said BLP doesn't apply to Hitler, on account of he's dead). But I don't see anything in BLP that prohibits the kind of comments that the user made. He didn't compare the article's subject to Hitler, he invoked Hitler (improperly, because BLP doesn't apply to Hitler) to illustrate why he felt it was appropriate to use the subject's name. All he was saying was that the article on Hitler demonstrated that Wikipedia articles are not always written with the interests of the subject in mind.

It really wasn't a compelling argument. But it wasn't a BLP violation. Sarcasticidealist 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Your opinion is that it's not a BLP violation. I say otherwise. Feel free to bring it up on the BLP noticeboard if you wish. FCYTravis 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Everything I write is my opinion, obviously. I'm just following the old high school essay rule that preceding your statements with "I think" makes your argument seem less compelling. But I certainly accept that, when I'm engaged in an argument or other dispute, everything I write is my opinion.

We may have to go the BLP noticeboard route at some point. As a first step, I've requested the involvement of some other WQA regulars in the hopes that we can establish some kind of consensus. Sarcasticidealist 18:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response - I removed the comment in question because it was wildly inappropriate, disgusting and maligned a living person - namely, the subject of the article. "Good faith" does not excuse potential libel, and comparing anyone's actions to Hitler's is surely completely out of bounds for any commentary on Wikipedia talk pages. You want to talk about Wikiquette? Maybe go "alert" the person who made the talk page post. Article talk pages are not free-fire zones for attacks on living persons, and if you have to make a Nazi comparison, then you've already lost the debate. FCYTravis 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about the validity of the point, it's about whether or not a user (or admin) should censor points out of discussions. Also, why are your talk and user pages locked? 69.12.143.197 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On the broader question of whether users should remove points from discussions, I must say that there are clearly some occasions in which that is warranted. For example, if I said "I heard that Living Person A was under suspicion of murder" or something to that effect, that should clearly be removed. WP:BLP makes fairly clear provision for this sort of thing. That's why I needed to see exactly what comments were removed.

Additionally and as an aside, I think that User:FCYTravis's status as an admin is entirely immaterial, here - he's not being accused of abusing his admin powers. Sarcasticidealist 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, potential libel should be removed, as should content violating copyrights, but the removed text was neither. As far as the admin part, true, it didn't involve abuse of admin powers, I think I just expected a little more restraint from an admin. (I'm still not sure why I can't edit his talk page, though. That might be an abuse.) 69.12.143.197 18:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, semiprotection of my talk page is not an abuse. You want to post there, register an account. Free, easy and anonymous. My userpage is fully protected because... it's my userpage and nobody else has any business editing it. FCYTravis 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yours is the first semiprotected talk page I've seen. How are unregistered users supposed to contact you? As far as your user page, it isn't really yours (see Wikipedia:User_page), and again, I've never seen a protected user page before. User:Jimbo Wales is more than happy to let others edit his page, but that might just be a personal preference. 69.12.143.197 19:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion: I would have to say that editing other people's comments in that fashion is contrary to the way Wikipedia works. There was nothing, as far as I can tell, wrong with what the other user said. Or, to be more clear, nothing that was so bad that it warranted removal. Furthermore, I believe that User:FCYTravis was removing the content not just as an act of random editing, but as an administrative act. Regardless, he removed this comparison based on the fact that it was "despicable". I see nothing despicable here - I see an apt analogy. We do not remove content from articles just because the subject of the article might get upset. Sure, we follow BLP guidelines (wherever applicable), but the user was clearly trying to make an (arguably) valid point about the article content. It was not a comparison of the Star Wars kid to Hitler, even though FCYTravis thinks it is (going so far as to cite Godwin's Law). It could not reasonably be considered uncivil, anti-Semitic, or anything of that sort. What gives FCYTravis the right to remove other people's comments? It appears that this claim is based on his adminship - which he seems to have decided also allows him to protect his userspace. I'm all for keeping vandalism off my talk page and user page, but is this appropriate? It seems dubious, and makes me wonder if FYCTravis thinks he owns his userpage. Talk pages are for talk, from anyone. A user's talk page should be open for anyone - especially that of an administrator. Registration is not required. Refusing to acknowledge or address people because they choose not to register is totally inappropriate for an admin. So, to conclude, I believe that by removing the comment in question, FYCTravis was overstepping his bounds (as a regular editor and/or as an admin). I think his reasons were invalid, and even if they were, they did not merit such a removal. I believe that he, or at least others, wind up believing that he is allowed to do this due to his adminiship, and I believe his protection of his talk page reflects a certain dismissive and callous tone that is mirrored by this comment-editing. Surely, one need not be an admin to do such a thing, but to do so as an admin could still be abuse of administrative powers, since any action taken to chastise or punish others in this fashion can be (and probably is) interpreted as an administrative action. -- Cheeser1 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The removal was completely innapropriate and a vioaltion of policy. It is almost never appropriate to remove another person's comment from Talk page.
• User:FCYTravis is bordering on violations of civility policies in his comments here.
• User:FCYTravis also seems to be missing the point of the comment. There was no comparison between Hitler and a living person. Bsharvy 05:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis and I have been discussing this a little on our respective talk pages here and here. In light of the fairly clear consensus on this page that his actions were inappropriate, I've asked if he's prepared to accept restoration of the material. If he isn't, I suggest we do him the courtesy of taking this to WP:BLPN as he originally suggested, if only in the interests of avoiding the sort of jurisdictional dispute that would see us arguing over whether a consensus on this page was binding on a BLP issue. Sarcasticidealist 05:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how FYCTravis is responding, I'd support taking it to WP:BLPN, but I honestly can't see how a statement that didn't assert anything about Star Wars Kid could possibly be in violation of BLP with regards to him. I expect the issue to come back to this page. 69.12.143.197 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the IP - there's no BLP issues here. BLPN wouldn't be the place for it. I'd suggest maybe the ANI or something. -- Cheeser1 06:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm supporting going to BLPN only because User:FCYTravis justifies his actions under WP:BLP. That means there is a BLP issue here, since the question of whether there's a BLP issue itself becomes a BLP issue. Or something. If we don't take it there, I think the alternative is to decide that we've reached consensus here and restore the material. Unfortunately, that likely results in an edit war. But let's wait to see how he responds to my latest message first. Sarcasticidealist 06:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He has responded to my message on my talk page and, in light of his response, I've taken the liberty of listing this issue here. May consensus have mercy on us all. Sarcasticidealist 10:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment asking the user to not be vulgar and to avoid petty violations of WP:CIVIL. -- Cheeser1 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Made this comment: "I am not going to bother wading through all the shit going on above because I don't give a crap..." on Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#CLEANUP_THE_LEAD.

Did he violate WP:CIVIL ? Bsharvy 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress

He said:

I am not going to bother wading through all the shit going on above because I don't give a crap, but let me tell you...(for a decent sized paragraph)

To say one doesn't care, then proceed to (least importantly) disprove yourself and (importantly) fan the flames is certainly uncivil. While Eusebeus probably had the best of intentions (I think paragraph 2 of the article should be moved to another part of the article), his actions served no constructive purpose. 69.12.143.197 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Who was Eusebeus targeting? (To me targeting is focusing one person for behavior all have committed. I took the comment to mean he/she found much of the contentious disputing unnecessary in general on all sides.) Anynobody 06:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody ( talk • contribs)

He was targeting any and all editors who contributed to "the shit going on above ." It was a disparaging comment, which is the defintion of a personal attack. Bsharvy 07:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would comment, but you've made it clear that you do not appreciate the advice and input of contributors on the WP:WQA. Actually, it's obviously petty incivility, and I'll leave a comment on the talk page. However, it seems to me that you may be doing this to make a point about your recent complaint here, and if this is the case, I'd ask you not to do so. -- Cheeser1 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. -- Darkwind ( talk) 00:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you have transferred the making of personal remarks from one incident to another, I will return the favor. What you've made clear is that you think it is appropriate to make personal remarks about editors, in the name of guiding people toward not making personal remarks about editors. Avoding personal remarks is the gist of all the ettiquette policy and guidelines here.

I intend to edit this page on a regular basis: it needs me. In the future, I suggest you not jump to (personal) conclusions about people based on a single incident, and not because they have disagreed with you in that incident. Also, do not carry over disputes from one topic into another. Your assistance was requested in one matter: a possible breach of civility by Eusebeus. You were not invited to make personal remarks. So, now you know exactly what kind of contributions from editors here I don't welcome. Bsharvy 04:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you aren't in charge of who's allowed or invited to contribute to the WQA or any other page. See WP:OWN. Also keep in mind that I said "if this is the case" - you filed two complaints in relatively rapid succession, and one of them has concerns that clearly relate to the other. The fact that I suggested that they might be related is understandable. WP:CIVIL does not ban any discussion of anyone ever ("personal remarks"). It bands incivility. I suggest you give thought to the difference there. And try to assume good faith. I was simply making a suggestion, if it turned out that your two posts were related, in order to help you contribute more productively instead. -- Cheeser1 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about allowing or inviting anyone here. You asserted I do not "appreciate the advice or input of contributors," so I clarfied for you exactly what kind of contribution I don't appreciate: personal remarks. I didn't say anything that had anything to do with WP:OWN. There is, in fact, a general guideline against making personal remarks, and you should understand it to contribute here.

• Argue facts, not personalities. (Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette).

This very dicussion is a model. If you make personal remarks, the result is : 1) people feel a need (and a right) to defend themselves, and 2) they feel entitled to make pesonal remarks about you. End result: there is a lot of off-topic bickering about personalities, and this very discussion should serve to illustrate that to you. Argue facts, not personalities. Bsharvy 05:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:KETTLE. I made a statement that assumed good faith but presented my appropriate and understandable concern that you were filing two related disputes. In case you didn't notice, this is the WQA, where we discuss people's conduct. How can we do that without making "personal remarks"???? I challenge you to find a way to do so. Instead of coming here and insulting the regular WQA editors and accusing us of "making personal remarks" (when doing so is itself a personal remark), you settle down and let it go. I'm not going to respond anymore if you continue to fling accusations at me - it's not a productive or reasonable line of discussion. -- Cheeser1 06:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"this is the WQA, where we discuss people's conduct. How can we do that without making "personal remarks"????" ...you discuss the conduct, not the person. Bsharvy 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I did. I made a relevant and valid point about your conduct here (that you have filed to quite possibly related concerns in rapid succession). You appear to be looking for things to make a fuss over. I've asked you repeatedly to cool down, assume good faith, and to stop insulting the regulars here, who were trying to help. I'm done discussing this with you, because it's become completely unproductive and pedantic (yes, that's a comment about your conduct, not about you, so don't file any more frivolous accusations, 'kay?). -- Cheeser1 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it. However, this is not the place for this discussion. If are actually interested in the opinion of the person whom you attack, start a Talk page discussion. Bsharvy 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

At the list of light heavyweight boxing champions 217.43.78.244/ 86.134.241.52 continue to revert edits I make. When I attempt to discuss these edits on the talk page I get no response, just more reversions. Of course, I did get this response on one of his/her user talk pages: "MKil, you're a fucking idiot." [1]

I figured I'd bring it here instead of continuing the revert war game. MKil 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil

Now it appears this same person is using 81.156.68.208 and continuing with the profanity. MKil 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil

The List of light heavyweight boxing champions that was the victim of the improper edits has apparently been semi-protected until 22 September. EdJohnston 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't help you here - it's pretty obvious that there's no good faith coming from this user. If the problem persists once the semi-protection is lifted, you should take it to WP:ANI and look for a block of the IP. Marking as stuck. Sarcasticidealist 01:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has assumed bad faith and uses sarcasm and baiting against me. From his talk page it's apparent that he's conducted himself this way with many other editors. At this point I'm so frustrated that I don't even feeling like participating in the project anymore. Popkultur 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific diff's that we should look at? -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter now. Thanks for your help though. Popkultur 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry to hear it, but best of luck outside Wikipedia :) -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is concerning allegations inserted by the user Felix-Felix into the entry for British journalist Johann Hari.

To give some context, as reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described the British journalist Johann Hari (recently named as journalist of the year by Amnesty International) as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" , inserted into his entry fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced and legally disputed claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about. This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me.

Felix-Felix is currently arguing that he can insert a new section into the entry, designed by his own admission to suggest Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously impugned. He does not have BLP or NOTE standard sources for these claims, as three wiki administrators have said (you can find these in the archive).

There are four 'sources' felix claims to have.

(1) Private Eye. This is a British scandal magazine, which Hari was attacked by literally a week after he criticised its editor in print. One wiki administrator has said on this page it should be viewed with "a very jaundiced eye", another has said it is "at best 50 percent accurate", yet Felix is insisting on using it as a source. This fails both BLP and NOTE, since Private Eye attacks virtually all prominent journalists sooner or later.

(2) A website called Counterpunch,. which meets BLP standards, but has an extraordinarily trivial charge against Hari. They complain that he repeated in an op-ed column a story that had been reported in hundreds of newspapers. Even they concede that once it became clear the story was fake, he published a correction. This fails NOTE.

(3) A journalist called Nick Cohen, who was responding to a very critical review of his book by Hari. This is (rightly) included in the entry already, since it passes both BLP and NOTE.

(4) An obscure pro-war website, which is written by friends of Cohen, who simply repeated his charge. This fails NOTE.

I believe this is an inadequate basis on which to build a section suggesting Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously questioned by wiki-standard sources. Felix-Felix disagrees. We are deadlocked in our disagreement. Any outside comment would be very welcome. David r from meth productions 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you move this posting to the biographies of living people noticeboard, where experienced editors can respond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a BLP issue - it's better addressed at that noticeboard. -- Cheeser1 04:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave, as I've requested you do before, please stop these personal attacks which range from grossly misrepresenting my edits to outright falsehoods. Please provide links to my edits if you disagree. FelixFelix ^talk 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not frivolously accuse others of making personal attacks (which is itself uncivil). It is clear and obvious that the two users filing this complaint are commenting on the content you've contributed to the article. This is absolutely, by definition, not a personal attack. -- Cheeser1 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble editing the page Exetel with AussieLegend. The incivility, rude tone, and personal attacks are rife in his posts on the Exetel talk page and my own talk page. His approach to editing seems overly confrontational and defensive. I've tried to be civil and helpful, but this tends to aggravate him more. He's had trouble with other users on the page before, to the point of a conflict mediation. I'm not sure what else to do? Thanks for all the help! Sсοττ5834 ^talk 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott - could you provide some diffs in which you think this user's behaviour has been problematic? Thanks, Sarcasticidealist 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! They're right below in roughly chronological order:

• Not assuming good faith
• civility
• civility, assuming good faith, etc.
• more civility, name calling
• and even more civility

There's more (especially toward other users), but that's a sample. Sсοττ5834 ^talk 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott - thanks for the diffs. This case appears to have some context that I'd need in order to fully understand it, so I'm going to ask User:AussieLegend to provide a statement about his perspective on this before I take it any further. Hopefully, once that's done, we can get both of you on the same page and working constructively together. Sarcasticidealist 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A glance at Talk:Exetel appears to show a content dispute raging since 2006 about how critical the article should be about Exetel's policies, notability of Exetel's doings, and adequate referencing for statements about Exetel. The requirement that well-sourced content should not be removed except due to a Talk page consensus might have some value. Since this is a rather short article, and even in confusing situations it should be possible to neutrally state the various opinions, it's not clear why a compromise version can't be agreed upon. EdJohnston 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've experienced this "user" before. It's almost impossible to get anything done to the Exetel article, any good faith edits (with newspaper articles) are reverted because of "vandalism" (with the people who write the articles on the news sites being called hack/fake journalists), you get posted up on administrative/talk page areas as being a bad user, and then his squad of sock-puppets/extremely close "friends" then come in to back him up with page after page of rules-lawyering (and despite them being very new users with few edits, they have a in-depth knowledge of wiki-rules/guidelines) as soon as you leave for more than a few days they attempt to claim "consensus" (I've had to argue consensus with him and his "friends" who come out and say they don't think it deserves to be in an article.. how can someone argue consensus with people who don't want anything? Impossible) and move to have the page locked. His account is basically a single use account (as it was when I was trying to make the exetel article accurate) posing as an active user, all to prevent truth being posted on the exetel wikipedia article. Very sad. Macktheknifeau 06:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise in advance about the length of this but I'm trying to provide the full context of what has happened. Because this current issue involves a previous consensus and because Macktheknifeau has decided to weigh in on the issue it is probably appropriate to address Macktheknifeau's actions on the page since they were the catalyst for the mediation, administrator intervention, full protection of the page and the path to consensus. It's all documented at Talk:Exetel but there is a fair bit to read through there and you need to check out the full page history to get the complete story so I'll try to summarise here.

Macktheknifeau is an ex-customer of Exetel. While he was a customer he was banned from the Exetel help forums. Immediately after that event, apparently as a bit of pay-back, he edited the Exetel page and added unverified and false claims. [2] An unregistered IP address then added more unverified and false claims [3] which I reverted, explaining my reasons for doing so on the talk page. [4] Macktheknifeau restored the edits and made some minor edits that corrected one error but none of the rest. Nor did he provide citations for anything. After some minor vandalism by an unregistered IP I cleaned up the edits to make them more factual. [5] Macktheknifeau reverted those edits. He did not "correct" anything, not that anything needed correcting because what I wrote was true, he simply reverted every change including grammatical corrections. It should be pointed out that Macktheknifeau and I were both Exetel customers and active participants in the same threads in the forums on the Whirlpool website so we both knew exactly the same information meaning he must have known that what I wrote was correct so, while it may not have been obvious under the Wikipedia definition, I knew what he did was vandalism and tagged it as such when I restored the correct information.

After this other editors joined in. Macktheknifeau immediately accused these editors of being sockpuppets and reverted their edits [6] every time they attempted to edit the page. He also made same other ridiculous claims on the talk page such as claiming that I was an Exetel employee despite knowing full quite well that I am not. (I actually live over 160 km (99 mi) from Exetel's offices) He then suddenly appeared to change his attitude and made an offer to allow the other editors the chance to edit the page without him simply reverting, or so we thought. In reality the offer turned out to be less than genuine as he continued to revert the edits of the other editors despite his offer not to.

Somewhere in all this (the timeline is a bit murky) I opened a mediation case. A few days later Macktheknifeau opened his own case (attempting to hijack mine immediately after doing so) but not before formally accusing all editors who opposed him of being sockpuppets and me of being the puppetmaster. He later withdrew the allegations.

I also approached an Administrator for advice. He protected the page and posted some guidance on the talk page. [7] Eventually consensus was reached by all active editors. [8] It can be seen that all editors except Macktheknifeau agreed that the "Controversy" section, which included discussion of the traffic shaping issue, should not be included in the article. It is clear in the discussion that the active editors at the time consensus was reached all had opposed inclusion of what Scott5834 has tried to include as the "Traffic Shaping section"

We now move to June 2007. Scott5834 edits the article adding information regarding a two year old policy that some writer on an obscure US blog site has just discovered. My thoughts, in a nutshell, were "It's a two year old policy that nobody has ever complained about or even commented on so it's really not worth including in the article". As an Exetel customer I received the original email announcing implementation of the policy. Since then, despite being a member and regular participant/reader of both the Exetel and Whirlpool forums I have never seen anyone even comment on it in either forum except for one instance that I'll get to shortly. The lack of comment at Whirlpool is especially significant. Whirlpool is often called "Whingepool" because so many people there, especially in the Exetel forums, seem to like a good whinge even if there is really nothing to whinge about which, not unexpectedly, is what happened with P2P depriortisation. (I'll address this in more detail later) In short, if people haven't complained about it on Whirlpool nobody really cares about it. With that in mind, if the customers of the ISP really don't care about that policy, why should anyone else especially someone from Texas who will probably never have any association with the ISP. However, this is not my only reason for opposing inclusion of this policy in the article. Another is that realistically you can't put everything in an article. There are lots of ISPs in Australia and none of the articles on Wikipedia detail individual policies. In fact, they're not really mentioned. (As an aside I should point out that Exetel isn't even one of the bigger ISPs. It's small compared to several others. Currently it has around 50,000 customers. Compare that to BigPond with over two million) This doesn't mean that policies shouldn't be included but you need to draw a line somewhere. Exetel has policies that all customers are billed on the first of the month, that users get static IPs (unusual in Australia) and that from 1 October 2007 users will have 200MB of webspace. Should these be included? I'd argue that they shouldn't because they really aren't important enough for inclusion. They might be interesting features to somebody thinking of joining Exetel but they're really just filler material. The same is true for the multimedia policy. If the policy is important enough for inclusion then why wasn't it discovered by the US two years ago when it was first announced?

Even when it was finally "discovered" the coverage was insignificant. The post at boing boing, which is somewhat misleading both in title and content, has had zero comments. Scott5834 will argue that comments were only instituted a month ago but I don't know if that's true. Regardless, there have been no comments. He will also argue that it was mentioned at techdirt but that's not actually true. Techdirt mentions the policy as an example of what happens without safe harbour provisions but the policy isn't the focus of the article. Exetel isn't even mentioned. This article is also misleading but that's another issue. Ars technica mentioned it too but apparently that's the extent of the coverage at the time. There was an article in The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, three weeks later but that wasn't related to the boing boing revelation. According to the article the relative of an informant found out one of their multimedia files had gone missing. To put this in the appropriate context you have to understand that the setup information on a user webspace very clearly explains the policy and the simple procedure necessary to avoid deletion. It is reproduced below:

IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT OF USING THIS FACILITY

Exetel has since it began offering ADSL services taken a hard approach to copyright issues; where we believe there is a clear violation of copyright content has been deleted, and in a few cases, directories blocked and 'frozen' pending further investigation by the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Based on the MIPI's actions in March 2005 aganst another ISP (People Telecom) and the actual finding guilty of a second ISP in July 2005 (ComCen), Exetel now believe there is a need to take more direct and pro-active action to monitor content stored on publicly accessible servers under its control.

Effective from 1st April 2005 scripts will be run nightly that will examine all disk content and delete any multimedia content with the extensions mp3, mpg, mpeg, avi, wma and any other multi media file type. Customers wishing to host files with these extensions need to do the following:

1. Email [email protected] and request to be excluded from the scan script.

2. State that you agree you are the copyright owner, have permission of the copyright owner or that there is no copyright on the material you want to store.

You can use this text as a template:

To: [email protected]
Subject: Please Allow directory for media storage
ADSL line number:
Webspace name:

I advise that I am the copyright owner, have permission of the copyright owner or that there is no copyright on the files I will place in the above directories, and therefore request they be exempt from automatic deletion.

Obviously, the either user didn't read or didn't follow the instructions. Had they done so their files would have been safe and there would probably have been no article. Earlier I mentioned one instance in two years where somebody mentioned the policy. The circumstances of that instance were similar to what happened in the Age article. Somebody didn't follow instructions. People don't follow instructions all the time. Should that be included in Wikipedia articles? I'd argue no because not only is it common it's also too trivial for inclusion.

These are the reasons that I opposed inclusion of the information on the multimedia policy. It simply is too trivial an issue.

Earlier I mentioned that people at Whirlpool like to whinge even when there is nothing to whinge about and I cited P2P deprioritisation or, as Scott5834 has called it, "Traffic Shaping". This is yet another example of how something insignificant can be blown out of proportion. This was an issue that was fairly widely reported but that was because people misinterpreted the announcement. The evidence can be seen in the thread at Whirlpool (I don't have a link at the moment) which reached a length of 102 pages simply on the basis of the announcement. The thread was full of doom and gloom before implementation. After implementation it was a far different matter. The thread virtually stopped dead. Only a few comments were added and they were basicly along the lines of "I haven't noticed anything". A separate thread was created asking people to make comment on the issue post-implementation but it too only attracted a few posts. Why? Because it was a big non-event. That alone probably does make it worthy of inclusion but the problem is that we reached consensus and WP:CCC#Consensus can change recommends discussion before changing consensus. I'm not adding it without discussion because WP:CCC#Consensus can change states:

No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed

I simply don't have the right to arbitrarily declare that consensus has changed. Nor does anyone else.

It's important now to look at the actions of Scott5834 since he is questioning mine.

After his initial attempts to add the information failed, and with three editors opposing him, Scott5834 decided that, rather than follow policy [9] he would submit a request for mediation. This was naturally rejected. He then made some rather puzzling claims as well as clearly unjust accusations that reminded me of Macktheknifeau. Since this is already rather long I won't detail them here. I think the relevant section on the talk page speaks for itself.

Despite the fact that I still disagreed with inclusion of the information I decided to seek a compromise and edited the article to include some of what Scott5834 proposed. His response was:

Though the section stills reads a bit glowing (and POV) in my opinion, it still is a great addition. Well done! Scott5834 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

After posting that he made no further edits on the Exetel page so you can imagine my surprise when, almost 12 weeks later, he started editing the page again, deleting valid information and exaggerating various aspects, most notably in regard to the coverage of the multimedia policy. However, I did not revert his edits. I did remove the section on traffic shaping and suggested he read the talk page discussion regarding that. Instead he immediately reverted my edit and chose to ignore consensus. In the ensuing discussion he started WikiLawyering, citing policy after policy. It also became obvious that "Keep Civil" is his new catch phrase when he doesn't have anything else to respond with. He's used it 5 times so far. Even commenting that despite finding my previous edits "a great addition" he's now seen fit to hack them to pieces resulted in it being used.

Despite the WikiLawyering, when it was pointed out that his own comments and sources breached some of the very policies that he cited he started making excuses in order for his own edits to ignore policy. He seems to expect others to obey policy but believes he should be exempt. For example, a reference to a thread at Whirlpool was presented as a citation for a claim that Exetel customers are unconcerned at the policy. He claims that analysis of the thread posts constitutes original research but when it was pointed out that the techdirt article doesn't mention Exetel and the only way to link Exetel to the article is to examine anonymous comments, thereby making it WP:OR using his own arguments, he claimed that was a stretch of WP:OR.

He has also started feigning ignorance as a way of avoiding addressing an issue. For example he argued that "we shouldn't be looking at notability guidelines to edit the article". ( Wikipedia:Notability says "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles" indicating that while notability guidelines don't limit the content they are relevant) I responded that I had seen an administrator delete content from an article because of lack of notability. I even supplied a link to a specific page edit with the direction "Check the page history". If you follow the link and check the page history you see that the Administrator's explanation for that edit was "removed non-notable information about cheerleading squad". Scott5834's response was "I see a page about a high school..." There was no acknowledgement that an administrator had done as I said.

And of course the peculiar claims are back combined with heading off on a tangent in order to avoid addressing something. For example, he claimed that one statement regarding Exetel supplying free data in the off-peak period was unverified so I provided a link to a site where 6,863 different plans from 254 different Australian ISPs can be compared. The site in question is used as a source by many organisations including the Australian government, something I pointed out to him. That should have satisfied him but his response was to ask for something better because a newspaper article had "a pretty different take on the "free" bandwidth policy". After pointing out that the article he referenced was about a P2P deprioritisation policy which had nothing to do with the free data (the article doesn't mention the free data at all) he's now claiming that the two are related and the "free" period was implemented at the same time as the P2P deprioritisation program, despite providing no citation to prove those assertions, and yet he expects me to provide citations to prove that the free period has existed for a lot longer. For reference, the article he mentioned is here and a statement from the company CEO confirming the existence of the free period in March 2004 is here. You be the judge.

I think it's fairly obvious that if you're going to edit the content of articles then you should have some knowledge of the subject. You shouldn't just go in blind but Scott5834 has demonstrated with his edits and comments that his knowledge of Exetel is almost non-existent. This is understandable. By his own admission he lives 8000 miles away. He'll probably never have any direct involvement with the ISP so I'm puzzled as to why he'd even bother involving himself in the article especially to the depth that he is. I did ask but he hasn't replied. His only knowledge seems to stem from the boing boing article in June 2007 and the edits he is making are based on misinformation and pure guesswork. It's really not appropriate in my opinion.

One last point I'd like to make really shouldn't need explanation, just revelation.

At 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Scott5834 posted on the Exetel talk page

At 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) he posted here.

At 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC) he was back editing the Exetel article. [10]

So much for letting things simmer down.

Once again I apologise for the length of this but I've always found that if you don't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth people tend to get bogged down with the facts and innocent men end up on death row. -- AussieLegend 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Sarcasticidealist, I look forward to hearing what AussieLegend has to say. When he does join the discussion, I hope he will comment about some of the statements he has made on Talk:Exetel, which do sound like they misunderstand Wikipedia policy. For instance, he has removed at least once a statement that Exetel has engaged in a practice called 'traffic-shaping', where P2P transfers are capped at 50% of the rate they would otherwise enjoy. This was a policy announced by Exetel itself that was commented on in Sydney newspapers, so it appears to be well-sourced critical content. However AussieLegend argued, Yes, it did make the newspapers but, as already pointed out, just because something makes the newspapers doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia... Though AussieLegend's argument is one that some editors make when they are trying to balance out a lengthy article by dropping unimportant information, this traffic-shaping is hardly a minor issue, it can be stated very briefly, and its truth is well-verified. Its removal seems to make the article more favorable to Exetel, and the overall effect of the removal looks like bias. EdJohnston 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained in the lengthy section above, the decision to remove the reference to traffic shaping was achieved by consensus. Scott5834 just went and put it back in, even after I'd removed it and warned him that he should read the talk page and directed him to WP:CCC#Consensus can change which states:

No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons.

Scott5834 did not attempt to discuss his proposed edits, even after I directed him to WP:CCC#Consensus can change. He just decided that consensus had changed and edited. Had he attempted to discuss the issue as suggested by WP:CCC#Consensus can change there likely would have been a different outcome. -- AussieLegend 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is determined Wikipedia-wide, not just on the Talk page of an individual article. If you choose to disregard settled policy by removing critical information, you need to deal with the body of all Wikipedia editors, not just those who work locally. Please provide a justification that all of us will find convincing. In what sense did you make the article better by removing the well-sourced information that Exetel engaged in traffic-shaping? EdJohnston 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CCC and the discussion on the article's talk page. In removing the edits I was acting to maintain consensus that had been reached in accordance with the instructions of an Administrator. It is up to Scott5834 to discuss the issue before he reapplies edits that consensus had excluded. Whether he discusses the issue at " talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion" is irrelevant. He needs to discuss it somewhere before doing so. He didn't. He just unilaterally decided that community consensus has changed and included the edits. -- AussieLegend 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a typical aussielegend post, a huge post with very little actual content that actually deals with the matter at hand. My so called "Unverified" (which were made when I was still an exetel user) facts were taken directly from the Exetel forums, posted by the Exetel Administrator/Owner himself! At the time those posts were still around, and they dealt with in the various news articles I posted on the issue. Of course, some time after, the owner apparently "cooled down" and removed his posts. Of course it was too late by then, as they had been seen by thousands, and reported on in major newspapers (and their websites) as well as smaller tech sites. But apparently this is not verifiable to AussieLegend. At which point he removed them and engaged in the edit war. I like how that apparently his information is the one true gospel, and my information, which was verified with news articles, is vandalisim. Another tactic of his, brand the other person a vandal and that apparently gives himself free reign to remove any of their edits.

This is his strategy. Obfusticate, pile on paragraph after paragraph, over and over until the other people get bored on have to get on with their lives. Of course, he also posted one of the very first edits I made, which were subseqeuently edited by many other people, and then improved to make it more wiki-friendly, with verified articles included. Another tactic. The so called "consensus" was a false consensus reached by a small group of biased editors, instead of via establish wiki principles like I tried to do.

His account is a single use account regardless of any other edits or stated goals. It's sole purpose is to guard the exetel site that has been the accounts goal since practically day one, and bombard anyone who dare edit it with revisionism and lies. I have no idea what would compel someone to do this for so so long, unless they have a vested interest in the company. At the very least, he should be barred from editing the Exetel article. How long before yet another user would end up in the identical situation that both I and scott have both dealt with. Macktheknifeau 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Several brief comments, although due to the indenting above, I'm not sure who I am addressing. AussieLegend does not appear to be an SPA. (Based on my review of his last 1000 edits). SPA has a rather specific definition, which doesn't appear to be met here. I think you mean Agenda-Pushing, which while bad, isn't the same thing. Also, internet forums are not generally considered to be reliable sources. As far as the rest of the rather lengthy comments above, I haven't had time to review them, so I can't offer an opinion currently. (So this post isn't mean to address anything other than the SPA & verifiability issues). Best, -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to respond to any of Macktheknifeau's comments other than to address one ridiculous comment that Bfigura has addressed.

His account is a single use account regardless of any other edits or stated goals.

I have made 1,431 edits on Wikipedia of which 837 are mainspace edits. Of those, only 45 (<5.4% of mainspace edits) have been on the Exetel article. [11] That's hardly "a single use account" and the accusation has as much validity as the other unsubstantiated accusations that Macktheknifeau has made. -- AussieLegend 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you use a more accurate representation, and take all out all his talk pages, and include edits related to his guardianship of the exetel article (including on other people's user pages, plus various administrative pages regarding the article, it's actually more like 15%, that being 177 Edits out of 1,448. Plus a huge amount of his non-exetel edits are extremely recent, only in the last few months has he done anything except post about the exetel site (and those are dozens of tiny edits to pages about his local area). Like I said, the original and currenty objective of his account is to guard the exetel page. It's as close as you can be to a SPA without actually being a true SPA Macktheknifeau 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

AussieLegend arbitrary section break

"Once again I apologise for the length of this.." If AussieLegend would express his thoughts more briefly there would be no need to apologize.

I've explained why the response was so long. There is a lot of relevant history and without a proper explanation, which can't be given in a paragraph or two, you don't get the full context. -- AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Web forum postings are not a reliable source, but newspapers are. That's why I ask the question about Exetel's traffic shaping, which was discussed in Sydney newspapers, and I'd like a clear answer as to why that information is being kept out of the article.

You've been given a clear answer which is further explained if you read the discussion on the article's talk page. That's the thing about discussion. You get to see exactly why people make the decisions that they do. -- AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is conceivable you might have felt there was a local consensus that the information wasn't needed, but that feeling appears incorrect in the light of well-established policies.

Regardless of whether it was incorrect or not, that's what the consensus was and WP:CCC is very clear that no one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed which is exactly what Scott5834 has done by including the information. -- AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain for us the removal of critical information from Exetel's article, which gives the appearance of bias.

Already done and done more than once. How many explanations are needed? -- AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that it is also explained in the section above that you seemed to think was too long. Apprently it wasn't long enough. -- AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just put back the info on traffic-shaping, based on our new discussion here?

The discussion on this so far has been far too brief and limited. Consensus has not yet been reached. -- AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What is preventing you? EdJohnston 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy. Or do you think I should ignore policy after it has been hammered down my throat by Scott? -- AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them. There is a clear source, the information is clearly relevant, there are many editors who believe the info should go in the article, and the only opposition there seems to be is you, citing WP:CCC for some reason. Consensus can change is what the policy says. The fact that only one person initially objects to the old consensus does not mean that a larger consensus won't be formed. I, for example, believe the content does belong in the article. Also, please do not dissect people's comments. Leave them intact and respond in your own single response. -- Cheeser1 05:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made. Thats's not entirely correct. This discussion is only a few hours old. In the discussion on the Extel talk page the only editor that supported the inclusion was Scott5834. All other editors disagreed with their inclusion. I'm citing policy because in his attempt to have his edits included and to have others excluded Scott5834 has been selectively citing policy. When he wants the edits excluded he rigidly cites policy. When he wants his edits included he chooses to make excuses to ignore policy. I'm usually fairly flexible and admittedly I probably don't stick to policy as much as I should. If people want to kill my edits they usually can if they can cite a reason but when an editor tries to bludgeon his edits into existence and exclude the edits of other the way that Scott5834 has I become somewhat less flexible. I agree but you shouldn't just ignore consensus. All I'm asking is that some discussion occur first. Remember, this discussion wasn't implemented to discuss the changes, it was implement because of alleged uncivil actions and that only happened because Scott5834 wasn't getting his own way. He really doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue. He acts as if he's discussing but then just edits regardless. I'm sorry but I find it far easier to address the points somebody has raised if I do it that way. -- AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is added to restore some semblance of order the above since Cheeser1 has placed my comments in an unintelligble format and I don't have the time to completely rewrite it:

If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them.

The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made.-- AussieLegend 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear source, the information is clearly relevant, there are many editors who believe the info should go in the article, and the only opposition there seems to be is you,

Thats's not entirely correct. This discussion is only a few hours old. In the discussion on the Extel talk page the only editor that supported the inclusion was Scott5834. All other editors disagreed with their inclusion.

citing WP:CCC for some reason.

I'm citing policy because in his attempt to have his edits included and to have others excluded Scott5834 has been selectively citing policy. When he wants the edits excluded he rigidly cites policy. When he wants his edits included he chooses to make excuses to ignore policy. I'm usually fairly flexible and admittedly I probably don't stick to policy as much as I should. If people want to kill my edits they usually can if they can cite a reason but when an editor tries to bludgeon his edits into existence and exclude the edits of other the way that Scott5834 has I become somewhat less flexible. -- AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change is what the policy says. The fact that only one person initially objects to the old consensus does not mean that a larger consensus won't be formed.

I agree but you shouldn't just ignore consensus. All I'm asking is that some discussion occur first. Remember, this discussion wasn't implemented to discuss the changes, it was implement because of alleged uncivil actions and that only happened because Scott5834 wasn't getting his own way. He really doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue. He acts as if he's discussing but then just edits regardless. -- AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I, for example, believe the content does belong in the article. Also, please do not dissect people's comments. Leave them intact and respond in your own single response. -- Cheeser1 05:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find it far easier to address the points somebody has raised if I do it that way. -- AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like chopping people's comments to bits, but that's now how discussions take place on Wikipedia. I explicitly asked you not to do so. Editing or rearranging other people's comments is inappropriate, most certainly when they ask you not to. I am especially concerned about this statement: "The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made." Have you read the policy on bold edits? Of course there was no consensus then. He hadn't made his edit yet. Making a bold edit is an important way users contribute to Wikipedia. You seem to believe that you have "won" or something - that Scott consented to your consensus and that he is being devious and underhanded by introducing this content. Refer to this. You have not assumed good faith and have been uncivil. Perhaps he has too, being very insistent on having his information in the article. That is a fault of his, but that does not excuse you, nor does it resolve the issue: he has attempted to introduce verifiable, reliably sourced, relevant material to the article. You oppose him not based on some present reason, but based on past consensus. Past consensus is irrelevant: he's made a bold edit, and now it's time to discuss it. "You agreed to it 2 1/2 months ago" is inappropriate and pushy. -- Cheeser1 06:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. We'll have to compromise though.

"Editing or rearranging other people's comments is inappropriate"

As you just did to mine?

"Of course there was no consensus then. He hadn't made his edit yet."

Let's rewind a bit. You said, "If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them." My point is that because his edits weren't supported by consensus he couldn't just ignore policy. The traffic shaping inclusion had already been rejected when Macktheknifeau attempted to include it so there already was consensus that what Scott5834 proposed should not be included. Because there was an existing consensus he needed to discusss the proposed edits first, BEFORE adding them. I gave him that opportunity and did so quite civilly. I reverted his edits and directed him to the talk page and WP:CCC for guidance but he chose not to seek consensus and just added the edits again without even attempting to discuss it. After I reverted his edits the correct thing to do would have been to reopen the discussion on the talk page proposing that the edits be allowed but he made no attempt to do so.

"Making a bold edit is an important way users contribute to Wikipedia."

And that's fine but there was an existing consensus that what he wanted to include was not appropriate. That's why I reverted his edits and posted the following on his talk page:

Before you do any more editing of the Exetel article I suggest that you thoroughly read the discussion on the article's talk page. Traffic shaping, which you've just added was a contentious issue that resulted a mediation case, adminstrator intervention and full protection of the page for 3 months. Consensus among editors was that the traffic shaping/p2p deprioritisation issue was not worthy of inclusion in the article so you shouldn't just go ahead and add it in again. -- AussieLegend 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He obviously made no attempt to read the discussion because he immediately reverted my reversion. He really doesn't seemto care what others add to the article. He just reverts and adds what he wants. When what he said is countered he makes some excuse of heads off on a tangent and continues editing as he wants to without consideration for other editors.

"You seem to believe that you have "won" or something"

No, not at all. I do however believe that if an editor agrees with a series of edits and then changes his mind he should at least explain why he's changing edits that he has agreed to. It's just common courtesy. Scott5834 continues to show none of that.

"he is being devious and underhanded by introducing this content"

Well, he pretty much is. Since he started editing the Exetel page his actions have been a continual "say one thing and do another" act. He starts discussing an issue and while you're attempting to discuss it with him he heads off and edits the page. Take, for example, the techdirt article. We discussed that on the talk page and he knows quite well that the article doesn't even mention Exetel but has since restored the link to the article using the reason

not clear why this was removed as Exetel is mentioned as prime example

You can see the edit here. The reason is a lie. He knows that it was removed because the article doesn't mention Exetel and he knows that the article doesn't mention Exetel. We discussed that very issue.

He also feigned stepping back from editing. Only a few hours after posting "Perhaps we should take a break from editing the article to let things simmer down a bit?" he was back editing the article.

"You have not assumed good faith and have been uncivil"

I tried to assume good faith but I've seen what he tried to do before and what he is doing now. Despite that I've given him a lot of leeway in editing the article and have resisted urges to edit his edits. Instead I have attempted to discuss the issue with him but he has made some pretty outrageous claims, which I've mentioned in my large resposne further up this page and tried tosend me off on wild goose chases. I don't think I've been uncivil however his rather puerile use of "Keep civil" is rather annoying and I've made it clear that I find it annoying. I'm not going to apologise for that. Questioning his reasons for hacking a series of edits that he's previously claimed was "a great addition" is not being uncivil. Nor do I intend saying "Deja vue!" after seeing him say "Keep civil" yet again when he has no other response to something. His constant use of "keep civil" is like the schoolyard "I know you are but what anm I?". Still, despite my frustration I've continued to try to discuss while he makes edits based on misinformation or even worse, what amounts to pure fantasy (eg his insistence that the free period was implemented at the same time as the P2P deprioritisation) and completely ignores what others think and the efforts of other editors.

"he has attempted to introduce verifiable, reliably sourced, relevant material to the article."

He has also attempted to introduce information which is based on his own misguided assumptions and citations that do not support his claims and resists ignores all evidence that what he says is wrong.

"he's made a bold edit, and now it's time to discuss it."

As you can see by the talk page, I've tried. He pretends to discuss but ignores the opinion and proof of others and just forces his edits into the article regardless. -- AussieLegend 07:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to add that it simply ins't sufficient to say you agree with the edits in order to gain consensus. There are several points that still need addressing. Boing Boing, for example, is a blog site and it seems to be that a lot of people, not to mention policy, agree that blog sites aren't acceptable sources. The techdirt article that Scott5834 relies on doesn't even mention Exetel so it's not a valid source either. These are just two examples that need to be discussed. Until such time as they are, Scott5834 is going to continue to force them into the article. I've already tried justifying why they aren't valid and he just ignores reason. -- AussieLegend 06:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not rearrange your comment, I simply undid your absurd chopping-up of mine. This is a bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion. I will not stoop to tit-for-tat bickering. I've explained how you've acted without assuming good faith (you yourself have assumed that when he asks you to be civil, that he's teasing you - there's no reason to assume this). You've been uncivil. That is what this noticeboard is about - a complaint was filed against you. His actions are not in question, and his misdeeds (should such misdeeds exist) are not a defense for yours. I'd ask also that you keep the content dispute where it belongs - not here. You claim that he has agendas, biases, misinformation, etc. Again, you should be assuming good faith (and, if you were honest, you'd admit that we all have agendas, biases, and misinformation). Now, even though the content dispute is not relevant to the WQA, I will again point out that citing past consensus is not reason enough to dismiss someone's claims. In fact, it's not even valid - consensus must be re-established in the event of any bold edit. Outright reversion to this "old consensus" version, and refusal to compromise, goes against consensus policy. I'm not going to nitpick the fine points of this debate with you any more because this is not the place for that discussion. Scott has suggested that you both cool down. I suggest you do so. You've made alot of edits and comments (some very lengthy) regarding this topic and moreso regarding your conflict with Scott. This may indicate that you are worked up or invested in this conflict somehow. Take a breather, get some perspective, and try to come back to this content dispute with compromise and good faith in mind. -- Cheeser1 08:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"I did not rearrange your comment, I simply undid your absurd chopping-up of mine."

At least after my edits you post was still readble. All you needed to do was ignore the indented and signed edits. Your "undoing" removed formatting and signatures and turned my comments into a meaningless mess.

"This is a bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion."

This "absurd", "bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion" has been in use since well before I first started using Usenet in the mid-late 1980s and has served many people well over the past 20 (at least) years.

"you yourself have assumed that when he asks you to be civil, that he's teasing you - there's no reason to assume this)."

That's not actually what I said and any case there is a good reason as his comments and edits on the Extel pages show. As you are aware he suggested taking a break from editing but since doing so he's made at least 7 edits to the page so his susggestions don't really seem genuine. I've provided other examples above but it seems that they're not being seen.

"His actions are not in question"

His actions are entirely relevant though because they provide context taht was sought, which is why I've detailed some of them. As I said, I don't think I've been uncivil. I have been extremely tolerant of his misguided efforts to edit the article including his reversions of most other editors' changes and I've held back from making my own changes. In fcat I'vemade only 8 edits since he has returned, compared to his own 26 edits.

"Again, you should be assuming good faith"

I tried that in July and I even tried when I started participating in the discussion over his edits but when I saw that he was ignoring whatever I said and making whatever edits he wanted anyway I realised I was deluding myself. I think anyone who assumes good faith in his edits on the Exetel page is doing that. This is not to say that he hasn't produced some good work elsewhere. I've looked at some of his edits on other pages and I find very little that I'd really feel criticising but the Exetel page seems to be a different matter. I don't know why but I'd like to. I did ask but received no reply. -- AussieLegend 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've said - his conduct may be pushy, but this is a complaint filed against you. Deflecting blame onto him may bring attention to his actions, but it will not remove any attention from your actions. Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article is not in the spirit of consensus policy or bold editing policy. I can imagine such a response may have caused Scott to ignore your objections and re-insert the content. -- Cheeser1 06:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser1, but would also suggest that you may have gotten more interest in the actions of the other editor by first acknowledging a mistake in insisting that an opinion be unchangeable on your part. (Though I also want to say when one changes their opinion they should explain why it changed, otherwise the rest of us may wonder about the nature of such a sudden change.) Anynobody 08:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I never insisted that my opinion was unchangeable. I just posted the following on his talk page:

Before you do any more editing of the Exetel article I suggest that you thoroughly read the discussion on the article's talk page. Traffic shaping, which you've just added was a contentious issue that resulted a mediation case, adminstrator intervention and full protection of the page for 3 months. Consensus among editors was that the traffic shaping/p2p deprioritisation issue was not worthy of inclusion in the article so you shouldn't just go ahead and add it in again. -- AussieLegend 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've already noted, he completely ignored it and just edited it back in.

"Though I also want to say when one changes their opinion they should explain why it changed, otherwise the rest of us may wonder about the nature of such a sudden change"

Thank you for saying that. I was starting to think I'm the only person who thinks that way. -- AussieLegend 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article"

That's not what I've been doing. I intially reverted his edits and suggested he look at the talk page. He ignored that and everything that I've said since. All I wamt him to do is discuss the edits before making them and to take on board what is said but he dismisses everything regardless of its validity.

"Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article is not in the spirit of consensus policy "

That's not entirely true. WP:CCC says that no individual can declare consensus has changed yet this is effectively what Sott5834 is doing. WP:CCC also implies that proposals to change consensus should be discussed. It also says that wikipedia does not ignore precendt. All I'm doing is to try to convince him that there is a precedent and that he should discuss the matter which is in accordance with consensus policy. He just refuses. No, actually that's not true because he hasn't actually refused. He's made no response at all. He just edits andedits and edits, even when he's supposedly taking a break from editing the article.

Yeah, it's easy to get consensus when you obfusticate and batter people to wiki-death boring them with dozens of pointless paragraphs of wiki-lawyering. It's impossible to get any consensus that differs from AussieLegends view of the world because he will revert it as vandalisim and then cry with his mates about it. Macktheknifeau 09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If he is willing to discuss the edits, so am I. I've indicated above that there probably is a case for including them. I don't know how many times I have to say this before somebody will take it in. I do, however, expect that if he expects that others should folow a policy then he should follow the policy as well and not expect to be exempt from the same rules that he expects others to comply with. Is that unreasonable? -- AussieLegend 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You both appear to be discussing the edits quite alot on the relevant talk page - however, the discussion has strayed and become uncivil. That is not only his fault. Your comments have been uncivil and have assumed bad faith. This is the concern of this WQA post. Your actions. Certainly, he has been unduly pushing his edits on the article. But you've been pushing back, making this some sort of shoving contest. He, on the other hand, has been pushy but has asked repeatedly for you to remain civil, and has suggested things like cooling off. This is not a contest to see who's more at fault. It is a complaint about your incivility. I've told you what I have to tell you: your actions were uncivil. You seem to have assumed bad faith. You have not seemed willing to listen to him when he suggested cooling off or being civil. This is not appropriate. I'm not here to evaluate Scott's actions, and yet I have, and I have mostly agreed with you. I'm not even going to touch the content dispute, because it's totally irrelevant. The point is, your actions are in question here. And I've said all I have to say. Feel free to pick apart every sentence of this post to try to elicit a response, but I'm done here. I've done everything I can to explain how you've been uncivil in the hopes that you'll take it as constructive criticism, instead of trying to blame Scott for everything. -- Cheeser1 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note the user in question has attempted to silence me by way of administrative and legal threats. Macktheknifeau 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the personal speculation and commentary made by User:A Kiwi that is devolving into senseless and irrelevant personal attacks. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

On one hand I don't think it is appropriate (or productive) for me to keep "rising to the bait" and getting into discussion with her, but on the other I don't think it would be very wise for me to let it go without refutation, as it is about me, not at all accurate and on fairly permanent record. Perhaps somebody could reason with her a little? -- Zeraeph 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Already at WP:AN/I [22], has been there for several days. [23] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is just a different, more informal, approach two seperate admins advised me to take instead. I did not even know this page existed until today. -- Zeraeph 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PS here is an opinion on the last time I sought advice on a similar issue and User:SandyGeorgia tried to get me sanctioned for "forum shopping" [24]. I really believe that I have as much right as anyone else to seek advice and assistance in resolving disputes. -- Zeraeph 02:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It seems there a fair amount of reading to do here. I'll take a stab at it, and see if I can come to some sort of conclusion. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am happy to try anything you can suggest to stand this situation down.-- Zeraeph 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, after looking through the diff's provided, I don't really see any egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL. There's clearly a lot of history here however, which is no doubt complicated by the off-wiki history, so it's entirely possibly I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to give me a brief summary of why you think there's a civility issue. (Since what I'm seeing now is a lot of back and forth that (for wikipedia) seems reasonably restrained on both sides). However, I would add that it's considered polite to notify someone when you file a complaint about them here or at AN/I. (I'll do that now -- since I didn't see anything on Kiwi's talk page). Best, -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I did notify her [25], you must have missed it because I put it in a PS with a hyperlink. I do not feel personal matters should be raised on Wikipedia, it isn't appropriate, I wouldn't be comfortable with it if she was sticking to the facts, which she is not. Surely it isn't in accord with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to use Wikipedia as a forum for expressing fictional personal negatives about other editors? I have to refute it or otherwise someone is bound to pick up the diffs and use them against me in a few weeks time as though they were hard facts. -- Zeraeph 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the link there. And I agree, personal information has no place on Wikipedia. (Although you may have opened the door with this post that Kiwi dug up diff). That said though, Kiwi digging through the archives to re-post it isn't terribly polite (and I'll leave Kiwi a brief note saying as much). But aside from that, most of the content looks relatively civil. Hopefully the two of you can settle this amiably, since you seem to both be valuable contributors here. Best, -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that User:A Kiwi actually made that post, not me. Doesn't matter, I have realised the dice are too heavily loaded against me whatever I do or say, I am scr*wed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday soon and for the rest of my life. I am retiring. Thank you for trying. -- Zeraeph 03:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to see good contributors leave the project, so I just wanted to extend my hope that you'll join us again after a wikibreak. If not, all the best. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Short story: User:Triddle who is an admin contacted me about my behavior that he considers incivil. I attempted to discuss and justify my behavior with him. Along the way, I got a block warning which surprised me since I thought I had explained myself. Today, he contacted me here, told me that discussing things with me was wasting his time, gave me more warnings about being blocked, and specifically said: "note the lack of an invitation to respond to me".

My specific concern is that an admin should not issue warnings and then forbid me to represent my side of the dispute. I am also perplexed about how I am wasting his time. If he is an admin, then I assume that part of that job description is to deal with discussion and dispute.

Long story: Background: I have been in a disagreement with another user User:Geo Swan. It is my opinion that he is engaged in large scale POV pushing on the subject of the War on Terror. In the course of making this argument, I will freely admit that I have used some intemperate language. I have resolved to remedy this issue by (a) Not directly engaging with User:Geo Swan and (b) Toning down my language. However, I believe that I still have the right to raise the concern that this POV pushing is occuring on such a large scale (hundreds of articles) that it is going to seriously compromise Wikipedia's credibility on this subject. (I can provide links to articles on request, but that is a secondary debate).

The entire conversation between Triddle and me consists of six sequential diffs: 1, 2, followed by no response from Triddle for a time, followed by 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

My particular objection is to the block warnings coupled with the firm suggestion: "note the lack of an invitation to respond to me". This sends a message that I am being given orders that shall not be questioned or disputed in any manner. There was no need for this kind of language, particularly when I had already agreed to a resolution in behavior. An admin should be held to at least the same standard of civility that he demands of others.

Maybe I am way off base and I am being the jerk in this discussion. I was going to say nothing and keep quiet, but I spent the afternoon re-reading the NPOV and civility policies, stumbled across this forum and would like to request an opinion on this. Kevinp2 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. My short answer to your alert would be that Triddle *did* give you a chance to reply, and you availed yourself of it. The fact is that incivility is never justifiable in any event, so there's not a whole lot you can say in your own defense except "I disagree with your application of WP:CIVIL," which probably isn't going to convince anybody. With that in mind, Triddle warned you that he considered your behaviour to be uncivil, you replied (failing to change his mind), he told you that his warning still stood. That really should have been that (for the incivility bit, anyway). If you still disagree with him, you can provide some diffs to the alleged incivility and I'll provide some thoughts on it (although you seem to admit that your language was intemperate).

Lastly, if Triddle ever does block you for reasons that you don't consider appropriate, you have an avenue of appeal via the {{unblock}} template. In this way, you remain free to question or dispute Triddle's "orders" even if he blocks you. If that really isn't satisfactory to you, you always *can* respond to Triddle (beginning with something like "I know you asked me not to respond to you about this, but I think that there are a few more points I need to make before I leave you alone entirely"), but don't expect a response and don't badger him if you don't get one.

On a final note, I do think Triddle's reaction was a little excessive (assuming the diffs you provided are the extent of the interaction betwee the two of you). Moreover, some of his phrasing ("Note the lack of invitation...") is hovering on the edge of civility itself. But to answer your main question, I don't think it's inappropriate for an admin to ask that an editor no longer contact him about an issue once there has been full discussion of that issue. Sarcasticidealist 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) After looking at the diffs which you provided, I don't really seen any incivility on Triddle's part. The gist of his statement seems to be: "You were uncivil to user X. It doesn't matter why, being uncivil isn't allowed. If you keep it up, you may be blocked. Also, I'm personally done with this debate." Now, I don't think he is/was personally threatening to block you, rather, it sounds as if he was just warning that if poor behavior continued, there might be repercussions (from someone else, at some point in the future, on some other issue). And as far as him saying "(paraphrase) Please don't reply", it sounds as if Triddle felt he had made his points, and had nothing further to say. And while it would be stellar if every admin could handle every issue, it's his right, given that there are better places the whole content issue could have been settled.

Still all of that said though, I appreciate you providing a brief, fairly neutral summary. And I recognize that it's frustrating to deal with other editors who aren't following policy. But rather than getting upset, try enlisting help, perhaps from Third Opinions, or Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project. Or just follow dispute resolution. Calling people names (even if they deserve them) doesn't always help (see WP:SPADE for an essay on the topic). Hope that helps, -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of note, Triddle ( t  c) has already brought this up at the 3O talk page. -- Darkwind ( talk) 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WQA policy, I left a note on Triddle's talk page informing him of this discussion. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Thanks to all for your good feedback. I appreciate your feedback and time. I consider the matter closed (from my side anyway). Kevinp2 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing. And thanks to Kevinp2 for being rather mature and civil about the whole thing. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)