Wikipedia abusers at play

Boy, it's tempting

I note your observation on Pete/Skyring at Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). I'm being a very good boy and avoiding commenting, despite massive temptation, as I promised after my recent discussions at AN/I.

I wonder if his non-constructive and bigoted editing will ever attract the attention it deserves from those here who can actually do something about it? HiLo48(talk) 20:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't - he knows how to play his hand. Comment if you wish, just: ensure your comments remain free of expletives (they substract from, not add to your arguments, not to mention people who may share the same opinion may unfortunately think twice about commenting in such an atmosphere), see through what he writes, assess the situation, then you can hold your ground. If he changes something that you don't agree with, you can revert and comment for a consensus to be sought while the status quo remains. If his disputed change doesn't have legs, it will drop off the radar. If he's simply provoking and not changing anything, the best thing to do is ignore it. Others are there and observing too. If its disputed, a change away from the status quo, and requires consensus, even Pete cannot simply defeat the system - though he does try. Any given issue, without a constant back and forth, will take more than a day to resolve. But that's ok - it's usually how it works. Just keep your patience and stick to the rules in order to succeed. I thought it was harder than it sounds at first too, but these days i'm cool as a cucumber... usually :) Timeshift (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. They are the (largely unwritten) rules here. And lying is OK too, so long as you do it politely. (Am I sounding cynical?) Unfortunately, my recent big drama with Pete started with what I still believe was an unacceptable repeated removal of text without discussion, and where nobody else seemed to be watching, where he even broke 3RR, but suffered no consequences. It gives me the shits. (Oooh, did I day that?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The rules are there and written. The problem with rules, like many things, it is very much open to interpretation. Yes, it's not in the spirit of the encyclopedia when Pete insists on his disputed change away from the status quo. If you're looking for someone else to do one of the reverts so that only Pete breaks 3RR, just let me or someone else know and obviously we'd consider our own view. Wikiproject australian politics talk and wikiproject australia noticeboard talk are also good places to request assistance. It is by far the best option if you don't see activity from others. The worst thing you can do is act before you think and say or do something you might regret, when a little extra time and other editors can more than help. And once you've requested help, resist the temptation to come back for a few hours and in all probability it will have already been solved, but without your time and energy. It's far easier, honestly. Don't let things give you the shits, and don't try to sneak a semi-swear... it doesn't help anything :P Timeshift (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mate, I'm sorry, but "gives me the shits" is an incredibly common expression where I work. It's not uncivil at all. It's part of normal, quite polite conversation. I'll just make the point again that what Wikipedia demands is a particularly middle class version of civility. I have the flexibility to (usually) adapt, but it's obvious that a lot of people I know could never contribute here due to the only language they know not being "nice" enough. That's a loss to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But you're referring to Australian verbal sayings, not Australian English text on a screen, on Wikipedia with overseas editors (with admins who are potentially looking for a reason, any reason). Context and local sayings are often not conveyed when online. Do you think using 'shit' on this medium achieves anything? Does it detract from anything? The answer should be pretty commonsense. There's nothing to gain and potentially an account to lose, and it's not worth it over the use of swear words, regardless of it's use. Keep your powder dry, especially over something so trivial (i'm not having a go, i'm trying to help you...) Last but not least, it's not so much 'gives me the shits' in itself, it's that you've recently been swear capsing, so it can bring attention to you that otherwise wouldn't come your way. Timeshift (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to jump in, the best way of dealing with generally civil but problematic editors is to amass evidence and then start a RfC/U. ANI can't handle complex issues (or any issues at all on many days), and the format of a RfC/U works well in highlighting problematic patterns of conduct. I agree with Timeshift's comments on the need to be civil yourself (and the point about Australian language not going down well with editor from other regions is well worth noting - remember that a good admin and an editor in excellent standing lost the admin tools earlier this year for, in large part, calling another editor a "koala" when the Arbitration Committee somewhat mysteriously decided that that was a grave insult [the fact that the editor in question was swearing his head off didn't worry them so much - which will be guiding how I vote in the ArbCom election]). Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

... Koala? You're kidding. This place can be very weird sometimes. BTW HiLo, Pete is compiling an RFCU, which came about after Nick-D's advice here. I would not be surprised if there is a bit of beating to the punch going on. You're a long term editor who knows they've done wrong and have learnt, if you swallow your pride and just go with the flow, i'm sure it will come to nothing. Whatever happens, don't react and give fuel. Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, after responding to what I realised was a five year old thread on the talk page which had since been added on to, and how much irrelevancy there was on there, i've archived it. I think we can all agree and appreciate that the article/talk will function better now. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That archiving was a good move Timeshift. Thanks. Don't worry guys, I'll be working hard to play the game. I ignored some nonsense he posted in a couple of threads this morning, and made comments of a more general nature relating to what others had said. I think it annoyed him more than if I had responded to him. As for an RfC/U, I really can't be bothered. I'm not the kind of person who compiles dossiers on other, nor do I enjoy reporting others. And I don't believe there is any hope of a reconciliation, especially while his goal is clearly to get rid of me, and I just cannot comprehend his thinking style. HiLo48(talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted the above with an Edit conflict. I now see the post from Pete below. Good luck!] HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Quickest. ANI out of the blue. Ever. I think I might log off for a while. Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And have you guys caught up with this one yet? We're famous! HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit]Tag-teaming?

As per your suggestion, I've raised the matter of the Alan Jones talk page blanking on ANI. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your work with Ddball and Collect is not tag teaming Pete? Interesting. As for the ANI, it is archiving, not deletion so you have already misrepresented the situation. Good start. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why i'm being accused of tag-teaming. If it's in reference to what I said to HiLo, if you read it properly, I said "just let me or someone else know and obviously we'd consider our own view". I'd appreciate a more civil and good faith attitude on my talk page please. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit]ACT election

The discussion on the article's talk page is getting a bit off topic, so I'll post here instead. I suspect that the tone of the Liberals' comments last night reflected their much better than expected results (for which I think that they can thank the Canberra Times poll as it enabled a protest vote which probably explains some of the apparent flow from the Greens in 2008 to the Liberals yesterday). The small increase in the ALP's vote is a good result for the party considering the age of the government and the various stuff-ups which have dogged it since the last election. The Greens result reflects the protest vote moving elsewhere, as well as the laziness of the parliamentary party since 2008 (their entire attitude has been to try to take credit for Government programs rather than advocate anything new) and their amazingly low-key campaign. The Liberals should really be disappointed with the result - about six months ago they were in the box seat due to widespread dissatisfaction with the government (which had suffered a number of scandals), but they threw it away due to an overly simplistic and negative campaign - most Canberrans know the difference between an independent report and an actual government policy, and trying to confuse the two made the party look shifty. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep agree. Something that annoys me is that the little-known Patterson publishes a poll which appears wrong (can never be proven as a poll looks back, not current/forward) and suddenly everyone comes out saying it categorically voids any and all polls. I'd like to see Newspoll start to do Tas, ACT and NT... but i'm no doubt dreaming. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to read some serious nonsense on the ACT election, look no further than today's editorial in The Australian. Apparently the message from the swing to the ALP (which, according to Antony Green may now translate into an extra seat at the expense of the Greens; not too shabby for a 12 year old government) is that it should shift to the right and considerably change the way in which it governs. Sure. Tony Abbott is also talking total nonsense:"I think the people of Canberra don't want to see more Labor-Green coalition government" despite a clear majority voting for exactly that.  FacepalmNick-D (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's like the 2010 federal election rubbish commentary and coverage all over again. Timeshift (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jones edit war

Could you please have a look at the current edit war going on on Alan Jones as Skyring and his crew are deleting material without consensus again. Is there anything we can do about this kind of behaviour? It is simply un-Wikipedian! (last to be read in voice of Pauline Hanson) — Preceding unsigned comment added byDjapa84 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Because his behaviour tends to bring out the worst in me, I've promised to not engage with Pete/Skyring. He really is playing his merry games again. Help please. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that talk page comment is a unconstructive waste of time and should not be there, was it the best things for you to remove it? Ie, given your history with a particular editor (and it's actually far from "history"). lol. Just saying. I didn't like it either, but didn't remove it. Anyway, see what happens - perhaps the two editors will be glad someone removed it for them??? --Merbabu (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly was glad it was removed. I should be above rising to his childish baiting, and so I re-deleted it when Skyring put it back. You were right HiLo, it had absolutely nothing to do with the article or anything that matters except someone's ego. I must make more effort to ignore his constant petty sniping. A logical discussion is so very much more useful. Djapa Owen (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Now Skyring has reinstated his original little pot v kettle comment and hatted my reply. Such manners. I am standing out of this one as this kind of nastiness serves no purpose. Djapa Owen (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there a RFCU on Skyring under development somewhere? If so, I'd like to add this. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Would WP:BOOMERANG apply? Of course, telling editors to F-off, etc, is certainly not on (and I didn’t look into why there wasn’t action against HiLo for that). But the polite incivility served with a snide smile is more insidious and usually has a far more toxic effect on collaboration. Unfortunately, a case against it is much harder to make, and its perpetrators know and use this to their advantage. --Merbabu(talk) 00:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the actionable issues to be covered in a RFC/U are a) POV-motivated editing b) any examples of bad-faith behaviour (such as that I've posted above) c) repeatedly inserting irrelevant political statements into talk page discussions despite being asked to stop this and d) ignoring repeated requests and warnings (including the ANI thread a while ago in relation to his edits concerning Craig Thomson) that he cease these activities. The RFC/U would take time to develop, but its the weight of evidence which counts in cases such as this. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Guys, ignoring him NEVER makes him go away. I Wikilinked 100% clear policy when I deleted an off-topic irrelevant thread, and didn't mention any of the editors who had contributed to it. I won't do it again, but I appeal to you others to not let him get away with it. That's a big problem here. If he swore, the conservatives would be all over him, but because he hasn't sworn, you're letting him free? Please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, I thought you should know I have put a message on Skyring's talk page about his poor conduct:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skyring#Hostile_conduct_and_random_accusations. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Skyring has responded and then deleted the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skyring&oldid=519853114 Djapa Owen (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As his is right per WP:TALK. For better or worse. I know I exercise that right from time to time. --Merbabu (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, which is why I am not entering an edit war with him. I posted the above comment and permalink so those interested could see what I said and his response (I paraphrase: "LOL"). Djapa Owen (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)