Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive49

Edit warring, declarations of intent to use sock puppets, blatant NPOV and OR violations

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – See below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've become involved in an edit war in the article Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty surrounding these edits pushed by Ivantheterrible1234. NPguy and I believe they are clear violations of NPOV and OR. We have repeatedly expressed our willingness to work with Ivan if he has something constructive to add, but he has in return engaged in reversion, personal attacks, and threats of sock puppetry. I considered tagging the page for an RfC but based on Ivan's responses to my objections to his edits, I don't believe additional people weighing in against him will help. I would appreciate any help available. AzureFury (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm afraid we can only do so much here. WP:ANI would be a good place to ask, particularly about the threats of sock-puppetry. But it's imperative you try Article RFC and/or mediation for content issues. You might need to make an RFC on user conduct additionally for the conduct issues. The links to these 3 forms of dispute resolution can be found at WP:DR. Good luck~ Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfC for conduct was my first thought, but I'm the only one to say anything on his talk page, and the RfC for conduct description says at least two people have to warn the person. I don't know if this is professional or not but I just asked someone else to give him a warning on his talk page so we qualify for RfC on conduct... AzureFury (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's critical to get more editors involved first through Article RFC. (You might need to inform administrators (at ANI) about the sockpuppetry threats) If the new editors who get involved also encounter similar (if not the same) issues, then you can advance straight to RFC for conduct. You generally need to be somewhat involved in the dispute - even if someone here was to give a warning, it wouldn't be sufficient for them to certify the basis of the dispute because of the lack of involvement, including in how the content issues are tackled. If there's no evidence of doing so, the conduct RFC is usually deleted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put up an RfC right now, thanks for your advice. AzureFury (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

Resolved

 – Everybody has been given the feedback they need. This noticeboard is not a venue for content disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

---

 Note: The user who started this thread has been blocked indefinitely for meat puppetry, and disruption. These accusations should be viewed in light of that fact. Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

In the course of a dispute at the talk page on Michael Atiyah, User:Mathsci has repeatedly attacked me and other editors personally.

For example, he stated: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". The dispute in question has nothing to do with nationality; I have never indicated my nationality and neither, to my knowledge, have other editors involved in the dispute. In my opinion, this extraneous mention of my presumed ethnic origin is tantamount to a racial slur. (What adds notability to this dispute is that just prior to this, User:Mathsci felt the use of the phrase `Eurocentric history' by another user was very inappropriate.)

A second disruptive tactic that User:Mathsci has used is to repeatedly accuse me of being a sockpuppet for another editor User:Bharatveer. Although, there is no evidence for this, User:Mathsci has repeated this allegation here and here.

Nevertheless, I feel that the second transgression is minor compared to the first one. I am new to Wikipedia, but I hope that it is not considered `civil' to introduce and insult someone's ethnic origin especially when it is completely irrelevant to the topic. - Perusnarpk (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no User:MathSci. Please could an administrator warn or block the above recently arrived SPA who, unable to insert libellous unsourced material into the BLP of Michael Atiyah (see the postings on WT:WPM, on WP:RSN and on WP:BLP/N), is going on a forum shopping spree across wikipedia. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He has now been given advice on WP:BLP policy by two administrators, User:Slrubenstein and User:Nishkid64. Hopefully the problem should now be resolved. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci appears to have been targeted for harassment by a variety of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts. No action is required here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, User: Jehochman's post above is not neutral. It is easy to verify that my statements above are correct. If User:Jehochman feels that it was appropriate under the circumstances for User:Mathsci to use the ethnic epithet "Indian extremist", please state so. Otherwise, I feel this is a violation of Wikipedia policies of no personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusnarpk (talk • contribs)

POV pushing is not welcome on Wikipedia, whether polite or impolite. A review of your contributions shows that your account is a single-purpose, disruption-only account at this stage. You can change that by peacefully editing a variety of articles. Please stop campaigning against other editors and show that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked to prevent further disruptions. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I would happily accept your resolved tag above if you, even briefly, addressed the issue. Are you stating that different guidelines apply to new editors and old editors: that old editors are allowed to launch personal attacks on new editors that include ethnic slurs? Or are you stating that the usage above was justified? If you are stating either of these things, please state that clearly here and I will not remove the resolved tag. If not, please allow other neutral editors to weigh in. thanks,

P.S: I resent your use of the word disruptive and in my opinion, it shows bias. As a new editor, I have participated in a controversial discussion but I have not edited the page itself as a quick review will show. What is `disruptive' about participating in a discussion, and why does it constitute POV pushing? Please show me the appropriate guidelines. thanks Perusnarpk (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are most certainly a disruptive influence, and you should stop. You have been advocating a position that is counter to Wikipedia policies. When told that you are wrong, by several experience users, you continue to push and attack. That is not the way things are done around here. I implore you to stop. Jehochman ^Talk 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "ethnic slur"?? "Indian extremist" isn't insulting a person's ethnicity; it is insulting their political position. Surely it is okay to say a white power group is Aryan extremists, and doing so does not mean I am picking on their race??? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from experience, I know some people liken the term extremists to terrorists so it's possible to be viewed as incivil, rather than as one side in a content dispute. Even if one were to use a label in a content dispute to describe a 'side' of the dispute, I think a person can come up with a label that is not so bad.

There's obviously a lot of issues going on in this dispute, but overall, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the subject of the WQA (Mathsci) to refrain from throwing that label around in the future. If there are sockpuppetry accusations, they belong to WP:SSP. Any concerns on users should be voiced in the appropriate forum, such as through WP:DR - not an article talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it isn't necessarily uncivil to call someone an "extremist", I'm just saying that it's clearly not an "ethnic slur", and Perusnarpk's continued insistence that an ethnic slur occurred sort of undermines his credibility... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. We should endeavor to use the least inflammatory language possible while maintaining accuracy. Calling somebody an "extremist" is generally not too helpful, but it is not worthy of a block. The editor who came here with the complaint has been exceptionally polite, but their effect on the discussion has been most unhelpful. This thread is really just an extension of the content dispute. The matter should return to the article talk page, and then dispute resolution if that fails. Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, if the labelling and sockpuppet accusations has stopped, then what's within the scope of WQA is indeed resolved here - the rest of the issues should be dealt with as you've stated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, given some of the comments above, in my opinion, this was not a comment on my political beliefs since the entire discussion never broached the political beliefs of any of the editors involved. (In fact, my own views are quite the opposite of `Indian extremists'(used in a political sense) and if the expression was used in that sense, I would find it even more offensive.) As far as I can understand, the phrase `Indian extremists' meant precisely that: "a bunch of extremists from India". However, I will not belabor this point now, given the repeated requests of User:Jehochman and the fact that cognizance has been taken of User:Mathsci's lack of civility. For now, unless this repeats, I consider the discussion closed. Perusnarpk (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All I can recall is that Abhimars used the terms "eurocentric" and "exposing Western idols". I have never seen these terms used in the international world of mathematics. I do know Sir Michael personally as well as many of his students, including Graeme Segal, a good friend of mine. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have looked more thoroughly at the talk page of Michael Atiyah.

• [1] Abhimars tells F&f that he is "angry with Raju for exposing eurocentric history and exposing western idols".
• [2] I tell Abhimars:"Please refrain from making personal attacks on Fowler & fowler and other editors, Please avoid using phrases like "eurocentric history" and "exposing western idols". This extremist language suggests you have another agenda..." and end with "Otherwise, why not try editing another WP article some time?"
• [3] An anon IP 67.169.0.250 calls this language "completely natural".
• [4] Perusnarpk agrees with the Abhimars and 67.169.0.250
• [5] I tell Perusnarkp "You and your friends are quite likely to be blocked from editing this encyclopedia if you continue making disruptive edits of this kind. In the meantime please go and look at Atiyah's entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica to get some idea of what a biography in an encylopedia should look like."
• [6] I ask Perusnarkp how he knows about the precise nature of ArbCom restrictions on User:Bharatveer as a newly arrived editor. Perusnarpk does not reply for a few days.

If Perusnarpk had distanced himself from these extremist sentiments, there might have been some point to this wikiquette posting. Otherwise he has completely misrepresented what happened. Any reasonable and experienced WP editor would I think have drawn the same conclusions that I drew from this interchange. However, here and elsewhere, Perusnarpk has gone out of his way to misrepresent those opposing him (notably most mathematical editors) and in particular the first two editors who had the courage to engage with him. It is disgraceful that even now he is allowed to continue his disruption across the wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

"Hoxharian propagandist"

Resolved

 – Was handled awhile ago --Jaysweet (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Gennarous has accused User:Cberlet of being a "Hoxharian propagandist" (it's at Talk:Fascism#Chip_Berlet.27s_intentional_holding_back_of_article_progress; it was quite a while back so I'm not inclined to go look for the original edit unless he denies saying it.) Unless I am seriously misunderstanding, that's a pretty nasty accusation (the reference is presumably to Enver Hoxha, former dictator of Communist Albania). As far as I can tell, it is not based on anything factual: I've read a lot of Berlet's writing and can't recall him ever having anything nice to say about Hoxha, so it appears to be a generic attack, like calling someone a Nazi propagandist or a Stalinist propagandist. Seems to me to be beyond the realm of civility. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now that User:Cberlet has closed his account, and I don't know the circumstances of that, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. If (and I have no idea whether this is the case) this amounted to part of harassing someone out of Wikipedia, then I would think it would remain quite relevant.- Jmabel | Talk 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the dates, I was blocked for that incident for a week. I said it in the heat of the moment, when said user was IMO going out of his way to irritate me. In case you're curious as to the choice of words there is this article from FrontPage Magazine.[7] Thanks.

PS - Berlet has left Wikipedia in a huff after he was blocked for making a personal attack against someone on the Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche article (don't know who). I was not involved in that since it was during my block. He may have attacked Carol Moore I think?[8] After further looking at the edit summaries, Berlet may have been blocked for calling Jimbo Wales a "spineless coward".[9] - Gennarous (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't follow the whole Cberlet thing in depth, but as I understand it, it was not just a single incident that led to the block, but rather the culmination of a bunch of things. The single incident might have been the catalyst.

In any case, Gennarous correctly points out that this incident occurred two weeks ago, and that he as blocked for a week as a result. That is a stronger message than we could possibly send at WQA! ;D I am marking as resolved, since this has already been taken care of. Although, now I can add "Hoxharian propagandist" to my list of obscure-yet-scathing insults. ("Yo mama so fascist, she's a Hoxharian propagandist!") --Jaysweet (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued harassment

User: Your Radio Enemy has placed further messages on my talk page using harsh language. His nature appears unhealthy and obsessive. He has declared his intention to focus directly on me. His recent edits show that he is editing pages he has found in my own edit history. Libro0 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good, at least he is stopping his unhealthy and obsessive lies against me now. Starting sockpuppet proceedings because I disagree with him and replaced the images he stole from another website. Retaining information in articles that he and only he thinks should not be there. If it was there in the first place someone other than you thought it was important to include. He seems to play the system and drive people off Wikipeida. He is a bully and you have to stand up to bullies. He is the one who is guilty of continued harassment. Just look at [10], [11], and [12]. Uncivil harassment all from the innocent as the driven snow Libro0. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is another one of his paranoid rantings. He keeps acting as if I am a sockpuppet, and mentions other users he thinks I am in his rants. Of course I am going to look at someone who is constantly making false accusations against me is doing. I just happened to find some things that needed fixing and fixed them while monitoring him. Is someone who is searching for St. Leo's likely to be searching for an obscure defunct soccer team? Ditto for New York IRT and the rest. It is seeing a problem and fixing it to make Wikipedia a better place. The only thing is that I found these problems while monitoring the behavior of someone who seems hellbent to attack me. Did he even notice the problem? Apparently not.

I am not focusing my attention directly on him, I am seeing if he is doing any further damage to me. This passive aggressive abuse of the system is just more in his pattern of uncivil behavior. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I set a trap for Libro0. Let's see if he'll take the bait and claim it is sockpuppetry evidence. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Keeper76

Resolved

 – Apology by Keeper76 has been accepted by Xander756. —Travis^talk 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user personally attacked me on my user talk page quoted: "I'll say again, I'm done with you, and I'll add a fuck you to boot." and "I will not see your response to me here, so "blast away" if it makes you feel better, you worthless editor. You have nothing to add to this encyclopedia in my opinion." Diff can be found here: [13] I think that the fact he is an administrator makes this all more of a bigger deal and people that cannot control their temper and lose control should not be in positions of power. --Xander756 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76 made a genuine attempt to help you re-obtain rollback rights and you spat in his face. I don't blame him. At some point, you need to consider that perhaps the problem might be coming from within. Related threads: Wikipedia talk:PERM#Xander756' request, Wikipedia:AN/I#User:Swampfire. By the way, this is my one and only post to this WQA. I already exhausted my efforts arguing with you at WT:PERM. –xeno (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I second this. I participated in the discussion at Xander's page after Keeper got upset with Xander, and there's absolutely no question that Xander's attitude precipitated Keeper's becoming angry. Editors and admins are human. When you treat them poorly, sometimes they become angry. S. Dean Jameson 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

None of those threads are actually related. What your are doing is called "tainting the jury" in which you try to bring in unrelated subject matter. The only thing that matters here is that Keeper76 lost his temper and personally attacked me. There should not be any excuse or reason for that to happen. I did not insult anybody, I let him defeat himself. He tried to explain why he didn't help with excuses that did not fit. When I pointed out why these reasons couldn't be so, he lost it.--Xander756 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the only thing that matters. WikiLawyering about "juries" doesn't mitigate the fact that this last episode was the latest in a long string of harangues you've subjected people to, after your rollback rights were removed. S. Dean Jameson 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

People seem to love the term wikilawyering. Was it because I mentioned a jury and then that made you think of lawyers? That is what his tactics are called, if I could have used a different term I would have just to avoid you saying "wikilawyering" again. This needs to be viewed as a separate incident. Keeper76 insulting me has nothing to do with me having an edit dispute with another user now would it? --Xander756 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

He didn't insult you. He told you to fuck off. There's a difference. If he had said, "You're a dumbass with no brain in his head", that would be an insult and a personal attack. "Fuck off" is simply a rougher way of saying basically "good bye, and good riddance." And "wikilawyering" was what you were doing to try to explain why you never replied to Keeper's initial message, where he specifically asked you to reply so he'd know you were interested. S. Dean Jameson 03:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please check again. It wasn't an F off, it was an F you. The day "F You" is decided not to be considered an insult then it might be the same Jesus returns to Earth. --Xander756 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

He came to your talk page with open arms. You treated him like garbage. Why is there a WQA being filed about him again? Protonk (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Your actions can't be isolated into individual edits, because your attitude and wikilawyering (yes, wikilawyering) have a compounding effect on anyone who tries to talk to you. The way you approach things leads editors to either a) lose their temper at you for eternally not getting the point, or b) ignoring you completely. We've all seen similar situations before. Some of us have even married into situations like that, unfortunately. Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• My last post here: you treated Keeper more poorly than he treated you. He tried to help you, and you just spit in his face, basically. The only difference is that your obstinance made him angry enough to swear. It's you that has the problem, Xander, not everyone else you've interacted with the last several days. S. Dean Jameson 05:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that is actionable here. Xander756 has endorsed an editing practice that resulted in his rollback privileges being revoked, with good reason -- I won't go into that here. Keeper76, a well trusted administrator, attempted to assist you in re-obtaining rollback privileges, which you all but rejected. This is not the first time I've seen your name around Xander756, and this is only another case on top of another that all but certifies that you are not here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but to endorse behavior that is uncivil and generally awful. I can see why Keeper76 became upset at your actions Xander756, and I endorse his usage of the phrase "fuck off" in that instance, because quite frankly, there is few other terms available to describe your attitude on this project Xander. seicer | talk | contribs 05:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, it was not "F off" but "F you". I don't mean to beat this horse but there is a difference there. My entire problem here is that I am here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia and yet I am being hindered unreasonably. People keep telling me I am taking this too seriously but I'm simply here to help the site. It seems others are unnecessarily trying to stop this (i.e. not wanting me to stop vandalism, vandalizing my user page with profanity, telling me I'm worthless etc.) It's not like I'm a new user, I've been here quite awhile... --Xander756 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you beating a dead horse is exactly the problem other editors are having with you. You say you're here to constructively contribute, but a quick look at your last hundred edits shows you've barely made any edits to articles. That's where some of the accusations of wikilawyering are coming from. Dayewalker (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks here. What I see (in the diff provided at the top of the report) is continued assumptions of bad faith by Xander756. Keeper76 took the time to go out of his way to try to help you Xander, and I can understand how he got so upset. I share the concerns of every single user who has commented here to date, and I strongly urge you to look at all of them again and modify your approach in the future. I too am of the opinion to dismiss this WQA as meritless. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Point made successfully. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Xander756, I've been told to "fuck off" before on Wiki; in fact, in full view of several ArbCom members, and nothing happened to the person who said it to me, who is now an admin. It happens. I chalked it off, kept an eye on the person to see if it was typical of his behavior, and it hasn't been; perhaps it was just a bad day. By all accounts, you went quite the extra distance to provoke a generally helpful, kind and efficient administrator to post those comments to you; please examine your own behavior in the incident, or you will have a frustrating experience on Wikipedia. I don't condone uncivil behavior on Wikipedia, but this response from Keeper76, a good admin, is highly uncharacteristic, which raises my eyebrow about how far you went to provoke. Since you don't seem to be making many friends in a collaborative editing environment, you might considering dropping this for now, as I did when it happened to me. On the other hand, Keeper76, you should't have done that, and I'm sure you know it and I doubt it will happen again. Of bigger concern to me here is that some of the editors who frequent this page on Wikipedia, and who are elsewhere accusing a productive editor of any number of things, are completely discounting any validity to Xander756's issue here, undermining (again) the entire point of WQA: that is shocking. Dropping the F-bomb on another editor should always be addressed at WQA; I'm afraid that the editors frequenting this board have furthered rather inconsistent views of Wiki policies and guidelines and are undermining the purpose of this board, rendering this a useless step in dispute resolution, and giving the appearance of using this board to take sides in popularity contests. As much as I like Keeper and recognize this as an uncharacteristic reaction from an excellent admin to an extreme provocation, WQA is not a place for playing out popularity contests. Keeper, pls offer amends and tell Xander you won't do something like that again. Xander, pls examine your own behavior that led to this and then let it go; you've drawn a good deal attention to less than desirable aspects of your editing behavior, and continuing this is not in your best interest, even if Keeper's response was less than ideal. And the regular editors frequenting this board need to re-examine Wiki policies and guidelines and the ways that ArbCom might respond if this ends up in their lap, and begin to respond to issues raised on this board in ways that will further resolution of disputes rather than allowing issues to grow and fester, so that they don't end up at AN/I or before ArbCom. The people most in the wrong here are those condoning, under any circumstances, use of the F-bomb on Wiki: by doing that, you will only increase the chances that Xander will become a more difficult editor, and Keeper will end up in a protracted dispute. Please work to resolve disputes, not further them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dang. I said I wasn't going to post here. SG just nailed it, proving once again that she's way smarter than me, and has led me to respond. I need to confess though SG that what's worse is that I didn't only say "fuck off", I said "fuck you". Also called him worthless, which is probably even worse than a fuck off, or it is to me anyway. Way worse. Apologies for my temper Xander, you deserve more respect than that. Someone please troutslap me on my talkpage if they see this from me again (I can't honestly say it was the first time, and I can't promise it won't be the last, but I'll try my damnedest). Keeper ǀ 76 14:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd come through, and quickly, Keeper; that's what makes you one of the good ones :-) Now I hope Xander will accept the apology and move on and improve their own behavior. But what I most hope is that this ship (WQA) will be righted :-) That editors here are claiming that this WQA is meritless is more appalling than what led to this thread. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That piece, SG, very accurately sums up the situation. Keeper, I'm sure, will learn from this experience and will hopefully adopt a matter of resolve within situations like this, taking a break when necessary so temptations to lose 'cool' are minimalised. Xander, on the other hand, needs to learn to be more acceptive of help whilst those others here must not dismiss the fundamentals in the sake of wanting to comment. Rudget 14:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What "SG" posted is what I have been saying all along. Wikipedia should not be a popularity contest and it that bringing up unrelated issues in an attempt to undermine my validity on subject is counterproductive. Anyway, I accept your apology, Keeper76. Have a nice day.--Xander756 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. X756, please do take note of the email I've sent you - you'll find I extended an apology to you alone.
2. Very watched thread + inconsistent response from 1 of the 2 main regulars (compared to responses in the last few months) = more eyes (hopefully for the long run this time). This is what multiple editors have been asking for (multiple times) since last year at AN, ANI, talk pages of specific admins and FAC regulars for that matter too. It's an established problem from a long time ago, and when those alerts are made on those pages, it'll get attention for maybe a month max, often much less...and then WQA would be allowed to crumble again. 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 eyes is not enough...it needs to have dozens, consistently.
3. The users who are most to blame for the state of WQA in the past few months are those that have fully aware of the problem since the dark ages, yet refused to do anything about it until now (some only screeching until now) - while others don't even acknowledge the problem until now, based on #2. And why only now? I'll let you ponder on that, based on recent ANI musings by that same person screeching over it.
4. WQA would no doubt have been fully dysfunctional, if not for the continued time and effort those 'regulars' put in to try to keep a pulse going. Recently, both are dealing with 1 thing after another in RL, and while they pop in and out whenever they can, it's no where near the amount of time and effort they've put in over the past few months. One regular will definitely not be so regular due to frequent absences from wiki in the coming weeks/months - and other than the odd thread, soon, there are going to be more cries for attention; more of the same as was in the dark ages; for the lack of third party input here. Then again, a couple of users will come across this in ruins and try to make it function again.
5. There's been many resolved disputes among parties from the facilitation by those 'regulars', and those parties have gone on to do good things later, satisfied with the input they received here. On other occasions, they didn't pay attention, it escalated and they were subject to remedies. Why was this feat possible? Because those 2 regulars have spent their time (and their contributions) helping actually resolve a lot of those disputes, contrary to the opinion of someone who shamefully spent (almost) no time here in the past few months (to know how time-consuming and how difficult it sometimes was to do so, given the backlog). As well as involving off-wiki communication with parties at times, on other occasions, the level of work done on WQA was to such an extent that the limited time spent on wiki meant that almost all contributions for a week might be completely WQA-based as uninvolved input. No 'regular' needs to reexamine policy and guidelines - what's needed is for others to put up.
6. Finally, I'm glad X756 has accepted K76's apology, while K76's lapse in judgement has been noted, so it's resolved - even if it meant forcing others to respond by being strongly and unusually inconsistent on a fundamental point that's been rambled about both here and in other venues by that 'regular'. Maybe this time, for once (as a long-run measure), the users who are most to blame for the issue (see #3), will not let this venue drop to the sorry state it's been in before - the alert has been given here itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User Domer48Fenian & BigDunc

I would like an admin to look at my situation. There is evidence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GDD1000 and on talk pages that the user names I have listed are united in an attempt to harrass me and prevent me editing the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. The discussion page there shows that their involvement stretches back more than a few months and that they have strangled attempts by other editors to improve the page by similar harrassment, incivility, bullying and the use of propaganda against other editors. So far I have had an untrue allegation of sockpuppetry leveled against me. I have been called the, "Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest", accused of adding disruptive material to the article, deceiving other editors, making a mockery of this encycopedia, being dishonest, adding unsourced additions, biased POV additions and copyright violations, having several "brand new accounts," collusion, pretending to be a new user, avoiding scrutiny, lying, appalling, editing problematically and pretending to be someone else. The following statement was made by the DomerFenian user: "You are an editor with a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, you should not be permitted to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor". The tags of my accusers are: Domer48_'fenian' and BigDunc^Talk Everything I've read about new users, harrassment, good faith, the five pillars etc etc etc etc tells me that all of this is VERY wrong. Why should I, or anyone, be subjected to it? I do note that the user Domer has a history of being blocked for extended periods of time for similar abuse against other editors. All help appreciated.The Thunderer (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Domer has two blocks for incivility and I recently filed a report here against Dunc.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite two admins closing the sockpuppet complaint as unfounded he (BigDunc) has opened it a third time and demanded information to continue their vendetta.The Thunderer (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong not a single admin has closed it as unfounded, and not even a single admin has closed it. Also I'd even point out the first close was done on a non-existent reasoning acording to Enigma here. BigDunc^Talk 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither I, nor the user GDD1000 who you have such a bee in your bonnet about, have been found guilty of anything more than reacting to the abysmal treatment handed out by you and your tag teaming partners. Your manipulation of guidelines and policy seems to be matched only by your dogged perserverance in hounding anyone whose opinion doesn't concur with yours on articles related to Irish nationalism. The history of the extended attempts by GDD1000 to become a useful editor on Wikipedia is littered with your reverts, always quoting policy but doing nothing to assist the user in editing points into the pages the user was trying to contribute to. I note that "post-departure" your malicious behaviour continued against that user by damning his/her mistakes as a new, but enthusiatic editor, as "copyright violation," "POV pushing," etc. Not once in the history of that user do I see you or your fellow tag teamers welcome the new user or give him/her encouragement to continue posting, despite the overt politeness and appeals for assistance made to you. I see the same thing happening with me. Your welcome to me consisted of you jumping on the sockpuppetry bandwagon, reverts to my edits with the most spurious of policy quoting and a refusal to accept the word of an admin who has done a checkuser proving there is "no abusive sockpuppetry". You appear determined to pursue a course of incivility, harrassment, disinformation and propaganda against me to drive me off the Ulster Defence Regiment article and prevent the addition of useful, encyclopedic knowledge. That indicates to me, as it will to any person who bothers to check your edit history, that of your cohorts and of GDD1000. You've objected to my presence on Ulster Defence Regiment when I posted encyclopedic history of the regiment, its formation, armaments, vehicles, structure, commanders, awards, image, effect on the local community, duties, bases, casualties and allegations of collusion between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, all with inline references and citations and all you contributed in the same period was a revert to challenge information which was a direct lift from an article on Wikipedia which had been there, untouched for two years. In effect you've been hoist by your own petard for pursuing a vendetta.The Thunderer (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me state that 1) there is no abusive sockpuppetry being perpetrated here by The Thunderer and 2) I'm less than impressed with both BigDunc and Domer48's campaign of intimidation of the above editor. It's pretty obvious that they don't agree with his standpoint on certain issues and have taken it upon themselves to smear the guy's reputation with insinuations and accusations of sockery. Obviously, the goal here is to drive him from the project and, though I think his words to-date have been a bit strident and OTT, he has every reason to feel put-upon here. I'd like to see Dunc and Domer drop the matter, leave the editor alone, and basically get back to editing - Alison ^❤ 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the SSP case is not only closed but the door has been slammed shut at this stage. It only took two admins and a checkuser to close it. In short, it was a classic SSP 'fishing' case and one placed to simply cause trouble for their target. C'mon, guys, let's not do that. Had that been RFCU, I'd have thrown the case out for  CheckUser is not for fishing - Alison ^❤ 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alison. I apologise for being "strident" but this type of harrassment is very hard to swallow, particularly when there is so much emphasis placed on friendliness in the guidelines published on Wikipedia. The Thunderer (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that I recently had an incident of gaming at the hands of these two users. Perhaps something can be done now. There is a clear recent history of disruptive behaviour.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an Admin can guide me on how to ensure I don't have to suffer this type of harrassment on Wikipedia again?The Thunderer (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Longchenpa WP:3RR warning help

Taken to WP:AN/3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am concerned User:Longchenpa will be violating WP:3RR while we dispute Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#WP:NPF_enforcement__relief. Can someone offer advice to prevent this. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I love that phrasing. It's so... accurate. Yes, indeed, Zulu Papa 5 has been attempting to bait me into doing a WP:3RR, even leaving a count on my talk page. *walks away laughing* Longchenpa (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is now reported on the 3RR administrators board. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:BehnamFarid

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:BehnamFarid engages me in an uncivil manner regarding an edit dispute to the article Khūzestān Province, removing sourced material and engaging in ad-hominem discussion. While his first challange did have some merit with regards to the applicability of the source, the second revert had no such reasoning included. I find his actions disruptive to my editing and detering to the quality of the Khuzestan province article and therefore request your assistance. MiS-Saath (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BehnamFarid continues his practice unabated and continues the disruption. Please view this edit [14] . I repeat my request for assistance with this disruption. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for removing the stale tag, but this is becoming unbearable. User:BehnamFarid now attacks me in a statement for the arbitration committee, openly referring to me as someone who has personal problems. [15]. I find this extremely upsetting. MiS-Saath (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See also this [16] and this [17]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiS-Saath (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing too blatant, leaving a civility warning for this user. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board.

Resolved

 – No edit warring for several days. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over wp:talk, User:Blockinblox and User:Jeandré du Toit, diffs: [18] [19] [20]. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03t12:55z

I have commented at the talk page in question. While Blockinblox's rant is not particularly constructive, it is not so egregious that it would typically be removed as per WP:TALK. Since I see no edit warring in the last several days, I am marking this as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Romaioi

Stuck

 – Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Continued from archive page:

Thanks for your support Jaysweet. I have made those modifications as per your suggestion. I am not afraid of appearing bitter as long as the truth has been highlighted. I don't look favourably on the kind of flippant behaviour that Noclador demonstrated, regardless of whether it was directed at me or anyone else.

However, I do not know why this page has been archived as I do not consider it to be resolved - I have made several requests as per Ncmvocalist' comments and have not receieved his reply. I have made concessions and recieved none regarding the anti-User:Romaioi negative comments.

Romaioi (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Will see if I can take a look later this week. Sorry about the delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems, I'm in no rush. I know I wrote a lot. Thank you, by the way. Romaioi (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've finally looked through your comments there.

I'd said we can archive relevant sections or comments sometimes...but note; the ANI page you referred to has already been archived - meaning, that's that. In response to your concerns over the ANI, and the merits of the incident report: the fact that no administrative action was taken (or any other responses were given) speaks for itself. That's how it will also be looked at should the dispute ever escalate. The edit-summary you've cited is something we can't do much about here I'm afraid.

That said, I agree with Jaysweet's conclusion - if you were to replace the rant on your User Talk page with the statement you suggest, I absolutely agree that no action is necessary, and that this complaint is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and patience on this talk. I do not mean to sound belligerent, but I do not consider this resolved.

You have someone who was given the power to do an investigation (Noclador) during which he carried out a series of personal attacks on one of his targets, in addition to denigrating the target’s character. In response, beyond defending oneself and calling the accuser/abuser a liar, the target did nothing untoward.

The types of personal attacks made on the accused were not insignificant.

Yet, the wrongly accused target was also the subject of a WQA and an ANI. On the other hand the abusing accuser has received no sanction, no counseling, nothing. If no such action is taken then the accuser (Noclador) will see this approval for him to act in the same manner to the next person. Maybe an ANI is required in reference to his behaviour.

As I said earlier, I think it is fair to have statement inserted here by someone indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it. Alternatively, simply state that the WPQ action, pertaining to me, is unwarranted. I also asked, as an alternative, for a statement at the ANI page stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. Seeing that it is already archived, a statement should suffice – Noclador’s comments are is still there to be read with no defense made (I was not even notified about it at the time). Else, I will put something there myself, linking back to here.

I have already changed my statement, but I do consider the previous version to fit the definition of a rant.

Sincerely

Romaioi (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Romaioi, the archive pages are only to contain threads that existed at ANI, as they appeared at the time. It's not to be altered to add a defense that was never made at the time or to clarify messages that are already there or to link back to discussions that didn't exist at the time. It's not allowed, and users who do are promptly reverted.

In this case, the person who filed the WQA simply wanted some intervention in regards to what was on your talk page so that this dispute does not escalate. That part has been somewhat resolved.

If you're still concerned about Noclador, you can try the next step in the WP:DR link or asking for input at an administrator noticeboard. But remember, action taken is preventive rather than punitive - Noclador has moved past the dispute and is editing per usual. It's your choice if you want to do the same by letting it go and moving on, or not. But I'm afraid I myself can't help you with this any further - perhaps Jaysweet or someone else can. Anyway, best of luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ncmvocalist, if you want to leave it there and cannot do any more then thats fine. I appreciate the efforts of yourself, Jaysweet and all others involved. But I am not happy with the outcome. No defence was able to be put up at the ANI page because I was not even notified that it was going on. And Noclador has been able to move past it because no one has taken him to task on his abuses. He has been able to abuse his power and not be held accountable whatsoever. In fact, he was gven a pat on the back. (Describing what he did in regards to his attempts to implicate me as lying certainly does not do it justice - much stronger adjectives apply.) Instead the victim of Noclador's abuses and insults has been taken to task for highlighting the abuse and was perversely accused of abuses he did not commit (the claim that I made personal abuses (plural) is rubbish). You have an unethical abuser, in noclador, who now has carte blanche approval to do what he wants to whoever he wants. That’s how I see it. Of course it has been easy for him to move on. It is difficult for me to do the same because I keep getting dragged back in (from pathetic and abusive sockpuppetry accusation, to misleading WQA (the instigating text is misleading) to perversely inappropriate ANI). All the best. Romaioi (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Reported on Administrators' noticeboard here. I have noticed that Romaioi did not alert Noclador to the report himself but another editor had to do so. I'm somewhat bemused by claims of a personal vendetta when Noclador has totally disengaged from this editor for weeks now. Justin talk 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Incivility - User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog

This editor, when asked in a civil way to explain an edit, is generally rude or insulting. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. I could go on. This user has been warned, blocked, warned again, etc etc. I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful but I think he should be warned overall for getting too heated and becoming rude. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mayalld

This is a follow up on a case of contested speedy deletion, which I deal with on the appropriate place -- see more here. This is also, I believe, a case of an editor who seems to be misusing his admin power by evading detail clarification of his speedy deletion nomination, and by letting the speedy deletion status on so that deletion was completed while I was showing interest in improving the posting and actively providing evidence why the posting was justified and notable.

As you could see on the talk page of the deleted IGO Search, I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the admin, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing Wikipedia help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion was the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time to discuss deficiencies of the article properly. I wonder how is it possible that one single person, without other views, discussion, and without an editorial consensus, and especially without providing comments and time on how to improve a possibly deficient article, how can one such person cause deletion of someone's work. Moreover, when I complained to him about this very incident, still trying to be very polite and talking about his actions rather than himself as a person, he deleted both of my posts and posted an note on my talk page to which I could hardly, with my own words deleted, defend against.

Summary: I am all for intelligent discussions backed by clear and irrefutable evidence, and I am hereby protesting against single-person non-discussed deletions of the above user. I believe blatant deletion of other people posts is not a way of discussing issues described in them. I shall be very grateful for any consideration and recommendations as to how can I -- or other people affected by someone deleting their work without proving any wrongdoing -- proceed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjfulopp (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Mayalld is not an administrator and did not (indeed, could not) delete the article. (2) This wasn't a "single-person … deletion". Mayalld nominated the article for speedy deletion, and an administrator (SatyrTN) reviewed the article and deleted it, citing general criterion 11 for speedy deletion (blatant advertising) as the reason. Railing against Mayalld for, in good faith, putting a speedy tag on the article seems misplaced anger. No one has accused you of "wrongdoing"; an editor and an administrator have simply concluded that an article did not meet the Wikipedia inclusion standards. You've initiated a deletion review discussion about the article. Why not calmly wait to see how that plays out? Deor (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tjfulopp seems to have a major issue with Speedy deletion as a process, and is effectively protesting that the whole process is unfair. In that case, he needs to debate the process in the proper place, not argue that a single deletion, done in accordance with the current process, is wrong.

He seems to believe that deletion when he hadn't finished arguing with me is wrong, and that the article should not have been deleted unless and until I had made the case for deletion to his satisfaction, and persists in sending long winded, and petulant, messages requiring ever more information (such as this), and complaining if I remove those messages. It seems to have escaped his attention that if he had spent the four hours between tagging and deletion in adding the reliable sources that he claimed to have, instead of arguing, the article may not have been deleted.

The fact that he now seems to be forum shopping, and that he hasn't had the courtesy to inform me that he was taking it to this forum is unsurprising. Mayalld (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

Repeated incivility and personal attacks towards all users who disagree with him [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31],[32]. Repeatedly politely warned by several users to no avail (latest: [33]). I've asked User:Moreschi to put him on civility parole, under WP:ARBMAC and he denied, in a rather colourful way [34]. Note here that Moreschi has imposed WP:ARBMAC on me for much less and this is why I considered him the first choice as a neutral admin.--   Avg    18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it a lit bit clearer:

• oh hell no. you are disgustingly biased. please hold while i vomit. seriously, stay away
• fuck that
• Thanks, but I don't think I'll take advice from an illiterate pretending to be something he's not.
• obstinacy is unbelievable. btw are you a steak or a kebab?
• I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to take the blatant POV pushing by VMORO seriously. I don't feel the need to address anything that he wrote, because it's all bullshit.
• "you almost made me crap my pants my pants with laughter." and "Have fun trying to push your idiotic fringe view (and before you say that's personal attack, admit to yourself that you are POV-pusher)."
• rv POV pushing bullshit. stay away
• removing the bullshit

That's just to make it more readable. I'll add up to the tally soon. I grew really tired of this recently and since he didn't change anything in his attitude since the couple of ANIs filed against his behaviour I'm in full support of sanctions. He's been acting sarcastically and made really unpleasant remarks of at least 5 or 6 editors most of the times completely unprovoked. That is if "POV-pushing" is enough of a reason to call someone illiterate, a steak of gebab, disgustingly biased and so on.--Laveol ^T 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one:

• prolly coz u suk - that's to an annon. When I asked him what he was doing I got this answer: I'm pretty sure he does suck anyway..--Laveol ^T 21:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero

InternetHero appears genuinely to desire to improve the encyclopedia, but may need to be reminded of the social norms of collaborative editing. In particular, this user has accused me of racism. I requested that the comment be refactored; the request was received, but ignored (current version after 17 hours and two edits by InternetHero to the offending page).

Clearly, actual instances of racism fall under WP:SPADE and WP:NPA, but the stated basis for this accusation is my contention that Telescope#History should focus on the historical technological aspects, reserving involved discussion of the theoretical underpinnings for History of optics and other articles in the same interwoven family. My contact with this user began when I answered a WP:3O about this dispute here. Reviewing the 3O history, I note that the request was initiated by InternetHero; subsequent canvassing of known editors led to opinions more to their liking. Rendering my considered opinion led immediately to an assumption of bad faith with respect to due diligence in reviewing the history and basis of the dispute.

I acknowledge that answering a third opinion request can be setting myself up for a certain amount of abuse, but I consider this behavior beyond the pale. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could communicate this to InternetHero. Alternatively, telling me to suck it up and go edit would also resolve this dispute. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero has been notified of this request. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to FoBM and DigitalC. I wasn't even talking to them; I was talking to User:Chovain. If you want to talk about etiquette:

I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).

I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here. InternetHero (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero's consistent response to the considered contrasting opinions of his peers is to accuse them of 1)lacking experience, 2)ignorance, 3)waging a personal vendetta against him, 4)racism/bigotry, and/or 5) cite Wikipedia guidelines construed so as to support his want -rather than the purpose of the guideline. He has repeatedly rejected exceedingly kind feedback from multiple sources, attacked third parties he has solicited for support when they did not agree with his POV, and declined offer of a mentor. I strongly hold that it is in our interest, and InternetHero's, that a solution is found that is voluntary rather than punitive or compulsory -but I am at a loss as to how to affect any such solution. InternetHero has voiced a belief that edits involving his contributions are personal attacks motivated by a personal dislike of him, likewise to critical analysis of his positions expressed on talk pages. I believe these problems are rooted in an unproductive ego association with contributions and editing from a position of advocacy for vested point of view -traits to be guarded against by all editors, for sure, but that have risen to disruptive levels with this user. Any input on the mater would be greatly appreciated.Mavigogun (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: "How many times have I asked for a discussion before you 3 (not Eldereft) indiscriminately revert my edits?"

Other than following me around like a shadow, you just follow what everyone else is doing (probably to game the system). You talk about UNDUE weight, etiquette, and verifiability yet you have been here only this long, and you seem to use those words when the others use them. Absolutely no offence intended, but I noticed this from the start and thats why I don't really consider you part of this whole thing. Coming here to express your opinion shows you probably don't have anything better to do but trust me, you can find more enjoyable things then trying to outsmart/degrade people. Try finding another hobby to vent that frustration.

In conclusion, I know what I'm doing for the most part and I recently always have been courteous. You only have to look at the history of the talk-pages. anyway, I'm over this. The community has spoken and thats all that matters. InternetHero (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The above reply speaks volumes to the problem. InternetHero has been warned to decist from personal attacks, and to "comment on the edits, not the editor". Yet, he above feels justified in describing others as racist (something that he was been warned about in the past), and then replies about how another editor expressing an opinion "shows you probably don't have anything better to do...". Because of the number of policies and guidelines violated, I don't think that WQA is enough for this issue, and that a RFC/U will need to be completed. - DigitalC (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This coming from some1 who thinks that a consensus is overrided by verifiability... You're defending a person who probably has some psychological issues---trust me. I ask you: "Who spends their time helping a troubled youth on Wikipedia"? Some1 who I am going to put on alert for stalking---thats who. He keeps (1, 2, and 3)following me and this DigitalC guy is starting to as well. This will probably be dubed as "a personal attack," but you guys need to find more constructive uses of your time. I'm only 23 and I go to school (not now) and work as a janitor...

This whole facade is just to try and think that the way I'm doing things is wrong, but that would leave out my integrity---something they probably hate seeing that the community has spoken against them. I tell you: "Please try and find another way to vent your frustration". I won't go as far as to say you need councelling or something, but you (DigitalC) should try and find a better way to vent other than trying to degrade ppl. Absolutely no offence, but you should try this website.

Anyway, the sandbox-edit prepared by DigitalC is completely out of context considering much of my "personal attacks" were in the confines of them having to stalk my history logs to even find it. In addition, the other "bad things" I did was probably in respect to deleting their editing on my user-page, and to a much more laughable extent: editing non-sourced material or "material not found in the source". My reply to this is: "Why in the heck would I need to source to verify that Al-Haytham was alive during the Middle Ages". Regardless, I can see the bit about canvassing.

In reply to the other stuff found in the next (very large and particularly misleading/indiscriminant) sandbox-edit: "this is where I lost my patience in the Dispute Resolution process and sought help from 2 admins (who completely agreed with me)". Read at least half of it and you'll see what I'm dealing with here. I hate to spend so much time for this nonsense, but I don't want my account to be labeled as "compromised" in any way shape-or-form. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough editors have tried addressing these concerns that I'm not sure what WQA can possibly do here. An RFCC is currently being prepared. -- Mark Chovain 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFCC mentioned above has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero - DigitalC (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Artw and User:AnmaFinotera

Last night I stumbled on Masters of Horror after someone created an episode article for it using WP:COPYVIO material from IMDB. I redirected it to the episode list, only to discover one didn't exist. So, I spent a few hours creating an appropriate episode list, adding in the missing airdates and writers from a semi-list that had been in the main article. I then checked all of the other episode articles. All of them were simply plot summaries, some 800-900 words in length, and a few more copyvioed from IMDB. They all failed WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOSTV. As such, I redirected them all to the episode list. Artw began undoing some of these redirects today. When I left what I felt was a polite question on his talk page asking why, he left an uncivil response[35]. He has continued making personal attacks in the AfD for one episode, in his edit summary, and on my talk page.[36][37][38][39]

I finally left him a warning for the last one on my talk page,[40] to which he responded with more incivility.[41]. Another editor has also left him a warning about the personal attacks[42] and his response shows no sign he intends to change.[43] I've never dealt with this editor before nor been in contact with him before today. He has barely even edited in the last year, so I see no reason he should be so extremely hostile towards me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian has the misfortune to have been engadging in a stereotypical mode of behaviour that I dislike on a set of articles that I happened to be looking at, and managed to catch my irritation both barrels. Engaging Collectonian in quite that manner over the mode of behaviour was wrong of me - I should have dealt strickly with the actions and not the person. I apologise If I have been overagressive towards them. Artw (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to believe that when you are canvassing people to come "save" the episode articles with remarks like these[44] (which is a false statement, as only the episode articles were redirected while the main article was actually cleaned up and expanded with real referenced info instead of random stuff). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly remembering why I haven't edited for a while. And yes, removing content and replacing it with a redirect is basically the same as deleting it in most conventional senses of the word - the information no longer exists in the regular public parts of wikipedia. Artw (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how asking someone if they'd be interested in helping improve articles is canvassing (especially as I have Artw's talk page on my watchlist along with a number of the articles in question). This isn't the first time Artw has passed me links to articles he thought I'd be able to help improve (usually sci-fi/horror). As we have disagreed in the past he also knows I'm going to give him my honest opinion.

I would ask Artw to stay civil though, if the articles are going to be improved it is always best to try and keep things as calm as possible so that everyone feels they can contribute their thoughts without worrying someone might snap at them.

Hope that helps explain things from where I sit. Hopefully, the concerns Collectonian rightly raised about the quality of the articles and Artw's wish to save them will help focus attention on the issue and help to resolve this one way or the other (if they can't be fixed they will need redirecting). (Emperor (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Certainly these articles should be improved, but consensus-free summary deletion (we call it "redirect" sometimes) is not the answer. I can see why someone would lose their calm for a moment. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have engaged with this matter via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode). User:AnmaFinotera's position on this article seems to be quite mistaken as this film quite notable and, being a free-standing, self-contained, high-quality production by a major director, fully merits a separate article. The Masters of Horror anthology seems to have been generally made in this style using other big name directors like John Carpenter. Engaging in the unilateral, non-consensual listification which got User:TTN topic banned for disruption seems especially inappropriate and unwise in this case. If User:AnmaFinotera continues with her disruptive provocation then we should perhaps seek a topic ban for her too. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• That has nothing to do with the incivility at all, and after your personal attack in the AfD[45], I don't think you really need to be involved in this discussion at all as it is clear you aren't neutral and are just looking for excuses to bad mouth me some more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:AnmaFinotera is uncivil here, making an insulting edit summary as she edit-wars contrary to consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You started it with that mess in AfD and your deciding that because YOU agree you get to revert rather than actually let the discussion continue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne

Taken to ANI, per below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I could use some advice and help regarding User:AlexLevyOne. The account is just a couple of weeks old but already reflects several hundred edits of highly variable quality. While his intentions appear to be good, he frequently displays some pretty bad judgment, and despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.

It is, for example, not a bad idea to scan articles looking for {fact} tags. But some assertions are more squirrelly than others and it is not always sound editing simply to remove the tagged fact in every instance. Likewise, several short paragraphs can often be collapsed into one, but not at the expense of legibility. This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.

To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many irresponsible ones as well. I think he needs to be reined in a bit – focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it. As for his edits -- I’ve tried to repair some of them, but he is prolific and I can’t keep up with him. That’s another reason for this request. Comments, advice, extra eyes or hands are all welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you as to this user's editing. He declines to have any interaction whatsoever when people raise issues with his edits.

However, I don't know what WQA can achieve. If he won't talk, he won't talk. He doesn't have to talk, but he should recognise that failure to engage will lead to his dubious edits being regarded as disruptive.

If he continues to decline to engage, we can do little but revert and warn. Ultimately, his editing is going to lead to a block. Mayalld (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is WP:ANI a better place for this? (Part of the problem I'm having is that I can't quite figure out what to use to warn him - it's not vandalism, really, but more often just *really bad judgment*. What's a level 3 warning for that?) JohnInDC (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The user clearly has a less-than-adequate grasp of the English language and should probably be editing the French WP rather than trying to "improve" this one. I thought of asking the admins at WP:AN what to do about an editor like this (good faith but incompetent, who refuses, apparently, to read the editing guidelines or to discuss his edits), but frankly, I'm not sure that they can do much, either. I agree that the need to clean up many of his edits, coupled with his persistent silence, are quite frustrating and am open to any suggestions. Deor (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that many of his edits are messing up the appearance of an article, uw-mos might be appropriate (leading to uw-generic4 in the end), some of his edits delete formatting, so uw-delete, or, bluntly, given his persistence in doing the same thing again after non-templated attempts to engage him over his problematic behaviour, uw-vandalism. Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, those MOS templates are good. Thanks. I added one to his Talk page based on one of this morning's edits. JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's just charging along and I'm starting to feel stupid about larding up his Talk page with warnings that he's just ignoring. I think I'm going to go to WP:ANI. JohnInDC (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's here. Please weigh in if you think it would be helpful. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This item can be safely archived - discussion moved to WP:ANI. JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Krzyzowiec

User with long history of extreme incivility incidents [46][47] , multiple civility and revert warring warnings [48] [49] and blocks[50], now openly instigates revert warring, making extremely incivil personal remarks seasoned with anti-Semitic rant about Jews in Czech language [51]"žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit" ("Jews don't steal, they take what belongs to them. Money of the non-Jew is a property without the owner - a Jew has a right to take it" and so on. I think open instigation of revert wars and openly anti-Semitic rants like this are not acceptable, and something must be done about it. M0RD00R (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How about MORDOR'S Behaviour ? Look at his edition in all Polish related articles his adds are mainly around "proofs" for "Polish antisemitism, xenophobia, homophobia etc." That's sick, someone has to stop that other way we will have more propaganda from MORDOR than now. He also removed multiply times citations and sentences in the article about NOP. I tryed to discuss things but MORDOR can't talk, he need to do whatever he want. Situation is very hard because it's mainly impossible to build community and non propaganda Wikipedia while one user do whatever he want in spreading his point of view and no one react for these pathethic actions.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I see little common ground for discussion with you for quite obvious reasons:

• "That's it, you fucking pig. You spread your propaganda too much." [52]
• "Please do something with M0RDOR, he is Polish hating Jew ;(. Ban him, please." Followed by openly anti-Semitic rant in Czech language translated above [53]
• "look at the Mordro's editions - He always delete important things and add non-reliable sources. Maybe ypou should to ban him ?"[54]
• "Stop spreading your Jewish propaganda" [55]
• and last but not least your strange obssesion with my persona. You've been asked kindly to stop using my username in edit summaries and respecting WP:NPA ages ago. But still every now and then I'm being reminded "This is not your playground" [56] [57], I'm being mentioned in random edit summaries [58], and slandered with usual "propaganda" nonsense:

• Some users treat Wikipedia as their own propaganda spreading tool machine such as MORDOR
• stop spreading your propaganda.
• Stop spreading your Jewish propaganda
• Stop spreading ur propaganda about the Poland, MORDOR
• or the "pig quote" mentioned above [59].

You've been advised to cut down propaganda accusations by neutral editor just weeks ago [60], and yet you've done it again here [61].

That said, even if I see little common ground for reasonable discussion with you, that does not mean that I'm not willing to discuss your edits with uninvolved editors. I always welcome outside opinion in cases like this. As you know your edits were discussed for example here and here. And also as you are aware, your arguments have been dismissed by uninvolved editors as "nonsense" [62] and "borderline for being deleted as unacceptably racist on a noticeboard"[63]. Lately yet again consensus has been reached that your edits fail WP:RS and other policies [64], but still you have reverted consensus version with edit summary "Revert vandalism" [65].

But the fact that when things does not go your way over the organization (National Rebirth of Poland) that you've openly associate yourself with [66], you resort to extreme incivility [67] or straight forward disruption [68][69][70] [71] this is nothing compared with this recent openly antisemitic edit [72]. Wiki is not the place where antisemitic canards will be tolerated. M0RD00R (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

user:rspeer

Resolved

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He may have been impolite lately, possibly biting another, as you can see here ([73]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He did look a bit bitey - maybe leave a polite note on his talk page and see how it goes from there...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done: I left him a note...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Bettering the Wiki 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs)

I may have violated some Wikiquette, but I'd like to know what in particular made this necessary. The diff links to the entire conversation between me and MCB. I do not claim to get along with MCB, but it would help to know what part of that conversation crossed the line.

The word "bitey" is strange here, because it seems to refer to don't bite the newbies, and my entire goal on UAA is to prevent biting of newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• WQA often confuses me, but this one a bit moreso. How exactly did Rspeer "bite a newbie" here? ^S._D.Jameson 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• He bit an established user, not a newbieBettering the Wiki (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for using the wrong terminology, but you seemed rather stressed and hotheaded.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think all will be well if we just leave this. The comments were not 'biting' per se, but weren't entirely civil. Treating this as a 'warning shot' would probably b best - as rspeer is an obviously great user, showing unsurpassed kindness to newcomers. One argument and he's at WQA - that seems extreme. Let's just let it be for now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree to close this, but not before warning rspeer that another action will be higher in the dispute resoultion process. I say this not to be mean, but to control his behavior.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely your choice if you want to escalate this or pursue the next step in dispute resolution should another incident occur. Howeverh, I will expressly state that I don't think it is necessary, nor do I think it will necessarily be looked upon in your favour. Dendodge has summed it up - no action is necessary here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of civility from User:Maurice27.

In the context of a dispute about possible vandalism from User:Maurice27, he has been showing a lack of civility with his own user talk page:

1. First, he has shouting me on my own talk page. I'd claimed him not to shout me.
2. Second, he removed my claim and has attacked me saying I'm a "dumbass" in a resume description of reversion from history talk page. I'd claimed him not to attack me.
3. Third, he removed again my respectful claim, and has attacked me saying I'm telling "foolish words" in Spanish "A palabras necias..." (I'm Spanish-speaker). This is a part of a popular expression in Spanish language that is "A palabras necias, oidos sordos", it means "Foolish words, deaf ears".

See in History of talk page from this user, from August 12th at 11:00 AM to 11:06AM.

Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BehnamFarid

Resolved

 – User advised by Stifle. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite thick skinned but BehnamFarid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have recent history [74] and I do not wish to inflame the situation more by delaing with him myself. Specificall I alert you to his personal attacks here and on another editor's talk page here. --triwbe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anonymous_Dissident

Stale

 – No users have responded in 5 days. Becky seems to have dropped the matter. --Smashville^BONK! 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anonymous_Dissident repeatedly makes indirect personal attacks:

• Calling an AFD nomination "very poor" with no address of the arguments presented.[75]
• Giving undue "advice" about conduct in AFD debates [76]
• Making condescending remarks in response to a polite template warning [77]
• Making false accusations [78]
• Calling user actions "ludicrous" [79] rather than providing constructive criticism or basic discussion
• Calling user actions "silly" [80] rather than providing constructive criticism or basic discussion Becky Sayles (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks. I think because the discussion was heated, you have taken offence when none was present or intended. The issue seems to be a result of an AfD, which has now closed, and I believe we can consider this issue closed also. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't take offense for anything he wrote, nothing that important. I just chose to identify problems with the way he conducted himself. Calling things ludicrous or silly, not someone, has implications on the person responsible for them. Clearly a single editor is responsible for nominating an article, and to call the nomination poor without discussion is a direct attack on the editor by intent. He would rather call the nomination poor than to treat the nominating editor with respect and to explain his !vote. It seems counterproductive to call things silly or ludicrous, and not to actually discuss relevant issues. He appeared not to understand that such discussions are not democratic votes, nor that quick responses to comments does not imply belief in the contrary. I tried to bring up issues with comments by left by other editors, and I got condescending advice about not being able to change the outcome. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling a nomination poor is not an attack. WP:NPA even says that this situation is not a personal attack: "A posting that says 'Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y', or 'The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research', is not a personal attack." You are not the nomination. He called the nomination poor, he did not call you poor. I don't know how to make that any clearer that it is not a personal attack. Also, the thing he called "silly" and "ludicrous" was you warning him for making a personal attack when he didn't do so...there is nothing "counterproductive" about it. The only counterproductive part is making a big issue by misrepresenting facts here. I don't understand what sort of "productivity" you expect from that conversation anyway. --Smashville^BONK! 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take in a little more detail:

• The admin referred to an AfD nomination as a poor nomination. The user is being uncivil towards the nomination?
• The admin gives you advice that responding to each keep nomination with a question is not going to result in a change of result.
• The "polite" template that you gave the admin was in response to him telling you that responding to each keep nomination would not change the result. You therefore incorrectly templated him for a personal attack. His statement that he did not make a personal attack is correct and in no way uncivil.
• Again, a rather civil response to you after you have templated him and made this post on his talk page. Posting a link on an admin's page on "How to Discuss an AfD" is simply snarky and uncalled for. Given that, the response you were given was rather polite.
• The admin says it is ludicrous to view his statement as an attack. That is neither uncivil nor untrue. There was no personal attack.
• He states that the believing that a page with frequent updates is considered a blog is silly. He did not call you silly.

I also note you did not inform him of this discussion. After reviewing these edits and other edits, you are the only one that seems to be behaving in a slightly uncivil manner. You are taking disagreement to your AfD nomination a little too personally. If you nominate an article that people are actively working on for deletion, you can expect there to be disagreement about it. A person giving you advice is not a personal attack. However, templating someone when they did not attack you is itself considered a personal attack. As per above, this should be considered a closed issue and the only reason I tacked this on was that I thought it was a little more detail (and I spent a long time writing before my edit conflict) --Smashville^BONK! 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Telling me that the result would not change is contrary to the purpose of the discussion. I discuss the comments of other editors. He makes the assumption that he is right, rather than participating in the discussion appropriately, making comments about conduct. I feel as though being an admin is being given excessive weight. An admin who does not constructively contribute to the discussion [81] should be held to the same standards as any other editor. If I incorrectly used the template, that certainly can be my mistake. But Templating an admin in general, and providing a link to information that might help him work more constructively in future AFD discussions, I thought was appropriate. To me he appeared not to understand how an AFD works, so I attempted to point him in the right direction. This was based on the absence of discussion with his post calling the nomination poor, and his use of the discussion to generate comments about editor conduct rather than placing that on a user talk page. I made the assumption that the AFD should be limited to the article nominated, and that talk pages would be more appropriate for the rest.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep within the parameters of your report, which alleges personal attack. Two other editors thus far have said they think this report is bogus. Rather than abusing templates, filing bogus reports, and generally making untrue accusations against others, I would advise you to be less liberal and willing to make incorrect and blatantly false assertions and allegations. Such can cause problems here, as no-one enjoys being warned about, accused of doing, something they never did. So now I will warn you: make sure what you are accusing someone of is true by policy, else problems could result. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that your entire complaint is based upon a personal attack made by you (templating someone and accusing them of a personal attack when there was no personal attack is considered a personal attack) and the reaction thereafter. Taking this to WQA afterwards is almost certainly a continued personal attack. And the "not appearing to understand how an AfD works" again is just plain snarky and uncalled for. That he didn't explain his logic entirely is not a personal attack and your behavior hereafter, including taking this to WQA, is simply rude. When someone disagrees with you or tells you that your actions are not warranted, it is not a personal attack. The only person who has behaved poorly in this situation, Becky, is you. AD has been more civil than one could expect given your behavior towards him. --Smashville^BONK! 13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Canada Jack

Resolved

 – User warned/advised by IronDuke. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone could help cool down a situation where a long-time user appears to be taking everything that I am trying to explain to him with great hostility. After posting in proxy for the indef. blocked User:Ryoung122. I left him a message on his talk page indicating that indefinitely blocked users do not get a say on Wikipedia and that proxy posting could have consequences. He responded not on his talk page, but on the talk page of the article in question telling me to be a little bit less of an asshole. I warned him not to be uncivil and gave him an opportunity to remove his comments himself, at which point I would have entirely forgotten about the incident. His response, again on the talk page of the article, was to accuse me of threatening him and to tell me to "back off, and cease being an asshole. I don't know who the hell you think you are, but grow up." I find this response entirely inappropriate given the tone of my comments on his talk page (note that I even prematurely apologized in my first comment, in case I was mistaken with his proxy posting), but I feel as if anything I could say directly to him at this point would only escalate the situation.

Canada Jack has been an excellent contributor over the past few years, as far as I can tell, so I am uncertain as to why he is reacting this way. I do not feel that, at this point, any use of administrative tools is appropriate, given his standing, so I was hoping that someone here could explain the situation better than I could, or at least in a way that he would take less offense. Usually the standard procedure would be to remove the incivility, but I am afraid to do it myself and escalate the problem but in this case I moved it out of the article talk page and into the user talk page. Cheers, CP 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For full discretion: I moved another uncivil comment to the talk page. Cheers, CP 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Those remarks look pretty bad to me. I have given my two pence here. IronDuke 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming your counselling is going to work to resolve this issue (it's very good) - if it doesn't, and there's no change (further assumptions of bad faith/incivility/personal attacks), then please change the tag to Stuck. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidea

Resolved

Wikidea is currently using edit summaries to accuse me of trolling, stalking (despite the fact that I first edited that page on 24 February 2008) and for not being smart. On article's discussion page he also accused me of being a troll and expressing wish that I would go away [82].

He was warned to watch on his manners by User:84user [83], me [84], and User:Yannismarou [85], [86]. -- Vision Thing -- 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by every word, and my record in every page that he is messing with, against this vexatious, impudent troll. Wikidea 01:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to echo User:Yannismarou—cool down, Wikidea. Cool Hand Luke 04:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His latest comment: I wrote it you moron. -- Vision Thing -- 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for that. And the next time I called you a moron as well, which I'm deleting from the talk page. You seem to have stopped making a nuisance, which I appreciate. Wikidea 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Haroldandkumar12

Resolved

 – Sockpuppets blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up on the user User:Haroldandkumar12, he has been making repeated personal and civil attacks such as this and here and reverting whenever they're removed. He's starting to become a nuisance. Rehevkor ✉ 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a bunch more uncivil posts by this user, from the same article. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well fuck you guys I'm putting you douches on this list cause you guys are jerks to me. Zombified24 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

very amusing. I'll leave this here as another example of his behaviour. Rehevkor ✉ 01:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I have tons of usernames with easy passwords to remember so I dont care. I'm like a Jew, I'm everywhere and you just dont know it! Zombified24 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SergeiXXX

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This emotional editor usually doesn't edit pages, but instead posts uncivil comments at talk pages. I think we have to draw a line and give him a final warning or a block, since he's been warned before.[87]

He has also vandalised pages before: [88]

Here's examples of him being extremely uncivil often towards other users: [89][90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

The last four were from today. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see this user is already blocked for 2 days. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Badgering and lack of civility shown by User:Dfgarcia

Stuck

 – referred to mediation cabal

Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my history you will notice that User:Dfgarcia is constantly leaving me messages regarding his "profession" as an ESL teacher, and offering to "teach" me things. I have tried to ignore him and lately I admit that out of frustration I have lashed out at him. He constantly provokes me, and as you can see I have NEVER left a message for him that was not in response to a message that he left for me, usually without reason. Please ask this "editor" to cease with his childish games and snobbish attitude towards me and to immediately terminate his annoying habbit of posting messages on my talk page. I have nothing more to say to him, he is not leaving constructive advise for me for any other reason but to be cleverly demeaning towards me and to insult my character, much in the way an unpopular schoolboy would try to "tattle" on his classmates. Further dialouge with him is nothing more than a pointless waste of my time. Thanks. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, he is attacking you. I will leave a note on his talk page promptly.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 DoneBettering the Wiki (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... you don't get it either: [97]. dfg (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to substantiate your claims on that page,DF.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then I'm glad it was someone else who took meaningful action: the sysop involved both warned and blocked the above user.  Done dfg (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at edit histories, I think Wjmummert would benefit from some kind of mentorship. While prolific, he doesn't seem to 'get' some aspects of Wikipedia; I'm looking at the extensive, and largely unchallenged, unsourced editorialising in Chicago Cubs articles (which need a WP:NOR cluebat in general). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree, and had hoped to clue him in on such, except that he was very combative to begin with and it devolved into this mess. That he is so prolific and makes so many incremental edits further discouraged me from jumping in and trying to work together. He has received some guidance from other Chicago-topic editors whose names I won't drag into this, but it's been slow going. If anyone knows of an extremely patient mentor willing to step in to situations like this, please alert them. dfg (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* This is only getting worse...I have no choice but to reccommend you to the mediation cabal.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest reading up. Additionally, in the future, take the action first, and then template, not vice versa with over an hour's delay. dfg (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what action? I did not do anything relating to this cases outside of here, or your user talk pages.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, then; I assumed your note meant that you would be posting a notice to Mediation Cabal, rather than a referral to the original poster. I chalk the misunderstanding up to a lack of experience with these procedural WP pages. However, I do find it extremely amusing that you have failed to note (getting back to my "reading up" comment) that the admin who took action in this case is listed as one of two coordinators for the Mediation Cabal. Don't you think he would have suggested it (MC) himself to either party if he thought it were worthwhile, instead of unilaterally blocking one? I do. dfg (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001

Note: Case re-opened.

Hello. I've noticed a bad side of Ward3001. In response to this warning, I told him that it may be best to tone it down a bit here. (Note: It submitted three times because I continually tweaked it after clicking save, but before the page reloaded.) Then, Okiefromokla said the same thing. He then dismissed our comments and left a nasty message at my talk page. I then explained and apologized for the misunderstanding and again, he dismissed it. I was wondering what I should do. Thanks! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed message at this user's talk page regarding the issue. As long he stays calm in the future, there shouldn't be a problem. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-opened the case as the user continues to leave messages, as he did here. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You've neglected to mention that you've very patronizingly templated him. Even for people not familiar with WP:DTTR, don't you think one that starts with "Welcome to Wikipedia" and ends with "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia" would irk someone who's been here for years? dfg (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So I give him a 4im? I'm not gonna be that iffy about this. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. No, don't use one at all. If you can take the time to file a Wikiquette alert, why on earth wouldn't you take the time to write a personal note? I can understand using the template in initial correspondence, but using it after already having had terse words seems like very poor judgment, or if one doesn't want to WP:AGF, being smarmy. dfg (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I didn't want to write a note is that he would revert it, so what would be the use? I also reverted the template addition. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your logic escapes me. If you felt it wouldn't be of use, why even leave a template? Furthermore, while I agree reverting the template was well-intentioned and a good move diplomatically, perhaps it would have also been a good idea to leave a detailed explanation for the revert (possibly even an apology), either in the edit summary or on the talk page. Doing that might have circumvented Ward taking further offense and reverting your revert. Just sayin'. dfg (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what we have here is an honest misjudgment from Jonathan. We can all forgive him for that — I certainly don't see any negative intent on his part, although it might be a stretch to say that Ward3001 engaged in a personal attack. Ward, however, has been deliberately confrontational. The original issue was really quite insignificant: He warned a vandal using bolded capital letters ("yelling") and both Jonathan and I advised him to refrain from doing this. While he made it clear that he is unwilling to acknowledge that this was indeed inappropriate behavior, I'm only really interested if he continues to break talk page guidelines and WP:CIVIL. In such a case, he will be warned again and then blocked temporarily for incivility. Perhaps the best and only thing that can come from this Wikiquette alert is a few more editors confirming that civility and talk page guidelines apply to everyone — even when dealing with vandals. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries

For about a year I have occasionally contributed to the Traditional marriage movement article, as has Agnaramasi. It is probably fair to say we have "butted heads" on several content issues related to the article, but except in one respect the article content seems to be "good enough" for both of us. That one unresolved issue is regarding the inclusion of some sort of image that "makes sense" for the article. I found one that seems pretty good, though obviously not perfect. Agnaramasi has deleted it each time I have added it. The edit summary for the most recent revert included, "please do not add this rediculous image again." I do not think my edit was ridiculous! Moreover, I feel the wording of this edit summary ridicules my contribution, which is being made in good faith. With this note on Agnaramasi's talk page I attempted, in a civil way, to bring this ridicule to Agnaramasi's attention. The response from Agnaramasi does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for effective collaboration.

The underlying content issue can be discussed at Talk:Traditional_marriage_movement#Picture_needed, should anyone wish to express an opinion on that. This "Wikiquette alerts" forum was the only place I could find to ask for peer review of the meta-issue of civility, particularly in the (essentially unalterable) edit summaries. (sdsds - talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The insanity of Libro0

Libro0 thinks I am heading up some big sockpuppet ring to drive him crazy or something. He is trying to hide his talk page. He has made two sockpuppet cases against me at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (2nd) claiming everyone who is against him is a sockpuppet and claims crazy evidence. He has acted in an uncivl way all because he wasn't getting his way in baseball card articles. He needs to be removed. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I archived the talk page because it has become very long. Everything in there still remains viewable. Libro0 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jjtromans

Constantly adding "sockpuppets" to my page, despite having no evidence to say they are mine. have requested that s/he stop as the "sockpuppets" are not mine (one is my IP address, another is my old work IP, so should be removed as my old work may be used by another editor, and another is from my old PC in my old home - the only one that is mine is my current IP address) and he simply stated that I was a "liar". He has repeatedly reverted my (correct edits). TBH, I think a warning should suffice in the first instance, but if he continues a ban may be neccesary. Thanks. Step13thirteen (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entries he pleaced on the IP-pages. Make sure that you do not "forget to login" in order to "accidentally" circumvent Wikipedia rules. An Admin will want to keep an eye on 3RR's for both users.

User:Fragments of Jade

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have finally reached the limit of my politeness with the above-noted editor. One day, while monitoring "recent changes" I saw a rather heated response in the Talk Page of Silent Hill. I stopped by to help to resolve the issue. Very early on, I was attacked by this user, and referred on their discussion page as a "pervert". I have since been accused of being a sockpuppet (although not officially, even though I have asked them to), been told that I'm a liar and a freak. Sadly, they have referred to others in involved in the same mediation efforts as "stalkers" and "psychos". I have tried to assist the editor, and politely help them to actually understand policy and even the concept of AGF. One day, I even gave them an official "welcome" using the cookie-based template to show that I was honestly friendly.

Not long ago, the editor again referred to me as a sockpuppet, and a liarm and I placed a comment on their dicussion page that VERY firmly (as I should have before) advised them of how disturbing their comments were.

They then blanked there page, and called me a "pervert" in the edit SUMMARY.

That was indeed the last straw. I am now in permanent record a pervert - that's libel, and is not acceptable conduct on ANY internet site, let alone on Wikipedia.

This may have to be escalated, as they already have shown a propensity to not respect admins, and I see little chance that they will change.

I am done trying to defend this editor and their right to edit when I am abused and attacked, and called a "pervert". This editor needs to be stopped.

Sorry to disturb, but I will truly appreciate whoever's assistance. BMW(drive) 23:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked one week for other offenses. [98] Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I really hope that someone "adopts" this editor when they return. Unfortunately, their ban does not address the issues above, but someone will need to let this user know that because other people either disagree, OR they try to get you to follow Wikipedia policies, that does NOT permit you to attack, call names (such as pervert), or otherwise try and discredit others. I tried to help them, but I'm not going to hang around for additional abuse. BMW(drive) 09:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ckatz

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Appears to be mainly a style/content issue. Recommended WP:3O or WP:RfC

Ckatz is a "consensus monkey" - he contributes virtually nothing to the talk page, then he re-writes the article saying it's the consensus - leave the re-writes to those actually actively discussing things, I say. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs or particular articles? Ckatz is a widely active editor, so it would be difficult for one to guess what it is you are referencing in your note. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher, thanks for looking into this. Frankly, I'd appreciate an uninvolved perspective as this editor has become quite disruptive. Having not achieved what he wanted at the Solar System article, he has now resorted to a series of personal criticisms/attacks directed at Ashill, Serendipodous, and myself, including this filing, a checkuser request, and an accusation of sock puppetry. (Apparently, Ashill, Serendipodous and myself are one and the same editor.) Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the talk page Solar System discussion. I noticed that there is already an open thread here regarding HarryAlffa and this discussion above. In the interest of keeping the discussion in one place, and in the absence of any diffs against Ckatz, I would move that this conversation be concentrated above in the existing Wikiquette Alert. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only point to the Solar System on the 9th & 11th of August |diff1 |diff2. If you go to the talk page at this point, you will find only one contribution from Ckatz. Myself and one other editor were actively editing the "Ice" paragraph, while one other wanted rid of it, then Ckatz removed it twice - erroneously claiming consensus.

I found another example of someone complaining about exactly this behaviour on Ckatz's talk page, but don't have time at the minute to search again for it.

As I said yesterday in the complaint about me on this page;

Please do read, as Ckatz said, "the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous," and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions.

Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and "acting" required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say.

Ckatz would have read this before he put his post above, so why did Ckatz make out that I was still claiming sock-puppetry? Basic dishonesty? I know Ckatz and Ashill will have read this, because one or both of them is "spying" on my contributions, as they both turned up to on various pages on the May contain nuts I didn't tell them about.

Ashill, Serendipodous and Ckatz seem to view making points they have no answer to as disruptive behaviour. I did critique Ashill's cognitive abilities (see the complaint about me on this page), can anyone offer any counter arguments? But this one deconstruction of another's comments cannot be described as a series. I would appreciate any intelligent editor casting an analytical eye over Ckatz who is revealing himself to be as honest as a politician or a tabloid journalist. -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

First, please avoid comments like "as honest as a politician or a tabloid journalist." Second, after another reading of the article's talk page, I cannot find an instance of Ckatz breaching Wikiquette or being uncivil. The talk page discussion seems lively and reasonably professional. I commend that, and hope this conduct continues. As far as a content/stylistic dispute is concerned, this is most likely not the correct venue (as my astronomy knowledge is limited). I recommend either Third Opinion or Requests for Comment if the talk page is not working. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your fair summary of the talk page. I am still somewhat ignorant of wiki-community rules, so by placing my complaint here you have concluded that I thought Ckatz was bein uncivil, my fault for that! I had thought that being a concensus monkey would be frowned upon? Ckatz hasn't contributed to the talk page in this, so he hasn't expressed himself uncivilly. Above, on this page he has been spinning things a little. I think that is obvious?

Surely it would be a terrible thing if even sarcasm, "as honest as a politician or a tabloid journalist" was pollitically incorrect? Thank you for your time spent on this. -HarryAlffa (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Harry. Generally, this forum is for Wikiquette concerns, rather than content concerns. Regarding your remark, the difficulty is that we are only communicating via keyboards and monitors, therefore sarcasm can, and often is, misinterpreted. That you did not mean it as such is good, and I am glad that you took the time to mention it here. Again, most kind regards. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has been engaging in mass reversion of maintainence tags including:

• [99]
• [100]
• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
• [104]
• [105]
• [106]

I believe that unsourced POV is unencylopedic and unhelpful, and his edits are disruptive and detremential to the project Fasach Nua (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute - you can pursue Article RFC or mediation at WP:DR, but this is not the venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Domer48

I would like someone to take a look at the incivility I am having to endure from this user. I commenced posting at 16:19 on 29th July. By 17:59 this report had been submitted accusing me of abusive sockpuppetry, which was never the case. You can also see the use of propaganda POV editing, conflict of interest, disruptive editing, copyright violations, edit warring, and "a mockery of Wikipedia". The abuse continued under the guise of the complaint calling me "a self confessed UDR man" which I presume was intended to indicate I was not a fit person to edit the article at Ulster Defence Regiment, accusing me of having several brand new accounts, and deceiving other editors. Because of the perceived harrassment I reported the matter on this page here and as you can see admonishments were handed out by Admins. As you can see I attempted to redress the issue by inviting the user to participate here and here. My attempts at friendliness were rebuffed by incivil comments as the user removed my entries from his talk page, on several of them accusing me of policy violations. On my own talk page I was again accused of violating policy here. I have resolved myself not to become involved with this user again where possible because he seems to have the ability to make me lose my cool. I do note however he has a long track record of incivility to a number of users and (I believe) had a ban for the very same thing quite recently. I do not feel this type of behaviour has any place in Wikipedia and respectfully ask for an interested admin to look into it.The Thunderer (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping again? Please be civil, stay of my talk page and the next time you call me a "rabid Irish bigot" I will request you get more than a slap on the wrist. And Alison never said you were not a sock, just that you were not an abusive sock-puppetry. I disagree, go figure? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask admins to note the comments by User:Domer48, the disdain he shows for the concern he has caused. Also the way he is trying to twist the comment made at "rabid Irish bigot" which, while perhaps a little strong of me, it's direction at any one individual is emphatically denied here, something which Mr Domer failed to notice or point out. I would also request that the tone of my comments be examined in the fond hope that they are found to be non-inflammatory as my intention all along has been to remain civil and try to negotiate a settlement with the editors who seem to have taken such a distaste for the edits I produce at Ulster Defence Regiment.The Thunderer (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagdfeld

Stale

Various users on the Anglophilia article have been on the receiving end of some rather uncivil behaviour from the above-mentioned user.

• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice.

"My worry is that you are presuming to edit when you cannot even spell Adolf. Perhaps stick to Romanian?"

"(PS your command of the English language might be improved.)"

• Referring to other editors' good-faith changes as vandalism.

"Problems with Francis Tyers: repeated vandalism"

"why have you been indulging in ... indiscriminate vandalism?"

"It is now perfectly clear, given his history of vandalism of this article, that Francis Tyers should be blocked."

"Thank you, Francis/Jimmy. Reporting yourself for vandalism and sock puppetry would be helpful."

• Rudeness

"When you are dead, or get older, you might feel embarrassed at being a time-waster."

"Have a shave. Get a haircut. Have a wash."

"I am telling you to grow up"

These provide some examples of the kind of aggressive discussion that we think breaches Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policies. - Francis Tyers · 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the user has been warned by an admin already about civility, see here. - Francis Tyers · 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Berlin

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Hello, I've been working on Berlin for a couple of days now. It had a lot of dead links and a lot of the references weren't formatted consistently. I repaired the links, formatted and added a couple of references and changed some of the pictures to better versions of the same subjects. About 60 edits in all so quite a lot of work. Then I got this message on my talk page [107] and this editor reverted all 60 edits in one go [108] including back to all the broken links. I reverted the edit [109]. Please can someone help, I will try and reason with the person as well regarding sources though I feel a 60-edit revert needs to be reported somewhere. thanks very much Tom (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Compounding references as you did, Tom, is a very good practice. Rather than reducing the credibility of an article it enhances compactness on what we see and even more on what we store as source code. Moreover, it conveys easily the significance of a single source for the referencing thereby rather increasing the article's credibility, I find. I guess it is for these reasons that we are encouraged to work like this.

It's probably OK to disagree with this guide line, since it does not sound very strict. However, such arguable disagreement certainly does not justify the revert of so many necessary, obviously improving edits. I wish both of you good luck resolving this. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has made comments on User_talk:Tony1#Further_observations, [110] (now reverted by another user) and User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Date_linking that I consider rude, insulting and to be personal attacks, simply because I questioned another user for going through pages and systematically removing links from dates.

User:Malleus Fatuorum has made no effort to state his case for removing date links (I'm always open to listening to people's point of view or suggestions of a new policy!) and has instead simply posted insults on the talk pages. Please could someone have a look at this? Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 09:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Take Malleus' insults to an admin, if you ask me. I think he needs some time off Wikipedia to cool down and come back once he realizes that people here should be treated with respect. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate situation involving an overreaction by Malleus to what was, IMO, a rather odd post by JRawle on my talk page, much of it apparently a standard paste-in (for newbies?) that was inappropriate under the circumstances; I do believe that JRawle was heavy-handed in the "Warning" title and information sign, which did not assume good faith on my part. It clearly perplexed Malleus as much as it did me, but that's no excuse for Malleus's comments, in which he has played loose with language there and at MOSNUM (linked to). I believe he owes JRawle an apology. Malleus, will that be forthcoming? It's not hard. Your posts were a bit over the top, weren't they? Tony (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if he wanted to apologise, it may be difficult to get one now, as he has been blocked for 24 hours by an admin JRawle contacted. I think the blocking was premature and escalates the matter, given that an apology could have been agreed upon until that point.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus was given ample opportunity to resolve the matter, as per my conversation with him on his talk page. He instead refused to do so, and chose to continue with the uncivil behaviour. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that what you did was wrong, as your actions comply with the blocking policy. However, I just think there might have been some room for other editors, probably some who knew Malleus, to persuade him to make a retraction and apology if imposing the block had been delayed for a little extra time. Oh well, it's done now.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have apologised to Tony1 for the inappropriate template I pasted, which wasn't the right way to discuss edits he was making.

I would also like to point out that I did not contact any administrators to ask for Malleus Fatuorum to be blocked. If an admin saw this discussion and edits by Malleus Fatuorum and decided to block him, so be it, but that was not my original intention. Just thought I'd make that clear. JRawle (Talk) 10:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. my mistake. Sorry.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. I did contact Ckatz, but that was to thank him/her for reverting one rude comment from a talk page. I was unaware that Ckatz was an administrator, and that was before anyone had suggested contacting an administrator or blocking. JRawle (Talk) 10:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Several users were expressing concerns, but what was alarming was not so much that the incivility continued, but that it became more pointy with direct personal attacks (eg; "one of your idiot friends"). I think the block was appropriate and seems to have resolved the matter for now. If there is further incivility during or after the block, then it's probably something for the next step in dispute resolution, or for admins to deal with at the admin noticeboard. Of course, it's ideal if it stops. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Thivierr

Resolved

 – User raising complaint indef blocked for abusive sockpuppetry

This user seems intent on making unevidenced accusations that I am a sockpuppet and a troll [[111]] . I've directed him to WP:RFCU but to no avail. His accusations run counter to the guideline WP:BITE and his comments are in the lowest levels of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution hierarchy of disagreement. He has made massive changes to my userspace, which while allowed under WP:userspace, is generally considered impolite. --ENAIC (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

ENAIC, you have very few edits and your user page appears to be a massive (800+) link farm. Is there a reason for that? Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The (Ad hominem) 'link farm' on my user page is a list of references from various articles. The discussion on WP:BOT NB, was about converting bare reference external links. I compiled a random list of refs for analysis. --ENAIC (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:ENAIC is indef blocked as sock puppet. --Rob (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism Advocation of the July 2005 Bombings on Summer 2012 Olympics Page by Admin

Resolved

 – Taken to ANI; filing party warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE TO GO WITH THIS. There is some very suspicious (and racist) behavior by one (perhaps socketpuppetry) or two editors advocating terrorism of the July 2005 Bombings on this page. The admin has blocked content change. Please help. I am new to wiki and dont know how to fight them Do not let the terrorists win--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough. For those of you new to this saga, this user has:

• Already had a 12hr block for 3RR
• Repeatedly made misleading edit summaries, covering deletion and alteration of both her own comments and those of other editors
• Has a notice up at WP:ANI here detailing her actions

Multiple editors have attempted to reason with her. I have tried enlisting a Polish-speaking (the user identifies as Polish) editor to speak with her in her native tongue, whence comes the accusation of racism. Essentially, the user believes that factual reporting of a terrorist incident (July 7 bombings in London) in an article about the 2012 Olympics (referencing that news coverage of the bid win was overshadowed by the bombings) is 'terrorist propaganda'. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This has also been inappropriately raised at WP:COIN [112]. Frankly this smells of trolling. For someone completely new to Wikipedia, this editor knows about sockpuppets and WP:COIN and WP:WQA? I don't think so. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's beginning to smell. WP:Checkuser? Kbthompson (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith based on youth + English as a second language. It is getting enormously tedious, though. I think checkuser is a good idea. Would you like me to file it? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, I got tied up in knots trying to work out how to do it! I've issued a final warning, rational discussion OK, blatting inappropriate boards with complaints, not. This does not preclude further discussion on the user's talk page, but does prevent further disruption. I've asked for comments on this action at WP:ANI. Kbthompson (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you by at least four or five editors. Please, please take a break until you calm down and we have the chance to have someone explain to you in your native language why this is not how Wikipedia works. We clearly have a language barrier that we need to get through, so please, just take a break. Okay? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield

Stale

• Template talk:Sexual orientation (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk · contribs)
• Alynna Kasmira (talk · contribs)
• Benjiboi (talk · contribs)
• Luna Santin (talk · contribs)

A recent dispute on Template talk:Sexual orientation has been getting a bit nasty, recently. In particular, when responding to this comment from Alynna Kasmira, another user named Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield said "you are just like a child with a semi-automatic pistol" and made a further allusion to (I think) what they called Alynna's "poor education." Benjiboi said that he found Nigel's comment offensive, to which Nigel replied that "offense is part of learning" and that he has an absolute right to offend. See Benjiboi's next reply and Nigel's following retort. When I reminded Nigel of his obligation to maintain civil dialogue, I was told to "suck the lemon" (I'm not sure if I should be offended or not?).

I would love to see a return to calm conversation, but doubt I can achieve that acting alone, at this point. A little help? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that Nigel does not actually seem to want to edit wikipedia (by his own admission) but only enters into disputes on talk pages. this would not normally be a problem, mind you - more inout is always better - except for his tendency to be offensive rather than productive. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr... Is this him?Is this about him? I only add these items because I started searching for the credentials of a Dr ... even I can call myself a Doctor on the Internet. However, when one asserts a level of knowledge on a subject, and decides they are "right" because they are a Doctor, one must determine veracity. There cannot be a large number of people with this EXACT name who are doctors. BMW(drive) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the links you gave, but I'm not sure this kind of 'identity outing' is within policy. I really don't know, but it makes me uneasy, so I thought I'd raise the issue. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has created a username that appears to be a complete, proper name including title. The name is easily Google-able. The user is either named that (and thus outed themself), made up a name (in which case, it might be a bad choice), is a "fan" of the person (which might be in bad taste), or used that name just to stir up controversy (which would be against policy). Any single user in Wikipedia, or even the general public can do the exact same search and find the exact same results. As such, no policy has been violated by me. I merely wanted to point out that the editor's focus on specific topics may indeed be related to a person who happens to go by the exact same name as the username chosen. BMW(drive) 23:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

that makes sense to me. apologies for the unnecessary tangent. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Concerns over policy vio = good editor :) BMW(drive) 00:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is me on YT, albeit interpreted by haters :) That is my full name, they are my academic credentials and have never been attributed to, in the topics under discussion. What area they are in need not concern anyone here, at this time. Now, what is the problem, other than hypersensitivity and the inability of some to see inverted commas? Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I did fancy adding a reference to an article, today :) Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a horrible feeling that the problem, as far as User:Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield is concerned, is everybody else. This isn't the first academic I've seen who has no time for unfamiliar community practices - and in this case Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks spring to mind. Unfortunately, those are the behavioural norms here and it is accepted practice to ban or block editors who commit repeated or serious breaches of them. Therefore I urge User:Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield to review both pages and to make an effort to play nicely with the other kids. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

hey! no academic bashing! Some of us are well-adjusted, you know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

SS: Then you have not read my comments and, obviously, know little about me (how could you?). 'Kids' is appropriate, in many cases, in an intellectual sense ... you are correct. Thank you for playing. Yours, Nigel, Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nigel, it's exactly comments like you just made that will eventually result in you being blocked on Wikipedia. This is a collective - a commune if you will - which you signed on to, and of which you agreed to the policies and goals by applying for a user account. In Wikipedia, all are equal, and all have equal say. One of the policies you agree to is to be civil to other editors. I left the "Welcome" template on your user page so that you would take a few moments to avail yourself of your roles, rights, and responsibilities. They are not optional. The reason this discussion appears here in Wikiquette alerts is because you took the first step: incivility towards other editors. The attempt now is to help you fix this before the next step, which would require administrative warnings and blocks. If you truly feel you have valid input into Wikipedia, stick around and use the rules you agreed to. Unlike society, where you are required to inherit the laws of where you live or visit, on Wikipedia you have made a conscious decision to accept a series of rules by your own personal choice. If you did not like the rules and conditions of use, then you had the opportunity to not join. BMW(drive) 11:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, all are equal, and all have equal say Apparently not, and the odd thing is, my funny little fellow, I am being civil. Perhaps not to your USA/Canadian sensibilities, but that is not my concern. Vandalise my talkpage, if you want, block me, if you will, ban me, if you must ... that will merely confirm my propositions. I think you overestimate the importance of this wiki. Do you think there is anything you can say to me, within this sphere, that is news? Again, I recommend you read my posts, with greater care, before you make any further, rash accusations. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, how would you feel if a new student joined one of your classes, and proceeded to disrupt the discussion by treating everyone with an air of insufferable superiority, because they were (let's say) an outstanding football player? How would you go about explaining that achievements in one field, no matter how impressive, are utterly irrelevant to how one should conduct oneself in other fields? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your false analogy is noted. It would depend on whether he knew more about the topic I was teaching and/or he was more skilled in conveying it and/or he had an evidenced, successful history of intellectual pursuit. If he qualified, on these points, heck, I would welcome him, with open arms, and maybe let him run the show ;) No more scenarios to aggravate the situation, please. Yours. Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You behave as if you are ignorant of how to behave on Wikipedia, yet you dismiss any concerns that your behaviour is improper, and you continue to needle and insult editors who are trying to help, based apparently on your opinion of your achievements outside of Wikipedia. In short, you behave like the student who thinks he knows more than the teacher. What makes you think the analogy is false? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tip ... stop 'helping' ... perhaps it will heal itself. I am sorry that the subtleties of my modification were not clear (although, from your response, I believe they were - crystal). You need not concern yourself with it. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to think that assistance will always be given to editors in good standing who post here asking for it. Having said that, I shall now watch and wait. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I should like to think ..." ........ Just joshing you :) :) :) ... "White riot, I wanna riot, white riot ..." Yours Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• As one of those slighted by Nigel's unique takes on expressing themselves by disparaging others I commend the effort to help introduce them to the civility and npa guidelines in place. Sadly, I sense that this user has little interest in following community protocols and they seem to want to assert their own platform as the truth for the rest of us to catch up to. This is welcome but only when done civilly which has been absent as of yet. We work with one another not as the most degreed or learned rules. Perhaps your opinions are correct but condescending and disparaging comments are counter-intuitive to constructive progress on all fronts. Banjeboi 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

At this moment the editor has had Wikipedia's requirements for civility explained clearly. He has been advised as to what portions of his editing were considered unacceptable. Wikipedia's policies exist as part of a welcome template on his talk page. He is also now completely aware that people do, indeed, monitor. This forum for Wikiquette is indeed the place for this discussion, and early on in an editors "career" is as good of a time as any. Civility has no "Canadian/American" interpretation - those who have the power to block come from around the globe, and jurisprudence has helped define what civility means inside this collective. Attempts to rationalize uncivil behaviour will likely be met with a simple "oh, phsaw!" Bans and blocks will not "confirm your propositions" [emphasis added] but merely confirm that you did not wish to behave according to a well-founded policy framework. All that being said, the editor has been warned more than once - additional incivility should not require more warnings, and an escalating series of blocks should be the immediate response to additional incivility by this editor should it occur. We should not have to hammer this point home so firmly, but as an educated invidual, I would expect that the editor understands now. As far as I'm concerned, this specific entry is closed. BMW(drive) 11:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BB: No, because 'you' have learned a few new things, so it has been valuable. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BMW: You truly have no appreciation of cultural differences. No matter. The remainder of your corporate diatribe, once again, confirms my propositions. Now, stomp your feet and block me, if you will ... if it is permanent - seeya, wouldn't wanna be yer ... if not, catch you on the flipside. The best way for this entry to be closed, is for 'you' to stop posting and move on to something that really matters. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"You truly have no appreciation of cultural differences" Now THAT should receive nomination for "Joke of the Day" somewhere. You make me laugh, Patch Adams, you really do. BMW(drive) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly you do not. It is also apparent, that you have never participated in formal, international, intellectual debate, because, if you had, you would understand your deficiency (or, more correctly, you would not have it). You are on a Wikihigh. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Stop biting the hands that try and help you, Doc. Closing this discussion lets you get on with your editing. Knowing policy helps prevent you from getting blocked. Take the help that's given to you, or leave it. BMW(drive) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not replying to any one post or person in particular, but we needn't set the hounds on the guy, just yet; I wasn't exactly asking for people to google up dirt on the fellow and toss out ominous threats of imminent banning or all of that. It's no small surprise someone might get their back up in response to a confrontational approach, like that (I confess I may have gotten us off to a bad start, which was why I posted here to begin with). Not trying to chide anyone with this, but please do bear in mind that text carries no tone of voice and no body language, and that it's all too easy to infer negative intentions when someone is perceived to be an "adversary" -- I find that reminding myself of that can be quite helpful, sometimes. I do sincerely appreciate the effort to assist, but I think we need to bear in mind that civility, as a concept, means more than just using pretty words or citing policies: in my mind, it's the practice of respecting or accommodating others and trying to negotiate win-win outcomes when possible, without pushing people out unless we have to. The last thing I'm trying to do with this comment is start an argument or put others down, but for Nigel's sake in particular it seems best if I'm not completely silent on this point. I think he caught the drift, so I'll happily see how it goes from here on out. Once again, a sincere thanks to all who responded, I do appreciate it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa

Stale

 – Communication difficulties continue, but progess appears to be happening. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

HarryAlffa has been acting uncivilly in Talk:Solar System for some time, but his behaviour has been tolerated by other users because he has to date skirted the boundary of outright personal attacks. But his most recent post has crossed the line, and I think he needs to be disciplined. Serendi^podous 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that he does not need to keep asking whether other editors on the page are "drunk," but it's not enough for him to be "disciplined." It seems to be mostly tongue-in-cheek to me. IronDuke 22:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The "drunk" comment posted by User:HarryAlffa is just one indication of what the regular editors at Solar System have been subjected to over the past few weeks. HarryAlffa has not managed to gain any support for his proposed changes there, and has since resorted to a series of disruptive actions. The most recent of these include the "drunk" comment, accusations of dishonesty, and most recently an utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and "checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous, and myself. To be perfectly honest, if not for my past involvement with the article in question, I would have blocked HarryAlffa for disruptive behaviour quite some time ago. He is certainly causing a great deal of problems for other editors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago, I compiled some of the user's actions, not sure whether it's really enough to ask for outside opinions about. Individually, HarryAlffa's actions are perhaps just questionable (although the latest "drunk" comment is over-the-top), but taken together, all these things are, I think, a problematic pattern that makes Harry very difficult to work with (in addition to his disregard for consensus).

He has been involved in an edit conflict at Solar System since 2008 July 30 (first edit diff). His edits are clearly based in good faith, primarily focusing on trying to make the wording of the lead clearer for novice readers. However, a number of other editors (including myself, User:Serendipodous, and User:Ckatz) have voiced opposition to many of his edits. He has explained his reasoning at the Talk:Solar System, but is not terribly respectful of other editors' differing opinions. For example, he has asserted that: "My original solution to a problem only I spotted is easier to maintain as it enumerates the dwarfs once, and I think wiki convention allows my version precedence when it comes to matters of taste." (diff)

Further borderline insults and otherwise uncivil behavior: He created Category:May contain nuts, and added the Solar System article to the category. He may have been making a legitimate criticism (see the corresponding essay, User:HarryAlffa/May contain nuts), but the title seemed to me like it may be calling the page's editors "nuts". Lately, he has accused editors of lying in edit summaries. He has also taken to calling User:Serendipodous "sod" and said that I "show a lack of cognitive ability".

I would very much welcome suggestions as to how to move forward with a mutually respectful, constructive collaboration. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The "drunk" comment didn't bother me. In fact I didn't even notice it. What bothered me was this comment:

if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one.

C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!

Serendi^podous 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to plead ignorance of wikipedia community activities, having not taken part in any.

I think it was Ashill who mentioned sockpuppets at one point, and having scanned the article I thought the three users fitted. Please do read "the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous," and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions.

Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and "acting" required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say. -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

HarryAlffa's Incivility

Serendipodous said I had "been acting uncivilly in Talk:Solar System for some time ... skirted the boundary of outright personal attacks". I will show this cannot be unsubstantiated.

All of these neutral comments were made by me in the process of discussion. You won't want to read them all, but scan them for "emotional" content.

• 22:44, 30 July 2008: Ok. Good point. I've changed it above using the language from the first paragraph.
• 21:42, 31 July 2008: Can we combine both a category list & a named object list? I would propose to replace the current list with this; ... I offered this combined list in the spirit of compromise and cooperation. I thank you for your previous objections because I think this new list is better than my original or the current list.
• 15:13, 1 August 2008: Alex, you said lists where rarely inappropriate, then your suggested replacement text contained 2 lists! You've proven that you cannot write about the Solar System without a list of planets!
• 16:57, 1 August 2008: Apologies for the "inappropriate" typo.
• 17:43, 3 August 2008: You cannot say that my version was verbose! Are you confusing the amount of screen-space it occupied with verbosity? It contained the same or a lesser amount of text! Almost all of the current second paragraph was subsumed into the new list and in a great deal less text.
• 18:46, 3 August 2008: perturbed objects, like comets, can't be said to populate the other regions they are passing through; asteroids only populate the Asteroid belt.
• 22:32, 30 July 2008: The Oort Cloud is still theoretical, but the theory includes objects.
• 13:59, 31 July 2008: I don't believe your assertion that "a few billion solar particles" are objects, is a useful one in the context of describing the Solar System.
• 19:59, 31 July 2008: So we agree that the Heliopause is a region? Yes, these object cross the Heliopause. I agree. The Heliopause does not contain them. Comets cross the inner region of the Solar System, but you would not say that it contains comets. You said the the Heliopause is unlike the Asteroid or Kuiper belts. Yes. I agree. The Asteroid and Kuiper belts contain objects. However, I would amend my proposal to ...
• 21:06, 31 July 2008: If people do not know the difference between apples and machine guns then a line explaining that difference would be useful. I expect a number of people will not have heard of the Heliopause ... so pointing out that the Heliopause is named for reasons other than for a population of objects seems pertinent and contrasting. Such contrast creates interest. So that explains why it is necessary. Cumbersome. No, it contains the data, reasons and interesting contrast.
• 18:27, 3 August 2008: "The readers assumption", thing I could have put better. The article leads the reader to believe that the Heliopause is another collection of objects. Surely you can see this is obvious {explanation} ... Can't you see that the very points you make arguing against including these points logically support putting them in?
• 21:12, 3 August 2008: It misleads the novice into thinking that the Heliosphere ...
• 13:13, 4 August 2008: I had resolved all of these problems by my previous (see my talk page) bold edit, which is what wikipedia encourages, but my changes were reverted
• 15:48, 5 August 2008: Again, my version of the lead solves all the problems I've raised ... It seems to me that no one else is empathising with the novice astronomer. Who else is likely to be seeking knowledge from the lead of this article?
• 10:13, 6 August 2008: the two bullet lists make it seem as if ALL the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune, (how many times have I said that?!)

From the 10th of August my patience starts to wear thin.

I think I've shown that I haven't been uncivil, so far!

The next comment shows some annoyance, but it gives a reason.

• 20:35, 10 August 2008: I did NOT say that Wikipedia was a dictionary, this is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, implying in your reply that I asserted something by nay-saying something I did not actually say, or imply. | ... | I was suggesting exactly what you said ... If something about ALL the planets doesn't fit in the Solar System, where else do ALL the planets fit?

My next comments show I don't suffer fools gladly. It's my only character flaw. :). But you couldn't describe it as uncivil.

• 18:04, 10 August 2008: it sounds like, from your use of the word Saga, that you are levelling some criticism at me for raising any questions? |...| solar wind fluctuates, therefore "steady flow" is simply incorrect ... get a dictionary, if your not sure about the application of a word, don't try to use the fact of your ignorance as an argument. Incessant can be applied this way. You have said both that "the solar wind is NOT constant in intensity/velocity", AND that it is "steady! Do you actually read what you write? ... I was trying to capture the dynamism (look it up) and the high speed of the solar wind, "steady flow" might describe pus seeping from a wound, but it is far to tame ... Sod, you're territorial. {his own suggestion} Your "first" sentence is actually a rewrite of my "original" sentence ... was met with resistance from you, but no logic.
• 19:40, 10 August 2008: Your frustration showed in your use of the word Saga ... I don't mind editors opinions coming closer to what I've been trying to tell them, but rewriting something just because of who the author is is irksome ...
• 20:19, 10 August 2008: Can you see that the reasons you have given for restoring the description of ... must also result in restoring the "ice" section. Even Sod edited this section to improve it. There are numerous references to "ice", such a common word MUST be explicitly explained. There is just no escaping this logic no matter what your emotional response is.
• 22:15, 13 August 2008: That's a good sentence, but the article itself says ... I would still like something a bit more exciting than "flow of charged particles" ... I would suggest the rewrite: ...

You still couldn't describe anything I've said as uncivil, nor have I come close to a personal attack. Later I will show that it was Sorendipodus who was uncivil.

Then at 20:55, 14 August 2008, came my expression of amazement at the stupidity of Ashill's comments on my suggested re-write. From his claim to be an ISM Scientist and my analysis of this and many of his other comments I concluded that his analytical skills would make him a poor scientist of any sort, I then took a wild guess that he was a computer technician - nothing wrong with that, I was one for many years. -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorendipodus's Incivility

I wouldn't actually describe Sorendipodus's comments as uncivil, but you can see the unprovoked, irrational emotion they show.

• 10:08, 31 July 2008: And it does contain objects. Quite a few billion solar particles, in fact.
• 14:52, 31 July 2008: And what? Are you going to argue that an interaction would contain objects? By definition it wouldn't. There's no point in bringing it up, any more then there is in saying, "The atmosphere contains no continents."
• 19:16, 31 July 2008: You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and machine guns.
• 20:03, 31 July 2008: Why? It's cumbersome and unnecessary. The article already explains what the heliopause is. Why add a line essentially saying that an apple is not a machine gun?

You will notice that all of the above were on 31 July, compare them to my neutral comments on the same day.

He then made two neutral comments on other editors, then his next comment to me issues a challenge, and the claims to a "first version" are not true.

• 13:47, 9 August 2008: Well I wrote the first version, so I think it reads better. And I reverted it back. Call me territorial.

He made some silly edits to my prose replacement for a bullet list, then later "remembers" that edit was his original! Add this to the unintelligent aspect of his other comments, then in much the same way as I dismiss President George W Gump as an idiot, from that point forward I considered Sorendipodus incapable of useful cogitation. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Borderline insult by creating User:HarryAlffa/May_contain_nuts

On this Wikiquette alert Ashill said of this, "the title seemed to me like it may be calling the page's editors 'nuts' " - I hadn't thought of that before, but neither had Ashill, otherwise he would have said something of the like before. The page I created was all about how boring the ingredients list for a sandwich was, apart from the famous phrase. It in no way could be thought to be saying that editors were nuts, being nuts would at least be interesting, not boring. Is Ashill being a little dishonest here, or is he just showing a lack of cognitive ability? -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

accusations of dishonesty in edit summaries

My comments in chronological order;

• Ckatz mislead about consensus opposition.
• Ckatz lied about consensus opposition. Both Serendipodous and ASHill made edits to Ice paragraph, therefore implicit aproval for keeping.

Myself and Serendipodous were actively editing this paragraph, as was Ashil, then he removed it.

So two active editors, then Ashill and Ckatz remove it. Can that be said to be concensus for removal? -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, Harry, I hope you don't mind me butting in, but in the section above titled "Sorendipodus's Incivility", the diffs you provided really do not look incivil; on the contrary, you refer to his editing as "silly" and his comments as "unintelligent". You seem to have shot yourself in the foot rather, and you might like to strike that section. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you butting in at all! That's what this section is all about! All buttinskis welcome!

I'm sure you missed out some of my crucial text above, because I put so much up. I tried to prevent this with the bold headings, but alas have clearly failed here!

I completely agree with you. Sorendipodus's comments where not uncivil. I had two headings for my own and his incivility. I said I didn't think I was being uncivil, nor Sore. In fact I did actually explicitly say this in the first line after Sorendipodus's Incivility- "I wouldn't actually describe Sorendipodus's comments as uncivil". I stick to what I said in that same line, "but you can see the unprovoked, irrational emotion they show." I do believe that I showed considerable patience in the face of this before describing his comments as either silly or unintelligent. I thank you for taking the time to comment :) -HarryAlffa (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:dfgarcia by User:Goodone121

Resolved

 – Both parties advised - dispute became stale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I was the 3rd party in a previous alert, and he repeatedly attacked me ,as you can see here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly forgot to sign. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As no-one responded in quite some time, I am tagging as "stale".Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am reopening, as dfg just was rude on my talk page(2nd item under "Mediation Cabal template"). I have warned him.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot, for part of an edit summary on my talk page dfg posted, "pbbbbt".Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a very trivial matter and there are no personal attacks here whatsoever. Filing a WQA as a first resort is not helpful, and failing to notify (or make a request to notify) the user who is subject to this complaint is a Wikiquette issue in itself - please take care in the future. The initial basis of this WQA is meritless, and politely discussing your differences with the other user may have had a more positive outcome.

That said, dfg, I am disappointed in your conduct after this WQA was filed. If you feel that the filing party's claims are meritless, and that they violated Wikiquette, stating so (with your reasons) would have been sufficient - this sort of edit summary and commentary is unprofessional and provocative, and engaging in that conduct is considered unseemly (please refrain from doing so in the future).

As such, there's nothing else to see here as this matter resolved itself as the dispute became stale. No action is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Wikidemo

Resolved

 – Filing party Blocked as a sock of QuirkyAndSuch. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

---

This user "acrchives" or deletes anything they don't like. If you check the Barack Obama article and the Family of Barack Obama article you'll see that they have archived discussion that hadn't been ended. This user is not an administrator, but acts like one. You'll also notice that they have archived many other things they don't like, and several users have asked wikidemo to stop deleting things on wikidemos talk page. This user is disruping discussion and has been warned not to. They need to be blocked. This is also very POV ... look at the explanations given for archiving, mostly because wikidemo decides the conversation is pointless, not because other editors think so. ChingyThingy (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs ... I see MizaBot doing archiving every 5 days automatically. Thanks. BMW(drive) 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a bad faith report from a sock. ChingyThingy (talk · contribs) has been editing for less than a day, yet this canvassing for deletion of an article [113] and posting a Wikiquette alert shows considerable knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Last 100 edits do not show any edits to that discussion page by any anonymous users, so the user is not likely a IP-cum-NewUser. Odd that the user has not edited any Obama pages themself. Interesting also the contribution to an editors (the canvas) page immediately after creating personal pages. BMW(drive) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

One wonders who ChingyThingy is a sockpuppet of... seicer | talk | contribs 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Matt Lewis

Resolved

User Matt Lewis made a suggestion on Talk:Republic of Ireland [114]. After a long and largely fruitles debate I decided to post a detailed response, numbered as his suggestion had been[115]. To try to keep my post intact I added a comment, <!-- Please do not split this post. Reply below -->, between each numbered point. Matt's response was a vitriolic outburst, accusing me of arrogance and what-not - not for what I said, but for the comment line[116]. I replied, annoyed but not abusive, suggesting ways that he could respond without disrupting my post[117]. His answer was to break up my post, exactly as I had asked him not to[118][119][120]. A friendly post to his talk page, suggesting a way around this[121] was met with this response[122]. Of course, I am now up to three reverts so I have run out of options. I have been told that I "can't dicate how people reply to my post", which is undoubtedly true, but it's a matter of wikiquette. Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Scolaire (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to protect my 'package' proposal from breaking down. Basically, I'd like to apologise for any offense caused. I can argue like a really cold and ruthless type of person at times, but I am nothing like that at all. It's partly about editing time for me - I give far too much to this place, but I know I can and have helped it in many ways. For my sins.

My very serious 'package' proposal at Republic of Ireland ('proposal' as it came to be) is too important to me to let someone make a mid-poll 'point-system' appraisal unchecked - to make the 'rule' (or strong appeal) that I cannot personally deal with it point by point. I simply had to. I think I've made a good job of avoiding the mess I am certain the page would fallen into had a number of people tried to answer it in the way I think was intended(?) These things have to be managed at times - I feel that is all I have done here.

The discussion in the poll was in my eyes very productive, and is even going on as we speak. Everything is sorted now, IMO re Soclaire's 'appraisal.. Please understand the person who wrote the 'proposal' (myself) must be cut a little slack when it comes to replying to things. The 'un-clinical' way it was written (a bit too much a continuation of our dispute in my talk page, IMO), would have made it very unfair if I just left it as its own as a self-supporting thing. I actually saw no call for it - but it's there - and I've answered it, and have spent the last hour or two keeping the poll (I hope) in order. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, you're very lucky you weren't blocked yet because your conduct on this matter has been absolutely unacceptable. Users are entitled to make their views known in a manner that keeps their posts in tact, particularly if they make that request - the mere fact you made the proposal does not give you ownership of Wikipedia, package deal or not. I am going to restore Scolaire's post as it was desired - if you continue to refactor these comments, you will be blocked. You are welcome to reply like every other user (i.e. below the person's post). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

After all the work I've put into it today keeping it on track? I certainly won't revert it (who wants to be blocked?) But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me - and in point form. I told him as soon as he wrote it (and waited a while for a reply) that if he took away the points I'd reply underneath it - but if he kept the points then I wish to reply under each point. I made MY perfectly fair desire here as clear as I could - but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged.

Why I am unlucky I'm not blocked? Scolaire didn;t have to at all revert my comments when I inserted them. His comments were not made any less readable at all. The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like. I put a lot of work in making his MID-POLL 6-point appraisal NOT bog-down the poll (and he wanted people to reply in point form - MID-POLL - why?) - all the neatness you saw was down to me. I hope you are an admin who appreciates people's work - but you say I am lucky I'm not already blocked? I don't get it. I can either help keep things like this together for Wikipedia, or I can watch them become a total mess. Which is best?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had an idea - my list of replies are now unreadable IMO - it is too difficult to compare them to Soclaire's comments which they answer (and I know Wikipedians who will struggle with doing this too, so its helpful to no-one IMO).

Can I duplicate Soclaire's original comments one by one above my own replies? This would at least make things readable. I wish I thought of this at first. It seems totally reasonable to me, but I'm asking here first just to be safe. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Matt, irrespective of what anyone writes, you should generally refrain from refactoring another's comments. He(?) is entitled to make his comment, whether it entails bullet points, numbering or neither, and he is entitled to have his comment stay as it was posted without another person's posts being inserted with his. That's a matter of Wikiquette, regardless of who made what proposal. You're not prevented from replying/responding to (or challenging) anything he's said below his comment.
• You're welcome to request another user to reply underneath each point, but if they want their post in tact, you need to respect that. This is something that applies in a vice-versa case too - another user shouldn't add their own commentary in between points you're making. They're welcome to request you for permission to reply under each point, and you have that level of discretion to grant it or not. However, generally, replying in that manner puts off a lot of users from reading the discussion at all, even at FAC nominations.
• The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert.... I'm not saying you necessarily had ill-intentions in the reverts, nor am I suggesting you should stop editing for failing to follow WP:TALK page guidelines, but you need to keep Wikiquette in mind. These guidelines may give more definitive answers.
• In regards to your question/request, I don't think there's any harm. An effective method that has been used in the past is putting the copied comments in italics and putting your responses in normal formatting. If you want an example, I can show you. Good luck in any case! Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do the italic thing - I wish I'd thought of it before I started reverting. To be honest I have no idea how many reverts I made (I didn't even think about 3RR is this dispute - it totally escaped me as a factor in the case). I just knew things wouldn't work if everyone just replied in a list. Obviously, duplicating his comments was the way to go. Cheers.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, yes, you are making a big deal out of nothing. It is poor form to try to dictate how people respond to your comment and a violation of WP:TALK to remove replies you deem as non-compliant [123]. You started 6 different discussions and you knew how things were naturally going to go. If you're concerned that your signature will disappear once those paragraphs get into threads, why not just sign each paragraph? Matt -- yes, of course you can duplicate Soclaire's comments above separate replies, in fact, this is basically what Soclaire requested that you do [124]. Mangojuice^talk 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't spot where he said it, but I must have missed it in my annoyance. If I managed to keep calm it would have probably occurred to me. I was in a bit of an 'edit rush' trying to get a temptingly neat page that Soclaire could go for - but we were both too determined of course.

I think the poll is going quite well considering what some of these particular ones can get like (I generally know the issue when it crosses the UK but am just a little bit out of my usual 'territory' with ROI - although it all relates). We should have a better Irish Etymologyy section out of it if nothing else. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

@Mangojuice, you talk of violating WP:TALK. WP:TALK has this to say:

Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• If you have their permission

I explicitly withheld my permission. Inserting his comments into mine is editing my comments. Scolaire (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I deliberately did not re-post to here, to see what way it would go, and what happened? He responded to the warning by making more personal attacks on me.[125] In particular: "But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me", "but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged" and "The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like." Note I have had no input at all since filing the original request. If Matt Lewis responds to the threat of being blocked by making further unwarranted personal attacks, then he should be blocked. Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets just put this behind us - whatever was said above was before the italics solution, and you can't beat a solution! We can all see through this poll. All the things I'm itching to do right now are actually elsewhere - but no one can deny the poll isn't interesting, and who knows it may possibly lead somewhere. Let's see how it goes and focus on the naming issue at hand. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's the closest I'll get to an apology ;-) OK. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll apologise for him. I can see he meant no harm. Thank you for your earnest consideration and judgement of the matter. Hopefully we'll see you rejoin the discussion now? The Thunderer (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bharatveer

Resolved

 – Both users blocked for various vios. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

---

It started when I reverted another (anonymous)editor's message on a talk page becasue in my opinion he/she was treating the talk page as a forum and being rather uncivil [126]. Bharatveer then posted a message on the same tak page calling the attention of admins to my act[127] claiming that I was doing it beacuse it didnt "match my POV". When I pointed out that Wikipedia guildlines allow me to delete personal attacks and material that was not relevant to the topic [128] and [129], he simply repeated the "POV" accusations [130] and [131]. I asked him to take it to the ANI if he felt that I had violated the rules but he refused and kept repeating the same thing over again [132] and told me to "stop giving instructions".

Since we were discussing a personal issue on an article talk page I decided to stop posting messages on the article talk page[133] and posted it on his talk page[134]. In short there has been a lot of communication with Bharaveer talking of taking the matter to admins [135] but not doing so and repeating POV accusations and telling me "not to give instructions" [136] or how I "FEEL"(caps deliberate)[137].

But what really brought me here was his series of edits , deleting my messages on his talk page(in contradiction of what he was telling me to do), calling me a POV pusher[138],[139], [140] ,and my edits as vandalistic[141], [142], [143] or rants[144] or harrasment [145]. When I asked mim to explain how my responses to his messages become vandalism he has not responded.

So there are two issues which I wish to discuss here: 1) Was I wrong in deleting talkp page content if it broke Wikipedia rules? 2) Is User:Bharatveer]] justified in calling me a "vandal" , POV pusher and harraser when his own actions constitute POV pushing and harrasment(I believe that Bharatveer has been punished for POV pushing before too). If not then Bharatveer should apologise to me for calling me names. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It all started after I pointed out that User:Deepak D'Souza was deleting discussion from article talk page . User:Deepak is arguing that he deleted the discussion because he found them "irrelevant". Actually those were very relevant to the discussion. After this, he took this very personally and came to my talk page for discussion on this. However he was very adamant finally he asked me not to "pester" him anymore. Seeing this sort of behaviour, I removed his messages from my takpage. He has been harassing me ever since.Please note the number of times he reverted my talkpage.-14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)-Bharatveer (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Both users blocked for their various sins. Logged in part at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Laomei

Resolved

 – User warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The above user left this comment--what are the measures against this sort of hateful language?--Asdfg12345 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not polite ... but is it a direct attack on another editor, because then it would be WP:CIVIL. Looks like point of view to me, and it's on a talk page, not in an article itself.

I have noticed the user has been banned from a Falun Gong page as well. A Warning was left on their talk page, additional information on the article page, and the admin who banned them from the other page has been advised. BMW(drive) 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)