Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive55

Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs)

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

The featured list candidates director of Wikipedia has been causing drama as of late. Over on IRC (although that means nothing), Scorpion has been ignoring myself whenever I speak to him, including leaving the channel. I've had FLC questions lately, working on potential FLC's and all. I approached him about it here, he used rollback to revert (which was wrong). Approached by J.delanoy here, and Scorpion removed it in an archive edit. He contacted J.delanoy on IRC and told him that he "just didn't want to talk to me." This mind you is all after an incident at WT:PW where I started a "so long" thread for a project member on his way out the door. Scorpion reverted the thread, and I reverted back. It went back and forth with him and User:Steelerfan-94 for a bit as well, with some comments between those two on their talk pages. User:SRX was also involved in the thread, and left him a message here. SRX never recieved a reply and was ignored as well. It is unacceptable for our featured list director (while the other is semi-active for the time being) to be causing drama, and ignoring users when they need help with featured list related things. ayematthew ✡ 01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that you could offer an olive branch by posting an apology for any offense or trouble you might have caused? This gesture might be enough to reverse the vicious cycle that seems to be operating here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I did so on IRC. On IRC I sent him a personal message saying "I'm sorry" about a week ago. He ignored me. ayematthew ✡ 01:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you say "I'm sorry", or "I'm sorry if I caused issues by doing X and Y"? ►BMW◄ 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just apologized, but let me ask - why am I the one apologizing here? I didn't do anything. I wish to talk with him, but he will not reply. If I am wrong somehow, I'm fully willing to admit it and apologize, but what..apologize to make him feel good? ayematthew ✡ 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you were wrong (not having trawled through the history, I'm in no position to) but it seems that the other person feels wronged. I think that this isn't a clear case of one side being wrong and the other right. Perhaps your thread was not strictly in keeping with talk page guidelines, but helped build a sense of community? Wherever the truth lies, someone has to pick up the olive branch (which may be as simple as accepting that the other party was acting from good motivations), and to your credit, that seems to be you in this case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you needed to apologize ... I merely wanted to understand the style of apology, in order to put some perspective on the reaction to the apology. ►BMW◄ 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all I have done is not responded to iMatthew, which is my choice. I am hardly "causing drama", I have not said anything rude to or about the user, and I have not made any issues about it here. iMatthew is the one who decided to make it an on-wikipedia issue and involved an admin for some reason, which I felt was absolutely unnecessary. Yes, I did remove their messages, but I felt they were inappropriate as they were strictly about non-wikipedia issues. As for your claim that I ignored SRX, his post was telling me that a list that I had wanted to nominate for removal had been improved. I agreed with him and felt that it did not require a response because he did not ask a question. I find the fact that he is calling my ability to perform as Featured list director into question simply because I won't respond to him highly insulting and unnecessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My apology lies within your talk page. ayematthew ✡ 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My apology has been archived and ignored. ayematthew ✡ 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason for mentioning your ability to perform as a Featured list director is that as director, one cannot ignore comments by others about Featured list non the less. You're supposed to be a role model, and help out users who need help in this. It's completely innappropriate to ignore questions FL relating. ayematthew ✡ 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Scorpion never really did say anything, but he could have at least helped Matt out by giving him his opinion on the List he wanted Scorpion to see. As for my post, I didn't really need an answer, like Scorpion said, but Scorpion does wrong IMO archiving requests by FLC nominators or apologies to settle the issues. Just my 2 cents.--SRX 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't quite get this, if DMN was a member of the project, what's wrong with a "thanks for your service" thread? I'm thinking there must be more to this than meets the eye. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It goes to the fact that on WT:PW, it says all discussions must be project relevant, and Scorpion interpreted member threads/good-bye threads as not project relevant as a whole.--SRX 23:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't. The very top of the page says "Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions." It's a rule I've tried to enforce before, and will try to enforce again. DMN was an excellent contributor, but I have to be fair and either remove all or none. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is an option, start removing none... ayematthew ✡ 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to run a strawpoll to see if the project wants to keep doing this way, ie, find what the current consensus is. I do agree that consistency is good. Just FYI, most projects that I am familiar with allow "good bye" testimonials. Usually there are put in separate threads. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW is far more dramatic than your average project. In the past, people have gotten into huge fights with one another then posted huffy attention seeking goodbye threads, only to return the next day. In fact, DMN has done it once in the past too. That's why I remove those threads. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:05, 6 December 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.

74.4.222.208 on Existence of God

Resolved

 – --Belinrahs

The user's IP appears to be dynamic, so his edit history is spread across numerous distinct users. For convenience, he will be referred to below as 74.4. Known history: [1], [2].

About a month ago, 74.4 introduced a new section to Existence of God describing Tipler's Omega Point theory under the heading Argument from physics. Another anonymous editor tried to rename the section, but was reverted by 74.4. The reverted editor took the matter to the talk page, where it is now being discussed. Myself and Jeffro77 have tried to argue for retitling, relocating, resizing or removing the content, arguing that it is fringe science being given undue prominence, but have been met with hostility and general uncooperativeness. A large amount of the text 74.4 contributes is simply copied and pasted directly from his earlier comments without modification. He recently accused Jeffro77 of vandalism[3] and deliberate censorship[4], and told him "I don't know what your problem is, Jeffro77, but you need to seek help". It may be relevant that the majority of 74.4's edits concern Tipler and Omega Point.

As an example of similar behaviour on a different article, 74.4 used an edit summary accusing an editor of illiteracy.

Ilkali (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

With a dynamic IP, it will be difficult to have any discussions regarding civility. We may need to warn when the person is actually editing. Although minor (yet inappropriate for sure) right now, this may need Admin action later - see WP:ANI. ►BMW◄ 18:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there are three ways he can disengage from the issue: 1) Learn why his content is problematic, 2) acquiesce to the views of other editors, despite disagreeing with them, or 3) be forced out by administrator intervention. 1 seems unlikely, especially since he's just added even more to the section in question, but I can hope for 2. Ilkali (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How has it been established that this is a single user? --neon white talk 19:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, each IP has been used to edit in the same two topic areas (and, IIRC, have the same grammatical pecularities). It might help if someone were to encourage him to create an account, but I'm not sure he'd be receptive to suggestions from me at the moment. Ilkali (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob unfounded accusations

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – already being dealt with in ANI

New user persisting with an inappropriate line of inquiry based on some conspiratorial fantasy. Following various civil exchanges he now believes I have "involvement (financially) with anti osho book or similar" Originally posted this, current state here my responses with links to my original exchanges are provided there. I appreciate he is a new user but I would also appreciate it if someone could make it clear that this is not the appropriate manner to deal with any differences of opinion he may encounter while editing on wikipedia. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forum shop here. If it's already in ANI, please don't bring it backwards into here. ►BMW◄ 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pwnage8

Stale

 – --Belinrahs

This user blankly reverted all my changes, that I, with some effort, had put into the Chris Pronger and National Hockey League rivalries articles. Among my changes were bypassing some redirects, unlinking dates, and merging identical references. His position - right or wrong - was that "August 3, [[2005-06 NHL season|2005]]" would be an appropriate link that should be kept. (And for that reason he reverted all my changes blankly.) My position - right or wrong - is that a calendar date obviously refers to a calendar year, not a season or a draft. Maybe this isn't the right place to resolve this dispute.

But what I object to is that he reverted all my changes, instead of - as I suggested on his talkpage - posting a (reasonably) polite message on my talkpage, explaining what he didn't feel was correct. An alternative would be that he himself re-add the specific changes that he didn't agree on. Instead he described my edits as "mistakes" and "unconstructive", and labeled me a "mindless busybody".

LarRan (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks? and notify the user of this alert as required. --neon white talk 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is his first revert of my edit to the "Chris Pronger" article: [5]. He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, but his revert has now been reverted by Orlandkurtenbach, and that version is the current one at present.

This is his first revert of my edit to the "National Hockey League rivalries" article: [6]. He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, and that version is the current one at present, since I don't want to engage in edit warring.

The invectives can be found on my talkpage, "Unlinking dates" section, second part. Here's the edit that added them: [7]

I have notified him now. Missed that.

LarRan (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I have not looked at the diff's related to article content: we cannot deal with that here, only incivility. I've read the entire page that you linked to related to incivility, and I have significant trouble finding what you call "invectives". The edit that you kindly provided the diff for includes the phrases "please don't engage in mindless busybodyism and ignore the details. It's up to you to go that extra mile and make the constructive change". Based on your response, I believe that this is the portion you're concerned about. Truly, this is borderline: he didn't call you "a mindless busybody", he suggestion you don't engage in "mindless busybodyism". In fact, he then went on to suggest what would make your editing better. Feel free to correct me or enhance my understanding. -t BMW c- 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I think it is useful, and would add to the article, to include a link to the seasons in the Chris Pronger article, the fact that they are dates does not make it absolutely necessary. This is why I have decided not to revert on that article again. However, the National Hockey League rivalries article uses season links to establish greater context, and should not be removed. I'm glad that LarRan has not reverted me there, and I would ask him to agree to keep the season links in that article. I don't think it should be up to me to fix the problems caused by his edits. Why did I choose to revert all his changes? As I said, I do not think I should have been the one to fix the problems caused by his changes, because I had other articles to get to in my watchlist, and because his other changes were negligible, as the targets redirect to the articles. Redirects are something I'm anal about, but in this particular case I don't think either version would be a substantial improvement for the article, and him removing the season links diminishes the quality of the article. Since he is making the changes, he should make them good changes, not drive by script-type. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You do have an obligation to at least keep or reinsert useful edits. If it was worth your time to visit and full-revert, it's worth your time to do a little help to the article. -t BMW c- 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note, that wikiquette alerts are not the place to continue a content dispute, do so on the relevant talk page. --neon white talk 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been worse behaviour than Pwnage8's, but there seems to be a pattern of him viewing himself as "presiding" over other editors' contributions, reverting others' edits at will with the comment "try again" if he does not approve of them. It (the attitude) can be seen both in his remarks on my talkpage, and on the edit summaries of his reverts. Also, other editors have recently complained on his talkpage about edit warring on dates, so this is clearly not a one-off.

Regarding his reason for full-reverts (he's got "other articles to tend to"), I think I value my time as precious as I guess he is valuing his, so that argument is invalid.

Finally, disguising invectives (albeit rather mild ones), in hypothetical expressions does not make them anything other than invectives. If that were the case, one could easily get away with "don't do this, or you're an idiot".

LarRan (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely, if there's such a "pattern" it wouldn't be too hard to provide extensive diffs? --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that some of them have recently been added to your talkpage. LarRan (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"? --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, here? You seem to be reverting LarRan, replacing dates with old-style wiki-linked dates and changing proper-case ("Where they met in playoffs") to camel-case ("Where They Met In Playoffs").

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 07:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's already been discussed here, and that's one diff. LarRan alleges that there is a "pattern" of this happening everywhere. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"not again" and "not again" (reverting removal of MySpace URLs). "why remove them?" (reverting removal of full-stops (periods) in an initialism). " lmao.. i'm sure it does. just about every article that isn't a GA does, but we don't see mass taggings of them" (removing a refimprove tag). "i can't believe someone tagged/removed this, considering all the ridiculous claims in this article" (reinserting an uncited claim). "how is this not notable? how are any of the other unsourced claims notable?" (...and again).

I don't know if I would agree with LarRan that there's a "pattern", but there are in a very short period a number of unhelpful edit summaries accompanying questionable reverts and edits. In particular, re-adding an uncited claim is bizarre - uncited claims can be removed at any time, and re-adding them is unhelpful. Reverting bot-edits that are consistent with MoS are unhelpful. Reverting the removal of MySpace links could be OK, but not with "not again" as an edit summary.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one: [8]. A pattern does not necessarily mean that all edits "everywhere" are unhelpful, or accompanied by questionnable edit summaries. Regular occurrences are enough to establish a pattern. LarRan (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chris Pronger reverts have to do with linking season articles, not full stops or the like. I wrote "not again" as an edit summary because I had a lengthy discussion with Piano non troppo about official band MySpace links where he didn't address the points I made, and I was simply maintaining status quo because he didn't give a good reason for removing the links. But that's another issue entirely. Drive-by taggings are a disease, and I don't see how adding "refimprove" when it's reasonably sourced helps the article. In that case, it's much better to tag individual claims with "citation needed", although I couldn't see any that needed that. As for Rogers Centre, I didn't notice that the info that was removed was integrated into the article already. Those embedded lists have to go, and I'll be doing some work on that later on. The article does very much suffer from unsourced OR, and what I added was a factual statement. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But you did revert the initialism, reinserting full-stops. It's already been noted above that it's incumbent upon you not to revert good parts edits, but instead correct the bad parts. That you had discussed MySpace links is great, but not at all clear to other editors - and status quo is not an acceptable reason for ignoring policy. Your views on what constitutes a disease are also not a good reason for removing tags (and you may wish to rethink your description) - particularly as one {{refimprove}} tag is often better (for readability) than peppering an article with {{fact}} tags, though I note that you didn't even do that - you simply removed the {{refimprove}} tag altogether. Not realising that an un-cited claim already exists in an article seems to me to be a bizarre reason for re-adding that claim to an article: that the article suffers from un-sourced original research is no excuse for adding yet more un-sourced original research.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having problems with him, too. The infobox on Korn had been duplicated a ton, and I accidentally removed them all, instead of all but one. He then decided to tell me that he reverted my vandalism and called me a "stupid vandal noob" (although that was my edit summary for said "vandalism" although I didn't vandalize in the least way). User:Green caterpillar came to my aid, and reminded him not to bite the newcomers (it would seem this isn't the first time, as Green dug up a lot of incidents of Pwnage biting new IPs or users.) I replied on his talk page and signed his guestbook, both edits to his pages reminding him of the "vandalism" hoax he is trying to pull. He removed my signature and comment from his userpage guestbook, which I wouldn't mind, but he called it "garbage" on my talk page and removed it saying it was vandalism, and added it to the number of times his page has been vandalized. He also called pretty much everything Green said garbage. I'm really not surprised that his name is already on this page, he is very abrasive and rude to newcomers like me. I would like to point out that I am NOT a vandal and never will be. My evidence for all of this is on my talk page, his talk page, and Green caterpillar's talk page Thanks, Winston^talk 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Winston and everyone else pretty much summed it up in my opinion. Can't think of much else at the moment. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring policy with respect to the MySpace links. We both have our own interpretations of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and the issue hadn't been settled (and still isn't), so I was just upholding consensus (that they are allowed). I didn't put {{fact}} tags, because like I said, I didn't see any claims that needed them. Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree? I fail to see how that helps the article. What I added to the Rogers Centre article is not original research and could easily be cited. I wasn't going to bother with that at that particular moment though.

Now, as for this situation with Winstonator, here's what happened... I came across the Korn article in my watchlist, and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there), so I undid it.[9] Afterwards, I noticed that something was very wrong with the infobox. The image that used to be there was gone. I consulted the history, and noticed something very ironic. Winstonator's revision replaced the photo of the band with "erection development", which wasn't showing due to it being a "bad image" that is only allowed in relevant articles, and I found his edit summary quite intriguing because of this.[10] It was clear from this, that he had no idea how to revert vandalism, and I needed to consult him about the edit. I went to his talk page and added a tongue-in-cheek section about him being a "stupid vandal noob" (per his edit summary). I was expecting him to check the history and post on my talk page admitting his mistake. Two days later, I notice I have new messages from Winstonator and Green caterpillar. Out of my hundred or so edits in that timespan, Green caterpillar picked out three where he alleged I was making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. If one looks at this, I was removing an obvious bad faith edit. Also notice that I did not just revert the entire edit, but only the part that was obvious vandalism (a clever way vandals make their edits slip under the radar is to mix them with good-faith edits). This is a non-starter. And yes, when I'm accused of all these bad things in a warning template-style fashion I'm going to call it "inflammatory garbage".[11] Now, I know what's going on, so I really don't need to be bothered with this issue on my guestbook. It is not the place to post grievances about my edits. That's what the talk page is for. This is not what you do on someone's guestbook. Compare to this. Well, seeing how my post was taken the wrong way, I made a longer one explaining what he did wrong, and even gave him a link to Help:Reverting so that something like this won't happen again.[12] Today I noticed another post of his on my talk page, where he tells me to "assume good faith" and then proceeds to make bad faith accusations: "You seem to have an inflated ego, someone needs to pop that balloon. Green caterpillar is right, you're trying to make yourself look good by targeting innocent users like me."[13] You may not have wanted to vandalize, but you certainly did "f**k up the wiki", and all I wanted to do was make you aware of that. I also noticed that he posted a personal attack about me on his userpage,[14] which is a violation of the userpage policy. Per What may I not have on my user page? #10: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." I ask Winstonator to kindly remove it as soon as possible. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take it off my userpage. I didn't know about Wikiquette alerts so I tried to take things up on your guestbook/talk page, but then I looked here. As for the "erection devolpment" thing, I thought that was a concert picture or something, as they tend to have odd names. I could have sworn that the picture showing was the regular band picture as well. I just want you to put the "userpage vandalized" count on your userpage back to 4, as I might have attacked you, but that wasn't "vandalism". You call everything vandalism. You can't act like a victim, the sequence of events went as follows:

• I saw the problem on Korn with the duplicated infobox, and I removed them all, instead of all but one. The fault was mine, then.
• Pwnage attacked me on my talk page, and Green caterpillar on his.
• I took this to the Wikiquette alerts.

I admit that the fault was mine of not correctly removing vandalism, but one thing I will not stand for is being accused of vandalizing myself. I said some things I shouldn't have, but so did Pwnage. You look down on everyone, as if you're better. That's my problem with you. Winston^talk 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Whether or not you were violating policy by removing the MySpace links is moot - this is about civility. Your edit summaries for both MySpace reverts consisted of "Not again". Under the circumstances any reasonable editor would have seen a bot removing MySpace links, and an editor reinserting them with a non-descriptive, un-helpful edit summary. If I'd seen that I would have reverted you (and I note that you were, indeed, promptly reverted).
• You removed a {{refimprove}} tag without making any attempt to deal with the underlying issue because you didn't agree with the editor who inserted the {{refimprove}} tag. A civil response would have been to first discuss with the editor, or to insert {{fact}} tags where necessary and then remove the {{refimprove}} tag. You apparently did neither - you assumed the editor inserting the {{refimprove}} tag didn't know what they were doing, and simply reverted them.
• Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree?

Actually, I strongly disagree. When I see an article that needs more references, I tag it. When I see a section that needs more references, I tag it. And when I see a claim that is unreferenced, I tag it. In each case I make some effort to verify the claim first. I'd add that, like your earlier reference to tags as "a disease", phrases questioning editors' sanity are unhelpful at best. Please be more civil.

• You added an uncited claim to the Rogers Centre article. If it can be, as you claim, easily cited then the correct thing to do would have been to cite it - not make a snarky edit summary about its removal. If you couldn't be bothered citing it then and there you should not have reinserted the claim - and you certainly should not have left a "How is this not notable?"-edit summary - unless you reference the claim how is any other editor to know that it's notable?
• This is not about content; I note that most of your edits seem fine in and of themselves. It's about how you deal with other editors. Those acting in good faith deserve to be treated with respect. Even trolls and vandals should be treated with courtesy per Don't Feed the Trolls - otherwise you're simply encouraging them.

Earlier you appeared to claim that you had made no reversions in which the edit summary consisted of "Try again" (Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"?). I immediately found one; another editor has found another. Edit summaries like this are precisely why I am concerned. Wikipedia is not a game; it is a collaborative attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Doing so requires courtesy and respect for other editors, and a level of discussion that transcends snarky edit summaries like "Try again", "Not again" and adding unreferenced claims with "How is this not notable?"

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've lowered the vandalism count back down to four, per Winstonator's request.

• Tagging is something that's arbitrary, and editors sometimes disagree about how and when it should be done. I did not see any reason for the tag to be there and couldn't find any claims that need sourcing. In any case, it's always helpful for the tagging editor to describe why they added the tag in the edit summary and/or talk page. It helps to avoid these types of cases.
• The Rogers Centre article needs a ton of work anyway, so anything that needs to be sourced (and there's a lot of that) can be done later. I don't see what's wrong with the edit summary. If you're going to remove that claim, then you should remove all the others because they have the same problem.
• Only two edit summaries that have "try again" in them does not constitute a pattern or problem that needs to be resolved here. I will keep it in mind however, that they are frowned upon. As for "not again", I don't really see the problem with that. I was upholding consensus, and I view Piano non troppo's MySpace removals as disruptive. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good enough for me. Thanks for taking the time to consider and discuss this, and working towards an amicable solution. Notwithstanding other editors' views, I'm happy with this outcome.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lowering the vandalism count, I appreciate it. Winston^talk 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to give my (real) two cents, now that I could think of something.

My greatest concerns are that Pwnage8 is biting the newbies and not assuming good faith. The edits I put up on his talk page that Winston described are examples where editors at least tried to help, yet were treated rudely by him, and this is the kind of behavior that drives away new editors. Everyone was new once, and if people are constantly insulted and ridiculed in the manner Pwnage8 is doing, how many will stay to edit? Probably not many, which is why I want this to stop. Green caterpillar (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, I don't like Pwnage8's apparent assumptions of bad faith and contempt of IP addresses, such as above, when he said, "and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there)". Green caterpillar (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Three diffs = I bite newbies and assume bad faith? That's not assuming good faith. Although 84% of anon contribs are constructive, that still leaves 16% that aren't, which warrants every anon edit needing to be checked. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Take it or leave it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I can bring up more if you want, and it seems that LarRan has already brought up a couple. When Winston told me about you, I thought maybe it was an isolated incident, so I looked into your contribs, and these were just some I found at the top of the stack. And apparently, yes, I think you are biting newbies and assuming bad faith, per what everyone (including me) has said. Seeing that there is a Wikiquette alert on you, I decided to look deeper, including at some more recent contribs. Here are a few:

• Unexplaned reversion of good faith edit: [15]
• Contentious edits: [16], [17] - I cannot find a single policy which says only articles are notable.
• Unnecessary newbie biting: [18], [19] - "nope" is not a valid revert justification
• and, the edits LarRan has discussed: [20], [21], which were somewhat of a violation of the reverting guidelines, where the page specifically says, "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, try to improve it", and "If only part of an edit is problematic, consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit", something which you apparently did not consider. Also, "try again" is not constructive and only serves to bite the user.

I am going to say this again. How do you think these users feel when edits they may have worked hard on are reverted with an unnecessarily harsh, unconstructive, or even no explanation? Do you think Wikipedia looks good in their eyes as a community? Probably not. This is why we have behavioral guidelines like WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I strongly recommend that you take a very good look at both of them, because many users can probably agree that you are violating them to some extent. It doesn't matter whether it's three edits or more; your editing behavior needs to change. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On another note, this edit was not only a misinterpretation of H:RV, but calling someone a mindless busybody, as LarRan said, is a personal attack. It doesn't matter whether you phrased it differently either; according to WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Also, the wiki-cred comment on my talk page can also be considred a personal attack.

Seriously, please change your behavior. Per WP:NPA, your behavior could be enough to get you blocked already, per "...even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption". I am not just making suggestions anymore - this is a warning. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just posting to prevent archiving. In the past few days I haven't been paying much attention to Wikipedia, that's why I haven't replied. I probably won't be at the computer until Nov 22 (UTC), and at that point, this thread would be fair game for MiszaBot II. I will replace this post with a proper reply when I get back. Please hold off on replying until I do so. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'm posting for the same reason. Winston^talk 14:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. And again.

Why? The original message: "I probably won't be at the computer until Nov 22 (UTC), and at that point, this thread would be fair game for MiszaBot II". Today is Nov 27. If there's been no desire/attempt to reply by anyone and no additional concern raised, then let it go. ►BMW◄ 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We all let it go, but apparently Green Caterpillar still has a problem with me, and has accused me of things I didn't do. I intend to defend myself against these accusations, I just haven't been around Wikipedia very much over the last couple weeks. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now then, let's get back to the issue at hand. Green caterpillar has made a lot of accusations in his last post, which are unfounded. The "good faith edit", as he puts it, to the Ontario article, introduced vandalism, unsourced claims and POV language. Reverting such a change does not need to be explained. Bands that are influential for a musical style are notable per the music notability guidelines, and should have their own article. The notability guideline is specifically constructed in such a way that notable bands have an article, and non-notable bands do not. Since nobody bothered to write an article, and there are no reliable sources to substantiate the claim and allow for an article, they are not notable and do not belong. You also complained about this reversion, which was undoing a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Why are you complaining about me upholding policy? You are also defending genre warring by complaining about this revert. Where are the sources that say they are "hard rock" and NOT "screamo"? Why are you defending blatant vandalism? Have you actually taken the time to check the factual accuracy of the change by the IP? It's wrong. "Nope" is absolutely a justification to revert in this case. "Nope. It isn't the administrative center of Samarskaya Oblast." Is it any wonder why I made the "wiki-cred" comment when all you are doing is making unfounded accusations and warning me about blocking when I am upholding policy? Do you think Wikipedia looks good as a community when you do that? You wouldn't make a very good administrator. All of this feels very BITEy to me. I'm being singled out for no reason.

As for the dispute with LarRan, apparently, you are late in this conversation, which is ironic, since my post is long overdue. I did not call him a "mindless busybody". Please refer to Bwilkins' first post. My watchlistitis did get in the way when I was making those edits, and it's already been discussed here. I should not have reverted like I did. Anything else? Another laundry list of "bad edits"? I think we're done here. I hope you are too. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the AGF policy again. Editing in good faith does not mean it necessarily follows policy. It may be full of POV, and may deserve to be reverted. But no edit other than simple vandalism deserves to be reverted without explanation. Who knows, maybe the editor wasn’t acting in good faith. But assume it. He/she may not understand our policies.

For the Ontario edit, I see absolutely nothing in there that constitutes vandalism. I think the problem is that you are calling way too many things “vandalism”, part of not assuming good faith. Where is the vandalism?

With the Billy Talent article, if it violated WP:CRYSTAL, why didn’t you say so in the edit summary? You just said “please only add articles”.

For genre warring, you must have been doing it too then, because you reverted it right back. I don’t know anything about modern music, but, again, “no” is unnecessarily hostile and is not a valid reason for reversion.

I think you are getting the idea that just because I say you should revert edits with an explanation, that I am defending them in some way. I am not.

While I don’t care about having anything special, tools, fame, or otherwise, I do care that people act in good faith and are not biting newbies. While all policies on Wikipedia are important, these are the most important in my eyes because without them, Wikipedia wouldn’t exist.

I do not complain about you upholding policy, and I understand that you are acting in good faith for the encyclopedia. However, when upholding the policies, it is important to do so in a manner that is not harsh in any way to new editors and does not bite them. Why do we have policies? We have them to “to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia”. So if you uphold one wall and tear down the other, it doesn’t do any good.

I really want this to be done too, but again, these two policies are something I care especially about, so I would really like it resolved. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism in the Ontario edit is the deliberate changing of population figures to something incorrect. It is blatant vandalism, and I find it appalling that you don't recognize it as such, and dismiss me as "calling way too many things "vandalism"".

For the Billy Talent template, I see no problem with the edit summary. No one has created an article, because it would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, a template is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". Again, what is the problem with the edit summary?

The previous version of the Greeley Estates article was correct. IPs changing genre so willy nilly is and should be looked down upon, especially if there are no reliable sources to substantiate the claims. We need to keep things in order here and send the message to newcomers that Wikipedia is not for original research. The whole point is to discourage that type of editing.

I don't understand how these edit summaries are considered 'biting' newbies. I think I'm acting within the constraints of policy here. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:SmokeyTheCat

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Referred to WP:ANI if vandalism continues. -Belinrahs

User:SmokeyTheCat has engaged in disruptive behavior at the Ronald Reagan article for the past week. Though mild, at least two editors (including myself) have told Smokey to stop because his edits are disruptive and uncalled for. The problem centers around scare quotes, which indicate something sarcastic, or something that truly isn't so.

1. SmokeytheCat inserted scare quotes around the word humor in the phrase "Reagan displayed humor throughout his presidency"[22], a fact well cited in the article, marking the edit as minor and not giving an explanation. I reverted, saying that scare quotes were not acceptable here.[23]
2. He added it in again the following day, again marking the edit as minor and not giving an explanation.[24] I again reverted, this time giving more of an explanation in my edit summary: "Do you want to discuss this or do you just want to keep inserting these scare quotes which are completely unacceptable? They indicate something sarcastic or something that isn't so."[25]
3. The following day, he added the quotes in again without any edit summary or explanation as to why.[26] I reverted once again, and encouraged him to discuss the matter.[27]
4. The following day, he added the quotes again, finally providing en edit summary: "Not many people thought that the prospect of WW3 was witty."[28] I guess he was referring to the "outlawing Russia" joke Reagan made during a microphone test. I reverted, with the edit summary of: "It was a JOKE. The prospect of WWIII was present from the time of JFK and Cuban Missile Crisis to the present day. Please start a discussion if you are really that concerned and stop reverting."
5. I then began a talk page discussion (Talk:Ronald Reagan#Scare quotes), where myself and two other editors have commented on the situation and Smokey's behavior.
6. Today, after three days of not hearing from Smokey on the discussion page or in article space, he added scare quotes around the word joke in "...including one notable joke regarding the Cold War" and changed regarding to during.[29] Though he did not put scare quotes around humor, by putting them around joke he was able to accomplish the same thing. I reverted asking him to discuss it.[30] He has yet to contribute to the discussion at the talk page.

There is nothing sarcastic or false in saying that Ronald Reagan had a good sense of humor. If he called it humor and it was really racist jokes or something like that, then the scare quotes would be appropriate if used in a reliable source, but there was nothing like that. In this instance the article is simply pointing out that Ronald Reagan had a good sense of humor and joked around a lot during his presidency. And the "outlawing Russia" comment was a joke made during a microphone test. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to notify Smokey about this WQA, Happy. They should know so they can comment. So far, he hasn't posted anywhere in response to inquiries. Let him know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I put this together in a hurry and forgot to notify him. Sorry about that. Happyme22 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If Smokey is still doing this, you may wish to take it to ANI -- it's blatant vandalism, however is occuring over an extended period of time. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's real blatant vandalism, then it goes off to intervention against vandalism not noticeboard for incidents :-) ►BMW◄ 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have directed the request to AVI. Happyme22 (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sesshomaru and User:New Age Retro Hippie

A WikiFight has broken out at Talk:Bulbasaur#New Age Retro Hippie's edits between the two abovementioned users in regards of removal of unsourced material. I have tried twice to try to calm both users down, but I have failed. MuZemike (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was being too relenting in trying to discuss the removal of my message on his talk page, but yes, I was unintentionally instigating him, so I'll stop discussing this and shift discussion to the topic of Bulbasaur's improvement. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note however, I did calm down a while ago. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to go, but I'll come back in the daytime to continue the discussion. Let me just say that I too want the very best for Bulbasaur as much as everyone else. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius

This user for the last couple of months has repeatedly engaged in incivil and harrassing behavior directed toward myself and others. Examples (there are many others) can be found: (1) here, where he claimed that myself and certain other editors are "terrorists"; (2) here, where he felt compelled to criticize someone else's post with "ZZZZZZZ", as in "you're boring me"; (3) here, where he again felt compelled to criticize someone else's post with "BIG YAWN"; (4) here where he attacked myself and another editor for opposing someone's RFA; (5) here, which was a paragraph-long stream of incivility directed at myself; (6) here, where he accused various administrators of being communists and engaging in Stalinism; (7) here, where he criticized an editor's behavior as "defensive-aggressive"; and (8) here, where he accused me of asking a "stupid" question.

See this block of Ohconfucius in November for incivility, among other things. Tennis expert (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Quit twisting things around. You're making it look like you're the victim of my harassment. Truth is that it's the other way around. Date delinker (aka Ohconfucius)_{hard problems}^proverbs 10:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Technically you're making it look like he's a victim of your harassment. If you remained civil at all times this wouldn't be a problem. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have found both User:Ohconfucius and User:Tennis expert to be knowledgeable editors and have had the pleasure of agreeing with both of them on various issues; this dispute is thus most unfortunate. This is, however, a wikiquette issue and as far as I see it the bottom line is this. The incivility from User:Ohconfucius linked to above is undeniable and undesirable. However, it is equally uncivil to act in a way that suggests ownership over certain pages and User:Tennis expert is guilty of this; his comportment over the MOS date debate is also regrettable. Thus, the incivility here is far from one way and Tennis Expert's filing is consequently disingenuous. I suggest a cooling off period and that you refrain from engaging with each other. There are plenty of others who will happily continue the all important datelink debate. Eusebeus (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not up-to-date about what is happening. I haven't "engaged" Ohconfucius in a long time, and since I was blocked in mid-November, I no longer edit articles. It is Ohconfucius who follows me around on discussion pages and RFAs and posts patently incivil and disruptive comments. I have not responded to any of them (not once) except in filing this alert. Tennis expert (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree to stay away from the tennis guy if he keeps away from my nose. I wouldn't have been anywher near him if he hadn't started harassing Lightmouse on, yes you got it- date delinking with AWB on WT:AWB, taking a side-swipe at yours truly while he was at it. There's no telling when I will sneeze because I have quite serious allergies. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert managed to "refrain from engaging" Ohconfucius for 4 minutes. See: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Tennis_Expert. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

user:RolandR

Stuck

 – Both parties warned not to make personal attacks on each other. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I had made this edit [31], in which I removed unsourced material from the Shlomo Sand article. RolandR responded with this edit to my user page [32], in which he accused me of vandalism, and which had an edit summery saying: Caution: Page blanking, removal of content on Shlomo Sand

RolandR is a very experienced editor, and understands the import of accusations such as "vandalism", and "Page blanking." It seems clear that what he said is not only a lie, but also said with a vicious intent. It is clear that my edit was not vandalism, and more than clear that the page was not blanked. In my view this raises to the level of a blockable offense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I considered, and still consider, the edit in question to be vandalism, and not simply an editorial dispute. Having edit-warred for a while on the article, and denied the subject's notability, Malcolm then, without discussion or warning, completely removed the passage outlining the contribution for which the subject is most notable. He claimed falsely that the passage was unsourced, when in fact the source was clearly included under "external links" rather than as an inline citation. As I noted in my reversion, if he thought that the passage was poorly sourced, Malcolm could, and should, have placed a "citation needed" or "fact" tag rather than removing the passage. And, without that passage, it becomes far harder to establish the subject's notability, as Malcolm is demanding. Malcolm too is not a new or inexperienced editor, and he is aware of the existence and use of such tags. Under the circumstances, it seemed (and still seems) to me that removing, rather than tagging, this key passage in an article which he had already tagged for notability concerns was not an innocent editorial decision, but an attempt to prejudice discussion of the subject's notability.

My comment was not "a lie", and so to describe it is itself a breach of etiquette. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever anyone thinks about Malcolm's edit being helpful or not, it wasn't vandalism.

Both of you, please stop these personal attacks on each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I already warned RolandR about that. Many editors mistakenly use the word vandalism for good faith edits they strongly dislike. Calling your edit vandalism was very unhelpful, as was saying you had page blanked (you didn't), but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was lying. Moreover, flinging talk like that about will only tend to stir things up even more. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but I did not notice the edit summery till today, and that accusation has no basis at all. RolandR is a very experienced editor (frequently reporting suspected sockpuppets [33][34], or vandals [35] [36][37]. So it is clear that he understands very well both the meaning and the seriousness of such accusations. What he did was with an intent to diminish the effectiveness of an editor who opposes him. There was a knowing and vicious intent, and I do not think just a warning is sufficient for an editor who is has lied to manipulate the system to his advantage. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, and despite the gentle warning from Gwen Gale above, Malcolm accuses me of lying. And then he has the chutzpah to calim that I am in breach of etiquette!RolandR (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of "blanking the page". If that is true, show the diff. See Duck test. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary was automatically generated by a bot. It related to "Page blanking, removal of content". What I accused you of, in the body of the edit, was removal of essential content. This complaint, days after the original incident, and following further relatively cordial dialogue between us on the talk page over this same issue, seems very odd and superfluous. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Roland, Can you concede that calling the edit vandalism was wrong? (Full disclosure: that's kind of a pet peeve of mine.) IronDuke 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm. Stop it. RolandR seems to have heeded my (what I've indeed hoped have been friendly) warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont think I am inclined to stop. Your warning to RolandR may have been "friendly", but there was nothing friendly about him accusing me of "vandalism" and "page blanking" when he knew perfectly well what that means, and also knew that it was untrue (aka a lie). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's showing signs of wanting to be friendlier, to settle things down. I think he was careless about calling your edit vandalism/page blanking and he shouldn't do that again but, as I said, lots of experienced editors mistakenly throw those words about, I see it every few days, at least. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are saying that a lot of experienced editors are careless about lying, and about vicious insults. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Roland could have made a better choice than {{uw-delete2}} to object to Malcolm's removal of a paragraph. That's a warning normally used for vandals, or suspected vandals, rather than someone you've already been in a reasonable conversation with. Still, Malcolm's further comments in this thread seem to violate WP:NPA, and I see no reason to keep this complaint open longer unless he will withdraw those remarks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Spare me, Malcolm. Anyone can tell he was miffed at the time but if you don't know the difference between a mistake and a lie, there's not much more I can say about it, other than to echo EdJohnston's comment that you're straying into blatant personal attacks now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Spare you? One of the big problems on WP is that WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks are treated as relatively ok infractions of the rules, instead of being treated as seriously as WP:3RR. Aside from me. If I said that about him, I suspect that you would be dealing with this differently. I really do not appreciate coming here with a valid complaint, and then being told to shut up.

And, if RolandR really had any change of heart, why has he refused to admit a mistake, much less apologize and refactor his edit? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To put this in context, I should also note that Malcolm had previously added to this article the false assertion that critics compare Sand to David Irving -- an assertion not borne out even by the highly partisan source that he cited, but which had also been added several times by a single-purpose vandalism account. It was not unreasonable under the circumstances to consider Malcolm's edits to be less than innocent. RolandR (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that seemed heavy handed, that also (if I remember correctly) removed sourcing. That was an editing disagreement. David Irving? I had never heard of him, and had not added anything about him. I am not sure what RolandR is trying to prove. When the issue was clarified, I did not object further to that part of the change.

But as can easily be seen, not only is RolandR unwilling to apologize and refactor, he will not even admit he made a mistake when he accused me of vandalism and page blanking. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you added a false, and probably libellous insinuation that Sand is a fascist, thar was not borne out by the source you included. If you had read the source, you should have seen that the assertion was untrue; if you had not read the source, you should not have restored something that had already been removed three times as unsourced. If you have not heard of David Irving, you should not have inserted a statement comparing Sand to him. And, given all this, you were on extremely shaky gtound to delete as unsourced an uncontroversial statement fully backed by the cited sources. Which is why I felt that this unjustified removal, after your reinsertion of an unsourced libel repeatedly inserted by a vandal, was also an act of vandalism. And I repeat, I accused you of "removal of content", not of "page blanking". RolandR (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, first off, please don't rehash the content dispute here. Leave it for the article's talk page. Second, Roland, I looked at the editor who you called a vandal, and see no warnings for him nor any blocks. Please understand, even the most egregious POV-pushing edit doesn't count as vandalism. For WP purposes, that is a very specific term, with a very specific meaning, and it is unrelated to content disputes. I think it would be good if you could acknowledge that the term is wrong (and a violation of WP:NPA when wrongly applied), and withdraw it. Is that doable? IronDuke 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I must make a distinction here between Malcolm -- who made an edit which I considered vandalism, but who is not in essence a vandal -- and the other editor, who is almost certainly, as can be seen from a study of the pattern of editing, another appearance of the Runtshit vandal. I could explain in detail the reasoning which leads to this conclusion, but this is not really the place. Had the account continued editing, I would indeed have made a sockpuppet ot check user report. In fact, I had tagged this as a suspected Runtshit sock and reported this at the BLP noticeboard before Malcolm reinserted the defamatory claim. RolandR (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, the community has made it quite clear - Malcolm's edit did not constitute vandalism. Misuse of the term is considered uncivil, and you may end up blocked if you do it again in the future. If you are unable to distinguish between vandalism and edits that occur in a content dispute, then it is best that you avoid using the term vandalism altogether for your own sake. The same goes to Malcolm for his claims about lying. Both of you need to resolve your content disputes through civil discussion, and if you are getting no where, then use a relevant dispute resolution process (such as Article RFC or mediation). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RolandR did the same with me because he disagrees with my interpretation (I am not sure it is just mine, by the way) of the word terrorism and WP:Words to avoid

After this thread, it is clear that if RolandR once again uses the word vandalism with a well-known editor, it will be considered as uncivil and a provocation and that he should be blocked. Ceedjee (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But you did vandalise my talk page by repeatedly posting personal attacks on another editor; and you then compounded this by posting my email address there and on your own page. You were quite rightly (and leniently) blocked for a week for this vandalism, and it is egregious to attempt to present yourself as the injured party here. RolandR (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Adding myself to the dogpile of "It wasn't vandalism, everybody chill out". Seriously, when everybody but you thinks you're wrong, that is usually a good indication that you might want to take a step (or two) back. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In any case, this is now marked as "stuck" as opposed to "resolved" in line with the instructions at the top of this page. If there are further concerns regarding the conduct (of either party) brought up in this thread, then it would be best to proceed in the next stage of the dispute resolution process (possibly RFC/U) rather than come back here. I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 15 December 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.

Tennis Expert

Tennis Expert reported on this page that he had a problem with User:Ohconfucius. The outcome was:

• 2008-12-12 21:11 User:Eusebeus says "I suggest a cooling off period and that you refrain from engaging with each other."
• 2008-12-12 21:42 Tennis Expert responds "You are not up-to-date about what is happening. I haven't "engaged" Ohconfucius in a long time, ... It is Ohconfucius who follows me around on discussion pages and RFAs and posts patently incivil and disruptive comments. I have not responded to any of them (not once) except in filing this alert."

Within four minutes of that response, Tennis Expert engages Ohconfucius

• 2008-12-12 21:46 Tennis Expert posts on Ohconfucius' talk page.
• 2008-12-12 21:53 Tennis Expert posts on Ohconfucius' talk page.
• 2008-12-13 06:17 Tennis Expert posts on Ohconfucius' talk page.

Can somebody please state whether "refrain from engaging with each other" includes "do not post on each other's talk pages"? Lightmouse (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly say so. Thats about as obvious as you can get —Reedy 11:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• He's taking it all too personally. I suspect it's a problem xhe has to sort out with the one xhe sees in the mirror every morning. As I said, I'll stay away from him if he stays away from me. There's no telling what could happen otherwise ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Even with the wink, that sounds far too much like a threat (and a personal attack) ... one might think of a little strikeout →BMWΔ 14:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tennis expert has - very regrettably - retired from this project, so frankly there seems little point to maintaining these as active. Eusebeus (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He's still actively editing. I wouldn't mark it as resolved just yet. (Removed for now) Wizardman 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• His undertakings are clearly not worth the paper they are written on - see this edit. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's strange seeing incivility like this from you on a page devoted to tackling uncivil behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Eleland

Stuck

 – No agreement that this is a WQA issue

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

This user has been referring to me as "idiotic" and that my eidts are "rank bullshit" (twice) [38] and after a warning again[39], in the context of a run-of-the-mill content dispute. This user already has a healthy block log, and a history of extraoridanrily offensive remarks. Feedback welcome. IronDuke 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"In summary, the comparison you've drawn here is so odious, insulting, and idiotic that..." is making an observation, caustic as it may be, about the comparison you had made. That is not even remotely the same as referring to you as idiotic, as you claim above, i.e. "you are an idiot". Not sure how seriously a Wikiquette alert can be taken when it is so disingenuous right off the bat. Tarc (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this example, eg " I wasn't calling you idiotic, merely your edits" has been exploded many times already (and indeed, it is obvious why). I assume you're on board with Eleland on the use of the term "rank bullshit." IronDuke 03:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I still want you to stop wasting everybody's time with this kind of rank bullshit. <eleland/talkedits> 03:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Eleland's made my point better than I did. Anyone else want to comment? IronDuke 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the posts are not in compliance with WP:CIVIL. I have posted a note to Eleland's talkpage,[40] asking him to please consider refactoring. --Elonka 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is not right. A part of the posts is not in compliance with WP:CIVIL. Most of the post was very polite. Eleland is upset because he has the feeling that Ironduke is not of good faith. He should keep cool but there is no reason to go further. Ceedjee (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The over-riding policy is "comment on EDITS not EDITORS". If you tell me something that is pure BS then I'm going to call it BS. That doesn't mean that you, personally, are BS. Likewise, I've made some idiotic comments in my life, but that does not make me an idiot. Just because you wear pink shoes does not make you a pinko. ♪BMWΔ 12:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this myself personally, I would say calling someone's edit "idiotic" is offensive and obviously not the way we're meant to communicate on here. It seems from his above post that he has no comprehension/regard of how WP:NPA works and if his behaviour continues I'd recommend administerial action (again it seems). Ryan4314 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was saying above. People need to grow some thicker skin around here, and save WQ alerts for thr serious cases of derogatory comments actually made towards a user him/herself. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314 ... touching your tongue to a frozen pole is idiotic - it doesn't mean you're an idiot. Making a single dumb edit does not make you dumb (in fact, you might have been drunk, tired, angry, or even more drunk). A perfectly intelligent editor can make a boneheaded edit. Yes, it's a borderline case, but it's not officially contra-WP:NPA. ♪BMWΔ 14:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well... I am not sure I would not feel personnaly insulted if somebody would write that my comments are stupid.

That is a little bit easy.

Anyway, I could write "fuck off bastards" and this would not be against any etiquette.

The context matters more than the words taht are used. Ceedjee (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

BMW, even if that were the case, which it isn't (all of the words you used have more civil alternatives), this is clearly not the context in which Eleland was using them. He clearly meant to insult IronDuke, this is nothing new on Wikipedia, we all do it to each other by dressing it up as sarcasm etc, but he shouldn't be allowed to be this blatant with it. I maintain my suggestion; "It seems from his above post that he has no comprehension/regard of how WP:NPA works and if his behaviour continues I'd recommend administerial action." Ryan4314 (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This may not be a breach of NPA, but it is clearly not civil and it is not proper Wikiquette. Using his choice of words and tone makes the possibility of reaching consensus extremely difficult. If this happens once or twice, no administrative action (other than a warning) should be taken. But if it is repeated, action should be taken. Just my two cents...LedRush (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have said ... the words/actions themselves are not not contra-NPA. Tone and intent may be. ♪BMWΔ 14:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just spent the last hour reading Eleland's block logs, their relevant edits histories and the ANI discussions, in the immortal words of the Dragons; "I'm out!" I don't want nothing to do with this, "Sell the house, sell the car, sell the kids, find someone else, I'm never coming back!" Ryan4314 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Plain language has its place. Editors who comment here at WP:WQA need to remember that incivility is more than just an insulting comment. Tendentious editing is also an uncivil gesture towards other editors who are working in the same area. Refusal to engage in good faith with other editors about your edits is uncivil. WQA should not be used as a passive-aggressive tool for content disputes by other means. Which is what this appears to be. Eusebeus (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Tendentious editing is not uncivil editing. People are free to think that, but they should not be commenting here. Tendentious editing is also not vandalism. People are free to to think that, but they are not free to call it vandalism. When I say that you completely misundrstand WP:CIV, I am speaking frankly, and am not violating WP:CIV, as Eleland is doing, and has aggressively, done before. IronDuke 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The full comment by User:Eleland regarding the article seems reasonable. The odius comment seems over the top and not helpful. Gerardw (talk) 03:23, 17 December 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:EuroHistoryTeacher

I've already posted here once before about EuroHistoryTeacher, and a message was posted on his talk page [41]. But he is continuing to be abusive towards me because I am asking him to provide references, repeatedly accusing me of biased editing on the basis that I am a "hispanophobe", that I "don't have a clue what I am doing" (I wrote most of the British Empire article, by the way)

• [42]
• [43]
• [44] - writing patronising "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
• [45] - writing that I am a "clear hispanophobe"
• [46] - writing on someone's talk page "LOL go see what i did in ferrick's page" after he wasted Wikicommons resources uploading a map called "hahaharedhatofpatferric" and linking to it on my talk page [47] to make a point.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am getting rather frustrated trying to get EHT to understand what providing references means. When I reverted an addition of his to the Spanish Empire page on the basis that a claim about something being "humiliating" required a reference, I got this by way of response [48]: a copy and pasted extract from another Wikipedia article, on my talk page. He then preceeded to readd the material, without any inline reference, and put in the edit comment "I have provided references". I have asked him to read WP:V and WP:RS so many times now, and he clearly does not wish to. I just don't see how editors like this can be reasoned with... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You will of course let us know when you have advised them of this WQA entry? ♪BMWΔ 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies (I don't have to do this very often). Per your note on my talk page I see you have done it for me. BTW - one more (admittedly before the notice was placed on his talk page) where I am labelled an "extreme hispanophobe" [49] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

c'mon now show both sides of the coins Ferrick , you have accused about 3 (or perhaps more) times of sockpuppetry which i didn't like , so don't make youself look like a victim , ok? and many numerous insults which you know of very well--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on portions of the above, the actions of EuroHistoryTeacher appear to have been disruptive to the project. I recommend taking this to WP:AN or WP:ANI for a long-term solution. ♪BMWΔ 19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As I know quite a lot about this topic (Spanish Empire), I suggest that we take this back to the talk page. I am happy to involve myself as a neutral party to see if we can arrive at a compromise. It is a VERY sticky issue (always has been) and I am not surprised that the temperature has risen. However, I suspect that we can arrive at a solution through the introduction of some cartographical nuance and a box of virtual crayons. If the parties are agreeable, that is. Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree ... to a degree. Edits 39/40 are disruption to cause a WP:POINT. Action should be taken. The rest can be dealt with on the talk page of the article. ♪BMWΔ 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The best action to take is for everyone to have a nice cup of tea and agree to try to work through the differences in a calm manner. Those edits are pointy, but accusations of sockpuppetry are also unacceptable. If editors can agree to set aside their past differences to make a concerted effort at compromise, then we can take that as a good departure point and leave everything else aside. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think an informal mediator is gonna help with the incivility, personal attacks and general lack of understanding of core policy here. This user is never going to be a productive contributor unless he/she understands WP:NPOV and WP:V and drops the prejudices he/she seems to have against certain editors. It seems clear to me, considering this users contributions, that he/she is an spa with a personal agenda.--neon white talk 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have stricken my comments accordingly. I didn't realise this was an SPA. Eusebeus (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that this user simply has an interest in this topic but alot of the edits seem to me to be trying to adjust the bias of the articles. It's essential that he/she understands NPOV policy and how to apply it to one's own edits. I think the major problem here is the personal attacks. I don't think it's possible to deal with the neutrality dispute whilst this editor is branding anyone who in opposition a 'Hispanophobe'. --neon white talk 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that this user has just come off a university undergraduate course specialising in Spanish/LatAm colonial history, so they clearly do have a valid interest in these topics. On the other hand, he does appear to have an issue with perceptions of "hispanophobia" at Wikipedia - see his reason for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin nationalism, where he is not attacking anyone in particular (until he later attacks me at the bottom). (The funny thing about him accusing me of it is that I am half Spanish myself) He also appears to believe that, because he has studied this subject at university, he knows more than anyone else and is excused of having to provide references. And he continues to not follow even simple things like learning how to indent posts on talk pages (see his response to my polite request on that [50] - "I couldn't care less") So for me, the issue of personal attacks is just one manifestation of his inability to follow Wikipedia policies and conventions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is anyone can claim to have degree in anything, that's why we require verifiability. --neon white talk 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still coming... [51] [52] And again - more claims that I am biased, this time on WP:ANI, ironically enough [53] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Keverich1

The user has a nasty habit of lashing out at other editors who don't share his opinion (see here, especially problematic here, here or here). Maybe some admin might like to have a word with him about it?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 16.12.2008 15:19

This is one that clearly differs from the above section. The former's words are targeted at the user's opinions. The latter here is accusing other editors of being terrorist supports and self-hating Jews, merely because they do not share the same opinion of Keverich1. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you allow me to speak in my defence, I didn't accuse Pedro of being terrorist supporter, I merely asked him to voice his stance on terrorism (which he refused to do).Keverich1 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not very truthful. "you didn't answer my question - do you support terrorism, Pedrito?" is not an literal question, it is an accusation. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You see, English is not my native language, but when last time I checked my grammar texbook, "?" sign at the end meant that the sentence is a question.Keverich1 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a question mark at the end of the classic "did you stop beating your wife?", but no one would confuse that with a valid question either. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see these as problematic as the above one, personally. Both are examples of breaches of Wikipedia policy, but the above seems more directed to insult and inflame while the latter edits seem just a little absurd. The first edit also talks about the edits and asks if the person is a terrorist. Definitely inappropriate, but it seems so silly that it's hard to be too offended. The second is a comment made to a friend about a third party (also not a definitive statement), and for the last one it looks like the only infraction would be using Wikipedia like a message board. I would say that the user should be warned of how insulting his comments can be (especially the first) and if he persists, some action should be taken.LedRush (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Keverich1 should improve his/her civility. Wikipedia is about collaboration and compromise, silly accusations serve no purpose at all and personal opinions have no relevance to a discussion. --neon white talk 14:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pedrito

This user makes personal value judgements abouts other users and their habits. In particular he alleges that I possess "a nasty habit of lashing out at other editors who don't share his opinion". This claim is first, incorrect, and second, it is rather insulting because some purported features of my personality have been dubbed as "nasty". Furthermore, User:Pedrito accused me of POV pushing then I added references confirming that US and EU view Hamas as terrorist organisation. With all due respect, I don't see how proving relevant information backed by reliable sources constitutes POV pushing, nor do I understand the nature of User:Pedrito's complaints against me.Keverich1 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps differences would help, but I don't see anything wrong with the comments per se. While not particularly nice, the statements aren't really nasty and could be (I don't know) backed up by evidence.LedRush (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the case when he removed all the references, confirming that EU and US view Hamas as terrorist, and said that it was POV pushing?? [54] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keverich1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC) More to the point, when I told Pedrito that adding relevant links doesn't represent a POV pushing, he initially allowed then into the article, but withing a few minutes he deleted the references again. Currently the article about Gaza strip makes no mention that Hamas (ruling party) is veiwed as terrorist organisation by many countries. I'm not sure this is appopriate.Keverich1 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I made one big revert undoing a slew of edit by Keverich1. There were some bits of baby in the bathwater, referring to a sentence out of context. I removed that sentence too. This is an article on the Gaza Strip and not the Gaza Strip and the evil Hamas... Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.12.2008 16:24

User:Pedrito opposes any mention of Hamas terrorist activities to be made in article, yet he isists that Hamas should be called "democratically elect government of Palestine". [55] Every word in this definition is highly controversial, yet User:Pedrito attempts to present it as fair and balances view. In my view, User:Pedrito uses Wikipedia to promote his personal political views on Pal-Israeli conflict. Such actions would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policies.Keverich1 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Pedrito of this alert. [56]. Pedro :  Chat  16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone makes a (valid) complaint about you, so your immediate reaction is to retaliate in a similar manner? I think it's time to take a very close look here. ♪BMWΔ 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider my complain against Pedrito as retaliation.Keverich1 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Immediately above is a WQA entry about you, which is ongoing (and appears to support the complaint). If you wanted this to be part of the original discussion, you would not have made a separate heading. Instead, you lodged it as a complaint immediately after theirs. That's called "tit for tat", and is truly retaliation. I have also edited the username ABOVE as you were asked to do. ♪BMWΔ 17:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please get the username correct Keverich1. It is Pedrito not Pedro. Pedro :  Chat  16:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Of course I meant Pedrito.Keverich1 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• WQAs are specifically for commenting on difficult editors behavior, so the 'comment on contributions not the contributor' doesnt really apply here. --neon white talk 14:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look at this [57] edit in greater detail. Saying that other user "has a nasty habit" is not a contribution, it is a personal insult, which doesn't exactly conform to the spirit of collaboration that Wikipedia tries to promote.Keverich1 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As i said WQAs are for commenting on other editors. Persuing silly complaints about what seems to be very valid concerns voiced in the WQA above is not demonstrating any effort to improve the behaviour. It simply further illustrates the belligerent attitude. --neon white talk 20:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your continued reference to the WQA against you is merely additional proof that this is a retaliatory filing. ♪BMWΔ 22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by user

User:NoseNuggets has initiated a personal attack on me [58] after I have repeatedly warned him to provide references for his edits and not to edit-war over formatting. [59] [60] [61] [62] Diffs provided. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you did not notify the other user of this filing, as per the instructions on the page. Second, why is this marked as a minor edit? Third, although your own userpage says you don't like to be lectured, you certainly seem to have done a lot of it yourself. Fourth, I'm usually a disbeliever in WP:DTTR, but in this case, 3 templates in quick succession was far beyond what was required in this situation towards someone who has been editing for 3-1/2 years. Fifth, rather than discuss changes and achieve consensus on the article Talk page, you seem to have taken this directly to usertalk. Sixth, your "I've also reported you to the BASEBALL project" was probably the last needling that this user needed to snap back at you. Certainly, threats against you are not acceptable, and I will notify the user - but you certainly began the cycle of WP:CIVIL, and I recommend you not do this again in the future. ♪BMWΔ 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not notifying the other user was my mistake, thanks for catching it. I habitually mark things as minor edits if I haven't done a lot of typing. As to the usertalk issue, I have gone directly to the user talk page because this editor has repeatedly refused to use article talk pages even when discussions have been started and edit summaries requesting discussion have been posted. I fail to see how the fault per WP:CIVIL is mine. This is an ongoing issue, not just the past few days. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A leads to B which leads to C (see here for an explanation). As noted, I have attempted to engage the editor. ♪BMWΔ 19:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

SlyFrog making persitent personal attacks against Matt Windman

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Has become an ANI/3RR issue - moved to ANI by User:Bwilkins

I've got a problem with a user going under the name of SlyFrog's posts to an article about Matt Windman. Matt Windman keeps reposting articles about himself in spite of it previously being deleted by a deletion discussion, which he shouldn't be doing, but Slyfrog (and some anonymous users) has been responding to this by posting attacks about Matt Windman in the main article, which really is not on. I've tried deleting all the inappropriate remarks and moving the few semi-appropriate ones to the talk page, but he/she keeps reposting. To be fair, Slyfrog is now refraining from reposting the worst of the personal attacks, but if you look at the history, you'll see what you mean.

I expect the Matt Windham page will be deleted soon already, but you might want to have a word with SlyFrog about this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some edits on the page, although agreeably the article is weak. I have left an incivility welcome template on SlyFrog's talkpage - not sure why someone else didn't discuss these issues directly with the offending editor. ♪BMWΔ 19:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: User reverted my changes. User has violated 3RR on this article. Because of the nature of the edits that the user is protecting, I have raised this at WP:ANI. ♪BMWΔ 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment This dispute popped up on the Bot Reported 3RR Violations Report. I have since noticed that the page (Matt Windman) has been deleted. Sly_frog was in violation of that rule; but, I had hoped the dispute would die down now that the page had been deleted. Just an update :) Lazulilasher (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:IronDuke

This user has been threatening to block me before showing any willingness to discuss things with a calm head. When he finds an edit which he disagrees with, he is not willing to use talk page constructively. He will just revert using cryptic edit summary(like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Pipes&diff=258687248&oldid=258570696) and next thing you will see is that there is a message in your user page where instead of assuming good faith and explaining his edits, he is threatening to block you or discourage you from editing further. He actively tries to provoke me using aggressive threats, calling me a novice, and falsely assuming that I am a sock without any evidence.(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZencv&diff=253080703&oldid=253078531 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZencv&diff=258884498&oldid=253082780). His pretext that I have violated WP:BLP (and hence his aggression is justified) has not been supported by any 3rd editor or an admin. In any case, even if my edits were questionable, his language is not conducive to good faith, civility and harmoniuos atmosphere that would encourage others to contribute. I realize that he had a history of stalking and aggression.(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke#WP:STALK) Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 13:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This "report" is completely without merit, forum-shopping from an editor who already tried to pass off my legitimate reversions of his repeated BLP vios on Daniel Pipes as vandalism here which complaint was swiftly removed, and now as a wikiquette violation. (And the link about stalking was regarding another editor stalking me, which I moved to my own talk page as he kept erasing my pleas for him to stop on his own). IronDuke 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The merit would be decided by a 3rd party looking into my talk page. Yes I did post it into Vandalism page accidently and I had been aware of that mistake, but that doesn't discredit a case against you Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 16:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What case? My understanding that is, that when IronDuke said you stood a chance of getting blocked, his intent was to keep you from getting blocked. As for your claim of being a "novice," you seem to know your way around WP very well for a novice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at this case, and it appears to be a mountain being made out of a molehill. The summary, as I see it, is that an anon attempted to add a BLP violation to the article Daniel Pipes (that he was anti-Muslim). The information was removed, and then an attempt was made to discuss it on the talkpage. But every post that was made on the talkpage about it, IronDuke (talk · contribs) removed. Then Zencv (talk · contribs) restored it. An edit-war on the talkpage ensued, which overflowed to WP:AIV as Zencv filed a vandalism report on IronDuke, and IronDuke is posting to Zencv threatening that he's probably going to be blocked, then Zencv comes here and files a report at Wikiquette alerts. There's also a thread at WP:BLPN at this point.

To both Zencv and IronDuke: Please chill out, k? You both appear to be good editors, who have just hit a misunderstanding on this one point. I'm not seeing any (serious) violations of any policies here, so my recommendation, to both of you, is to think about how to de-escalate this situation. Please try to work it out? Especially since you're both editing in the same topic area, wouldn't it be better to find a way to be allies, rather than enemies? Please take it to each other's talkpages (or off-wiki) and try to find a way to communicate with each other. I also recommend that both of you look at the comments that you've been placing on each other's talkpages, and look hard at them as to whether you think those comments were likely to escalate a dispute or de-escalate a dispute. The goal in dispute resolution is de-escalation, in case you needed a hint. So please, take a look at your comments and think about re-factoring them to try and cool things down? Thanks, --Elonka 19:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, this is an editor who has previously edit-warred to insert the idea that Pipes is a bigot and that his occupation is propagandist. Do those edits appear "good" to you? IronDuke 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I appreciate that you are trying to be evenhanded, but IronDuke has not engaged in incivility, and Zencv certainly has. For instance this unfounded accusation of "stalking" [63] is certainly a violation of WP:civil, and from an editor who understands the implications of such an accusation.. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I think you're overstating the case just a bit. First of all, both those diffs are a month old. And for the first diff, he wasn't inserting, he was restoring (though granted, the information should have included a citation). For the second diff, he said that he was adding something per a source (though which source is not clear). I'm not saying that Zencv's actions were perfect, but I am saying that I'm not seeing bad faith here. Or let me put this another way: What exactly would you like administrators to do at this point? --Elonka 19:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm being overcautious about BLP, I'd prefer that to not being cautious enough. Yes, it's a month old, but hardly ancient history, and shows a pretty clear pattern -- I did not include all the diffs with edits that had the effect of trying to undermine Pipes in various ways, subtle and not. The first diff is a serious smear with no citation. That's a BLP vio, full stop. As for the second... you really think there's an adequate source to add to Pipes' infobox that his occupation -- his literal occupation -- is that of "propagandist?" I don't know what to say when you say you don't see bad faith... I see egregious, serial violations of BLP. I think a strong warning to Zencv that he must be very very careful on talk and in the article about BLP or risk blocking/and or article ban would be a quite mild response. I don't need to see Zenc punished, I just need to see him stop violating core policy. IronDuke 20:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for your efforts. Ironduke - you are cleverly trying to build a case against me here by saying that I tried to insert the word "bigot" in the BLP. The word was inserted by someone else and was lying there for long and was supposed to be a summary of the further sentences that followed(well it said s.thing of the kind "XYZ was praised as a prophet and condemned as a bigot...".). Is it unususal to have summaries of bigger paragraphs? In any case it contained praises as well. On the other hand, you were keen on inserting completely wrong information by twisting sources as was evident here.

Malcolm Schosha, I was editing something, IronDuke reverted(again and again), I tried to use talkpage, that too was reverted and I got a message calling me a novice and accusing me that I have multiple account(without substantiating it with any proof) - who is being incivil here? Me or Ironduke? Who is the provocator here? If you had a look into the section in my talkpage, you could see that I did accuse him of stalking, but not before repeated provocations. I did not claim that I was a novice, but rather that he accused me of being one in an apparent attempt to disparage me and my edits and thus bullying out me of editing. If he had good faith, then he should have pointed out what he thinks is wrong with my edits(let me say that I forgave him for being too cryptic and parsimonious with edit summary and talk pages). He was not trying to prevent me from getting blocked out of sympathy, rather trying to build a case against me in WP:BLPN, though he was unsuccessful there. I saw him violating 1) WP:AGF 2) WP:NPOV by trying to squeeze poorly sourced sentences in the same WP:BLP and 3) threatening to block me after making some unsubstantiated claims. Though I don't take any of these personally, not giving a warning to Ironduke may result in his behaviour getting repeated and hence my post here. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I neither called you a novice nor accused you of having more than one account. From your edit history, the Zencv account has not been editing all that long, but it seemed possible you had one or more accounts previously and I asked -- only asked -- if that was so (a question I think you never answered, by the way). IronDuke 23:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and when you continually resinsert a BLP vio, whether you were the original author or no, you become an author of it, just as bad as the orginal violation. IronDuke 23:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Sorry I mixed up the part about "novice."
2. BLP, as far as I know applies also to user talk pages.
3. Calling another user a "stalker" just because they are doing something you do not like is excessive, and is still (I think) a civility violation in this case. .
4. Articles that touch on Israel/Palestine issues, are frequently under dispute, with editors tending not to assume much in the way of good faith. If I ever think of a painless way to solve the friction between the editors working on these articles, I will let you know.
5. Sorry about any mistakes I made, as well as for for any unfair criticism.....and for criticism that (even if, perhaps, fair) was still unhelpful.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Urbanrenewal

Resolved

 – Both users have ceased contact Ryan4314 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the many things I like about Wikipedia is that it is not USENET - flames and personal attacks, hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, is not only not the standard, but is strongly discouraged.

Here's the diff that lead me to post the comment at the top of this thread. Related is the initial response from User:Urbanrenewal on my talk page.

I acknowledged my incorrect interpretation of {hangon}, and tried to reconcile, but was rebuffed. Please note that I did state my intention to request arbitration if we could not reconcile. [Added for clarity. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC) ]

As I stated in my comments, rudeness discourages participation. I would hope that unrepentent rudeness is strongly discouraged. Help would be appreciated.

Thanks --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've had a read through both user's talk page comments. It seems that Joe admittedly slightly misinterpreted the {hangon} tag and therefore Urbanrenewal's initial response seems quite civil and justified. After that I would say both sides did not help to diffuse the situation, by making accusations of personal attacks and overly sarcastic comments. However that all seems a bit irrelevant now as both sides have expressed a desire not to continue the disagreement, and as only Urbanrenewal is fixing on the article, they will not be forced into working together. I think this avoidance of each other would be the best course of action. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Response from 4wajzkd02:

• Regarding Urbanrenewals first response, I found this part to be both offensive and not WP:AGF, particularly as I said nothing about being (nore was I) offended in my initial note to him/her - I expressed concern regarding not doing what I thought was required - posting a {{hangon}} tag in the article, and noting in the Talk page of the article the reason for doing so. Mea culpa that I was wrong on this point, but "My Friend" (as he sarcastically annointed himself) did nothing to explain this until well after he began to insult me.

If you are going to get offended by me simply deleting your tag, probably tagging articles for deletion is not the best line of work for you.

• When I raised my concern in my next correspondence with Urbanrenewals, he became increasingly strident in his sarcasm, and mocked my "earnest" comments.
• I'm surprised and disappointed that you find equivalency in our comments to each other, e.g., my offer to reconcile vs. his/her note that he was done being amused with me for the evening.
• As I noted in my initial complaint:
  • I thought Wiki was not USENET, where people can be offensive with impunity, hiding behind the anonymity of their accounts,
  • Such discourtesy discourages involvement
    • It certainly has discouraged mine - why bother contributing, when I might run into someone like Urbanrenewals again, when there is no consequence to those who act discourteously - with time, I suspect Wiki will become more and more like USENET, if this is how things work (despite policies to the contrary)
    • I suspect this has done nothing to encourage more respect (for the rules, if not others) and courtesy from Urbanrenewals - feel free to peruse his talk page for what appear to be repeated notes from others about the former.

--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe, I have read the exchange between you two, but my opinion still remains as stated above. If you want to pursue this then you first need to notify Urbanrenewal of this alert on his talk page (with a link to this discussion). Saying that, I wouldn't recommend it.

I'd imagine the community would "side" with him. You've got to remember that your first post didn't assume good faith (as you've admitted it was your mistake) and your second post was quite hostile (using language such as "shame on you") whereas his first post was quite civil.

You've got to ask yourself, "what are you hoping to achieve"? If your hoping to get him banned or punished somehow, I can't see it happening. It's been a week now since this confrontation happened and there hasn't been any further conflict, you haven't had any personal attacks, I would say that this is the desired effect of a Wikiquette Alert. My advice to you would be to forget about this and not draw anymore attention to it. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What I was hoping to achieve was simply an acknowledgment of the other user's inappropriate sarcasm and hostility, and that our commentary was not equivalent. That you believe the "community" would side with the other user concerns me - I hope you're wrong, for the sake of this projects. That there has been no further conflict is simple - I have abstained from editing or vandalism fixing since that time. That you feel his first post was "quite civil" continues to amaze me. I'd like to thank you for the results, but I can't do so in good conscience. I do thank you for your effort, but doubt I'll expend one moment of time contributing. You're "arbitration" has convinced me of the lack of value of etiquette here (which is really not far removed from anarchy). --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before I'm not prepared to carry on this discussion until you've notified Urbanrenewal (with a link to this discussion). However given your last comment I think you should re-read my original post, I did mention Urbanrenewal's sarcasm. I'm marking this as resolved, unless you notify Urbanrenewal. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#user:ScienceApologist.

---

User:ScienceApologist is a well-known and established user with some history of wiki-stress and abusive hehaviour. Latest uncivil remarks are here. I am not going to take this any further, but perhaps someone who he will listen to could have a friendly word, on or off the record, before he really goes too far. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If WP:AGF were ever to get some sort of "What a Bad-Faith Action Looks Like" examples section, this ScienceApologist's "behind the scenes" shtick should be #1. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this would be #1, but I do agree with Tarc's reading of the situation. (I could not pass this up, the first instance when Tarc has said something I actually agree with.) I think ScienceApologist was being pretty restrained. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am, frankly, astonished. Can either of you please explain why you seem to think I am not acting in good faith ?? Malcolm Schosha, can you explain why you say ScienceApologist was "being pretty restrained" ?? I am trying, civilly and poltely, to get it recognised that Wikipedia:Scientific standards is now an historical proposal where there is no live discussion taking place. I suggested marking it as historical 3 weeks ago, and there were a small number of objections. In the intervening period there has been no further actvity on either the proposal page or its talk page, so I repeated my suggestion. ScienceApologist called this "incessant and petulant nagging" and "obsessive harping", and has since gone on to call me "rude and dismissive". Why is ScienceApologist's uncivil language condoned whereas my polite and civil reporting of his abuse is criticised ?? What exactly was I supposed to do in this situation ?? Am I just supposed to just accept his abuse ?? Is ScienceApologist somehow exempt from the normal rules of acceptable behavior on Wikipedia ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this ScienceApologist's actions, not yours. I'll make that more clear now in my initial comment, and will have to disappoint poor Malcolm as we will be once again on opposite sides of an issue. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I have adjusted my response accordingly, although it has been made more or less irrelevant by the WP:ANI thread (which I was not aware of and have only just read). I brought my report here because I was hoping this incident could be dealt quietly without triggering the wiki-drama storm that always surrounds a ScienceApologist discussion at ANI. I now see that that hope was optimistic, and possibly naive. Ho hum. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Having spent enough time seeing SA's name both here and in ANI, I knew that trying to deal with it "quietly" was a pipedream. My apologies. ♪BMWΔ 20:22, 22 December 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: Richard Myers

Resolved

 – Editors are engaged in civil discussion on the article talk page

This user keeps reverting my edits without providing any reason, even when they are sourced. When i try to add a subsection to the article Union busting to provide an alternate view, he removes it without any reason and he will not respond to other users' protests about the biased POV of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 14:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor has responed to your edits on the article talk page, i suggest using it to discuss the edits further. This seems to me to be a content dispute not an etiquette issue. As this dispute seems to be about POV, the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might be of help to gain input on the edits. --neon white talk 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you warn him of this action? Is this really a civility issue? Could you provide some diffs to explain why this is an issue for a Wikiquette alert?LedRush (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I did warn him of this action. Go to the board, I said several times not to revert it. Also, I did source my edits and comply with his requests for sourcing and other things as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant did you warn him that you started a Wikiquette Alert about him, as stated in the instructions above: "Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here." Also, per above, "Sign your report by using LedRush (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC) or the signature button in the edit bar."

Finally, I would tend to agree with our assessment of the users actions, but this doesn't seem like the right forum. This seems like a content dispute as Neon White has mentioned above.LedRush (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy in Jamaica - User BillCJ

I request assistance on Monarchy in Jamaica article. It was agreed on the Talk:Monarchies in Europe discussion that some edits by user user:Nightstallion actually belonged with page specific for that nation. These were the declarations by the Jamaican govt to reform their monarchy. They were from reliable sources. The followng 'diff' shows the paragraph and sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Jamaica&diff=260132322&oldid=260130825

User User:BillCJ has now reverted this information many times with oblique comments in the history. The start was 23-Nov-2008. Several hours ago, I got him to write something on the discussion page. But he goes on a bigger pushback saying that the meterial is 'out of date' and I am vandalising, 'POV pushing' and making 'false claims' - Bold opinions but with no evidence. The discussion page now speaks for itself (see Talk:Monarchy_of_Jamaica#Jamaica Labor Party Manifesto). We have both put 3RR warnings on our userpages, although I am restoring not reverting. Nevertheless, I decided to back off. Surely, this is not constructive and hope you can help. --Lawe (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have provided the Wikiquette warning to User:BillCJ however it was reverted with the comment "I could care less". --Lawe (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for the civility issues. e.g. the personal accusations. --neon white talk 12:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Jamaica&diff=260130509&oldid=260128882 ----Lawe (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt accuse anyone of making false claims, it says the article is making false claims. The only incivility i can see there is the accusations of vandalism. I think this can be resolved on the talk page. --neon white talk 13:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Lawe (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

USER: Realkyhick - personal attacks and use of tags and admin tools as harassment

Resolved

 – Pointless. Nonadmins can't abuse admin tools --Smashville^talk 00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Realkyhick makes personal attacks when people have a different opinion and uses admin tools/tags as harassment.

A) You haven't notified him of this discussion, B) you haven't provided any diffs and C} He's not an admin, so there is no way he can abuse admin tools.. We cannot have a discussion without anything to discuss. --Smashville^talk 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User:EdmOilers023

Stale

Not really an incident, but I posted a warning template[64] on his talk page for unnecessary over-linking,[65] after which he took issue and started accusing me of trying to own the encyclopedia.[66][67] I told him that there was a style guideline for overlinking,[68][69] but he took issue once again, and resumed his accusations of how I'm trying to own Wikipedia. I then told him that the reason I see unproductive edits quickly is because of a watchlist, [70] but he couldn't care less and continued on his tirade about how I'm trying to own articles.[71] If someone could point him in the right direction, it'd be great, cause I'm tired of his antics. Pandacomics (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest warning the editor about policy on personal attacks. --neon white talk 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try that, but I'll wait for a bit, because I already posted a notice asking the editor to assume good faith; [72] three notices in one day is a bit much. Pandacomics (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued incivility and bad faith assumptions [73] Pandacomics (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And using a derogatory Australian term was civil on your part? ♪BMWΔ 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Australian, so I wouldn't have known that it was a derogatory term. But now I know. Pandacomics (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a level 2 civility warning, and having looked at some of their edits, left them some other useful information. Agreeably, another uninvolved editor should have provided this incivility warning rather than you leaving it ... you would have been better off backing away from the situation. I'll keep an eye on this for a little while. ♪BMWΔ 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at the Ella Chen article Pandacomics seems to do a lot of reverting of what isn't obviously (to me) vandalism without any explanation in the Edit Summary or discussion page. So maybe that's affecting EdmOilers023's perception of the editing.Gerardw (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the funniest thing I've heard, you'll let me QUOTE "I'll keep an eye on this for a little while." END OF QUOTE. What are you now, an ADMIN? ADMIN ADMIN ADMIN??? EdmOilers023 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read above, most of the Wikipedia editors who respond on this forum are not admins, and we attempt to deal with civility issues informally and without the immediate threat of blocks. This usually helps resolve issues between rational editors before they become escalated. Occasionally, we do refer these threads to WP:ANI. ♪BMWΔ 09:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohh I'm sorry, but I don't know how to read. And what?! Am I reading things? Did you just say that you are not an admin? Or are you refering to someone else? EdmOilers023 (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You read right, I'm not an admin, and have never pretended to be. That said, all editors on Wikipedia are supposed to attempt to maintain/enforce the policies and protocols. ♪BMWΔ 11:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User:LouPepe and User:sgt dizzle guy

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

I have opened a sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61 (3rd) regarding the two users. Since then, both have engaged in personal attacks against myself and other editors opposing them in a content dispute on Beer style. They also seem to be engaged in some kind of harassment campaign against User:Editor437.

• LouPepe: [74], [75]
• sgt dizzle guy: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

Killing Vector (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait until the sockpuppetry case is concluded. If both accounts are blocked as sockpuppets then this alert becomes redundant. --neon white talk 12:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been no motion on the sockpuppetry case in almost a month. --Killing Vector (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:sgt dizzle guy has deleted the notification of this discussion on his talk page; this implies he has read the notification. --Killing Vector (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I should point out that beer style has been a den of incivility for some time now. To single out one or two editors who happen to fall on one side of the dispute that has been festering there for about two years now paints an incomplete picture. – ClockworkSoul 02:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There's accusing someone of reading too many homebrewing books, and then there's the whole different level of taunting, crass insults, and vandalizing user pages that these two have been up to. --Killing Vector (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Too true. I posted a final warning to User:sgt dizzle guy's talk page about the page vandalism: if there is any repeat of that behavior, I or another admin will block him. – ClockworkSoul 08:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Both users have been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --Killing Vector (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered User:79.64.93.84

Resolved

 – Inappropriate rant removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This user has made uncivil comments in the LTTE talk page (in the first section called "Administration"). I think the comments should be removed but the etiquette page states that other editors talk page comments shouldn't be edited. What should I do?Obi2canibe (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page comments that have nothing to do with the improvement of the article, such as pointless rants about the subject as is the case here, can be removed. It's a dynamic ip and the problem isn't serious or ongoing so i'd just remove the comments and leave it at that. --neon white talk 17:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's a good idea to check if it's appropriate to remove them - in this case, most certainly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Obi2canibe (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple disagreement that escalated into article talkpage reverts

Resolved

Myself, Benjiboi (talk · contribs), and another user, Viriditas (talk · contribs), had a basic disagreement on talk:Mississippi and I think the issue escalated a bit because our time zones or editing cycles resulted in layered editing rather than cross-editing at the same time. That is, some edits to both the article and talkpage and later reverts and responses but nothing terribly fluid as a back and forth thread might normally appear.

I took exception when they interrupted my comments with rebuttals in addition to what I saw as accusing me of edit-warring.[84] The situation didn't get much better as my focus, now not feeling particularly welcome on the article, was to restoring what I felt was the continuity of the conversation on the talkpage only.[85] In brief, as I saw it, and I thought I explained, by interrupting my comments it inferred a dialog that didn't occur - as if I had completely ignored their reply and simply posted again. I moved their comment below mine into chronological order but they reverted. I reverted their revert again and the latest round included removing and, IMHO, refactoring my comments again and adding some personal insults.[86] This was followed by more of the same on my talkpage with added insults and assurances that I would be ignored in all future communication.[87]

I'm sure I could have handled this better ... I thought I explained my position about interrupting my comments without going overboard and my understanding is that we generally don't do it in cases like these. I guess I'd like some advice how I should have handled it and to extend goodwill in hopes we can learn from this and move on. -- Banjeboi 11:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Warren

Resolved

Warren is a very established but uncivil editor. He has posted uncivil, profane comments to User:Sotcr and User:Jasper Deng ([88], [89], [90]) and when warned that he would be reported here, he responded that threats to report him have never panned out. Also, since then, he has used profanity in an edit summary. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it would probably be better if User:Warren chose to express himself without profanity, but it'd be good if everyone on the Talk:Windows 7 would stop the accusations. Reviewing the Talk page, User:Jasper Deng has received suggestions from multiple editors to be more civil. The civility thing is supposed to be a suggestion of how we should each behave, not a "gotcha" game to attack other editors with.Gerardw (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No one's trying to play a "gotcha" game here. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I too had my share of unpleasant dealings with the uncivil User:Warren. From my stand point, he lacks the good mental judgment and common sense when it comes to certain articles. Last week, I found myself engaged in an unwanted edit war over the Meet the Press article which according to NBC News is now called “Meet the Press with David Gregory”. He tried to discredit David’s name from the title, which I wouldn’t allow. In one of his edit summaries, he did not exercise restraint, and lashed out by using profanity to make his statement. Now I see myself engaged an another unwanted edit war with this editor over another Sunday morning political talk show Fox News Sunday. I questioned why only those two articles, and not all other television shows where the names of their respective host is clearly on the title card? I do not dispute the fact that he is a presence on Wikipedia for a good while now. But just because one has been editing on wikipedia for years now, it does not mean that person is honest and reputable. As I’m quickly finding out, this editor User:Warren falls into that category. S3884h (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All this coming from someone who expressed their interest in having anal sex with Sarah Palin, in the introductory sentence of that Wikipedia article, the day before the 2008 presidential election. You also haven't explained why the fact that my user page states that I live in Canada somehow disqualifies me from editing a subject.

If you're wondering why I didn't touch the other shows, it's because the other shows include the host's name in the show. Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday do not. See, what you're doing here is a common mistake -- trying to apply a single pattern over multiple articles, where the pattern doesn't actually fit 100%. The name of the show is, provably, Meet the Press. It says so right on their web site -- a fact you've dismissed as irrelevant (thus, perhaps, demonstrating your lack of interest in WP:V). The fact that some shows include the host's name in the show's title doesn't mean we go around changing the names of other shows to do the same. That's not how we produce an accurate encyclopedia. Complaining about me taking you to task for trying to bend the article into something that isn't accurate isn't going to produce a better encyclopedia, which, presumably, is why you're here. Warren -talk- 14:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the biggest nonsense I heard all week long. Not only is this editor uncivil, but irrational as well. I don’t know where this editor gets this off-the-wall idea that Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday do not include the names of David Gregory and Chris Wallace respectively when it is CLEARLY shown on the title cards and logos of both of these respective articles, on the networks of NBC and FOX, and theie respective websites. What’s next? Is he’s going to remove George Stephanopoulos and Bob Schieffer’s name from their respective Sunday Talk Shows. Maybe he might take his irrational way of thinking to the late night talk shows and remove Jay Leno, David Letterman and Conan O’Brien’s names, and have their respective shows be called “The Tonight Show”, “The Late Show”, and “Late Night” only. And who knows if he’s going to stop there. This probably does sound ridiculous. But witnessing first hand what this editor, Warren, has done last week, I would not rule that unthinkable possibility out

As for the Sarah Palin edit, I challenge you to find another unproductive, controversial edit on my record. Be my guest, but I’ll tell you this much. You’ll find nothing, because unlike Warren I personally DO NOT use profanity and vulgar slang in my edits. Now clearly there is absolutely not way for me to prove that the Sarah Palin edit was done by another person using my wikipedia screen name. In a time when identity theft is on the rise in every aspect of life, anything is possible. Therefore, I’m not even going to try to prove my innocence there because editors like Warren are going to believe what they want to believe, and there’s absolute nothing that other editors can do to change his stubborn state of mind. I don’t go on wikipedia to start controversy, looking for trouble, and create bad blood with other editors. But when I do encounter someone like Warren who does like to do this, mark my word I will stand my ground against these uncivil, unreasonable and controversial editors. S3884h (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You've directed quite a number of insults in my direction in the last few days: Let's see, we've got: "absolutely no knowledge", "uncivil", "irrational", "obnoxious vandal", "wishes to cause controversy", "looks very unintelligent", "a particular part of a donkey", "stubborn"... wouldn't surprise me if there's more, either. All this over the fact that you refuse to accept a television show's own web site, its associated transcripts and press releases, and other reliable sources (such as what other publications call the show) as suitable proof that the show is called "Meet the Press", not "Meet the Press with David Gregory". You've also accused me of having intentions of discrediting the subject; this is quite at odds with my editing history on Wikipedia.

I've seen people like you come and go countless times on Wikipedia -- folks who have a single-minded agenda, and seem much more keen on carrying on ridiculous arguments with people whilst contributing nothing to the encyclopedia itself. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make friends or enemies. If you aren't helping with building the encyclopedia (which comes from constructive edits in the main & template namespaces), then you probably shouldn't be complaining too loudly about how others go about doing their contributions.

Consider Jasper Deng. In the last six months has done a handful of edits to the encyclopedia -- two reversions of edits I made on Windows 7 regarding a screenshot (that has since been deleted due to its unsuitability for use on Wikipedia); a couple of items on an article about a Chinese chess game, and this, a fairly clear-cut case of biased, non-neutral editing. In that time he has also posted to article talk pages dozens of times, more often than not criticising what other editors have done. I've no particular interest in criticism of how I do my work from people who do no work themselves and have little appreciation for Wikipedia's neutrality, sourcing, and non-free content policies. Sure, I attract criticism from people who don't understand these policies, but so do a lot of regular editors who work hard at upholding them. Anyone who thinks they can push me like this can go fuck themselves -- I'm not expected to have patience for this sort of bullshit.

(Oh, no, profanity!)

Finally, you are responsible for controlling your account. Administrators tend to take a dim view towards claims of, "someone stole my account and made that edit!" ... that's your failure, not Wikipedia's; the fact is that someone hand to clean up after you, and that an important article was trodden upon for the better part of two minutes (which can be hundreds, or thousands of page views at a critical time). Warren -talk- 16:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case on the type of editor you truly are, and the character you possess. As for the phrase I use to describe you... "absolutely no knowledge", "uncivil", "irrational", "obnoxious vandal", "wishes to cause controversy", "looks very unintelligent", "a particular part of a donkey", "stubborn" etc...I’ll use them over and over to describe you if I have too. Surely I’m not the only editor who thinks this way about you. You really think you can full anybody of the type of editor you really are? Honest, fair and reputable? And that you’re not here to make enemies? You are nothing but a phony. All you have done lately is make enemies, and we are all fed with it. At least I am being honest of what I say. It’s not against the rules for me to say these types of things about you. They are not profane words. You want me to say you’re a donkey youknowwhat? Forget it. I’m not going to stoop to your level of immature swearing like you just did in the last part of your statement on User:Jasper Deng for instance. Other people know the kind of editor you really are, and we’re not going to let you get away with the kind of ridiculous actions you pull on a daily basis. S3884h (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

/!\ I used incivility first, when I became very mad at Josh and/or Warren over the Builds section, but now I have changed; deleting those incivility comments on the talk page however is dis-honest. I want to be honest so I left those comments even though they are now false.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I remind editors that this page is not a place to continue a content dispute, it's specifically for commenting on etiquette issues only, please remember to keep statements to the point. Obviously all editors involved in a dispute are required to be civil but i think this is about ongoing incivility. However despite being a long time contributor, it seems clear from the examples provided that User:Warren has serious problems with civility that is incompatible with being a useful contributor to the project and his response does not lead me to believe that he has any intention of responding to any warnings and requests to improve his civility in a positive manner. Very disappointing from an experienced editor. I believe this may require admin attention. --neon white talk 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Neon ... and unfortunately, I'm about to make a content statement: the show in question has a legal, registered, copyrighted trade name: Meet the Press. Just like "The Late Show with David Letterman"'s legal name is "The Late Show", and "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" is simply "The Tonight Show", or "Extra Strength Tylenol" is really simply the extra-strength version of the trademarked "Tylenol". Networks append new host's names, and may or may not trademark the addition. The person's name merely improves marketing. I say this simply to show how silly the whole incivility is in this situation. Now, cut it out. ♪BMWΔ 20:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately? Discussion of the content belongs on Talk:Meet The Press. The issue here is Warren's perceived civility. Gerardw (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Aye, and my attempts at keeping the article in that form has resulted in me being accused of trying to discredit the new host of Meet the Press, and of (I'm not making this up here) being unqualified to comment on the subject, or work on the article, because my user page says I'm from Canada. I consider it extremely offensive that someone has the gumption to tell me that I'm not allowed to an edit an article because of where I may be from. Furthermore, the user deleted a comment of mine from another user's talk page today. I agree with Neon white that I'm not no paragon of civility, and I'd be happy to discuss that with people who actually contribute something positive to the encyclopedia, but I am being subjected to some rather ugly behaviour from this editor. Warren -talk- 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

... and, two days later, the editor in question is continuing with their steady stream of personal attacks, here on User:Luedhup2's talk page ("hard-headed", "unintelligent", accusations that I'm trying to discredit the subject). This follows the pattern seen on a prior comment on User:Feyday's talk page ("obnoxious", "irrational", more accusations of bad faith), as well as all the other uncivil comments I've noted above. Is this going to come to a point where I have to file a Wikiquette alert of my own against this editor? I hope not. In an attempt to avert a need for this, I've left S3884 a talk page comment by linking to the relevent WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:DR policies. Warren -talk- 13:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have been correct with regards to the content dispute but i don't feel you dealt with this difficult user in a very productive manner and likewise he didn't deal with you in an appropriate manner either. Is this simply a case of two editors prone to losing their cool?--neon white talk 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I will submit this accusation of sockpuppetry made by S3884H against me as part of the evidence ... someone forgot to read the part at the top where "those who try and resolve issues in WQA do not generally have a wish to get into a disagreement with you". ♪BMWΔ 16:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears I am, allegedly, also a Warren sockpuppet Talk:Gerardw. According to User:S3884h, it appears Warren set up at least two sockpuppets, "me" and User:Bwilkins back in March 2006, and starting posting here ( Wikipedia:Wikiquette ) week(s) before User:S3884h initiated the complaint regarding User:Warren, so that I (we?) could then spring the sockpuppets. Occam's Razor suggests the more reasonable explanation is we're separate people.Gerardw (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point, neonwhite, I'm not particularly interested in hearing about whether or not my response is "appropriate". I'm being attacked, repeatedly, by someone who doesn't contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. The editor isn't receiving any warnings for this behaviour, but I'm the one being threatened with "admin attention". As an editor that's given three years of their life and an immeasurably large number of hours of research to the project, give me one good reason why I have to put up with this nonsense from a non-contributor. ONE good reason. I'd love to hear it. Warren -talk- 16:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be respectful of all contributions from all editors regardless of how long they have been contributing or how much they have successfully contributed. Some of the comments you have made suggest you look down on less experienced editors. Remember that everyone starts somewhere and most of us made at least some poor and mistaken edits when we first began editing. I like to try and help new editors. --neon white talk 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and when someone isn't actually contributing anything to the encyclopedia other than harassing me? Am I supposed to be some kind of saint and put up with a raft of insults from people who aren't going to actually hit that edit button on articles and making improvements to the encyclopedia? I think this is one of the great failures of Wikipedia -- "yeah, sure, you've done a lot here, and the encyclopedia is piles better for your selfles, voluntary efforts, but if some new person comes along and hurls abuse at you, and you react as most human beings would react in the real world, you're not really welcome anymore, and a bunch of random people you've never heard of before will pop in to criticise you for having a human response." -- this is how we lose many of our good, long-term, productive editors who are also standard-issue human beings. It's an exceedingly hostile work environment, because the tools for avoiding hostility and conflict in the first place are exceedingly poor. But whatever, I tend to avoid kicking up a fuss about such things because there's still a lot of content to be written, and that's why I'm here. Warren -talk- 11:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing credible threats as far as admin attention. It was pointed out to you the profanity wasn't helping, and you (as far as I can tell) have refrained since then. Comments supporting your position on the Meet The Press article have been added by at least two editors on both Talk:Meet The Press and User talk:S3884h Gerardw (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's our policy. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I will admit that a number of Warren's comments (and edit summaries) have been uncivil, and he has been warned accordingly. However, other editors have to stop the baiting. To say "he's Canadian and doesn't know" or accusing him of trying to insult specific TV show hosts are simply hitting him with a cattle prod - eventually he's going to snap back. So, civility works both ways ... as does incivility. It does not excuse the actions, but explains them. See the ABC method on my userpage for more information. ♪BMWΔ 17:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst that is true but i would expect an editor of his experience to be less confrontational and go to dispute resolution sooner with problem editors. --neon white talk 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:S3884h

Resolved

This is my first Wikiquette filing in my three years on Wikipedia. Most of my disagreements with editors over the years have been resolved though consensus building, or by my choosing to simply walk away from the argument and find more productive things to do. Unfortunately, I find myself at a point with User:S3884h where the scope of his personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry, accusations of bad faith, persistent edit-warring, stalking, and generally unwelcome behaviour has brought me to pursuing formal dispute resolution.

As seen above, a Wikiquette alert was recently filed against me; I'm not going to win any awards for being easy to get along with, I'll grant that, and I will certainly listen to reasoned criticism along those lines. I've been given a few warnings in my time here, but nothing terribly formal, but I've never been blocked for incivil behaviour (or anything at all, really). Perhaps that's because people understand that I am actually here to build an encyclopedia, not to simply stir up controversy? I guess I'm a Gordon Ramsay of en-wiki or somesuch; profane but productive.

But even I know there's a point when things have gone too far. In the last week, this editor has described me (to myself and to others) using the following phrases: "absolutely no knowledge", "uncivil", "irrational", "obnoxious vandal", "wishes to cause controversy", "looks very unintelligent", "a particular part of a donkey", "stubborn", "hard-headed", "unintelligent", "irrational". I have been told that, because I live in Canada, I may not have seen Meet the Press and that this somehow disqualifies me from working on the article.[91] I have been told that, because of my "ego", I think I can "just go to any article [I] wish and put whatever [I] can pull out of [my] rear."[92] I have been told that I wish to cause controversy by trying to discredit David Gregory (journalist),[93] and that they "[weren't] going to allow that".[94]

Almost to a one, every sentence in their talk postings are attacks on me. Discussing the content is secondary; working towards a resolution doesn't seem to be a priority at all. When I provided a lengthy explanation for why "Meet the Press" is the correct name, they dismissed it with a two word "Uh what?"[95] and then reverted the article to their preferred version. When the article was protected by User:Feyday, the editor in question didn't contribute to the talk page discussion at all; when the page was unprotected after Feyday was satisfied that a consensus was reached amongst participating editors, the edit war continued; S3884h didn't even provide an edit summary.

It occurred to me that I had an opportunity to begin working through dispute resolution, so I reviewed WP:DR, then posted a comment to the editor's talk page; they didn't respond to it, and has continued with similar behaviour.

If that was the scope of S3884's attacks on me, I probably wouldn't need to file this WQA. What they have chosen to do now, however, is stalk my contributions and accuse other editors of being sockpuppets of me. User:Gerardw, who has been an infrequent but helpful contributor since March 2006, is apparently me. S3884h says that we edit the same articles, but a casual look through this user's edits suggests otherwise. Books about crime? Penelope Cruz? I'm clueless on these topics. S3884h has also accused User:Bwilkins, well-known on the WQA as "BMW", of being me as well. Why? Because we're both "from the same Canadian town"[96]. We're actually not; we live hundreds of kilometers away from eachother. BWilkins is a well-established editor who is on a path towards being an administrator, and certainly wouldn't run any chances of that by engaging in extensive sockpuppetry to the tune of nearly 20,000 edits.

So, yeah, User:S3884h is starting to spin wildly out of control and is lashing out at uninvolved parties that are taking some time out of their life to try and resolve this dispute. I really don't know why this person is choosing to do this, but between repeated, unrepentant violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Edit warring, a lack of interest in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Consensus-building discussions on article talk pages, and a general lack of Wikipedia:Assume good faith -- all while not actually doing much of anything in terms of actual contributions to the text of the encyclopedia -- I think it's time for something more concrete to be done to end this. I just want to get back to my research on improving History of Microsoft Windows, and this is all a tremendous time sink that isn't benefitting anyone. Warren -talk- 17:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually not a big fan of "tit for tat" WQA filings. As I am in fact (as noted above) a victim of S3884's attacks, I am going to recuse myself from much of this. However, I will make some comments:

• I believe the original WQA complaint against User:Warren was officially resolved long ago with a warning about civility. If not, the admissions above make me believe he understands his behaviour has not been 100% acceptable.
• The original WQA filing turned into a content dispute, which belongs on the Talkpage of the article, not in WQA.
• Editors who assist in WQA (or indeed any editor who under WP:AGF tries to help) should not be subjected to attacks from other editors because of those attempts to help
• The comments made by S3884 to attempt to denigrate Warren's work on the article(s) are beyond good faith, and are attempts to push away valid edits and valid editors (a bit against WP:OWN, WP:NPA and others)
• As we have seen regularly at WP:ANI, the filers of complaints often accidentally bring more eyes to their own activities, which are often not the best. In fact, they often make a complaint to try and hide their own behavior (usually unsuccessfully)
• Because S3884's actions have, indeed been brought forward, and have since escalated rather than improved, I do not fully see this as a tit-for-tat filing.

I will answer any questions, but again, as noted, I cannot attempt to lead a resolution (except perhaps by moving it to WP:ANI) to this WQA filing. ♪BMWΔ 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll pretty much echo what User:Bwilkins indicated. I too, have ended up being attacked, even though my first response was agreeing that User:Warren's profanity wasn't helpful. I considered filing a WQA myself but elected not to -- in my brief time observing here, they only seem to be effective in resolving misunderstandings between generally reasonable parties. I chose instead to follow the steps outlined Wikipedia:Requests for comment regarding both the Meet The Press content and User:S3884h. Gerardw (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can some diffs of the attacks at other editors (aside from User:Warren) be posted? At the moment i can only see evidence of a conflict between two editors which would normally go to mediation. --neon white talk 18:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren provided links in the paragraph above that starts If that was the scope of S3884's attacks on me . Gerardw (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont think accusation of sockpuppetry is necessarily incivility. They should merely be responded to by suggesting filing a sockpuppet report, if this is ignored and they continue, then they become incivil. This still seems to be primarily between two editors and resolving the content dispute should help matters. --neon white talk 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think accusations of Sockpuppetry, in and of themselves, are incivil. But to use them as attacks is indeed incivil. From what I can gather the accusations were leveled at BMW and Gerardw in an effort to attack and discredit them, that's incivil. Padillah (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what has happened in this case. Bwilkins requested that S3884h go to WP:SSP and file a report if they felt the need[97], and the accusations continued a few hours later, here and here. No sign of that SSP report... Warren -talk- 21:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Although we souldn't immediately assume they are being used as an attack if the editor has been informed of the proper procedure to follow if he has genuine concerns about sockpuppetry and is still accusing editors then it has become a civility problem. --neon white talk 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that both editors were engaged in uncivil behavior. While I am still not convinced that Warren fully understands that swearing and personal attacks are not ok, he seems to have acknowledged that he's gone too far in the past. S3884 needs to come to a similar understanding or he should receive a short block. If he acknowledges his mistakes, I would think that no further action would be warranted.LedRush (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at this. The editor who has been going at it with me for the past two weeks has stoop to a new low by making me look like the real bad guy, when clearly I have done absolutely nothing wrong. And let my record log be proof to that. I only have one editor who is in discontent with me, and that is the one filing this false complaint right here for all his wrongdoings to begin with, while this editor has many other editors besides me who are in discontent with him. But if he wants to call me out, be my guest. But let the respective record logs reflect all the wrong doings made by the editor. It is so amazing how all of this chaos started when I just simply did the right thing, rightfully and respectfully put a person name on the title because is where it belongs. Warren. S3884h (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Posts like the one above don't make me believe that S3884h understands that name calling and personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

After all of the above, User:S3884h started another edit war on the Meet the Press article and received a 24 hour block for 3RR violations. Warren -talk- 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be suggested to the admin who issued the block that it only be lifted if the user ceases to edit this page and shows a willingness to improve civility in future. --neon white talk 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think the user can edit the page while he's blocked, right? I inferred from the speed of the activity following the determination my edit warring notice was "premature" that the administrators are monitoring the situation. Gerardw (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i meant after the block. --neon white talk 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Laurenwest99

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

I had a dispute with this user; first with their attacks on me during an AfD [98], then over accusing them of being a sockpuppet [99] for the creator of the article.

They just left a note on my Talk page [100] claiming to be "major financial backers" of Wikipedia and all but threatening me, saying "You took on the wrong person this time." Needless to say, this isn't civil, and a bit worrisome.

Advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you've taken reasonable action thus far. (Except for forgetting to post a note regarding this alert on User Talk:Laurenwest99 , I added it for you). I concur the comment is uncivil. It also strikes me as just silly, so I wouldn't worry about it for now. I'd just let the sockpuppet discussion run its course on that forum and wait and see if User:Laurenwest99 replies more reasonably after tempers have had a chance to settle down. Gerardw (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this person has left another notice [101], which could be perceived as a legal threat against Wikipedia. Note that now they sign themselves "Esq." (i.e. attorney), whereas in the AfD [102], they claim to be a casting agent. Fascinating. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this editor needs to be informed of the core policies of wikipedia. As for the threats they certainly are incivil, quite silly and vaguely amusing but i wouldn't consider them a legal threat. --neon white talk 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Neon, how would you suggest informing the user of the core policies? I concur there's no legal threat. Gerardw (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that a welcome template was left ... as was a possible sockpuppet notice. May we live in interesting times... ♪BMWΔ 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

She went from being a casting agent to a lawyer in one day. Considering it's pretty obviously Pprice (he created another fake lawyer to make threats...unfortunately, he wasn't aware you could actually check the bar), I'd ignore until the CU gets done. --Smashville^talk 06:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Ninguém

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – referred to ArbCom or RFC Gerardw (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The user was already blocked because of his bad behave at article White Brazilian[[103] but keeps doing the same mistakes. He keeps erasing sourced informations and including non-neutral personal point of views. He claims there are 15 million "Italian Brazilians", while the Embassy of Italy in Brasilia claims 25 million. He said the Embasy is lying and "exaggerating". He's also claiming the Embassy of Lebanon figures are fake. No sources on the Internet say these government figures are fakes, but this user does not respect the Verifiability rule of Wikipedia. He takes personal conclusions based on informations that have nothing to do with the subect.[104] He has a clear "pro-Portuguese" point of view, and is obviously trying to diminish the influence of Italians, Germans and Arabs in Brazil.

Wikipedia asks us to ask another user's opinion when there is a conflict. User Lehoiberri agreed that Ninguém's changes based on non-neutral opinions are not allowed. However, Ninguém keeps changing the information, even after being blocked and after a third opinion. I already told him several times not to include unsourced and non-neutral informations, but he keeps ignoring my warnings. Opinoso (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this does look like a major problem regarding the need of an administrator and more arbitration. I would suggest you went to this page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and get the opinion of neutral parties to the conflict. If what you claim is true, they will surely agree with you and then you'll be able to take the situation to [[105]]. Once you get to this last point, administrators will enforce the decision made by the arbitrators.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would post on WP:RFC as the arbitration committee will likely reject the case at this early stage. The arbitrators only accept cases that have been ongoing for a long period of time and every other attempt at resolving the conflict have failed. For obviously disruptive edits post to WP:ANI, for comment on the article or the user's conduct, use WP:RFC. Unfortunately, this is a content dispute and an edit warring issue, not a civility issue, so bringing it to the admin noticeboard or an RFC would be the best option at this point. Theseeker4 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted it at the Request for Arbitration[106]. I think I cannot post it again in other places, or they will think I am flooding Wikipedia with the same text. I hope they can aceept it on the arbitration, because I feel this user:Ninguém will keep with the same mistakes. Opinoso (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I doubt they will accept it, but I might be wrong. If they don't, they will probably suggest a forum to bring it to, so if you wait for them to reject it and bring it to that forum, no one will accuse you of forum shopping (or at least no neutral third party will). Good luck, closing this notice now. Theseeker4 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:DR ..it gives the escalating process for dispute resolution. To take this to arbitration was inappropriate, and if it is rejected, as I expect it will be, you cannot go backwards. Content issues are recommended to go to for a 3rd opinion, and/or resolve matters on the article Talk page. Arbitration is not required at this point. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

::::: I'd go there right now, strike it through with a comment like 'withdrawn per advice of other editors', and post on article RFC. Gerardw (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Arb has been declined. Gerardw (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

user:PiCo

Resolved

 – user warned, subsequent offenses should be referred to higher levels of dispute resolution or to WP:ANI

Repeated uncivil behaviour and accusations of bad faith over more than 6 months (I can't provide diffs for some of these, since they're in archived pages):

• 'Lord, don't rell me I find myself on the same side as that idiot Taiwanboi!' (09:47, 19 January 2009), diff
• 'By the way, Taiwanboi really has read all those books, he just doesn't get the big picture, being blinkered by his somewhat oddball religious heritage' PiCo (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC), diff
• 'There's no need to be ashamed about being self-educated - I'm sure there were good reasons that prevented your getting a degree' PiCo (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC), diff
• 'Taiwanboi, please stop mischievous edit-warring on this page' PiCo (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2008, diff
• 'It hardly seems worth arguing with someone who misunderstands his books so completely' PiCo (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC), diff
• 'The edit is an attempt to introduce a particular pov by stealth - namely, that the Ark story was composed by one person.' PiCo (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC), source

Interjecting -- diff is still available[107] on history even if page archived. Gerardw (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make a note of that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'I'll be happy to accpet any edits of yours that I think are good, but at the moment you're simply pushing a personal agenda.' PiCo (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC), source
• 'Why do you insist that the 2-sources-in-theFlood-narrative is contested, when it's universally accepted? Ah, but of course, I already know the answer: you're an OEC, well out of the mainstream yourself!' PiCo (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC), source
• 'That, and more, is the story in Genesis. Please stop inventing your own version.' PiCo (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC), source

--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the clearly uncivil ones are 1 ("idiot"), 2 (defaming a religion). The might be is 4 (unless you were actually edit-warring, then it's a fair question). The others could possibly be attempts to dissuade participation. I see the two of you have a long history...can you please advise what was the results of your mediation? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm surprised he's allowed to say things like 'There's no need to be ashamed about being self-educated - I'm sure there were good reasons that prevented your getting a degree', insinuating that I wasn't able to get a degree (when he knows I already have one and I'm currently doing my Masters). This is a slur on my intellectual capacity.

As for the mediation, that ended up stalling completely. An edit war over two sections of the Noah's Ark article prompted me to seek the advice of 'third party observation, with a view to developing into informal mediation'. Third party observation was given, and an offer for dialogue was made to PiCo by the third party (here). I subsequently extended an invitation for informal mediation to PiCo, and the third party agreed to be mediator(here). As can be seen from the subsequent discussion, the third party later withdrew from the position of mediator. PiCo suggested he was prepared to enter into mediation discussions, but did not reply when I answered his request for information on exactly what I wanted. Thus both User:Alastair_Haines and I attempted to find a resolution or compromise, and both of us contacted PiCo in the process.

I next sought editorial assistance. PiCo was notified of this, but chose not to respond in any way, leading the assisting editor concerned to inform me that no action could be taken:

• 'I suspect that someone's not read the message or isn't responding. I would suggest WP:3O or WP:RFC at this point as there's not much one can do if only one hand is clapping.' x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point PiCo went very quiet for a while, clearly not wishing to get on anyone's radar, and very probably trying to establish at least some history of non-confrontation. Since he was now 'being good', and since I had tbeen told that 'there's not much one can do if only one hand is clapping', I didn't take the matter any further, but the familiar pattern of behaviour began again later, and has continued ever since. I have been documenting our history here for my personal reference, and in case it was ever needed (I was recommended to build up extensive documentation for this purpose). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Interjecting) As you move forward, you'll be better off simply describing behavior: 'PiCo went quite for a while' without ascribing motivation ('clearly not wishing to get on anyone's radar') to why. Shows you're doing the good faith thing. Maybe he was busy in the non-Wiki world. Gerardw (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You see, I felt there was indeed nothing wrong with being self-educated, and nothing wrong with not having a degree ... so I saw no incivility there. You will note, however, that the editor was provided a Level 4 warning against personal attacks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about being "self-educated" when the editor knows you do, in fact, have a degree is insulting and pretty childish really. I agree that it would be potentially civil if the editor believed you did not have a degree, but in the context that they know you have a degree, it is certainly uncivil and insulting. Considering the editor has been warned, any further personal attacks the editor makes should be brought to ANI citing this alert and his entire history, including warnings. If he won't respond to attempts at discussion and alerts such as this one, the only thing you can do is take it to the next step, which would be WP:3O or WP:RFC for disputes and WP:ANI for attacks. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I note that in response to your warning he said 'As for calling taiwanboi an idiot (edit summary to Exodus, it's a simple truth' (diff), which doesn't look particularly repentant to me, nor particularly civil. I don't think he's going to change his ways any time soon. --Taiwan boi (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I don't think he will change his ways, but maybe I am wrong. I would be half tempted to report him to ANI for the comment you quote above, but my suggestion is to let it go and assume he will no longer engage in that type of behavior. If he does so again, as long as you don't do anything to provoke him that you shouldn't do, you can request an administrator deal with it as this is an informal forum, so most people who help out here are not admins and cannot block, etc. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)