Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive75

Messianic Judaism. Jewishness of Jews in Israel.

On the following webpage, it is stated, that the State of Israel does not recognize me as a Jew, when in fact I am: Webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Judaism&action=edit. The Israeli High Court has ruled in final ruling that Messianic Jews ARE Jews according to the legally binding definitions of the State of Israel. This final decision has been reported widely in the press and has caused violent aggression against Jews in Israel by other Jews and attempts of discrimination against Messianic Jews on various levels. I feel personally discriminated against by this incorrect article. Please ensure that my rights and the rights of my fellow Jews are duly respected. Discussions obviously were not possible and/or were used to increase the disinformation given in that article.

Thank you very much.

PS: It has also been established by Israeli Law and judicative decision, that the opinions of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel are not relevant in this context of the sovereign matters of the State of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charraksus (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WQA is for complaints about improper behaviour by specific editors. What you have looks like a content dispute that needs to be discussed at the talk page of the article in question. If you feel that an editor there has been uncivil and attempts to communicate haven't been helpful, you can bring that up here, but you need to be more specific than you have been in order to accomplish anything. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Brazil

It seems like there's a general reluctance on the part of editors to discuss improving the article in a climate of civility, and devoid of personal attacks, despite my repeated requests. I could use another uninvolved editor, preferably one with some experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to opine on whether WP:Civil and WP:NPA have to be respected or whether they can be ignored at will -- because I sense that building consensus will be very difficult otherwise.

There's too much writing about other editors, historical reviews of other editors' behaviors, and finger-pointing -- but not enough focus on the issue at hand (a content dispute).

Rather than getting better, it is getting worse. -- Rico 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Involuntary euthanasia

Why this user: 4twenty42o is demanding that my editions should be discussed before I published them, but when I ask for the same for the editions of another it does not apply??

ANY CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE should be discussed here for CONSENSUS. If you continue to edit war and POV push you may find yourself unable to edit. Please stop now.

— user 4twenty42o, 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I demand the SAME TREATMENT GIVEN TO EVERYBODY, or do you prefer to violate the Constitution and the International Law, discriminating me??. If my editions need consensus to be published then also the editions made by the others, for example the edition made by Ratel on the same issue. Therefore: let us discuss.

— user at 190.25.80.226, 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.80.226 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 November 2009

(Diffs for the two quoted comments are edit by 4twenty42o and reply by 190.25.80.226) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The user 4twenty42o is describing proper procedures that do apply for all editors.

Your particular edits have been disputed; therefore you should discuss them for consensus before restoring them to the main page. This part of how we manage wikipedia. Have a look in particular at the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle. It is recommended for all editors. It works like this.

• First, you go ahead and make a change that you consider appropriate. You've done this first step.
• Second, wait and see if someone reverts it. That has now occurred also.
• Third, discuss with the editor who reverted your proposed change to try and reach consensus. This is what you should do now.

Note that you have no automatic right to insist that the disputed edit must remain in place while it is discussed. Just editing it back again without discussion is likely to be taken as Edit Warring, which is likely to cause problems and administrator interventions. The normal best practice after a first attempt has been reverted is to go ahead and try to achieve a consensus on your proposed change before you try to restore your reverted addition. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this particular noticeboard really. How was I rude or uncivil? - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that the editor who filed this complaint is unfamiliar with Wikipedia -- I don't see any need for you to be concerned at this point. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

k - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, my initial response above was addressed to the editor using IP address 190.25.80.226, who is apparently unaware of the normal conventions here. I was just about to add an alert to the talk page of 4twenty42o to let him know this alert was here; glad to see that isn't needed now. The matter seems well in hand so far, both here and at the disputed page. If everyone takes care with WP:3RR and WP:NEWCOMER and WP:AGF I think it will all be fine. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One little suggestion for added politeness. I notice some words in capitals in both the posts above. Since this is often considered to be "shouting" it is best to avoid them when conversing with other editors. See WP:TPG for more info. (I guess these kinds of linking caps are okay! ;-)--Slp1 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood and noted . However the intended effect was not to shout but more to illustrate after several "misunderstood" edits and reversions, that edit warring and wikilawyering is not going to get the editor anywhere. We are still having this discussion on the article talk. I honestly do not believe that the editor has much command of the English language, which is obviously frustrating the hell out of me. But as I said understood and noted. I will endeavor to be more polite. :) - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps 4twenty42o thinks so because he believed that the existing difference between something legal and something not punishable, could not be a real and a legal difference, but my bad wording. Whathever, we are already in the discussion there on the article talk. 190.25.80.226 (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

-smh-... - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert talk page postings

Resolved

 – User has since been indef blocked based on ruling by ArbCom. --Belinrahs

I seem to be having difficulty with another editor, User:Skipsievert. Although I have had some contact with him in the past, it has not been extensive. Recently while disputing the contents of the article Social liberalism with User:Vision Thing, I posted a comment on his talk page:

Could you please discuss this subject on the talk page rather then edit-warring. Your added text is irrelevant to the subject and I would like to avoid an RfC which is time-consuming for everyone. It would be helpful if you would read about the topic so that you could make informed contributions. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert then added the following to the talk page:

This comment --^ to another editor sounds like hectoring rhetoric instead of actual constructive editing suggestion. It is noted that you also edit with L.K. J.Q. and Cretog8 on Economics/Social science articles, to I believe a detriment of information... more here I see a distinct pattern of harassment and wikihounding toward users by this group which includes yourself. That is my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied on Skipsievert's talk page:

Your comments on another user's talk page

I do not understand your posting on Vision Thing's page.[1] VT had continued to revert irrelevant text to Social liberalism. Because few editors watch this article, disputes have been resolved through RfC/As, as you can see from the history, but these are time-consuming.

For some reason you provided a link to a section of the Economic Project talk page.[2] I did not make any entries to that section and my name is not mentioned there. I did not edit the main Economics article or any of the other articles discussed there. Therefore I request that you strike out your comments which are wholely inaccurate. Out of courtesy I will notify LK, J.Q., and Cretog8 of this posting. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[3]

Skipsievert then replied on my talk page:

Please do not ever

And I mean ever post anything on my user page again. I also noticed all your comments as to the tandem editing team for mainstream. Thanks! skip sievert (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no validity in any of Skipsievert's statements and I resent his comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As one of those listed above, and one of many attacked by Skipsievert in his edit wars on Economics (he has another set going at Sustainability), I would like to say that Skip's continual disruption is a major problem for all the areas in which he is involved. He needs either to improve his behavior or find somewhere else than Wikipedia to push his POV.JQ (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought that username sounded familure. I think 6 ANI's speak for themselves...--SKATER ^Speak. 06:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I perceived a message that The Four Deuces left on my talk page as a pure provocation because he has a habit of warning other editors to stop edit warring even though he is the one who started or actively participates in edit war. -- Vision Thing -- 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not true and could you kindly not make unsubstantiated comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What V.T. is saying above is correct in my opinion, and this points to a larger problem as seen here in canvassing and stirring, with a group that edits a certain way, and contains many members that shadow and canvas each other for mainstream issues (so called) on Wikipedia. This group being led by LK and JQ in my opinion, and it is very good at fomenting trouble as seen here., in regard to discussion of a topic ban regarding editing economics articles for LK. - skip sievert (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted the alert on the Project Economics page because you asked me not to post to your talk page. Let me reply to your comments made there:

I joined the discussion on that page (which you refer to as "tandem editing") following a post by LK on the Paul Krugman talk page where he said "I have started a discussion at the Econ Wikiproject talk page about User:Vision Thing's editing behaviour, which I find greatly troubling."[4] You also joined the discussion, but I have not accused you of "tandem editing".

Your suggestion that I canvassed LK, and JQ and CRETOG8 is incorrect. I notified them that you had accused them of tandem editing after I notified you that I would do that. I did not set up the WQA until after your inflammatory statement on my talk page.

Your suggestion that I am tandem editing is wholly incorrect.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now requested arbitration in this matter[5] and no longer wish to pursue it through WQA. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert personal attacks

I have to ask an advice and comment concerning personal attacks by User:Skipsievert. Yesterday I made my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America [6] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination) [7]. My participation on the discussion based on the Artice alerts on the WikiProject:Energy page and as an active member of this project I usually take a part of discussions on project-related articles. On the same day I was attacked by User:Skipsievert who accused me on tandem editing with several other authors (with two of them I never had any contact and with user:Johnfos my last contact ubtil yesterday was almost three month ago, canvassing, and made an indirect threat of topic ban.[8] and [9]. I asked to removed these attacks as baseless on the AfD pages [10] and [11]. AS these request were ignored, I repeated my request at the skip sievert's talk page.[12] The request was removed with an edit summary: Do not post on my talk page. Thanks. You do edit with Johnphos [13].[14] As the reference was made by skip sievert to the Wikiquette alerts discussion in February this year, I have to say that this was the first, and fortunately until yesterday very few contact I have had with User:Skipsievert. After my posting on 21 February, skip sievert made a blatant accusation saying me to be biased and closed the discussion by himself, which was also noted by user:Bwilkins.[15] As the discussion was closed, there was no possibilities to comment accusations by skip sievert; however, I would like here to invite everybody to check my and Jonhfos discussions (at least on my talk page, all discussions are archived) and edits, and let me knew if there is any violation of policies, guidelines or good practices. After that unpleasant experience I deliberately avoided to be involved with skip sievert (except request to stop his accusation against Johnfos [16] and request to comment the tagging of the WP:Energy articles as a project member.[17] I still belive, the best way would be ignore that kind of editors; however, I believe that every editor has right to express his/her views during discussions like AfD, requested moves; merge proposals etc. I also believe that incivility and personal attacks should be not tolerated. During me than three years period of active editing this is a first time I have to report my fellow editor, and personally it is not very good feeling. I would like to ask any comment from uninvolved editors how I have to deal with the current situation when other editor refuse to remove basedless personal attacks he made. Beagel (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note yet another personal attack at Talk:Howard Scott‎JQ (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Continual personal attacks by User:Camelbinky

Camelbinky started a discussion on WT:Policies and guidelines on 14 Oct about Policy description in [18]. I opposed it and the discussion has dragged on ever since with a very bad atmosphere. He has taken a dislike for me and continually alleges bad faith of various types. I contacted him at [19] (he deleted this exchange after this). I have tried to ask him to keep to the topic a few times but with no success.. In WT:Policies and guidelines#Instruct users? he stuck in yet another long spiel and it's just over the top and I'm getting rather fed up with it.

Could somebody try and find some route back from all this hassle please? Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Equazcion has also made comment to Dmcq regarding his non-useful comments and personal attacks. I find it funny Dmcq continues to make the same accusation against me that I and others first made towards him. Dmcq from day one of his response to my proposal was told by several other more veteran editors and administrator's that his post on his view on policy was not consistent with the Community Consensus. Since his original intent of declaring policy to be law and that we shouldnt change the current wording of policy at all did not fly; that he has taken to undoing all that consensus reached each time we try to close out the discussion. Regarding my deleting of his message on my talk page that is well-within my right to do so on my talk page; I read what he had to say, didnt care to continue talking to him, and deleted it; no violation of policies or etiquette there. As for him continually commenting on my posts, he likes to use words like "Camelbinky now wants to..." and "Camelbinky thinks..." and has done so towards Equazcion as well; he has been warned by both of us about wrongly attributing ideas to others and referring to others in the third person. As for my long posts- Equazcion has also told him that there are very good insights in my posts and perhaps Dmcq would benefit from reading them. I dont know of any policy on etiqutte that requires me to be short in my posts. The latest break in creating a new thread was created by me in order to get back on topic and was quickly interepted by Dmcq's disruptive behavior regarding "what Camelbinky wants to do", as I was attempting to get to actual editing of the policy and did not propose anything that Dmcq attempted to put in my mouth, again.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no additional comments, I'm awaiting some moderator or whatever it is that happens. Dmcq (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What happens here is that whoever feels they have something to say about the problem says it -- in this case that's me, a non-admin, and I hope you're okay with that. In any case, reading through this exchange, the first thing that strikes me is that nearly every post by Camelbinky is three times as long as it needs to be -- you should realize that even editors well disposed to your message will lose patience with you if your messages waste their time. The second thing is that this exchange started off reasonably civil but gradually deteriorated as a result of both parties losing patience with each other and getting snappish. My serious suggestion, though, is for both of you to drop it -- you have both surely realized that policy pages can't be changed if there is any resistance, and in this case there is clearly enough resistance from other parties to prevent any change, so the whole business is really a waste of time for both of you. Looie496 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of preparing a statement in which I ran down the situation, but then I saw this comment from Looie. I'm an involved party, by the way, though I entered the picture a bit later. I think Looie is right, at least in that the most constructive way to handle this would be for both parties to walk away from it. We could point fingers about who started it and who made a comment that could be considered a personal attack, but the bottom line is that right now both parties are too frustrated with the situation and with each other to really be helpful to the policy page. Whatever discussion still needs to happen there will go more smoothly with neither of them present, in my opinion. Sorry, but it's the truth... Equazcion (talk) 23:19, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I am totally completely fine with both Dmcq and myself being unofficially "banned" from the talk period while others hash out wording. If either of us have something to contribute it can be taken to someone who shares similar views and they can decide what to do with whatever point the editor has. I even tried earlier to voluntarily step aside but was drawn back in with WhatamIdoing and Dmcq's comments stating (erroneously) what I did and didnt want to do, and with questions being poised directly to me, as if I was the only one in the discussion who could answer them (which I wasnt, and Equazcion is a much better spokesman).

I would like to understand, however, what any of this has to do with the use of this noticeboard; the diffs that Dmcq provides regarding "proof" of my "uncivil" activities in my opinion provide no proof of anything. In my talk page discussion that he provides I was more than civil in regards to his concern and was in the right when I said I wouldnt discuss it with him and would just walk away. Long posts are not uncivil, nor are they against Wikipedia policy, I have lots to say, I dont have to be succinct though it may help, for that I apologize, but it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Unless I am missing something I'd like this closed out "resolved" on the basis that this is nothing more than a content dispute and beyond the scope of this noticeboard.Camelbinky (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to point that out myself, that Dmcq claims personal attacks, yet hasn't provided diffs. However that's secondary to the overall situation. There may not have actually been personal attacks, but there is still a difficult situation at hand that can be resolved here at WQA just as well. If you both state here your agreement to voluntarily keep off the policy and talk page for WP:POLICY, I think then we could mark this resolved. If not then we should continue here, I think. The matter could use some dispute resolution outside the policy talk page. Equazcion (talk) 00:48, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Dmcq has not claimed "personal attacks". He claimed "very bad atmosphere", "dislike", and allegations of "various types of bad faith". I don't think his complaints are entirely unreasonable, but I also don't think that the dispute is dramatically worse than the typical dispute related to a major policy re-write. Being happy while working on policy pages (unfortunately) requires an unusually thick skin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is the section header he chose, "Continual personal attacks by User:Camelbinky"... Equazcion (talk) 01:24, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I'm walking away regardless of what Dmcq does. If he decides to stay at that page I think it would be "unfair" to me as it then makes it seem that one side has more of a consensus than the other. This is my final post on this matter, I consider it resolved and have nothing more to say here and will remove it from my watchlist.Camelbinky (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's some diffs as Equazcion requested:

[20] Where I asked him for a reference to the village pump discussion which he said justified his proposal. He gave no reference. 'At first your statements were quaint and cute in a naive way, now they seriously are annoying.' 'if you dont have anything to say, dont say anything at all"'

[21] Where he accused me of bad faith for discussing something similar on WT:IAR whereas he had explicitly contacted people on their user pages.

[22] 'You are either ignorant or stupid'

[23] 'I would like to start over and allow people to comment properly without Dmcq ranting about laws that dont exist, if he'd be kind enough to back off perhaps we can archive the above discussions and start over without his interference of bringing up red herrings'

[24] 'I would like to give you good faith that you perhaps had not read that post where I explained that, but given your actions here ever since I cant and will chalk it up to another attempt of attacking me instead of writing anything that supports your "ideas"'

[25] 'arguing with small-minded people is getting annoying'

[26] 'I think you are over-your-head in this discussion and it really doesnt matter what you say anymore.'

[27] 'How about you have an independent thought about what you do and dont want in here,'

[28] 'Dmcq you have been obstructionist since day one when I started this discussion', 'Equazcion has been more than patient in keeping this on topic despite your interuptions and disruption'

So Equazcion didn't see anything amiss, I guess from what WhatamIdoing said that this sort of thing is normal fare. I don't think that is good. Civility should be adhered to better I believe. Anyway wIth Camelbinky not reraising his proposals and Equazcion looks resigned to not sticking about blocking in the leader I'm pretty happy with the page. I guess it'll be changed radically in another short while but most of the previous incarnations I've seen have been quite reasonable as far as I'm concerned. So there is no strong reason to keep me on that page and I'm happy to also leave it and that leaves the main business of this alert closed I guess.

I'd particularly like to avoid provoking this sort of thing again as it is a lot of heat with very little light and definitely not constructive. If anyone cares to give me a pointer to advice about avoiding such trouble I'd be grateful. I don't mind if it is a rather personal if it is useful. Dmcq (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I could give you some pointers, Dmcq, but you probably meant from an uninvolved party. Since both parties that were the subject of this WQA have agreed to remain off the policy page and its talk page, the matter appears to be resolved. I'd probably be more comfortable if a time period were explicitly set though. 6 months is my rather arbitrary suggestion. Equazcion (talk) 02:50, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing to keep me there. That is quite different. You never did address any of my points against your proposal that I know of, but at least you acknowledge when there is substantial lack of consensus. Dmcq (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not bring the content dispute to this page. Are you agreeing to stay off the page and its talk page, or are you just saying you won't participate there until the next time you feel the need? Because the latter doesn't really provide any resolution to this WQA. Equazcion (talk) 03:50, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The latter. I will not go on it unless I feel it is necessary. Dmcq (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we haven't really accomplished anything here. Equazcion (talk) 03:56, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

You haven't. Not we haven't. Dmcq (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly has anyone here accomplished, then? I don't see any reason why tempers shouldn't continue to flare on the page in question. Equazcion (talk) 04:04, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to walk away, hoping this would then just drop. I, however cant, now that I have seen more blatant misrepresentation from Dmcq. That is not being uncivil to say that, because it is fact. In his first diff, he puts my quotes out of context, the quote where I say "if you have nothing nice to say dont say anything" was not directed at him, I was saying that "I" wouldnt say anything because I no longer had anything nice to say, I was being civil by holding my tongue. In his third diff he puts a quote that I call him stupid, that is nowhere in the diff, I didnt call him stupid or ignorant or use either word in the diff he provides; that's more than him misrepresenting, that's an outright lie. On the diff where he explains it is to show- Where he accused me of bad faith for discussing something similar on WT:IAR whereas he had explicitly contacted people on their user pages" I have explained to him at least three times that I contacted Kim Bruning after she had already posted in opposition to him on that talk page, I contacted her in order to see what she would be in favor of, that is neither uncivil nor is it forum shopping as he was doing by going to IAR. He puts a diff in which he says I refused to answer his question and provide citation for what I stated; how is that uncivil? Again, I dont have to answer any question I dont want to, and I dont have to provide citations to back up what I say. In his concluding statement he states "Anyway wIth Camelbinky not reraising his proposals and Equazcion looks resigned to not sticking about blocking in the leader", and he has repeatedly stated that my proposal is to put blocking in the lead, if you check the history of the page and check the talk page, I never endorsed blocking in the lead, and Dmcq has repeatedly stated that I want to do things that I never said I wanted to do. It is my personal opinion (which may sound uncivil and not giving good faith to some, but it is still my right to say) that Dmcq's entire mission with this is to censor me and get me off the talk page, per his comment responding to Equazcion stating that nothing was accomplished here, Dmcq responded with "You haven't. Not we haven't."; since the only thing accomplished here was me pulling myself off the talk page, he must be implying that that was something he wanted accomplished. Is this the point of this forum to censor individuals and allow disagreements to be won by eliminating the opposition? Everytime on the talk page a consensus was reached Dmcq would bring back up the problem. A consensus does not require unanimity, and me being blunt and honest is not being uncivil. All the diffs he provides shows I am blunt and honest, not that I lie, threaten, or insult. My opinions are my own and censorship is not the intent of our policies on "civility".Camelbinky (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And for the record the thing I wanted accomplished, my "proposal", was in fact incorporated and is still there, and does not seem to be a matter under the current controversy going on.Camelbinky (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

after reading through diffs on both sides, I'm of the opinion that you both need to walk away from this. --King Öomie 04:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that Dmcq is taking advantage of Camelbinky's willingness to voluntarily withdraw, and considers this an accomplishment. I would say it should be a withdrawal of both parties, as now 4 people to comment here have agreed on. Since Dmcq was the one to seek the council of WQA, it would behoove him to heed its recommendations. Equazcion (talk) 07:09, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This looks to me like the usual business of people saying an ill of others that is true of themselves. Equazcion has been trying to stick in something about blocking into the leader despite other editors objections. Here is an example of ignoring my objections [29]. And here by the way is Camelbinky putting Equazcion's proposal with blocking into the leader [30]. I accept now that Camelbinky does not support putting blocking in the leader even though he stuck it in. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're implying that I would re-insert that once you were gone, I wouldn't since you're not the only one against that line. If you were my the only obstacle the line would already be there. This is about a feud between you and Camelbinky that's become disruptive. You came here asking for advice, and the advice you got was to walk away. I don't see that actually happening unless a time period is spelled out. Does anyone have suggestions? Equazcion (talk) 17:00, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This alert is a complaint about civility made by me against Camelbinky. If you want to discuss disruption then raise a different alert. And mention your own behaviour keeping on and on on trying to insert your pet idea into a policy even though a number of other editors opposed it. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway driving Camelbinky away with this alert was not my intention. What I wanted was for him to stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the subject. If he thinks I'm slandering him because I think he has a particular point of view I would like him to just say I'm wrong and what his view actually is. I feel that doing something like that would solve the problem but just going away is denying the problem is liable to lead Camelbinky into making the same mistakes again. Camelbinky - it's not some war where you work with your friends to destroy enemies. Dmcq (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, I put reverted Slimvirgin not because I supported the statement he/she took out, I reverted him/her because Slimvirgin had not posted a reason, had not talked at all in the talk page, and made the revert of material that had already been agreed to; including by you who said "fine, since this page changes every few months anyways". Again you put words in my mouth and assume my what my actions mean. What mistake do you think I would make again and who do you think you are to think you need to police me, teach me a lesson, or control me? Actually yes this is a war in a figurative meaning, regarding the very soul of Wikipedia. You have attempted to add wording that makes policies seem to be laws and strictly enforced; as the consensus in the talk page and everywhere else along with how Wikipedia works, we have shown you that your views are wrong. You state that I should tell you that you are wrong and what my views are. I have and you've accused me of uncivil behavior. You are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong. My views are simple- policies are not laws, IAR and consensus trumps everything. I have stated that many many many times. What dont you understand of the 100 times I've said that before? You seem to think I should not be allowed to contribute because I do something wrong. What is it that I do wrong? My opinions arent yours? I stick up for myself? I point out you are wrong? I point out when you misrepresent me or other people? I point out when you make no sense? I make long posts? I make analogies that you cant understand but others have mentioned they understand and thought they were insightful? None of that is uncivil nor do I have to change that. What do you want to accomplish with this, to "reform" me? This isnt the place, nor could anyone here if they wanted to, its a non-binding forum; and I'm a pretty unchanging person. So if you want some "punishment" or me to change my ways, not going to happen, at least not here. Just make the pledge I made to not interfere with that particular page or talk page. What are you scared of, I made that pledge. But it was voluntary and yes, if you go back and make changes I dont like, I'll be there quick as a whistle if Equazcion doesnt stop you first. You dont get your way just because I leave, which again seems to be what you want. Because I dont have to act in a manner you "like", because I have fundamental values opposite to your views on Wikipedia so that just wont happen.Camelbinky (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should have asked for you to state what your preferred form of words were rather than what your views were. When I quoted the words you originally said you wanted in you said you didn't want them, you inserted a line about blocking into the leader but attacked me when I said you wanted the sentence in. I am unable to make sense of what you say you want but at least I can be pro, anti or neutral about the words you say you want inserted. Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at that one edit where he did replace the blocking statement, you'll notice many other things were replaced in that edit too. Along with his edit summary, it should be somewhat clear that Camelbinky didn't necessarily have any feelings about mention of blocking, but rather with the fact that a single user had made a blanket removal of disputed material without contributing to the talk page discussion. Equazcion (talk) 00:07, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can count my saying that I could wait for somebody else to remove it as agreement it was a good idea. Sticking it into a policy without a reasonably full consensus certainly indicates more than passive agreement to me. [31] which is one of the more reasonable texts in reply to WhatamIdoing also being confused by it all seems to indicate the same thing. SlimVirgin was restoring it to what it was like previously and other editors besides me had complained about the new text. Anyway you can see why it can be helpful to write down the words one would really like rather than words one doesn't agree with or fully agree or whatever it is with. Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq I dont have any preferred "form of words" because I understand and respect that Wikipedia is a consensus driven forum and is the amalgumation of the opinions and views of the entire Community. It wouldnt be beneficial of me to speak in terms other than broad views that I know are shared by the majority of other editors I've encountered in my over 3 or 4 years (or longer as I was an IP for quite awhile before Camelbinky). You want "words" that you can fight; but since I dont give you words to fight against you seem to make generalizations and assume things that you dont like and attribute them to me so you can "fight" against something. That's what pisses people off; you jump to conclusions and read into things. You've done that to me and I call you out on it, that pisses you off more. Equazcion called you out on it when you did it to him as well. Stop trying to "make sense" of what others want and politely state what your views and philosophy is and stop worrying about what others say, do, or think. Consensus often comes through compromise and in a compromise you dont always get "your words" put in. You seem to think that it must be your words or the opposition's words and its a zero-sum game (I dont know if you know the concept of a zero-sum game, I can explain on my talk page if you need). Nobody has to explain to you what they think or what words they would like in a perfect world where they are dictator; that's just not conducive to compromise and making a consensus. I dont debate they way you want me to, that's not being uncivil, that's how life is; not everyone will want to argue under your terms; I have my own way of debating and you dont have to conform to that style and I dont expect you to, mine is the way I learned at the specific colleges I have attended as an undergrad and graduate student/TA and is not the preferred way of everyone. Wikipedia is open, free-spirited, and multi-cultural; this is bound to happen to you alot; as I suggested to you before, go to the OR/N, RS/N, various Village Pumps, and other noticeboards and watch and contribute (where your views would be helpful) and see what others say, how they say it, what consensus' tend to happen and how. I truly think you may learn something useful. I'm not saying your stupid regarding how Wikipedia works, I think this would be beneficial to you; in fact I think you are extremely intelligent, but lack some of the refining Wikipedia knowledge that hands-on application of policies and guidelines at noticeboards can give you. Yes, you will be seeing me at those boards ALOT, you'll have to live with me and as User:Blueboar, Equazcion, and many others there can tell you we dont always agree but we dont generally argue either and minority opinions are not always listened to or even responded to and sometimes minority opinions win over popular ones; so its easy to get upset. I'm trying to help you out and point out ways for you to be constructive, I hope you dont see this as being "uncivil".Camelbinky (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bit of edit conflict but I've replied to Equazcion above saying why I think stating some form of words is a good idea. Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, just because you and What disagree with the wording doesnt mean we didnt have a "reasonable consensus" on including them. Both you and What were resigned to letting it stand before Slimvirgin came by. Slimvirgin didnt bother reading the talk page and/or commenting there. So I reverted him. I dont have to state what I believe in exact words to you, and it wont ever happen. That's not being uncivil.Camelbinky (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I said I could wait because it was obvious to me that other editors would come along and remove it and they could possibly reason with you better. You put that in against WhatamIdoing, Dank and SlimVirgin whatever about me. I agree you don't have to say what you want in any sort of way I can understand. What I was complaining about as not civil is given by my list of diffs above. I'm saying that if you could provide some form of words it would help prevent misunderstandings. How about trying harder to be clear? It is very difficult when you actually do something and then say I'm slandering you for saying you wanted to do it. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vicious Personal Attacks by Dubbawubba

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I have moved this section to WP:ANI#Vicious Personal Attacks by Dubbawubba (moved from WQA). WQA is not the right place for problems that require immediate admin intervention. Looie496 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary Software

Resolved

 – issue long since over and finished with —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On the Talk:Proprietary software page, User:Hervegirod and User:Jimmi Hugh got into a cat fight. Hervegirod said before the cat fight had started that he knew he was entering a heated debate, and on his talk page, I read that he likes to listen to metal rock music or something stupid like that, and he sounds a bit racy, and I think User:Jimmi Hugh is a girl because of the way they spell their name. Here's a link to User:Hervegirod and I'll let an administrator check him out. I didn't check Jimmi Hugh out, so I could be biased, but FYI, Hervegirod was asking for it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckyBKatt (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This alert refers to minor issues now over six months old. Closed as long since resolved by the parties named. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on airline destinations involving User:Dimitree and User:Jasepl

Resolved

 – Jasepl has apparently decided to let it go. Thanks for that! Content discussion still at WikiProject Airlines. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I need your help. I had a dispute and tried to find a consensus with User:Jasepl: if Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia are in Asia or in Europe. He insisted on placing them in Europe (in all Wiki aviation articles, for example: [32]) inspite of the fact they are geographically in Asia. Unfortunately, this dispute gave no any results. Now he is trying to offense and to attack me using my nationality and my country: [33]. He places Russian Federation in Asia, because its part is in Asia. Basing on context of this dispute, I consider it as a personal attack, first of all. Second - nationalist/ethnic attack. Third - defigurating of facts. Please, tell how to influence on User:Jasepl using Wiki methods and standards. --Dimitree 12:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC) --Dimitree 12:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Your first requirement with Wiki standards is to calm down a bit. You are taking offense more than you should; I think. This is not a personal attack. You have a content dispute, as to whether Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia are in Europe or Asia. We don't resolve disputes like that here. That is a content matter, and you have to discuss that without taking personal offense at disagreement. However, I'll point out that according to other wikipedia articles, these countries can be considered to be both in Europe and in Asia. If you have strong feelings that only one classification can be correct, then you have a lot more to worry about than the aviation articles.

I see nothing in your supplied links to support the notion of an ethnic attack. I strongly urge you to assume good faith. That will be essential if you want to have any hope of influencing him, and almost essential if you want to influence other neutral editors. Taking honest disagreement as an ethnic attack pretty much assures that you will be seen as the problem and reduce your capacity to have any influence at all. You don't want that to happen, so you should assume good faith as much as you possibly can. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, you are best to avoid using ALL CAPITALS. See WP:ALLCAPS. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This content dispute crosses many articles. As a possible way to help editors reach a consensus, I have proceeded to make a new section for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#Regions for airports. I have also made a recommendation of my own to start the discussion, in the hope that is might lead to a more rapid resolution. But the main thing is to assume good faith and talk to each other. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am about to give a notice to the involved editors pointing to this suggestion. In order to help keep it calm, I have taken the liberty of renaming the heading for this alert to be less confrontational and more conducive to a shared solution. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Attack? Really?

I’m sorry, but from what angle is anything I said or did against any nationality, ethnicity or whatever? I’m afraid these alleged “attacks” are simply a figment of your imagination.

As suggested so many times, you could have bothered to bring up the topic for discussion at the appropriate forum – instead of embarking on a reversion spree (earning yourself a ban in the process), instead of running crying to anyone who would (or wouldn’t be bothered to) listen, and instead of accusing people of “falsification” and Russia-bashing (when no such transgressions ever occurred) – but oh no, why do the logical thing, right?

Oh, and to clarify: my talk page, your talk page, a random moderator’s talk page, a sympathetic moderator’s talk page, another editor’s talk page, even the Aeroflot talk page… these are NOT appropriate places to discuss the matter that so concerns you.

And writing in BIG, BOLD letters across the top of a page doesn’t make you right; it only makes you loud (and more than a little annoying to others).

I’ll explain again, for possibly the 109th time:

• Asia: Armenia, Cyprus
• Asia and Europe: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkey
• Asia and Africa: Egypt

By the way, you sill see the same exact explanation by looking at any of the sources you cited as the basis of your claim. Wikipedia’s Europe entry being just one example (it was indeed your “source” by the way). Or look at a map: if you’re even remotely aware of what Europe and Asia’s physical boundaries are, then again you will see exactly what is explained above.

What is indisputable is that part of the primary territory of Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey is physically on two continents. That is an indisputable fact. Unless, of course, you discovered this morning that Kazakhstan up and moved south and Russia moved westwards.

So, keeping that simple, indisputable fact in mind, and also keeping in mind that the majority territory of Russia is in Asia, why should one insist all of Russia is European? Is Novosibirsk in Europe? Really? Do they know? When only a tiny bit of Turkey (Thrace) is on the European continent, yet the country is called European. By that same logic, why shouldn’t Georgia be called European, when a greater proportion of its territory is in Europe?

And no, the English-speaking world is not on some collective mission against Russia and Russian speakers.

If, by your reckoning, being called Asian is offensive, is an attack, is demeaning… Then I’m afraid you’ve got a few billion problems you’re up against. And Azerbaijan’s location is the least of them.

Jasepl (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

* Really! Why you took as example Russia and not Kazakhstan or Turkey? Taken them - no attack. It is clear. And do not tell, please, it was casual. It was for purpose. No doubt. Otherwise, indicate you country of residence, please.

* As for you "109 explanation": the fact these countries "are considered transcontinental" does not imply putting them in a "one-think-wright-way" in Europe or in Asia. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were always in Asia. Lookt at any map: Armenia physically much closer to Europe then Azerbaijan, but you put Armenia in Asia and Azerbaijan in Europe. The same for Georgia. Kazakhstan, Cyprus and Turkey also. But there is a tradition, let's say, "to consider" Cyprus and Turkey european. And there is no tradition to consider Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia european. These are Caucasian countries or even Middle East, including Cyprus and Turkey. That is why I consider them asian. Thanx! --Dimitree 19:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Wikiquette issues in the airport destinations alert

The major actual wikiquette issues here are pretty clear. The relevant wikipedia policy is Dispute Resolution and editors are well advised to make sure they understand this policy when engaging a dispute like this one. User:Dimitree, there are a number of principles here that you especially need to keep in mind, I am afraid. Of course, the same principles apply for everyone involved.

• Principle of Assume Good Faith. You must stop taking this as an attack. It is certainly no such thing.
• Principle of No Harassment. You must not demand personal information. The country of origin of another editor is not relevant.
• Principle of Focus on Content. From the policy: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of content dispute on airport destinations

Wikiquette alerts is not a place to discuss the content matter. Please, everyone; no comment here on where or how destinations should be given. I also advise you both, and any other editors, to pick on one primary location to carry out the actual discussion on the point at issue. If the matter is being discussed elsewhere, rather than adding more substantive argument consider adding a neutral pointer to this centralized discussion point, and add the argument there.

I strongly recommend that all further actual argument for or against such content matters be taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#Regions for airports, where you have both now contributed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

75.100.86.2 is making personal attacks and denying that they are wrong

Resolved

 – User already blocked as a result of the conversation in question.

75.100.86.2 is making several personal attacks against me and other users and is making "Your mother" insults as well. He has refused to admit any wrongdoing and is clinging to the letter of NPA, arguing that it says nothing about mother insults. I would like to request that someone please convince him of the policy as I have failed to do so.--Ipatrol (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked for his edits yesterday. Isn't it nice how some problems just solve themselves?

If he starts up again, just report him to WP:AIV. --King Öomie 16:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review for possible civility violations

Resolved

 – All involved editors were urged to engage in civil conduct. Eusebeus (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Rather than going on about what the problem is (because it is quite involved), could someone please review the ANI board for section 31 (31 Review of violation of outing policy - today's date). After finally getting real advice (rather than belittling and mocking from a host of administrators on AN/I) from Bwilkins, I am reporting this ongoing problem with JoyDiamond to be reviewed for a civility violation. For more reference, please see the latest comments she has made at [34] (section "Sincere Effort to Avoid further Edit Warring" - today's date) and the same at [35] (section "Charles Karel Bouley" - also today's date). This is not the first time this user has made similar claims about me with administrators in an effort to get me banned from editing the article, Charles Karel Bouley. This is an ongoing campaign of hers, and I would like the whole situation reviewed. It has, in my opinion, gotten way out of control.

In addtion, I would like the above AN/I exchange between administrators and myself (as well as their uncivil and mocking comments directed at me) to be reviewed for violation of civility in Wikipedia. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Some initial confusion

You post under your real name and then go to AN/I to claim WP:OUTING. Hmmm. No civility violation here by any standard, only a monumental violation of common sense. Indeed, the "mockery" you refer to is by my reading accrued incredulity at your wikilawyering in the face of the patent absurdity of your "complaint." Please do not misuse WP:WQA. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC) There's no misuse of WP:WQA here. I came here at the advice of an admin, Bwilkins, who stated, "I do se a potential violation, but it has nothing to do with WP:OUTING. Kelly, you have already given us your full name (except the middle - which could be easily guessed/assumed). Outing cannot ever happen if you have provided the information yourself However, using personal information against you in an argument as an attempt to dissuade you from editing, or to undermine your edits may violate WP:CIVILITY guidelines." My purpose for coming here had nothing to do with my outing complaint but with civility (hence, the name of this area of Wikipedia being "Wikiquette alerts"). As far as your comments re: the "mocking" by administrators, it doesn't matter *why* they did it, it doesn't even matter that they felt *justified* in doing it. The fact is that "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" (see WP:ADMIN). That did not happen. And it was wrong. Their behavior was inexcusable as administrators. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC) It looks to me from the talk page of that article that you were also attempting outing. And 'attempted outing' is what you should call it. Using google and the information on your user page I very quickly indeed found the middle name that the attempting outer asserted was yours. If this bothers you might I suggest you follow the advice on the administrators' noticeboard and get yourself a new username? One which does not include your name, and don't write your name while on Wikipedia. And if both of you could desist from posting personal remarks about each other and concentrate on what's written in the article I'm sure it would remove some friction. Or else just do something else in Wikipedia for a while, if it isn't important and improving Wikipedia is your consideration there's lots of other work to do. Dmcq (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC) I was not attempting outing. Not ever. Good for you and your Google search. It doesn't matter, however, what you found. I have never posted my full, legal name here - someone else did. It doesn't matter how they obtained it - unless *I* was the one who posted that information first, it never should have been used. My legal name is my first, middle, and last name, NOT my first name with my middle initial and last name. Revealing personal information such as full legal name is a violation against the Wikipedia policy on outing. Period. As far as what's between me and the other user, you apparently haven't got the full story, and I have obviously been led here on a wild-goose chase with the mis-understanding that I would get help. All I got was more ridicule. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Here's some useful tips on Wikipedia for you SkagitRiverQueen- this alert page has no binding or punishment abilities, whereas AN/I does. Coming here after unsatisfactory results is like going to the police for a mugging and after they do nothing you go to the mall security rent-a-cops. Assbackwards really. What you should do is if you truly think there was inappropriate comments by admins bring them to a real noticeboard that deals with admin misbehavior (remember- administrator= school janitor. dont be afraid of them, they arent the wiki-police. IF they did something wrong, they will be remonstrated for it equally as a non-admin editor). This page cant do anything other than say "your right" and hope for the best, read the top of the page regarding what this page can/cant do for you (and it isnt much that it can). AN/I was really the highest place to go, try contacting an arb com member to see what they think you should do, Jimbo of course is the "final court of appeals" but I dont think it is serious enough to go to his page yet. But this place does nothing for you.Camelbinky (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC) For crying out loud...does *anyone* read what is actually written anymore? I came here primarily for a civility complaint against a user - and I came here at the advice of an administrator. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Skag, I read what you wrote, but I'm letting you know that there isnt much that this board can do for you. It cant enforce, impose, or do any sort of "punishment", block, or sanction; and it was my impression that was what you are looking for. An individual could issue a warning template on someone, but well that doesnt do much than make a record of it on their talk page for future references in case it becomes clear this is an ongoing issue. Do you want someone to go to that individual's talk page and say "you were uncivil, please stop?". I can do that, an admin can do that, but this board cant do anything more. Read the template at the top of this page, there is also a list of relevant boards you may want to look into and see if one has more of what you would like done.Camelbinky (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC) SkagitRiverQueen, I hear your frustration. To comment on the outing itself: Although these things seem to have touched a nerve for you personally, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, merely stating someone's middle name (especially when you've already provided the rest) and mentioning off-wiki online activities isn't considered an outing, as far as I'm aware. Now, it's true that this page won't really be able to do much in terms of providing a consequence for JoyDiamond's actions, as that's what ANI is for, and they didn't see any real cause for concern. What this page can do for you, though, is to mediate a dialog between the two of you and hopefully determine an amicable solution for your future interactions. If you want to move forward with that, you should attempt to get User:JoyDiamond involved in this discussion. Equazcion (talk) 00:17, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking my concerns seriously (or at least appear to do so - even the appearance of doing so is better than practically everything else I've been subjected to today). It's the civility I am having an issue with at this time, since the outing issue was already dealt with (I feel like I have repeated this ad-nauseum at this point, but what the hey?) I appreciate your suggestions - getting JoyDiamond involved? I suppose it's possible - but will it solve anything? So far, trying to deal with her rationally has proven to be merely an exercise in futility. Maybe another day. Today, I'm not up to it. Thanks again, Equazcion. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC) You can ask WP:OVERSIGHT to delete the edits with the attempted outing with a middle name. I consider it daft though to continue using your current username if you are worried about attempted outing. Dmcq (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC) I've already put in today for a name change. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC) An oversighter commented at the ANI thread and said it's unlikely this would be seen as a cause for oversight. Equazcion (talk) 00:57, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Continuation

Per Skag's request at my talk page I have reopened this thread and request that Equazcion, if still interested, mediate between her and the other editor as Eq suggested and as Skag has shown interest in per her comment on my talk page. Eq if your still willing I hope you will be able to do some good mediating between them here.Camelbinky (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of starting fresh, I've collapsed the upper portion of this thread, where there was some confusion as to the motive of bringing the issue here. I'm no expert mediator, but I'll help if I can, and hopefully so will others, since that's what the public forum of WQA is for. Equazcion (talk) 08:31, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The issue that needs to be addressed is NOT the possible outing: that was discussed in WP:ANI. What needs to be dealt with SkagitRiverQueen's discussion on how the other editor was using that information to discourage her editing of the article, and to denigrate her POV and edits. That is fully in the realm of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which is therefore in the realm of WP:WQA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This matter does seem to fall under the realm of WQA. Equazcion (talk) 12:54, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I take it then the 'in addition' complaint about the administrators has been dropped and the request here is to find some way of getting to a reasonable working relation between two editors. I think both have violated etiquette and there's nothing useful to be done by pursuing either one against the other on that account. This all sounds to me like a job for a mediator. If there is just two involved in a dispute you could occasionally ask for a WP:Third opinion if it gets heated and just try to stick by that. 13:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by dmcq (talk • contribs)

Third opinion is for other types of disputes. People come here to seek mediation regarding civility concerns. There's no reason to send this issue to another venue. They're in the right place. Equazcion (talk) 13:25, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I have reminded JoyDiamond of some key issues from a general perspective on their talkpage. I will be advising SkagitRiverQueen to look there too. I hope that this reminder resolves the situation - at least for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To address Equazcion's concern about third opinion, I fully agree with what Bwilkins has written. That was very good advice and relevant to the civility concerns. However it will not improve the article much if they continue their arguments in a more civil manner as it looks fairly evident there will be little agreement. What I was pointing to was the start of the WP:DISPUTE resolution process where the two of them simply cannot come to an agreement civil or not. Being able to resolve a disagreement amicably can help immensely with civility. Dmcq (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) Yea, the problem is, it's fine to point people to a bunch of anodyne templates, but it does nothing to sort out the intractable attitudes that have formed. Both Kelly and Joy have to work out their differences on this aggressively trivial issue, stop forum shopping and behave with some maturity. This is, in my view, thus not an WQA problem but a content issue (a point noted, btw, at ANI where Kelly originally took her unfounded complaint.) Perhaps BK can be asked to extend protection while both sides learn to bicker better. Eusebeus (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2009 (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:Ratel

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – moved to AN/I and filing user User:MoonHoaxBat blocked. Eusebeus (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

User Ratel has continued to make personal attacks upon me and User:Arthur Rubin, calling me a Jihadist and Mujaheddin, referring to Rubin's past electoral failures, referring to our good-faith concerns as being evidence of "Aspergers," and saying "Bite Me" when asked to simply remove that comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=324363617&oldid=324352928

--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a wp:SPA who has edit warred off-topic information against consensus onto 350.org. He initially joined wikipedia using the offensive usernames Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), all of which are a play on the pejorative epithet "Moonbat", used by rightists to describe anyone left of center and possibly based on the name of the environmentalist George Monbiot. These usernames were indef blocked. In my opinion "MoonHoaxBat" is equally offensive and should be permablocked too. Anyway, so here we have a tendentious, edit warring editor, a blatant SPA who is editing with sefl-confessed hatred of anyone and anything to do with the environment and specifically global warming, reporting me, a serious longtime editor. Never mind that his entire contribution to wikipedia so far has been to insert a smear onto the 350.org page in an attempt to associate the 350 organisation with an illegal action, based on no evidence at all, and only managed to get it onto the page with the assistance of admin Arthur Rubin, who is a fierce global warming skeptic. ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratel said that I am "editing with sefl-confessed hatred of anyone and anything to do with the environment and specifically global warming." Do you have any diffs to back up where I said anything negative about environmentalism or global warming? When did I "sefl-confess" to this? Funny, seeing as I'm a member of the Audubon Society. We disagree on how the 350 page should look and you respond with personal attacks. No matter your seniority, if you can't discuss something without comparing the other person's attitude to terrorists or Asperger's, you have a long way to go. BTW, this username was cleared by an admin (Jehochman). I have said repeatedly that my usernames have nothing to do with liberals. It's just a funny term that appealed to me.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your response above, which combines a lie (just a funny name) with a sneering attack on my typo ("sefl" repeated twice in quotes), says all we need to know about you. ► RATEL ◄ 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Great Moon Hoax. Ratel, I like what you did with the Cite4Wiki extension. It's damn useful. It would be a shame for you to get sent to the penalty box for telling another editor to bite me. Could you refactor that to something cleverer, such as I disagree with you strongly? Can we all be more tolerant? Both of you just walk away from the places you're conflicting with each other, and vying for supremacy. Just stop the editorial tug of war and go work on different things. Jehochman ^Talk 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan, because you ask, I shall retract the bite me statement. ► RATEL ◄ 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am more than willing to not touch the 350 page for a week after it is unprotected. Are you up for matching me, Ratel?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus exists to remove the smear, and it must go. ► RATEL ◄ 00:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure both of you could find other articles to work on. Could you agree to each pick a different article and just disengage? I don't want to be back here a week from now listening to the same pattern of complaints. Wikipedia is huge! Lots of articles need attention. Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have been guilty of being too concerned about this one article. I'll check back in on it in a few weeks. Actually, the "sefl-confess" thing is more my typo than yours. I just cut and pasted without noticing. Don't start speculating about dyslexia. No need to call me a liar, either.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since MoonHoaxBat has been indefinitely blocked, this discussion thread should be closed. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#MoonHoaxBat. The block reasons are incorrect, bordering on disruption. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The block is a good block, and the reasons are not altogether incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend we assume good faith all around, blocking admins included. The situation is confusing. I suggest we let this wikiquette alert die, and let further discussion take place on ANI as linked. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I still think he has made similar comments about me before batty came on the scene, but I'm willing to consider this alert suspended. If he continues attack me (as opposed to my edits), I'm willing to consider reopening the alert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Another editor on ANI alleges that MoonBat's various incarnations are socks of the indef'd RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive. I cannot specifically vouch for that other than their obvious like-minded politics, but maybe someone closer to that case can do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant to this alert. Let's leave that discussion at ANI, thanks! Regardless of questions of socks or validity of blocks, the last actual comment here by MoonHoaxBat (before being blocked) can be seen above, and it shows a very helpful willingness to walk away from the 350 page for a while. Since he raised the alert, I think we should close it now. I'll do so shortly if no more comments appear. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Close it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 8 November 2009 (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.

Personal Attacks

Stuck

 – Moved to ANI.

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

User:Dream Focus and User:Ikip are tag-teaming and making personal attacks against me aand false accusations of stalking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Split from Rape because I dared to response to some AfD four HOURS after DF, while commenting on various other AfDs, and because I questioned the creation of a new article on Rape by DF that he himself advertised on Rape[36], an article I happened to be paying attention to after the whole fiasco over a certain extremely long AfD on the high school homecoming dance rape. He claims I am stalking him, yet somehow magically found my neutrally worded question on a project talk page that he himself states he had was unaware of before. Ask that someone intervene in their highly inappropriate and unsupported accusations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• PLEASE, read everything that was said there, and take it in context. She is highly skilled at distorting things. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• 20:45, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography ‎ (→Split from Rape: new section)
• 20:41, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics) ‎ (delete)
• 20:40, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company ‎ (delete) (top) [rollback]
• 20:33, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga ‎ (→Anime and manga: add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga)) (top) [rollback]
• 20:33, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (tweak)
• 20:32, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (tagged as a Anime and manga-related XfD discussion (script-assisted).)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 10 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga). using TW)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Salad Days (manga). using TW)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:202.51.230.181 ‎ (AfD nomination of Salad Days (manga). using TW) (top) [rollback]
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Salad Days (manga) ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga). using TW) (top) [rollback]

• This timeline shows the affected articles. I have the anime and manga deletion list on my watchlist. I have participated in AFD there for about a year now. I was online at the time, and noticed something added, so had a look at it, and deproded it. She then claims I'm out to get her. She goes to two AFD articles I recently said Keep in, and says Delete, she having no interest in those things before, and no possible way of finding them. I noticed her commenting in both of them, find it odd, so check her recent contributions and find that after she did that, she went to the Wikiproject for crime and mentioned a recent article I had created. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

since this is an issue of stalking, it is better addressed at WP:ANI, which I created before I was alerted to this page.

As I wrote on the wikiproject page, STOP STALKING DREAM and we will stop accusing you of stalking. Accusing another editor of stalking when they clearly are, is not a personal attack.

you can't have it both ways collectonian, you can't complain about editors stalking you, as you have historically done, and yet stalk other editors with impunity. Ikip (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest closing either this or the ANI discussion, rather than carrying on this same discussion simultaneously in two venues. Equazcion (talk) 22:03, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This report came first, with Ikip apparently filing an ANI (without notification to me, as an FYI) after he was given appropriate notice of the thread. He removed my notice and filed his ANI in the same minute. Will leave to others to decide which venue it should now be continued in -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends; there's a 10% chance that this can be handled sans drama here, and a 5% chance that could happen at ANI. Since I don't foresee any admin tools being used at the moment, I suggest here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (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.

SkagitRiverQueen: Personal Attacks, Wikihounding and Bullying

Hi,

For unknown reasons, SkagitRiverQueen continues to attack me, by listing any edit she feels deviates from her POV as vandalism. Additionally, under false pretenses, she makes posts about me on other user pages. Upon me asking her to stop on her own page, she then proceeds to ignore me, list my messages as vandalism, and then misrepresent my post as vandalism and even a threat! The only threat I made was I was going to report her, which I am doing now. She does not seem to be good spirited, creates confrontations, and enjoys conflict here. Regisfugit (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And you have diffs to support these claims, yes? Crafty (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I have just reported Regisfugit for once again vandalising my talk page and for his repeated harassment. This has been going on for over a month, now. I've had enough and really would like it to stop. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking through SkagitRiverQueen's talk page history, Regisfugit has indeed been harassing here. I haven't looked into any possible provocation, but there's really no sequence of events that would justify his repeated unwanted postings to her talk page. Regisfugit should be reported at ANI or AIV, if they haven't been already. Equazcion (talk) 04:38, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Trying three time is hardly harassing. One purpose of user talk pages is for such things. Where is there any guideline saying something like that is harassment? I don't know if SkagitRiverQueen did say she didn't want to be contacted but even in that case the amount of contact for problems like this would not be harassment in my opinion. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"This has been going on for over a month, now." If you look at my contributions, you will see very few edits, let alone on this editor's page. I admit I have made some borderline contribs here, but for the most part, I mind my own business. Sagit has made personal attacks against me on other user's pages, and when I somehwat congenially ask her why, it is labeled "vandalism" on her page and I am reported. Please produce evidence, outside of the posts I placed on your page today, to justify your continued disrepect and condensending attitude towards those who may/may not disagree with you. Regisfugit (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sagit has not been making any personal attacks against you. Frankly, she simply just hasn't been letting you do whatever you want. Please refrain from accusing others of incivility and harassment when this is obviously not the case. If you continue to edit disruptively and refuse to assume good faith, I will not hesitate to block you from editing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You'll need to provide links to the pages where these alleged personal attacks took place, Regisfugit. Until then it's you who lacks evidence to justify your claims. Equazcion (talk) 05:06, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is up to you to provide evidence rather than people here to search for it. That way people know exactly what is being talked about. FInd the diffs from the histories of the pages involved, copy the url of the pages when shown and paste those here in square brackets. See linking to a diff in Help:Diff. Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And FASTILY should not have made such accusations without giving you time to get evidence. Dmcq (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Registfugit has been restoring deleted comments to the user talk page. Just look at the page history. Fastily is correct; and that is harassment according to the official wikipedia harassment policy. See the section User space harassment. It reads: "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment."

A purpose of talk is to allow discussion, but trying to force someone to discuss when they decline is harassment. As well as the policy section above, see Don't restore removed comments (an essay) and Removal of comments, warnings (a section of the User page guideline).

Regisfugit (talk) may not have been aware that his actions are harassment by wikipedia policy. A quick look at the history of SkagitRiverQueen's talk page shows 3 instances of inappropriate restorations recently, and a number more around October 9. There is no question that he has engaged in harassment; however he has since been told that he should not be restoring deleted comments to someone else's user space. Hopefully that will mean it stops. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Those three edits before coming here do not constitute harassment in my opinion. They are not numerous. They do not place warning symbols or suchlike on the page. There is no evidence of an intent to display material the user may find annoying or embarassing.The edits were different, they tried to say thing better. They were not reverts. They stopped when the user asserted they were harassment and the issue was taken here instead. I believe you have misunderstood the guideline. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And as for FASTILY I have seen evidence of the sort that should be in those diffs but I believe it is up to Regisfugit to provide them rather than me choosing things as a basis of the alert. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Those 3 edits alone aren't the problem. Go back to October 7th through 9th. I count a total of 17 reverts. Equazcion (talk) 14:00, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that thi was about an incident a bit more than a month ago. Is this really going to drag up all the bickering that happened then between different editors back then? Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but both recent events and the ones from a month ago combined are cause for concern. When someone repeats bad behavior they show they haven't learned what not to do, so we have to make sure they're sternly warned, and keep watch on their behavior, for now at least. Equazcion (talk) 14:48, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Which behaviour are you asserting has been repeated? Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(changed per Dmcq) This is clear outing attempt [37]. Sole Soul (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there was outing involved here - however, I also was subjected to clear outing from another user a few days ago and reported it. I was subsequently lambasted, belittled, and mocked by admins (and editors alike) in both AN/I and this forum and because of that, chose not to open myself to the same treatment again. I decided to just let it go and report the harassment only. My gut tells me that Regisfugit will attempt all of this again at a later date; I don't believe he is finished by any means. I hope I'm wrong, here, but I sincerely doubt that I am because of his Wikipedia history of vandalism, harassment, violating the 3RR, receiving numerous warnings (which he has removed from his talk page), and being blocked in the past because of it all. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not all that clear as the username has recently been changed, it would have been better if a clean break had been made. But yes Regisfugit should try not to refer to SkagitRiverQueen using any information previously divulged before the username change and try and forget any personal information that was released before then. Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way as per WP:OUTING you should always refer tosomething like that as an attempted outing and not confirm if it is correct or not. Dmcq (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert K S

Robert K S (talk · contribs) seems to have some sort of long-standing vendetta against me. Just a few minutes ago, I boldly removed a great whack of unsourced OR/coatrack info from Jeopardy! broadcast history, clearly explaining my actions in the edit summary. In came Robert K S, who blatantly removed my edits and calls them "controversial." This editor then proceeded to falsely accuse me of having a vendetta against Jeopardy!, not once but twice. This editor has a history of ranting against me in a very tl;dr fashion; see this AFD from 10/08 as but one example of him running off at the mouth. In the past, he was stripped of his rollback for a very large edit war, and my dealings with him in the past have all been in the form of edit wars. When I asked another user for help, Robert K S asked that user if he would also investigate a case from last week when I asked an admin to delete something via messenger. He seems to have a long history not only of edit-warring, but also of making false accusations and digging up dirt on good-faith editors who happen to make mistakes, and of refusing to accept any version of an article except "his." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin? My recollection of TenPoundHammer's actions of Nov. 3 did not involve "digging up dirt". I remember November 3 like it like it was last week, because... it was last week. [38] I'll let any investigations of my behavior run their course, I suppose. In the instant case, however, TenPoundHammer's grievance appears to be that I was following BRD when he deleted large swaths of material from an article that had already received considerable discussion on the article's talk page. Robert K S (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Robert K S has suggested a possible compromise on my talk page here - Alison ^❤ 09:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref Desk talk page

Resolved

 – The complaint was a misrepresentation of the problem. Additionally, User:Baseball Bugs has agreed to take a break and to engage with editors more productively.

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

There are ongoing problems on the Reference Desk talk page, in that whenever anybody posts using an IP address User:Baseball Bugs refuses to assume good faith, citing previous bad experiences with IP accounts. He is particularly fond of denigrating them as "drive-bys", even when there is no evidence that they have done anything wrong.

Whenever I or any other editor attempt to remind him of the principles of assuming good faith and not making personal attacks, he becomes increasingly antagonistic and refuses to back down. Here are two recent such discussions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Controversial_statements, Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#The_Communism_Rant.

Comments? Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

61.189.63.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came to the ref desk complaining about some ref desk item that he did not link to; he failed to inform us up front that he had previously edited under different IP's, thus leaving the false impression that he's a newbie (i.e. a "drive-by"); he blamed wikipedia editors for causing him to be unable to get to a page, although that was actually caused by China's repressive internet policies; and he called all wikipedia editors "punks", which is a vile insult, a.k.a. a personal attack on all wikipedians. Then we have Malcolm complaining that I'm not assuming "good faith". The IP forfeited all "good faith" in his opening statements. Other editors besides me have already explained this core problem to Malcolm, but he does not appear to care. However, he does expect me to back down, but will not back down himself, instead throwing a self-righteous Biblical quote at me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I shouldn't have to rebut these points over and over again, but here goes:

1. 61.189.63.142 came to the ref desk complaining about some ref desk item that he did not link to. This is true, although the section heading made it clear enough to all other users who have commented which thread he was talking about.

2. he failed to inform us up front that he had previously edited under different IP's, thus leaving the false impression that he's a newbie (i.e. a "drive-by"). As I have repeatedly stated, posting under an IP address is not a crime. Phrases such as leaving the false impression directly contradict WP:AGF, because there is no indication that the IP had any intention of leaving that impression.

3. he blamed wikipedia editors for causing him to be unable to get to a page, although that was actually caused by China's repressive internet policies. In fact, he blamed editors for failing to rein in a direct breach of the "Reference Desk is not discussion forum" guideline. He noted that as a side-effect, the Great Firewall prevented him from being able to see the page. This was given as an explanation of why he used a proxy IP address, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. None of these actions warranted the bitey response Your country's repressiveness is your problem, not wikipedia's, which was the entirety of Bugs' first comment on the matter.

4. he called all wikipedia editors "punks", which is a vile insult, a.k.a. a personal attack on all wikipedians. The IP also posted a smiley (:-P) indicating that he was being lighthearted. The phrase "yah punks" is by no means a vile insult, and it is by definition impossible to have a personal attack on all Wikipedians. This is post facto justification for refusing to assume good faith.

5. The IP forfeited all "good faith" in his opening statements. This is precisely the point of my self-righteous Biblical quote. Even if what Bugs alleges about the IP were true, that does not justify his own actions. His behaviour is not contingent on the behaviour of others. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you may ignore this because I am an IP. Everyone else, disregard or consider based on the value of the comment. Bugs has multiple times responded very negatively to any comment by an IP, not just denigrating them as "drive-bys" but assuming that anyone using an IP address is pretending to be a newbie, regardless of the obvious familiarity of the IP with Wikipedia and the lack of any comment suggesting they are presenting themselves as new. The reality of dynamic IP addresses, and the unreasonableness of Bugs's view, has been pointed out by several editors at some length, but Bugs generally responds along the lines of "talk to the IP, not me" as if any anon user is automatically in the wrong. I initially assumed Bugs was trolling, but the quantity of good edits particularly on specific topics such as American sports makes that less likely. Nonetheless, Bugs's unpleasant comments derail attempts at discussing best practice on the desks. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder how far you're going to wander... considering that you magically appear right here after Bug being mentioned by Malcolm. --Dave1185 ^talk 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that I posted a link to this page on the talk page, that is hardly surprising. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Baseball Bugs refuses to bugde on his hard line to any user who posts at the refdesk talk page from an IP (with a few edits: so called "drive-bys") so I think this alert is appropriate - I hope we'll be able to get some constructive input from neutral third parties. Basically, I agree with Malcolm. The earlier example of Bugs' treatment of an IP editor who was constructively engaging in a discussion regarding controversial statements on the refdesks (which are not specifically addressed in the RD guidelines so the discussion might have been useful if it wasn't derailed). I know Bugs has had run-ins with trolls in the past but his current incessant violations of WP:AGF need to be checked. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

*The thread you link was posted in the original filing, so the impression it constitutes more of the same isn't really honest. Did you mean perhaps to provide a different link? Eusebeus (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)now corrected

• I didn't realise it was already mentioned. Edited my post. Apologies. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The substance of the complaint presented above is that whenever anybody posts using an IP address Baseball Bugs refuses to assume good faith. If User Baseball Bugs indeed refuses to WP:AGF any question or comment posted from an IP that indeed is an issue, especially at a public forum like the refdesk. I am assuming that such a blanket charge would produce a raft of diffs over a wide date range? Eusebeus (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a false claim. When an IP with like 3 edits shows up and starts ranting, insulting editors, making misleading claims and baiting comments, then that IP is not acting in good faith, as it's clear they are not newbies; but some editors here want to pretend that they are newbies and should be treated as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• The filing reads, whenever anybody posts under an IP, not just those specific threads, which were cited simply as instances of the overall complaint. That is a very serious charge, especially at refdesk, and I think we really need a few more diffs to go on beyond those two closely-related threads, which themselves would seem to entail (considered on their own) a rather different set of issues. So I think we need to wait until further evidence is forthcoming to substantiate the charge. Eusebeus (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "whenever anybody posts" is a bit strong, but here are some diffs that indicate a general bad-faith attitude to so-called "drive-bys": [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46], and the contents of this thread Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Humanities#User:68.244.107.246. There may well be more, but I'm not prepared to trawl through Bugs' extensive edit history searching for them. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I have looked through those diffs and I don't see much evidence of WQA issues. If your complaint is that it is uncivil to call an IP who asks a question and then never f/u a "drive-by", that seems frankly frivolous. In several instances that you cite, the questions were ridiculous, trolling and, in once case, overtly racist. Moreover, in the last thread you cite it seems to me that Baseball Bugs asked for the basis of the question and was then subjected to an outburst of incivility. Now, there may be specific issues about how editors are getting along with each other at RefDesk, and there may be the impression among some editors that the user is being disruptive in his engagement with other editors. But the proposition that whenever anybody posts using an IP address User:Baseball Bugs refuses to assume good faith seems a breathtakingly disingenuous representation of those issues, at least based on the diffs provided above. Please remember that filing a WQA against another editor and asking for neutral third party input is a serious issue, that it should not be used to settle differences by other means and that misrepresentation can itself be construed as a breach of civility. I will assume good faith, but on its face, this seems an abuse of WQA and I would be tempted to close this now. However, I'll let other editors weigh in since they may well have a different perspective and perhaps see something I am missing. Eusebeus (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I may be misreading this, but are you suggesting that Bugs' behaviour in the two threads I initially cited is acceptable? Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that I am too easily baited by users taking shots on the ref desk talk page. Methinks I will just stop watching that page for awhile, and then I won't be tempted to respond to those shots, as happened today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I know that you have had some uncommonly poor experiences with anons (I thought it was kind of ironic that the last time you were accused of not AGF it turned out that you were right, and actually being stalked and harassed by anon socks), but that is no excuse to react with such swift anger at all IPs and redlink users. As far as today goes, I don't think you took enough time to read the OPs question, and you ended up completely misjudging his intent for posting. Another thing you overlooked was that he even said that he was using a proxy, and gave a reason why he had to, but you still accused him of hiding behind a fresh IP as a "drive-by".

As far as "drive-bys" go, I think that you are misusing the term. It originally referred to an OP that posts a poorly worded, unclear, or search engine-like question, and then never returns to clarify or give feedback to all the users trying to decipher their cryptic typos. You seem to be using it as referring to any IP or redlink that doesn't have very many previous contributions, and therefore has dubious motives for coming immediately to the ref desks with knowledge of the workings Wikipedia (kind of maliciously hiding behind the anonymity). I don't think that use of the term is correct (for example today, when you called the poster at "Communism rant" a drive-by, even after he returned to follow up on his original post). I don't think that that is reason to vilify someone (the very epitome of not AGF) anyway, besides mis-using the term. —Akrabbim^talk 01:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing the WQA will not be an endorsement of anyone's behaviour. However it does give an opportunity for the interested parties to take to heart an administrator's opinion of the situation. Points that have been made quite clearly are that WP:AGF applies equally to IP's and registered users. In particular it is unjustifiable to invoke "pretending to be a newbie" as a disparagement. I think Baseball Bugs should (and will) stop characterising users as drive-by. We are supposed to consider requests for help, not the person requesting. Malcolm XIV can I think find other more productive things to do than provoking BB with bitey accusations (BTW Malcom XIV's Bible quotation about the mote in the eye was at least as apt as intended because it is universally applicable.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment take to heart(and I use that word loosely) another editor's opinion, irregardless if they're an administrator or not because sysops are NOT in a role of authority anywhere, with the idea that it's just advice. On the other hand, I agree with the comment about being to haste in those types of situations. As stated in the beginning, it seems his bad experiences clouded his judgment. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (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.

Violent comment

Stuck

 – Filing party advised to escalate to RfC/U if it happens again.

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

Here User:Rebecca says the following in an AfD debate: "Keep and take out and shoot the male editors who just dismiss this as a "news event"." That seems like a very problematic thing to say, but I want to see if others share my concerns. Everyking (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

:Inappropriate, yes. Perhaps the user could be asked to delete the comment. Bielle (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I see that has been tried. I think the reactions have been flip; I am no longer sure the initial comment was. Bielle (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why, specifically, is it "very problematic", Everyking? Rebecca hardly means it literally, and it's a pretty common phrase? Sexist? Yes. Deleteworthy? Nahh - Alison ^❤ 05:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can take off my bulletproof vest? user:J aka justen (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

lol - not so fast. She's one tough lady, y'know ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So you feel it's acceptable for an editor to say that other editors should be killed if perhaps the comment was not intended literally and she does not actually want the editors killed? We have policies covering this kind of thing for a reason, and this is a particularly egregious case because it references violence and murder. Everyking (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It clearly was not intended literally. It was an expression of frustration, with regard to a very sensitive topic. Should she reconsider, and should she refrain from expressing herself in that manner in the future? Yes. But as User:Aladdin Sane points out below, it's time to let it go. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'perhaps' suggests you might actually think Rebecca means it literally. Seriously, EveryKing, you're overreacting here. "All [group of choice] should be taken out and shot" is a pretty common, well-worn phrase. As Aladdin Sane says below; move on time - Alison ^❤ 06:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was inappropriately inflammatory. I found Ukexpat's retort spoke adequately for me. My response beyond that is now, "Let it go". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyking, no it's not acceptable, but seriously why not just move on? It reminds me of the kid at school who took issue with everything and dobbed on everyone. It's just words. Why waste time on this? What are you looking for, and why? Move on. Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong language is not a WQA violation. Everyking, I find your characterisation, it's acceptable for an editor to say that other editors should be killed, so literal-minded that I feel it is a bit pointy. Consider that the phrase "taken out and shot" has a long pedigree in terms of expressing disagreement, albeit harshly and violently. Is it the nicest thing to say? No. Is it a WQA violation? No. Eusebeus (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just found this, after going to the AfD debate. No action should be taken regarding this complaint against Rebecca. If you look at it in context, it was during a debate about rape against women, and some other editors were brushing the issue off as being nothing, and I can fully understand that those other editors' comments could have been seen as demeaning for women. Anyway, it was a heated debate. We should let this issue be, and not take it any further. --Lester 09:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

sure, it's not a big deal to get overheated and post something inappropriate (unless it becomes chronic!), but i think User:Rebecca should strike the comment. i understand the indignation, but that doesn't make that way of expressing it appropriate for this forum. Sssoul (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• If a male editor had said this about female editors, there would be universal outrage. We should try to handle situations like this symmetrically. The comment was inappropriate, and Rebecca is advised not to make such comments in the future: enough said. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've got a thick skin, so I don't really care about this - but Rebecca ought to consider that one of the reason I actually AfD'd the article was per concerns about BLP for the victim, which was later proven when editors tried to insert her name into the article. Ironic, isn't it? Black Kite 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I've got a thick skin, too—that's not why I raised the issue. (Actually, I voted to keep the article, so I'm not one of the editors she said should be shot—although it's entirely possible that she wants me shot for other reasons!) I raised the issue because suggestions that other editors should be killed are deeply antithetical to the existence of a harmonious and constructive editing environment, and I think something more than a disapproving frown is warranted. Let's be honest—if Rebecca were a newbie, would the comment be tolerated? Everyking (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It was an inappropriately inflammatory comment, and a concern was raised on Rebecca's talk page a few days ago [47]. Rebecca has not responded about the concern, despite editing elsewhere yesterday. If it so happens that it happens again and she isn't responsive to the concerns raised, you'd obviously need to escalate to the next step - RfC. However, I think the consensus here is that this was a passionate outburst which was more of an isolated incident and there is nothing further we can do here. If you are OK with this, it can be marked as resolved, but if still not, it will be marked stuck. Alternatively, leaving it as it is for a few days may end up marking it as stale which is neither nor. I think these are the only options for how this WQA will be handled. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I feel pretty strongly about the issue, so needless to say I'm not going to sign off as being OK with total inaction. There ought to at least be some kind of stern warning that this won't be tolerated again. Everyking (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Suggest if escalating (should this happen again in the future), the next venue in dispute resolution would be RfC/U. Noting also that Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive65#civility_issues_for_User:Rebecca may be of some use. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)wording change to clarify what I meant. 05:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I get the impression that this complaint was lodged, not because Rebecca singled out any one editor, but because she made a comment about men (I gather that's the reason some were offended). However, that's why the context is important. There were many previous comments in that thread about the rape incident, that trivialised the issue, and were therefore demeaning to women. Are we going to give those other editors a stern warning that comments trivialising rape are not appropriate? Or someone else's offensive remark insinuating that a person's interest in sexuality articles in Wikipedia creates a conflict of interest when commenting about a rape article? If people were genuinely interested in men Vs women issues, they'd complain equally about remarks that demean women. I can't take the complaint seriously when it singles out one comment about men, but doesn't care about comments about women. Trying to escalate the issue is just silly. The article debate is over. Rebecca is not pursuing the complainant with incivility. In fact, she's been having no contact with anyone from this thread. So if both sides are no longer in contact with each other, why try to escalate it? Both sides were offended by each others comments back then. It's now finished. Walk away from it.--Lester 23:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Please don't attempt to present this as some kind of gender issue. It's about an editor who said that other editors should be shot. In terms of incivility, that's just about as extreme as it gets; when you're referencing violence and murder, that puts things on an entirely different level. Everyking (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2009 (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.

William S. Saturn

Would someone have a pleasant chat with User talk:William S. Saturn#ANI about calling other editors "mindless"? Another editor has already tried to speak with him, but he doesn't see anything wrong with what he's said. It is not the end of the world, but he is making this discussion much more unpleasant than it needs to be. 87.161.46.137 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of User:Kbdank71's user page, specifically the users "and those who didn't section"

First off I'll admit that i am not particularly well like in many circles here for a variety of reasons, and have been involved several disputes, including one with this user which seems to stem from me not voting for him for his admin. In basically what i see as nothing less then retaliation from that action, i do not recall having any interaction with this user prior to his admin vote, the user has created a section to basically as i see nothing less then to boast of his distaste for me and another user for voting against him, refer to the above linked page. Now while i commend the user for praising others that have helped, i find it nonconstructive to the site, considering that the user is also an admin, to create a list of users the user dislikes. And while i will admit i have called out users before on my own user page during times of frustration, i have since removed the items. I have directly requested that the user remove at the lest my name from his list of offending users, a request that the user questioned me on, apparently i need to justify the reason why i find it offending and an attack, and then denied my request. I find that the only course of action is to have this list removed from the user page. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Request left for user to remove the editor's name. Eusebeus (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• I think it is a violation of Wikipedia:User page#Not/10 and should be removed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider the entire "Remember" section a very serious matter. I hope that Kbdank71 agrees and will remove it. Initially I thought it was grounds for de-adminning, but then I found out a few things that indicate to me the matter may be more complicated:

• Kbdank71's RfA. June 2005, 26 supports, 2 opposes (one silly, the other without reason).
• Kbdank71 created the section in September 2006. It lists precisely the 26 editors who supported him and the 2 who opposed him.
• Now, three years later (and more than 4 years after the RfA), the section is still there.

Questions:

• What do experienced editors who were around in 2006 feel about this? Was there a time when such lists reminding (corrupt?) admins of their clientele and their enemies were relatively widespread, and this one was merely overlooked when they were expunged?
• Was this part of joke or a WP:POINT violation and then forgotten?
• Has this section existed for 3 years without anyone complaining about it?
• What does Kbdank71 think about this section now?

I wonder if this is a remnant from the time when adminship wasn't a big deal and admins didn't need to be really trustworthy. Hans Adler 11:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Grounds for de-adminning"? Wow ... Molehills really are moving up in the world. Or are we just forgetting to assume good faith? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Four and a half years is a long time to carry a grudge against those who voted against him at RfA. That his WP:POINT has remained so long along with his refusal to remove the content is clearly problematic. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Flamarande

Resolved

 – Both parties advised and warned.

Apparently this user is unable to accept other points of view regarding Germany or people who would question the mainstream German interpretation of history. We all come from different backgrounds and were taught history from a different point of view. I find it sad that Germans still cannot accept what they did in their past. An offense towards me can be seen at the end of my talk page User_talk:Quest09. The user was already abusive in the past as can be seen here: User_talk:Flamarande#On_the_Israeli_street. --Quest09 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to follow the thread of the argument, since hardly anything is signed by either of you, but I think my attitude is that when you used the phrase "fool's argument", you forfeited your right to complain about incivility. Even so the final line by Flamarande is unacceptable, but at this point I suggest calling it even and starting over again. Have you notified Flamarande of this alert? Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't use the phrase "fool's argument". Flamarade used it in my talk page. And there is no thread in the argument. Check the history link of the page. There are not several editors in my talk page section, even if Flamarade used indent in his post, the whole section "Flamarade" was written by him. Finally, yes, I notified Flamarade but he deleted the notification. See here: [[48]]--Quest09 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, you didn't notify Flamarande. I did it now, so he knows his case is being discussed.Mr.K. (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding; I agree that you have a valid complaint. I also strongly recommend to Flamarande not to use indentation in such a random way -- it is very misleading. (And although it is off topic and my German isn't that strong, I think perhaps an appropriate word for what happened in the concentration camps is "Schrecklichkeit".) Looie496 (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a case to answer. Insult was given and insult was returned. They would both do better to remember to exercise calm and composure and count to 10 whenever Hitler is mentioned. 86.9.212.44 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant Comment It's funny how some people consider something an insult and others don't. The other day I referenced another editor to a conservative and they instantly wanted to label that a personal attack, despite being one is a legit party affiliation. Some people. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe insult was given and returned. I only see the insult of Flamarande towards Quest09, unless Quest09 insulted Flamarande in an earlier discussion. Anyway, I don't have the time to go through their discussion on the RD to see what happened before they exchanged messages on their talk-pages. However, I can see that Flamarande already had some intense discussion before as seen here:User_talk:Flamarande#On_the_Israeli_street. Hitler topics are often very prone to emotional discussions and no one is ever willing to cave in. Mr.K. (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

'Seeing your posts | here and other of your "contributions", I can only hope that the rest of the German society has a better level of historical awareness. Quest09 (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)' before the 'kiss my ass' reply sounds personal and insulting to me. Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been notified by Mr.K. (and not by Quest09; I can only wonder why he claims to have warned me of the alert and that I deleted the warning); what I'm supposed to do? Are I'm supposed to present my defence here and now? Do you want the short or the long version? Flamarande (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Short and calm, please. Looie496 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

@Dmcq, it also seems personal to me, but not insulting, only disparaging - a degree lower than insulting. Anyway, as stated above, I didn't go through any previous interactions, so I don't know why Quest09 made this comment. Mr.K. (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The short version it is then. Quest09 and I had a difference of opinion upon a certain subject (I suggest that the jury read it carefully). He went to my personal talkpage[49] and wrote the following: "Seeing your posts | here and other of your "contributions", I can only hope that the rest of the German society has a better level of historical awareness. Quest09 (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)"

I honestly consider that this comment was/is a personal insult.

A) He not only judges over me seated upon the high horse of self-righteousness: I (as a "German") have been judged ignorant (by him) of the Holocaust and of the concentration and extermination camps, and "he can only hope" that the rest of the German society knows more about the subject. - That was an insult against me (Flamarande).

B) No, he also insinuates that several of my contributions are unworthy (quoting: and other of your "contributions") and that was another clear insult against me (Flamarande). All of my many contributions to the articles of Wikipedia are honest improvements. My contributions are certainly not without flaw, but (nearly) all of them are serious - and I challenge anyone to prove the contrary).

I replied on his talkpage with this (please read the whole text carefully). I admit that it might not have been an elegant reply (especially the last sentence), but it was a honest one (with relevant information upon the subject itself). His reply was: "You don't expect me to read your post in my talk page, do you?--Quest09 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)"

Not wanting to hide anything from him, my final answer in my own talkpage was: "Not really, but you can read my honest and only answer to you first post (last sentence). Flamarande (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)"

As far as I'm concerned this would be the end of the matter. He insulted me first, and got merely an honest and appropriate reply (i.e.: he got exactly what he deserved). Don't ask me why he is now playing the "offended virgin" (after 3 days?). If you need anything else... just ask. I'm always prepared to help the course of justice (even if it is only Wiki-justice). Flamarande (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

His message may have been offensive, but you over-reacted. If you feel the need to complain about a message, you can do so, but in this case you greatly escalated thite level of tension. Your experience on Wikipedia will be much better if you make an effort to keep calm when editing. (I can feel the anger in your messages, and that's not good.) Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I second your opinion (Looie496) and still don't see it as "an insult towards you." We have to draw a line between insults and being too negative, irritating, etc. Simply feeling offended doesn't mean you were insulted. Mr.K. (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning neither was he (and I'm not angry - I simply don't hide anything relevant to the case). Flamarande (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider the response as at the appropriate level for the insult. However insulting people is against civility even if insulted first. It should not be done. I see no reason to discuss this further Dmcq (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that (Dmcq's) judgement; and as indicated before don't intend to pursue this matter in any way (to be honest the complaint surprised me - I especially liked the: "I find it sad that Germans still cannot accept what they did in their past"-part). (whinnying tone of voice): "Oh the pain, oh the horror, I still cannot accept what I did during WWII. My own father wasn't even born then (and my mother isn't German at all). If anyone wishes to look at my contributions he will find that I have more important subjects to do. Flamarande (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough. Hitler=trouble. One needs to remain calm when Hitler rears his head. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... last I checked, Hitler was a noun and not a derogatory insult, although some people compare other people to him because of his actions; but it's just that, he's dead and so is this discussion. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd been following this since the Ref Desk discussion and I agree entirely with Dmcq's comments. An insult responding to an insult.John Z (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Both made needlessly inflammatory comments which were uncivil: editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment. Both are advised and warned to comply with this and be more tactful in their postings. The end. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If an ANI topic becomes abusive ...

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

(Excuse this sensitive general question, and feel free to refactor title or delete altogether, but I see the words "Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem," so I'll ask.)

I understand clearly that the nature of "social correction" may often naturally tend toward humiliation. Not with obvious name-calling, but the treatment of someone with contempt—the usual group reinforcing tactic of telling the allegedly nonconforming member "you're not making sense," and (clearly verifiable from the diffs) mis-characterizing everything "the guilty" says to fit the crime which is alleged so the punishment can be proclaimed. The guilty party then demonstrates their willingness to be corrected "by the community" by accepting the hand that has been dealt without complaint.

But a few abusive (bullying) actors do not well represent the community.

Surely there must be some mechanism available for dealing with this ... beyond a certain line.

I assume this noticeboard could not address that, but perhaps you can point me—even if out the door. (Again, feel free to delete if too provocative.) Proofreader77 (talk)

If you'd like the community to review one of its decisions or sanctions, you can open a thread either at WP:ANI or WP:AN - unlike what you've done here though, you would need to cite the "community punishment" you are referring to. If that fails or was not workable, you'd need to make a request for arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Of course it would seem a bad idea to take back immediately to ANI a problem happening on ANI—I think there is a general feeling that that is illustrating you are a bad sport/ban-worthy (and why it would ever be appropriate to put it on AN instead, is far beyond my understanding). I understand Arbcom exists, but not what previous steps would be required in a matter like this. Not that you should clarify that. :) Again, my thanks. And again, feel free to collapse and refactor title. No further response necessary. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind clarifying further if you wish, given that is partially what this noticeboard can exist for - but as my response may have already suggested, there is little that can be done without being more specific. Each set of circumstances (and what is desired in each of them) differs. Of course, if you think ANI or AN isn't appropriate, you can contact an individual uninvolved admin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, my thanks. I don't mean to be evasive, but "forum shopping" is an apparently serious matter, and it would seem if I ask general questions I can't be accused of that. :)

What you have done, especially by saying AN, is tell me that something I had rejected out of hand, might be appropriate—under certain conditions. So the variables matter a lot. (I.E., there is not one clear answer "in general.") Perhaps your suggestion of speaking to one uninvolved administrator about the path might be best to pursue (if any). Thank you for your gracious indulgence and advice. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Bzuk

Resolved

 – Editors agreed to disengage, further problems will be taken to ANI --Taelus (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I'd appreciate comment upon the following exchange.

I made minor tweaks at Boulton Paul Defiant - typos, poor word choices, a couple of unclear sentences - all of which were reverted. [50]

The editor, noticing he had reverted a typo, then made this single edit again himself. After trying another clarification, reverted without comment, I remonstrated with the editor on his talk page. The editor refused to discuss his edits, responding with incivility on my talk page User talk:Redheylin#Boulton Paul Defiant and blanking my requests for co-operation, explanation and civility;

[51]

While my questions are blunt they are not uncivil or accusatory. Having more or less claimed ownership of the page on my talk page ("I used some of your edits, others not, that's the Wiki way") the editor's next post there claimed "Besides the incoherent rambling and lack of focus of your comments, note I could care less about the issue" (I imagine there ought to be a "not" in there somewhere, but the editor refuses to discuss). Clearly this type of editing is liable to discourage contribution to, according to the editor, some 6,000 articles. It seems to me that such a number cannot adequately be maintained by any single person without the incivility attendant upon ill-considered, unnecessary and undesirable reverts and the refusal to annotate them or to seek consensus. Redheylin (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. This is a content issue that the editor seems wholly unable to appreciate, as all edits came accompanied by edit comments. See the extensive commentary that is found on both editor's talk pages. I have no interest in dealing with exchanges with this editor over what is a minor style edit. FWiW, the accusations of ownership, incivility and lack of response are belied by the edit record. Bzuk (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

The problem as far as I can see it is of vocabulary and grammar. The people reading or editing wikipedia have a variety of backgrounds, what one person may think of as well phrased and a reasonable level can be near meaningless to another. I have found communicating with some people very difficult even though I try to write simply and they obviously have English as a first language. The articles are formed by consensus; that may make them read rather like tabloid newspaper stories but reaching the widest audience is a reasonable aim. Dmcq (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• From what I have read of this incident, there is no real right or wrong here, as User:Dmcq said, different readers/editors will have different views of what is good phrasing. I advise both editors involved here to disengage and remember to assume good faith of each other. Neither of you are vandals, you are both attempting to improve Wikipedia, and just happen to have different views here. Consider taking this to the article talk page to attempt to gain concensus over which version should be used if you feel strongly about the wording. Happy editing to you both, --Taelus (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I fully concur that there is much more to do that be involved in "spats" and I am moving on, "to the ramparts, vandals ascendent!" Good day to all! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Note: this is not a report of a minor style difference; it is a report of a breach of etiquette. The editor's comment here, "absolute nonsense..the editor seems unable", is also rude and dismissive without the detail necessary for resolution or constructive co-operation. The statement that all reverts were accompanied by explanatory comments is untrue. [52] If the problem is a minor one, a "difference of opinion as to good vocabulary and phrasing" then the question arises, why is such hostility required and what happens when this editor is challenged on a matter of substance? Editing indeed is a matter of consensus, and the record shows that I have attempted, and Bzuk has spurned such consensus. There is no difficulty in communication: this is a serious breach of etiquette: posting it here rather than as an "incident" is an act of mercy, my complaint stands unaddressed.Redheylin (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to attempt to build concensus on the talk page to ensure clarity, and I believe that there is nothing more you can gain from this WQA filing. User:Bzuk has agreed to disengage and move on. As long as both of you assume good faith of each other in the future, then all is well. There is little else that this filing will achieve, if you seek to report it as an incident then you should do so, although I doubt any more will be said at ANI than has been said here. Disengage as User:Bzuk has and attempt to build concensus on the talk page. If this problem of incivility continues after you have both disengaged, then take it to ANI. As long as you have concensus on the talk page, then your version will be accepted. --Taelus (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Taelus; to "disengage" from ones own breach of guidelines and "move on" from abuse, having got ones way, is rather easy. You appear to be saying that everything will be OK so long as I do not attempt to edit any page in which Bzuk has any interest without permission. I'd appreciate a clarification of your comments, particularly the reasons for your advice that ANI is unlikely to accept this matter constitutes "an incident". Redheylin (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

btw - It's "consensus" - though you are of course free to say this is a difference of opinion, call me an idiot and then "move on" with your misspelling intact. Redheylin (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

...ouch. I suggest you take this to WP:ANI if you want abuse to be examined and dealt with. This venue only offers advice and third opinions to diffuse and advise situations, as it is not an administrator board. I do suggest you assume good faith of those attempting to aid you in the dispute resolution process as well though. I will clarify by saying I am not suggesting that anyone "gets their own way" with abuse, I merely think the scenario would benefit from disengaging and cooling down. As I said, if it continues, take it to ANI. Finally, my spelling in no way detracts from what I stated. This isn't an article page, as long as you understand me then it is fine. Also, please avoid putting words into my mouth, I am not the sort that would go around branding others idiots. --Taelus (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, if you wish to take this a step up to the "incident" level, rather than the "seeking advice" level, then all we can do here is refer you to ANI. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has a right to get their edits in. I saw no bad grammar. The better words were not better as far as I'm concerned. For instance for me and many others 'anticipated having' conveys that action was taken whereas 'expected' does not. I'm sure many people would see no difference. As this is wikipedia I would probably go with the simpler language. However I can easily imagine someone quite reasonably reverting the changes as bad by their lights. Some people get narked when their perfectly good english is marked as bad grammar and poor choice of words, especially if that is written in their talk page. Even so no bad language was used. No insults were issued. I see no etiquette problem and think this should be closed. Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way you may get past peoples' personal defences better by saying things like 'better word' rather than 'wrong word'. The first is your opinion, the second passes judgement. Dmcq (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

fair point, dmcq, at the end there, though I'd already been reverted once then. Re. the rest, you're correct, "anticipate" means to act before due time, or to forestall. It's often used as a synonym for "expect", may even appear in dictionaries with this use, generally marked loose or idiomatic - perhaps the dictionaries are just sparing our feelings, because that's not the true meaning: "expect" here is a better word since at the time no action had been taken. If it said "the govt expected a certain type of attack and anticipated it by designing...."... but it does not. If the two are as good as each other, though, why revert?

As far as grammar goes - well, it fades imperceptibly into style. Take the sentence; "the miner hit the farmer and he was a bad man". It is grammatically correct but who is bad? Where clauses are poorly related there's ambiguity that may be imperceptible to the writer. I myself often realise I have written a clunky sentence and certainly do not object if someone fixes it before I do. I write and thank them - look at my talk page and contributions if you like. "what one person may think of as well phrased and a reasonable level can be near meaningless to another." that is exactly what I am thinking! The idea is to make it clear to everyone.

Please note I have made no allegation of bad faith - I simply write to people saying "do you know what this looks like? Please tell me it is not." Again you can find the good guys on my talk page saying "sorry, it really is not, I've met you half way." Look at the two immediately above Bzuk. This is what I'd do, and I think you too. And the rest.... look at Bzuk! I do think the comments on my talk-page are insulting and disruptive, as it happens. That's why I am here.

Taelus, you took a pretty stroppy comment of mine in good part with just the right amount of challenge in your tone. I am glad to find that you were not thinking of calling me an idiot. I also do not think you are an idiot. Isn't this cosy? No "incoherent rambling and lack of focus", no "nonsense, you can't read"? You're a wikipedian, squire. I have no idea, though, which 6,000 pages our fellow editor considers himself obliged to revert changes to without checking them and therefore cannot guarantee to "disengage" without ceasing to edit - so I guess, as you say, it's straight to the ANI next time, since the definition of "ownership" is pretty clear. CU Redheylin (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a good look at the history of the article. There are very few reverts and there is a number of contributors. That indicates WP:OWN isn't applicable. Dmcq (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (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:Laz17

Could someone look into this, I'm having problem with this rude user? [53][54][55] he also admited stalking me [56]. That guy is also full of words of some unexistent fraud and we have one (long) discussion about ethnic maps of BiH [57]. Is there something to be done? At least I would like that he starts behaving civil and stops stalking me. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also have a problem with Ceha.

1) He is a very problematic user, for his fraudulent mapping alone. He created a miserable map of bosnia and herzegovina that has no source. He refused to cooperate with me when I wanted to delete several of his problematic maps. Well, some of them were deleted, but we the job remained unfinished because his other fraud was still left. So, after a pause we got a mediator called "Direktor" to help mediate the discussion in hope of getting a solution. Ceha was infuriated. He could not stand that I was still at his wrong map that had no source. Immediately he started to prolong the discussion by talking how we do not agree on the same source - yet we had agreed upon the same source. Imagine that! In the end, to try to keep his awful map, he decided to update it. Then he updated it again. And again. And there are still countless mistakes on it. For this he is very angry at me. To quote what mediator Direktor said about his map, "That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased".

2) Ceha has recently edited on the central bosnia canton page. What he did was, as usual, try to expand the croatian presence there, like he did with the maps. He bumped up the population statistics from about 131 thousand croats to 135 thousand croats. This is significant. Sensing nationalist bigotry and uncyclopediatic behavior, I automatically undid his edit. He was pissed off at me. He fumed and let off a lot of steam. Then he removed the other population data that was there before his editing. He attacked me. He was so angry. And then, he got a source, and what do you know - he returned that number of 131 croats. For this mistake he did not apologize like an honest person would. Instead he attacked me more and accuses me of following him. He is a very problematic user. His only response to increasing the croats in the data was that he was the one who put the initial data there in the first place - how does that make his fauduelent increase from 131k to 135 any more acceptable, and what does that have to do with the problem? It has nothing to do with anything - that is the kind of games that he plays, writing irrelevant information.

(LAz17 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

Also, this user reports me here without letting me know. Of course I am going to look at his contributions to see where else is he talking slander and libel behind my back. (LAz17 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

User:Macai

I have some questions about this user's ability – willingness? – to collaborate productively on US "culture war" type topics. He's repeatedly inserted the word "feminazi" into SCUM manifesto and ploughed through all objections, he's removed information on Karl Marx's theories from Communism because it is "pro-communist POV," he's "retaliated" against perceived Wikipedia attacks on FOX News by changing a section title in Slate (magazine) from "Editorial stance" to "Liberal Bias." And this is outright trolling: [58], [59] EvanHarper (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Macai, looking at your contribution page, I see the last 50 edits don't meet WP:NPOV. Most of them are, in fact, better suited for Conservapedia. There's no word for this beyond "Unacceptable." This pattern absolutely MUST change. --King Öomie 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by Stargnoc/Jayhammers

This editor tried, quite unsuccessfully, to start a RFA about me. He has posted a personal attack in this diff: [60]. Note that there is "another" editor in the discussion, Jayhammers, which Stargnoc admitted during the RFA is another account he operates. Attempts to address this comment with the editor are pointless. He has made it very clear that he has no interest in discussing things with me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would advise you to gain consensus using talk pages for edits to the article, as suggested on the talk page you provided the diff for by another editor. If there is consensus, then you can quite happily insert your content into the article and the other user will be unable to revert without discussion. I will advise User:Stargnoc to assume good faith of other editors, and inform them not to make personal attacks, however as this is linked into a content dispute I think the most conflict-free resolution would be to gain consensus and then act upon it. If consensus is gained, then this will hopefully resolve the issue. If the editor continues harrassing you over it during or after the concensus building, or goes against concensus with reverts, I suggest filing a report at ANI to avoid an edit war. Hope this helps, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• I do wish to clarify that I also recommend all editors involved assume good faith of each other, and avoid personal attacks. The best route of solution would be to gain concensus on a talk page with calm discussion, removing any problem material for now. Whilst this may be a slightly slow process, it will involve the least conflict. (Sorry, would have clarified more quickly, but got server errors for the last 20 minutes.) --Taelus (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't a question of how edits should be handled. That is addressed elsewhere. The simple fact here is that this editor made a blatant personal attack and has, under two accounts, said that the only solution is if I'm not allowed to edit on the topic. If that is his position, no amount of assuming good faith on my part will matter. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In that case, you may want to file a report at ANI, as taking "action" on other users is outside the scope of Wikiquette Alerts. This noticeboard functions as the first step in the dispute resolution process, and can only provide advice of how to avoid/calm conflicts, and offer neutral points of view into the relevant topics. If you are seeking action to be taken on the user threatening you, then you will want to escalate this to ANI, as it would seem you are already past the point of attempting to resolve the issue through handling edits. Best of luck, --Taelus (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1964 Cumberland B-52 crash

Please could an admin take a look at 74.5.112.42 (talk · contribs) whose very first edit to this article has been to start a naming dispute and content fork. His edit summaries include disparaging remarks about other editors who have worked on the article. Kindly note too that he did not at any point attempt to engage in any discussion before replacing the article with a redirect to a new article that he created. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for requests for admin intervention, it is an early and voluntary step in dispute resolution. If you need an admin, WP:ANI is the place to ask. In either case, it is obligatory to notify the editor that you have filed a complaint about them. Looie496 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I landed here at the suggestion of another administrator. Have posted the notification to the other editor - sorry I missed this. Would like to pursue voluntary co-operation from the other party before going to WP:ANI. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Vaughan_Pratt

Could someone look into this, I fear this is getting out of control. In mostly chronological order:

• Talk:Solar greenhouse#Smell test: "Village constable": [61] and [62]. "Troll": [63]. Then it gets out of control (scroll down to end of comment): [64]
• Talk:Low-emissivity#Radiation and greenhouses: Spreading to another talk page: [65].
• User_talk:David Eppstein#Yet another self-styled expert: And another users talk page: [66].

Hopefully I don't have to point out that the accusations are untrue and that someone has time to help out here before this escalates further.
—Apis (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like at base it it a content dispute which is getting a little heated. Perhaps they should ask a few questions at the Science reference desk and they might be able to get an informed third opinion on the dispute which might help resolve it. Personally I feel the article has problems so I think I better stay out of anything further on COI grounds. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, here we go again: "William, I appreciate your openness and blunt style, which is more to my taste than that of Apis, who conducts his aggressive reverts behind a mask of anonymity [...]" [67] and on it goes. Now William seems to be the main target again though.

Yes there is a content dispute but that is not solvable as long as this goes on. I don't like the idea that some people solve disputes by bullying away other editors they don't agree with. If everyone mange to stay civil a rfc of some sort might be a solution.
—Apis (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to put a notice on Vaughan_Pratt's talk page as far as I can see so I've done so. Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this dispute to my attention, Dmcq. So what exactly is Apis's complaint here? That my language is overly sharp for his taste? It's a fair request, and I have no objection to softening my tone to suit his taste.

I encounter a wide range of editors, many operating under their real names, many under pseudonyms. The very few that I end up in long arguments with (I won't try to allocate blame for those debates) have invariably been ones operating under pseudonyms (the dispute Connolley and I have been having concerning his recent aggressively argued revert hasn't yet become long and I certainly hope it doesn't). Every such argumentative anonymous editor has struck me as appallingly ignorant of the material they pretend expertise in.

I recognize that Wikipedia feels it encourages greater quantity of content by permitting editors the luxury of anonymity, but it does so at the expense both of quality and of the time of editors who have to deal with those who have no obvious qualifications yet dig their heels in when approached and who indulge in aggressive reverting behavior such as Apis. Not only does Apis have no visible technical presence in the real world, he has virtually no presence on Wikipedia either according to his talk page. While not wishing to discourage new recruits (my advisor Don Knuth tried correcting some egregious errors in Wikipedia articles in his area and threw in the towel after being repeatedly reverted), one does need to consider the possibility that badly behaved editors can redeem themselves simply by starting afresh under a new pseudonym. This option is not available to those operating under their true name.

I am sorry to see your time being taken up in this way by Apis, who seems to be under the impression that when he finds himself unable to defend his position on his own he has to go to you to get himself heard. What he doesn't realize is that you are no more fair-minded than me in that regard (just my opinion) and that he is unlikely to strengthen the technical content of his arguments by coming running to you in this way. Nor will it help in toning down my stridency, since he can accomplish that on his own simply by being more polite to me than me to him (which he does, at least superficially) and behaving himself in more substantive matters such as reverting, which currently he doesn't. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I did put up a notice I think? [68].

I can take heated arguments and even insults directed to my face, but the spreading of lies and slander to other editors is not something I'm going to accept. One has to draw the line somewhere. Apparently the idea is to bully other editors away from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with Pratt. I can't begin to imagine how many he has successfully made leave Wikipedia. :(

I Posted here so that someone uninvolved could take a look at the situation. I don't feel there is much I can do to solve it myself without making things worse.
—Apis (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

the spreading of lies and slander to other editors is not something I'm going to accept. One has to draw the line somewhere. Apparently the idea is to bully other editors away from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with Pratt. I can't begin to imagine how many he has successfully made leave Wikipedia. Those who haven't yet seen Maxwell's delightful poem at [69] may appreciate having their attention drawn to it. Its allusion to reflected radiation is particularly apropos of the subject matter in dispute (if that's what's being disputed here). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice your message on the page, I think the standard message needs to be designed to stand out more if both I and Vaughan Pratt missed it. The remarks on both sides have become less than courteous about each other but haven't descended into the depths that are the norm for blocks or whatever. You feel you are being bullied and I am sorry about that. What is it that would convince you that you were being treated fairly even when all your edits are rejected? Both sides have to accept the possibility that they may not be totally correct in content disputes. The easiest way of doing that is to find more facts or a better expert. Slogging it out and traking it to WQA without the willingness to check the facts sounds like arguments about the number of teeth in a horses mouth. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I probably should point out that the above accusations and insinuations (such as "aggressive reverting behaviour" etc) are lies as well, (so that no one mistakes silence with agreement).
—Apis (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out that I have never reverted or rejected an edit to an article made by Apis, I have merely challenged him on talk pages about them. His complaint here is not with any interference with his edits but with what he feels are inappropriately strong challenges to his edits in talk pages aimed at driving him away from Wikipedia. Like Dmcq I'm sorry he feels that way. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also at the end of the day even with expert knowledge wikipedia insists on verifiability not truth. If there is a dispute in the reliable sources and you can't come to some agreement that one lot are fringe then the dispute should be reported. You will of course have weight problems so that's why you want some other opinion or facts as well. Dmcq (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I and Connolley are trying to keep unsourced bogus statements about the greenhouse effect out of the article. And I tried to keep similar statements out of the low-e article (GE is a high-e effect). We are not the ones who want to include anything. There is already plenty of sources supporting this view in the article and on the global warming article. Sternly referring to sources always leads to endless debate about the validity of the source, bogus sources, misinterpretation of sources, synthesis and so on. This is a common tactic by cranks, something you unfortunately get experience with on the global warming related pages. It's always better if you can agree by explaining the issue better, thereby everyone wins by gaining a better understanding. Of course, if that fails, you have to start arguing about sources. But again, this is not about the content issue and I don't want to start this argument here, that is what the article talk page is about.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

All my edits are not being rejected! What makes you think that? One edit I have made on low-e has been reverted and it's being discussed, which went fine until Pratt started spreading lies and insinuating that I am an "anti-global-warming crank". He is also saying I revert other peoples edits all the time (maybe it is socks and vandals he means?). And he insinuates that I don't understand fundamental physics by making up things he then says I have claimed. (see poisoning the well).

This is what I am bothered by. I don't want people to believe these things. I don't think most people will take the trouble to read through the discussions, history and archives, it's too much work. And it obviously worked in his first attempt.

People seems to be very impressed by Pratts achievements in computer science, which indeed seems impressive. But that does not make him an expert on meteorology or thermodynamics, nor does it make what he claims about other editors (anonymous or not) true.

On the solar greenhouse page, where this started, I happened to agree with Connolley who has a lot of experience in this field. I also commented that if Pratt had issues with Connolleys editing (which he was making personal attacks against as well) he should take it to his talkpage instead. I know Connolley is experienced in dealing with that kind of nonsense. Then things went gradually overboard.

It is difficult to stay courteous when you are being called crank, self-styled expert, having no technical expertise, anonymous coward, time sink, that all anonymous editors are an encumbrance to Wikipedia, only there to fill in "unimportant subjects", or that I claim things I do not, and so on.

Once again, that is why I brought the issue here, so that someone uninvolved could help out, because I am not perfect, and can only take a limited amount of abuse before giving up. Or is this supposed to end in a shouting match so that one or both of us can be blocked? I don't see how we can continue constructively while that goes on.

This is not about the content issue which likely will be easy to solve, but rather wp:npa and wp:civ, and the problems of working constructively when editors fail to follow these basic guidelines.
—Apis (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed most of his concerns previously and should not need to repeat them here. If my tone was more uncivil than his then I'm appalled and am truly very sorry! Clearly I've hurt his feelings and would be happy to make amends as appropriate.

Regarding But that does not make [Pratt] an expert on meteorology or thermodynamics, where to begin? Neither the current content of the Solar greenhouse article nor my exploration of the physics of greenhouses at the article's talk page brings up either subject beyond the very elementary climate-control role of greenhouses. In the case of thermodynamics, its irrelevance to anything written so far should be immediately apparent to those acquainted with its scope; does this include Apis? Apis further seems to assume that a scientist trained in area T who has also contributed to areas U, V, W, and X must therefore have no expertise in area T, a line of reasoning I don't follow.

I'll be happy to respond to new (i.e. other) complaints lodged here about my behavior but not to old ones, otherwise I'd never get any editing done. (Who's being driven away from what, exactly?) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as it stops (as it seems to have done now), and doesn't happen again, I'm happy. Thanks.
—Apis (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And I shall try to be more courteous in the future as well.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading is that both of you are right but talk about different things and don't understand each other. It is permissible to change whole paragraphs if it is felt that would appreciably improve content but then it is reasonable to revert and then discussion should start on the talk page. I have now read through the talk pages and article and my feelings are that there is very little talk about the purpose of a solar greenhouse or what it is supposed to do. Looking on the web about them the ones I saw seemed to be straightfoward greenhouses with heat storage for the night and nothing like the cloche in the picture. The whole article seemed to be some spin off about the difference between greenhouse warming and how greenhouses work and not about the title. The references at the end seem unintegrated and there is a reference to a spreadsheet within the article that doesn't show its provinance or reliability. Personally I feel the whole article should be deleted, there might be a small amount plus some references that can go into greenhouse, which incidentally I saw no link to. How would you feel about my proposing it for deletion and that would remove the argument? Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a radical suggestion, I'm not sure what I think of it, but it might be for the best. The article is not very good and the fork seems unfortunate and appears to have been meant to separate the technical description from the greenhouse article itself. It would be better to suggest this on the article talk page itself. But I suppose nominating for deletion directly is ok, since that will lead to subsequent discussion as well.
—Apis (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after reading the article again, I think you are right.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly for that, which is what I was trying to hint delicately at with my question wondering why Wikipedia needed two articles, Greenhouse and Solar greenhouse. The only rationale that made any sense to me at all was that the latter was about how they worked. Now that I've finally (after how many years?) been able to reconcile, at least to my own satisfaction if no one else's, the "obvious" theoretical prediction with Wood's empirical observation (see my current view), what needs to be said about how greenhouses stay warm involves no arcane radiation theory and should fit in at most two or three sentences and therefore have no need to be spun off from the Greenhouse article.

Well that seems to be consensus - I'll do that then. I wondered if you'd both turn on me but I considered that possibility as having you both agreeing with each other and working together as well :) Dmcq (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What, you'd give away a trick of the trade, just like that?  :) The sacrifice method of aligning sparring parties. Well, now that that cat's out of the bag I guess it's ok to write a Wikipedia article about it then. :) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mobile historian

Resolved

 – User:Mobile historian indef blocked. --Taelus (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been engaged in something of a minor content dispute with this user. Details here [70], a little more of it in this soon to be rejected arbitration request here [71]. User has been escalating attacks on his talk page (full discussion here [72]). After he earlier today refered to me as "fetid" "vain," a "peon" and a "little friend who started getting his hands dirty [73] I asked him to strike the comments and desist or else I'd bring the matter here [74]. He responded "Sorry can't do that 'coz I'm still too numbed by your shameful, disgusting and shocking language and behaviour."[75]. I'd like him to desist. If you look at the longer thread on his talk page and the arb page both linked above, you'll see him describing my edits as "vandalism" me as "talking faeces" and suffering from either "plain ignorance or green eyed envy." I'd just like him to be told to stop with the continuous ad hominems, and have the next step explained to him by others if he doesn't (the civility policy has been pointed out to him on a number of occasions already).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to ANI, an immediate block is warranted here. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He is indef blocked as the sock of a banned user now.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mobile_historian was the ANI link, for archiving purposes. --Taelus (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Case handled and resolved at ANI. --Taelus (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I want to report an uncivil behavior that occured on 11 November. On that day User:FkpCascais posted a very insulting note on User:Avala's talk page. That note was in Serbian, but I translated it on English. This is that note:

Fuck the King who never learned to speak Serbian (I live abroad for 30 years, all my life, and I didn't forgot to speak Serbian), and monarchic family wich instead of Greater Serbia made some shit of Yugoslavia, only because they (House of Karadjordjevic) can said that they are Kings of Serbs and also of Croats and of Slovenes. They shall not be my Kings anymore. I studied in Spain, so if you want I can reply to you... FkpCascais (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)User:FkpCascais, and for my part in that, I was blocked from editing for 48h by User:Rettetast. I aknowledge that it was my mistake to enter into edit war instead to report User:FkpCascais in the first place, so I am doing that now. I think that he also should be blocked from editing for his part in this issue. With many thanks, yours truly --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed WP:ANI#User:FkpCascais--should he be blocked? and the consensus was that he should not be blocled. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2009 (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.

Gamaliel

Stale

 – Both parties advised to focus on content during a content dispute, not on each other.

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

I have repeatedly asked this editor to explain and support his side of the argument regarding the Mark Levin article. He has become increasingly hostile and despite repeated requests to explain his position regarding a particular edit he has refused to do so and instead repeatedly violated WP:EQ, becoming more sarcastic and hostile as time has gone on. He has rejected repeated attempts at compromise *[76] and simply resorted to repeated attacks on other editors' good faith reasonings and understandings of WP policy. If you take a look at Talk it should become immediately apparent however if you wish specific examples please take a look at *[77], *[78], *[79], *[80], *[81], *[82], *[83], and particularly *[84]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvenue (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I have repeatedly explained my edits and positions to all editors on that article, no one else has a similar complaint or is mystified about what my position or reasoning is. Malvenue neglects that he has given far more than he has gotten from me and has committed egregious violations of BLP and 3RR on this article while condescendingly lecturing others to follow policy. All I have done is failed to turn the other cheek in response to his behavior. I would love for someone else to argue with him for a while to give me a break - my report about him at BLPN has been largely ignored - so if some other kind hearted editor with more tolerance for this would be willing to get between us I would be grateful. Gamaliel (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a basic edit war to me. Malvenue, as a practical matter, if you'd quit deleting the sourced criticisms of this "right-wing talk show host", then there would be no edit war. It takes (at least) two to have an edit war. If you would stop, then the edit war would automatically stop.

It is my recollection of the timing on this event that after observing the discussion page and seeing a rather obvious concensus regarding criticism of the subject, I removed the criticism in question, citing my reasoning. From my point of view I was removing a quote that defied the consensus on the discussion page. Gamaliel immediately reverted it claiming vandalism. This went back and forth several times until I left the criticism in place and added a Levin reference to Frum to balance the criticism attempting to satisfy Gamaliel while balancing the criticism. Again Gamaliel removed it in its entirety. A third party attempted some compromise wording on the Levin quote which I found satisfactory but once again Gamaliel removed it in its entirety. It seemed obvious to everyone that the only thing that would satisfy Gamaliel was to have it his way and only his way. An attempt at mediation resulted in no participation by Gamaliel at all, while I repeatedly stated my basis for the removal of the quotation and requested his reasoning for including it. His only response was a series of sarcastic insults, complaints that I was WP:SIA, questions about my judgement, pretty blatant violations of WP:AGF and a basic refusal to attempt to reach any sort of consensus. If you review the discussion that occurred after the initial edit war I believe you will see the majority of the issues I am referring to. It is not my intent to continue a fight replying here, I want to explain why I did what I did, that I did not simply delete content for no reason. Regardless, the extended antagonistic responses from Gamaliel were uncalled for. Malvenue (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't pretend the insertion of a two paragraph screed against Frum was any kind of "balance", given that a mere sentence of the Levin article is devoted to Frum. It was a retaliatory edit, pure and simple. More editors, myself included, would take your position seriously if you gave up that charade, but instead you pile justifications and fabrications upon this initial misstep. There's no reason to persist in insisting that it was a reasonable edit beyond the fact that you cannot or do not want to admit that this edit was a mistake. Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The response which you claim as a "screed" was anything but. Frankly for Mr. Levin it was rather mild, explaining his history with Frum and detailing some of the bizarre behaviour he's exhibited towards Levin (which makes him an unreliable source regarding Levin). If you felt the quote I selected was too long, why did you then unilaterally delete the compromise edit done by Ericsean*[85]? Herein lies the root cause of our disagreement. YOU assume anything that disagrees with your interpretation is a violation of policy or bad faith editing, whereas I put forth reasons justified by policy which you fail to adequately dispute. "You're wrong, you're a noob, you're policy-shopping, you're a single issue advocate, my points don't need to be backed up since they're so obvious", to paraphrase you, does not qualify as arguing your points or attempting to reach consensus. Just because you disagree with my points (which others have backed up by the way) doesn't make them "fabrications" or "a mistake". I (and others) feel the Frum quote was inappropriate and gave justified reasons for it. You disagreed and merely reverted the change refusing to give any justifications for weeks! Your only responses consisted of insults and sarcasm. When any attempts were made at compromise you unilaterally deleted them and again refused to give any justification. For someone so "experienced" here, I'm pretty shocked at your conduct to be honest. Malvenue (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who are these people who have "backed up" your points? No one on Wikipedia could possibly think inserting a two paragraph attack is an appropriate response to a single sentence noting a critic. You compound that nonsense by insisting I haven't been responding on a page I've been posting to daily, and you insist I'm acting unilaterally when no one thinks your actions are appropriate. Seriously, you've dug yourself quite a hole here, and people would take you a lot more seriously if you could admit that your actions were in error and move on instead of insisting that they were appropriate and compounding them with attacks on others. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"No one on Wikipedia could possibly think" "nonsense" "no one thinks your actions are appropriate" "people would take you seriously" "attacks on others". Thank you for proving my points about your comments so succinctly. This isn't about the Levin article here, it's about your behaviour. I won't even get into your misleading statements above, the point is you have rejected any attempts at compromise and simply attack me and others who disagree with you instead of working towards a consensus. Your behaviour in this complaint demonstrates my point. Stop attacking people! It's intuitively obvious to the least casual observer your behaviour is a flagrant violation of WP:EQ. Malvenue (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you haven't addressed the point at all and you are trying to make this all about me. Even if I meekly accepted your behavior and your abuse, the underling problem remains - that your conception of appropriate editing and behavior is out of bounds of Wikipedia norms and policy. Attack me all you want, make all the false claims about me you want, that point remains true and unaddressed, and I and I'm sure the all spectators here would appreciate you addressing it. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this section is your violation of WP:EQ, not the basis for our disagreement. Even if you were on the side of the angels your behaviour would not be excused. Malvenue (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And of course, we should ignore yours. There's no point in prolonging this if you are unwilling to address the underlying problem. Good luck forum shopping for someone to endorse your behavior and policy violations. Gamaliel (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to show anywhere I've been nasty or insulting to you, certainly not on the scale of your behaviour which has been unfailingly hostile for the past few weeks. I even apologized to you if you felt I had offended you in some way last week. You haven't even made anything close to that sort of attempt. The bottom line is I have sourced your violations of WP:EQ and pointed to just a handful of your violations. You continue to accuse me but continue to fail to source any of your claims (because you can't source what doesn't exist). Either way I have proven my point that you are in violation of WP:EQ. I suggest as always you cease your endless attacks and insults and work within the policies of WP. After all, as an "administrator" you should know better, right? Malvenue (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you are winning friends and influencing people, but I think that this dispute has substantially exceeded the scope of this board. I suggest that all involved editors answer the six points raised by User:Ericsean at #Mediation, and quit talking about each other. "Focus on the content, not the contributor" means "Answer those six questions, and stop complaining about what the other guy is, or isn't, saying". You need to talk about the content, not about the behavior of editors in the dispute.

BTW, I don't think that BLP requires that criticism of a talk show host be sourced to someone that is writing about the critic's writings; I believe that the existence of multiple instances of criticism is generally accepted as proof that the criticism exists. (Yes, even in biographies of living people.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2009 (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.

Polargeo and Atmoz

Stuck

 – Atmoz refused to participate.

Resolved

 – Polargeo apologised and promised not to poke again. ScienceApologist withdrew from the area.

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

• Polargeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atmoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, a number of uncivil and needlessly personal comments are being made. Atmoz essentially executes a complete character assassination against me while Polargeo threatens to "treat me the same way". This is not what I expect out of Wikipedia talk pages:

• [86]
• [87]

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you don't expect this treatment, the way you behave. If I went about WP:wikilawyering the way you do I would expect other editors to just ignore me :). ScienceApologist seems to spend most of his time wasting other peoples time on talkpages and at ANI and now here. Sorry. Polargeo (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seriously? Check my contributions: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite your... troubled history, looking through your contributions to this particular page, nothing jumps out at me as inappropriate, let alone POV-pushing. Unless Polargoe or Atmoz have a specific diff to point to, I think it's wise to steer this discussion towards THEIR behavior. A user's past history is not an excuse to blow them off when they're actually trying to start a discussion. There's a bit of cried wolf here, to be sure, but too much, I fear. --King Öomie 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. I document the ongoing behavior issues below. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We have been trying to get this list into shape. It had just been through the 4th AfD (although it is down as being the 3rd - results 3 keep and last one no consensus because they had a real go at it this time). The AfD result was reviewed here for no real reason because it was a solid decision. After tons of discussion on the talkpage Nealparr and I were finding some middle ground. Then Ronz and ScienceApologist come in with deletion questions and musings about whether we should have this list at all. A waste of our time. People have been bashing this list from every conceivable angle including BLP Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. I think you need to put ScienceApologists contribution into the context of the talkpage. It is unconstructive and a waste of our time to revist AfD questions rather than try to improve the article, I regard SA as having been disruptive in this respect. If we choose not to deal with Apologist we don't expect to be reported like naughty schoolboys. Polargeo (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I do not think the defense of, "I didn't like what he was saying on the talkpage" excuses incivility. Now, I explicitly did not frame my arguments as deletion questions, but even if I had, that does not justify treating me without civility. The rationale you seem to be offering for your rudeness is that you are attempting to scare myself and Ronz away from the page. That's wholly contradictory to the way we are supposed to do things at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This WP:wikilawyering about incivility with you and Ronz being the judge and jury of what is incivil is not constructive. Polargeo (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Careful. Ride that wikilawyering link too hard, and it might break. --King Öomie 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I won't use the link anymore. But I am fed up with being reverted and reported etc. etc. over the most minor things. With SA and Ronz acting as self appointed policemen of these wikirules as they perceive them. Inevitably these rules always get used in their favour. Polargeo (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Atmoz

• Extremely rude personal attack: [88]
• Reinserted after an attempted removal from the talk page: [89]
• Yawns about this report: [90]

• Comment- users have every right to to remove talkpage messages. I personally do with with semi-automated posts that I've received (save for the Signpost). --King Öomie 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. My concern was not with his removal of the message but was with the edit summary. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Gotcha. Can't see the edit summary when previewing with Popups =P --King Öomie 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Extends his personal attack to "anyone who hangs out on FTN": [91]
• Refuses Ronz's invitation to discuss his personal attacks here: [92]
• Claims that Ronz edited his comment, even though he simply moved his comment to a new section: [93]

Polargeo

• Removes an archive of a discussion that violates WP:TALK and makes a claim that I've somehow created a "fork": [94]
• Threatens to "treat me" in the same way Atmoz does: [95]
• Calls me "silly" tells me to "grow up" and "get some clue pretty quickly": [96]
• Whacks me with a trout: [97].
• Declares Ronz and myself to be causing "disruption": [98]
• Calls us "childish": [99]
• Accuses me of having bad behavior: [100]
• I just whacked him with another trout :) [101]

See what I mean about how ridiculous SA is. Please add this diff to your list. I get pretty annoyed when I am reported for absolutely nothing and then get diffs of my understandable response to this nonsense posted above. It is like an I'm telling my mummy of you attitude. The trout clearly had no effect Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you two are basically ganging up to insult this user as though he was an SPA troll (which STILL isn't okay). This kind of gleeful poking is entirely inappropriate. --King Öomie 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm sorry. I will not poke him anymore and I will respond rationally and calmly to any relevent points or not at all. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm clenching my AGF gland here, but that almost sounds like a sarcastic way of saying "I'm not going to change my behavior at all, because I'm already doing all that". --King Öomie 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I said I will not poke him. I was reported for next to nothing, that is one mother of a poke at me. It got me annoyed. It is not how I do things. In my book that is very poor. I will as I said respond rationally to SA or not respond at all as the case may be. That is basically what we do on wikipedia. I will not ignore anything he posts on the basis that it is him. And anyway I only said that I may treat him like Atmoz does if he continued along his thread, I have never said that I had got to that point. However, this report sent me to the edge of it. Polargeo (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can get Atmoz to make the same assurance as you just did, this can be marked resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz is now actively refusing being involved here. --King Öomie 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

ScienceApologist is a troll. He makes a sport of baiting users and then attacking them when they indicate that they don't like it. In the last AfD, I made the mistake of voting against him. His response was to start a Scibaby witch hunt. When he lost his AfD, he tried to find another way to destroy the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Both Polargeo and Atmoz have bent over backwards to be civil to this troll. Reporting them here is just more bad behavior on the part of ScienceApologist. Q Science (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It warms the heart to see WP:CIVIL upheld so valiantly. --King Öomie 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention AGF and WP:NPA--SKATER ^Speak. 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

After browsing through this and old discussions (supposedly irrelevant troubled history aside), I share Q Sciences assessment of the situation. Although we might be clenching our AGF glands here as well, it does seem like a reasonable conclusion. It might be unfair to ponder over SA's motives however, and a more productive solution would be to request that ScienceApologist consider how his editing could be perceived in light of previous discussions.
—Apis (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Back on 30 October I tried to deal directly with lots of stuff ScienceApologist kept attacking the article with [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111]

I did not report SAs original incivility to me, because that is not the sort of nonsense I do over such minor things.

Then just as we started to make some progress SA came in with more diversions. To which I responded [112][113][114][115]. When Atmoz finally came up with the idea of ignoring SA I made the following extremely mild comment for which I was reported. [116]. I think the troll assessment extremely accurate. On this talkpage I have had to deal with being accused of sockpupettry and trolling. I have had comments of mine posted in from other users talkpages and then other comments of mine reverted out by Ronz based on some Utopian ideal he has about Wikipedia which he enforces with warning templates and a superior attitude. Everything else I have said has been latterly and in response to this silliness, I now know I shouldn’t have taken SA’s bait and fallen into his trap. I will know better next time I encounter him. The best way to deal with SA may be ignoring him. But for the sake of peace I will rise above this and deal with anything sensible he contributes. Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Q Science wrote, "Both Polargeo and Atmoz have bent over backwards to be civil" I think it would be helpful if someone could provide diffs or the like to demonstrate this. While SA's behavior is a matter of record, it is not an excuse for others' incivility toward SA and certainly not toward anyone else. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

err Ronz I just did provide the diffs. If you look at them in the context of the discussion you will find they are all dealing with SA. Polargeo (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Q Science should clarify his own statements, especially given that they appear to be quite incivil without further clarification and evidence.

The diffs provided above by Polargeo do not demonstrate what Q Science claims. I see no evidence in them of any restraint in the face of inappropriate behavior. It looks like some very minor behavioral problems by everyone involved, until recently when Polargeo and Atmoz became more and more agressive as demonstrated by the diffs from SA. Again, the arguments appear to be that incivility toward SA and others is acceptable because of SA's behavior elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assesment. Ronz has been in conflict with me and is certainly coming into this discussion from a completely non-neutral viewpoint. The diffs should be assessed by neutral eyes. Polargeo (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"I completely disagree with your assesment." It doesn't matter if you cannot support your disagreement with evidence. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

One rule for you, one rule for everyone else. I think my diffs do show it. You think they don't (without providing any evidence for why they don't). Therefore I disagree with you and have outlined why your biased assessment should be ignored. Polargeo (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I could just have easily reported SA and Ronz for their actions. What has annoyed me is the pettiness in bringing this non-issue here. Polargeo (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also irrelevant. And the conclusions of such a report would be the same. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact it is petty and a waste of my time may be irrelevent to you. But not to me. Polargeo (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

It's not fun to be called names and attacked in a location where I'm trying to resolve conflicts that are involving name-calling and personal attacks. I have come to realize that there is essentially nothing for this. This group is going to continue to do this to me regardless of what happens. So I'm done. I've taken the page off my watchlist and I'm completely disengaging from that part of Wikipedia. You can mark this resolved, and as long as these people don't follow me to other areas there should be no problem.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2009 (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.