Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User Wakandas black panther

Stale

 – The user making the complaint hasn't been active in over a week

This user is continues to harass me on my talk page with spurious warnings and threats of having my editing ability blocked. I believe this is due to his disagreement over this page's existence (he nominated the article for deletion but it was decided the page was worth keeping, much to his disgust). I have no desire to continue this bickering and have asked the user to cease posting on my talk page, he has responded with more baseless warnings and has recently declared that I am on my 'final' warning.

He is only trying to goad me into abusing him so he has an excuse to get my editing rights removed. In my opinion this is a blatant attempt at interpreting wikipedia's guidelines in such as way as to be disruptive while still being able to claim that he is 'only following the rules'. I am sick of being a target for his frustrations. Ars666 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ars666 is entitled to his opinion regarding the aformentioned AfD discussion (which was closed as Keep anyway, I don't know what he is bitching about) but what is not okay was that during the discussion he characterized other editors as inherently unsuitable to offer their opinion, and ironically, his very premise for this assertion was also completely wrong. This is also a single-purpose account, and I suspect there may be some meatpuppettry going on here as well.

The issue at hand is that Wakandas black panther put a templatized warning about civility and good faith on Ars666's talk page, after Ars666 had responded very rudely to my attempts to reach an understanding with him. Apparently, Ars666 feels that this template was "poor etiquette."

A check of Ars666's contribs will show that he has had only one token mainspace contribution. The remaining contribs are all related to protestations against the (failed) AfD of Spots (cannabis). Frankly, I think it is clear that Ars666 does not contribute positively to the project and has no intention to do so in the future. And last time I checked, templatized warnings were the recommended way to deal with editors who have no intention of productive contribution. Therefore, Wakandas black panther's actions were 100% appropriate, and there is no need to continue this discussion. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wetman

I recently wrote a message to Wetman about his comments towards me on the talk page of Amazons [here], where he implied that I wasn't a competent adult and stated that we couldn't have sensible discussion when I disagreed with him on the issue. When I wrote back to him, he replied [here] and again called me incompetent, accused me of having "misplaced self-confidence", implied that my educational background was inferior to his, and compared me to an "aggressive class clown". It is not for my sake that I'm putting in this wikiquette alert, it is for the sake of others. Another editor has told me that Wetman has been rude to him on occasion as well, and I fear that his behavior will start driving away new editors. Asarelah (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman has avoided direct personal attacks here, and has tried to make his inflammatory comments non-specific. However, at the root, he is being quite incivil and needs to stop. Mangojuice^talk 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble which I tried to discuss with him here but he was less than civil. There's more at this location with additional information from User:Polaron. - Denimadept (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, having made some 52,000 edits since September 2003, whose resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply, has surely raised some resentment, particularly by inappropriate laughter and frank, often sharp remarks in response to various dishonesties, pettiness, aggressive behavior, attacks with the WP:CIVILITY club, disinfopage pushing, list-making and other coxcombry. His Talkpage archives will show the nature of his habitual discourse quite plainly, and may be thumbed in order to select out further disgraceful examples of his "inflammatory though non-specific" comments:

User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005

User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005

User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005

User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005

User talk:Wetman/archive1Dec2005

User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006

User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006

User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006

User talk:Wetman/archive7Feb2007

User talk:Wetman/archive25Jun2007

User talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007

User talk:Wetman/archive28Dec2007

User talk:Wetman/archive16April2008

Remarks concerning competency in the field of Greek mythology belong at Talk:Amazons, where the complainant deleted a commonplace statement in July 2007, but did not have sufficient interest in the subject to have it on his Watchlist. Rather than make defensive retorts to individual complaints, Wetman prefers to let the record speak for itself, and to reserve the option of perhaps making some general remarks with broad applications— or perhaps not— once everyone has fully expressed themselves. Wetman (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your record does speak for itself. Here are three people who you've annoyed. I suggest you try harder to be less annoying, as repelling people from Wikipedia is not productive. And I can't believe you are totally ignorant of your effect, given, as you say, your record. - Denimadept (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I had kept the Amazons page on my watchlist, I simply didn't notice the remark that you made until recently, which I stated in my initial note to you on the talk page. I am also a woman, not a man, just so you know. I would also like to point out that a neutral third party, MangoJuice, also believes that your behavior has been inappropriate and incivil. Asarelah (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also had a disagreement with him about an addition he made to History of Chester, where he saw no need to add a reference to some material he had added, commenting that the article was mediocre. Of course, it would always remain mediocre if people had this attitude. A reply from him suggested that since the wikilink he had used contained a reference, that would suffice, but recent discussions on WP:Reliable sources confirms that I was correct in stating that this was insufficient. He then ended the discussion by making a statement: "What very high standards for such a mediocre article! Wetman never keeps articles on his Watchlist that are so distinctly "owned", so, that will be all from me at this article." The accusation of ownership was totally unjustified, and a comment by one of the leading contributors to UK articles: User:Jza84 supported the view that his comments were highly uncivil. (diff of exchange on History of Chester page.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A spat I had with him yesterday at Talk:Dorian invasion over my changing a word involved quite a bit of personal attacks and insulting language. He does not play well with others. Too bad, as I actually value his contributions. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, don't mean to imply that he's useless or anything like that, but that he needs to play with others better than he has been doing. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wetman is indeed a very dedicated and obviously intelligent editor, he simply needs to learn to handle disagreements with civility. Asarelah (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with this viewpoint. He needs to be able to deal with disagreements better and accept that others can be correct and he can be wrong occasionally.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So how should this issue be resolved? Asarelah (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were easy, we wouldn't have brought it here. However, perhaps it's time to get more active. I feel he needs a apollogist following him around to try to reduce his negative effects, but I doubt anyone would apply for the position. I'd appreciate it if he'd try to consider his words first, forego his attempts at humor in such situations, and assume good faith in all situations other than blatant vandalism. - Denimadept (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what's the next step here? Just how do we get him to listen to us? Asarelah (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we send him a pretty woman to soften him up a bit? If anyone has a spare pretty woman around, have her come by my place afterwards. :-D No, wait, before! Denimadept (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant more in terms of protocol for Wikiquette alerts than anything else. We have reached a consensus that he needs to change his behavior, but through what channel? Does an admin have to talk to him or something? I'm just unclear on what we do now. Asarelah (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I left Wetman a note on his talk page to let him know that we have reached a consensus here. Whether or not he chooses to add more input to this discussion remains to be seen. Asarelah (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WQA is non-binding - this page exists to try to help you guys resolve your dispute and to give advice on how to deal with civility issues. If you find that the conflict is still going on after you've come to a consensus on this page, you'd probably need to escalate to a WP:RFC/USER, WP:MEDCAB or other forum on WP:DR. Those forums have varying levels of formality. If you see gross incivility and direct violations of policies, you can file a report at WP:ANI if your attempts to curb the problem are unsuccessful. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wetman has been specifically invited to contribute a few further words, though his sense has been that introducing any exchanges of pert ripostes here would more likely add heat than illumination to this forum with a jury of three. TEven the most casual observer will detect an unusual lack of collegiality in the above posts: collegiality is the substance of which civility is the surface. Civility without collegiality is often taken for irony, sometimes correctly, for irony naturally arises from a perception of the difference between things as they are and things as they might rightfully be expected.

Wetman would regret ever making any sharp remark that didn't have a point. The tempest spilling onto the present saucer arose from hostile and less than adult reactive responses defending two uninformed deletions, and from the insistent insertion of a disinfobox with incorrect dates for Ponte Vecchio, which Wetman answered with unforgivable wit and class. Concerning Asarelah's deletion of a perfectly neutral mainstream statement concerning creation of individual names for Amazons in later Antiquity, see Talk:Amazons#Amazon names and to Asarelah's offended remarks— months later— at Wetman's Talkpage. Concerning User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 's response to learning the new word "relict" having mis"corrected" it to "relic", see User talk:Wetman#relic vs. relict and Talk:Dorian invasion.

Where do the greater incivilities lie in these three cases? Do they really lie in a sharp word of well-deserved reproof? Wetman knows how to apologize when an apology is required, as a look through the Talkpage archives he has listed above will show. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit is by its very definition a compromise with mediocre information: Wetman is under no illusions, but strives for fewer inaccuracies, no matter how aggressively they may be insisted upon. Wetman's negative encounters at Wikipedia are commonly with over-confident assertions of misinformation, but are rarely met with such toxic reactions as these present ones. --Wetman (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So even when treated with all possible civility and given accurate references, he's still holding onto his position. I'm darned if I know why, since it's clear he's not an idiot. I suggest that Wetman return to the scene of the skirmish and re-read what happened there. Perhaps he will feel enlightened when he realizes his error, but I'm not holding my breath. - Denimadept (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, I have no idea how you can possibly interpret this thread as having a lack of collegiality on our part. We respect your contributions and dedication, we've even stated so. The problem here is that you seem to think that its perfectly okay to insult people and to call them ignorant when they happen to disagree with you or question you on some point where you are convinced that you are correct. You say that you would regret ever making any "sharp" remark that didn't have a point. Well Wetman, you're obviously an intelligent man, and if you wanted to, you could make your points without resorting to "sharp" remarks which antagonize other people. I'm baffled as to why someone as dedicated to the encyclopedia as you are would choose to alienate his fellow editors in such a fashion. Asarelah (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:JAF1970

Resolved

 – User has been indefinitely blocked for a wide range of issues.

This user has shown uncivility concerning Spore (video game) and it's talk page (as well as the mediation case on the article). Here's some evidence of his behavior:

1. [1]: He yells at people during the case. He was notified here about it: [2]. It's the second time he's been reminded about it (I'm not sure of the first time).

Maybe you should see what they're doing before it. Even the moderator started to notice that while I make concessions, the others remain obstinate.

1. [3]: this was days later, and he once again did caps lock/bold yelling. The discussion wasn't a forum post, but he claimed it was. It should be noted: the Spore talk page has talk header, plus a notice saying to keep a cool head during discussions. I don't see his post as a minor slip up at all.
2. [4]: here he removes a image overuse tag. It should've been discussed on talk before the tag was removed.

And maybe you should read what I wrote - it should be discussed in the talk page before it's placed. I've had to deal with Talk page rules before in the same manner. I don't believe others should be exempt.

1. [5]: I had re-added the tag, then he reverts it and assumes I don't think the article is important.

That's all the evidence I have so far. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also adding this, this, and probably the worst one, this. I'm the mediator in this Spore mediation. Thanks Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I've been the target of it too. Besides what other people have gathered, you can find plenty of instances of it on the spore talk page. (Dismissing the opinions of others with words like "absurd" or "oops. want to try again?", sarcastic laughter, and lots of YELLING. These are more just icing on the cake compared to the bigger civility problems.) His/her comments don't personally bother me. But I can't turn a blind eye to the destructive impact it's had on community discussions. When it doesn't frustrate people into just giving up and leaving, it derails discussions so it's impossible to find the main point. He/she shows no willingness to compromise, except to unilaterally say what a new compromise should be. But most of all, it's the "yelling", belligerence, and insults that really have no place in wikipedia.
I might add that I stumbled into this situation because other editors were having trouble reaching a compromise on the spore article. I tried to mediate the differences of opinion. The others engaged in constructive disagreement. JAF1970 was destructive and seemed to enjoy creating conflict even though we actually agreed on several points. That is what ultimately led to formal mediation. I would trust Steve Crossin for a neutral opinion about how that went. The mediation has been going on for more than a month. Randomran (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And I haven't been a target? Hm. Well, maybe I'm not passive-aggressive enough to get away with it, but I'm more direct and forthright, which is what you're supposed to be when you've worked in a magazine with other people in front of you. The stuff I've seen people here do would have gotten them fired. JAF1970 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MedCab is not formal mediation ;). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Either way. Other editors such as myself were brought in to find a compromise. That broke down, and Steve Crossin was brought in. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been the target of people ignoring what I say, or agreeing then ignoring what I say, or people - who have been banned from Wikipedia later - spamming my talk page with unrelated stuff. I've been dealing with extremely rude people as well. I only give what I get, so perhaps you should be asking why I react this way. JAF1970 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What's worse is that I go out of my way to get the most correct information possible - and when I get irrefutable evidence - directly from Patrick Buechner and by extension Will Wright himself - I get people basically saying that Buechner and Wright don't know what kind of game they're actually making - from people who've never even touched the game. Add to that the sort of piling on and the noxious atmosphere I get at times, and you might understand why I get snappish, especially in light of the fact I've been dealing with this industry in one form or another for 30 years - and professionally in the last 15+. JAF1970 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that you are trying to use this source, ((gamestooge)/2008/04/29/feature-what-is-spore/ -- removed by User:KieferSkunk 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC) due to WP spam filter restrictions), appears to be a self published source, to nullify all other sources, the numerous amount that has been provided. Your proposal gives the idea that you are reluctant to compromise. That is the issue here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also received and witnessed a number of uncivil comments from JAF1970, including many instances of dimsissive laughter, eye-rolling (yes, he actually typed "rolling eyes"), yelling, insults, straw man arguments, drawing absurd metaphorical comparisons like these: [6][7][8][9][10]... I can provide additional diffs if needed. He even accused two editors of sockpuppetry at one point. He seems to think that his experience in his profession makes his views on the proper content of the Spore article hold more weight than those of other editors, even within this discussion! [11] JAF1970 may bring my own comments to the table — I admit at one point I did lose my cool briefly, following a particularly heated argument — however, whereas I took a step back upon being warned that I was out of line, and have since kept considerably more distance than I really wanted to on the issues in order to avoid additional altercations, JAF unapologetically continues to step on everyone's toes. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As regards this particular situation, I certainly see quite a bit of ownership behavior going on, as well as a fair amount of assuming bad faith (some on both sides of the dispute) and a high tendency for JAF to personally attack other people when they disagree with his viewpoint. I hate to say it, but this dispute is hardly different from the dispute I had with him last year over Pac-Man Championship Edition. (That dispute was what introduced me to WQA in the first place.)

I don't doubt JAF's ability to write good articles and find good sources, but I am disappointed by his tendency to assert ownership over them, especially when his attitude and behavior have the effect of driving other editors away and discouraging constructive collaboration. I would definitely consider some of his comments in this situation as stepping way over the line when it comes to civility policies, but since I have personally had issues with this editor in the past, I'm going to have to refrain from taking any action on it. If we're unable to resolve anything here on WQA, this will probably need to be escalated, either up along WP:DR or taken to the admin noticeboard if the behavior gets any worse. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kiefer, um, miss some personal attacks on me that preceded it, huh? Unlike others, I don't know the intricacies of applying to a kangaroo court on Wikipedia. I also don't create sock puppets. I also don't rally people to my cause and hogpile, because there's plenty of people on Wikipedia I could summon in my defense (ie: User:SeanMooney, etc). I try to follow someone's advice to me about "feeding the trolls", like User:Sillygostly - check out his behavior, and tell me what a 37 year adult should do about a 15 year old kid behaving like that? (Well, 1. in real life, I wouldn't be forced to associate with children like that, and 2. on a magazine, he would be an intern for exactly 2 hours before being escorted from the premise.) I guess part of the frustration is that I can't expect to have one editor to report to like I would in a real magazine or (though I've never worked on one) encyclopedia/dictionary - instead, I have to deal with anyone at any age who can turn on a computer and log onto the internet, which is one HUGE problem with Wikipedia. (This does give me a great idea for an article to be published - probably on a major pub, too.) JAF1970 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I do agree that JAF has been, at times, blunt, he has put a HUGE amount of time and effort into many articles, most of which I have seen in Spore. I know, from being a long standing contributor to Wiki, that you can become attached to particular articles that you have put a lot of time and effort into, and JAF himself has recognised that he has snapped at people on more than one occasion. I think that our own personalities can become too involved with Wiki at times, and when people say things that are clearly wrong about an article that you've helped a lot with, you can snap. What I think we need to take away from this discussion is that I think that JAF feels frustrated by the comments of others, as do we all on articles we have worked hard on. As a result, he does often come across as aggressive. JAF, I have told you this before, and I stand by it, that you DO need to think REALLY carefully before replying to people, because while you may have the best intentions, your comments can seem too snappy at times. Other people, cut JAF some slack, we all know that it can be hard to see people with less knowledge than ourselves do some stupid things on articles we've been working hard on! I propose that you take a couple of weeks Wikibreak as I think that you can assume bad faith on the Spore article because you have become too attached to it. I will do my hardest to make sure that it's not destroyed! Spore hasn't been released yet, so no doubt there is far more discussion to be had! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF may be blunt and upfront to other users, but he is a good editor - the Spore article has been improved immensely thanks to him. It's clear that he's passionate and well-versed about the game. SeanMooney (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ownership - I don't think I "own" Spore (video game). I just don't want people to state speculation as fact (see: release date, Wii version etc) until it becomes fact. Furthermore, people tend to load on a lot of extraneous stuff. JAF1970 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF is a good editor, but that doesn't give him the right to be agressive towards people about it (in edit summaries, and talk pages). Everyone wants good articles here, but it's not productive to yell at people so much. I agree with the ownership comments. Once someone disagrees with his view then he's uncivil about it. Others have the right to edit the article and talk page. If they made a mistake, it's best to be calm about it. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And that was the main point I was making in my comment above. As I said, I don't doubt JAF is a good editor - I've seen many instances where I think he's done an excellent job contributing to articles here on WP. But no matter how good someone is at editing, that doesn't mean they get to treat other people just any way they want. Two wrongs don't make a right, to address JAF's comment about "having to deal with people who treat him poorly".

And, as I also mentioned, I've personally been on the receiving end of JAF's fury when I made a series of edits that he took exception to. Right from the very start, he was quite uncivil toward me - I remember being accused of blatantly vandalizing the article and trying to push my own agenda, and even after I admitted I made a few mistakes in my initial edits, he continued to push my face in those mistakes to the point where, if I'd been a new editor, I would have likely been driven off Wikipedia as a whole. I did eventually get drawn into firing back with personal attacks of my own, and the whole dispute spanned something like seven or eight Talk and WP pages (including WQA and MedCab). I learned a lot of lessons from that incident. But my point? I'm just citing an example where the behavior others are describing in this WQA report has also happened to me in the past - I see this as part of a longer-standing pattern with this particular editor. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this posted yet: [12]. JAF tells Sam to come here, because of a "troll attack" and they are in "full attack mode". Now that's very rude and not needed. Just because you don't agree with us JAF, doesn't give you the right to call us trolls. Your behavior isn't acceptable, so why should people ignore it? Being a good editor, doesn't make you immune to all other rules. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A few more examples: [13], after some image removal (due to fair use). He overreacts on the talk page, claiming that the article is "destroyed" and "looks like garbage". Then he did this post: [14], where he claims the article is "ugly" and it's "useless" to being a useful article. Another: [15], he removed the original destroyed comment, and is now saying a team Spore member hates it. That looks like a conflict of interest to me. Lastly there is: [16], JAF continues to assume the people working on the game (as well as some people that just view the article), should determine how it's setup. Images are one thing, but they can hate the article setup all they want. They don't own the article itself, nor do they determine every edit to the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing some context here, but those diffs do seem to point to a severe case of COI, as well as ownership issues. If a member of the Spore team is actually making comments about he "hates" the article, it would be up to that person to speak for himself - having JAF be his representative is not really good enough, I'm afraid. (Nor do I feel it's likely to make much of a difference, anyway.) I don't have anything to say about the actual content of the article, but Wikipedia is still bound by the same policies it was before, which include requiring reliable sources and giving equal and representative weight to various viewpoints.

I see that JAF hasn't replied to anything more in this WQA, and by all indications he probably doesn't intend to, since he's already stated elsewhere that this is a "kangaroo court" and that we're a bunch of trolls. It seems unlikely that you'll make much more headway here - if the conflict continues past this point, I would recommend a Request for Comment on User Conduct. Until and unless there's some positive progress in this matter, I'm afraid I can't really help you much more here - my comments are already somewhat biased from previous conflicts. (If another WQA'er wants to step in and help, please feel free.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is abslutely no need for this anymore. He has been indef blocked for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: ; disruptive editing; edit warring; breaches of copyright policy and per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=210182215#User:JAF1970 — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Crossin (talk • contribs)

Well, I guess that takes care of that, then. I'd be interested in finding out why GameStooge.com was added to WP's spam filter, though - to my knowledge, the site is still legitimate, even if used in a conflict of interest with this specific editor. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Layla2008

User Layla2008 continues to add, then when someone undoes the same unsubstantiated, uncited statements over and over, the Layla2008 posts them again. In one instance, Layla2008 wrote: (cur) (last) 00:32, 24 April 2008 Layla2008 (Talk | contribs) (10,903 bytes) (→References: you can run best friends, but you can't hide) (undo) CatDogLover (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question? It appears you have not notified the editor of the issue. Perhaps you should talk to them before bringing it here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks a complicated two-sided problem based on a content dispute, and possible conflict of interest.

• Best Friends Animal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Layla2008 (talk · contribs)
• CatDogLover (talk · contribs)

Essentially, Layla2008 wants this version saying the society has Scientology ex-Scientologist members and culty roots. CatDogLover wants this version, not saying that. This is what the contention is about. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I did not at any point mention Scientology roots, merely that The Process Church was founded by ex-Scientologists, which is a well-known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.64.227 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction noted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathieugp (talk)

The post [17] by Mathieugp (talk) at Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory violates Wikiquette guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The discussion on Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory is about the problematic tone of the article, not a political/historical discussion of subject itself. Although Mathieugp (talk) makes some legitimate commentary that the name of the article may need to be changed and that the scope of the article needs to be narrowed, the bulk of the post advocates the POV of the article's topic: that there is widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers. He provides a long quote from the 1800's to back up this polemic claim. He sources this claim with a link to his personal web page that promotes Quebec independence see link.

Passionate advocacy on behalf of a political POV on Talk pages violates Wikiquette Soapboxing guidelines. So does self-promotion by providing links to a personal web page that also promote these views. The length and inappropriateness of the subject makes the legitimate dialog in the section difficult to follow.

I ask that Mathieugp(talk) correct this breach of wikiquette by removing the portions of his post that advocate his political opinion, the supporting quote, and the link to his personal web page. Talk pages are not the place to make political and historical points and promote personal projects. --soulscanner (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked their talk page, you haven't even left them a message. The best thing I'd advise you to do is first post them a message with your concerns, and discuss it on their talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this commentary. I posted a message about a minute after I posted here. This breech of wikiquette has been going on for a longtime on related subjects, and it's been discussed ad nauseum at various discussion pages to no avail. If you would like examples, I can provide them, but I don't like rehashing and documenting old disputes (that would be another breech of wikiquette); I'd much rather get an outside third opinion on this instance. If these are indeed breeches of wikiquette, they should be documented; if they're not, I'll leave it alone and just ignore them. --soulscanner (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikiquette alert by Soulscanner (talk) (above) violates common sense which ought to be against some Wikiquette (what an awful word by the way). He describes "widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers" as "the POV of article". He says that I "source[d] this claim with a link to his personal web page that promotes Quebec independence". Finally, he proposes censorship of my comment based on his opinion that it is a "political and historical" point and that it "promote personal projects".

First, that there is "widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers" is not "the POV of the article". That is what he inferred from reading the article, and most likely what made him not like it and post his comment that it "sounds like a conspiracy theory". The original article was a description of a phenomenon called Quebec bashing of which numerous journalists, including English-speaking ones sympathetic to Quebecers, have complained of. Numerous books have been written on the subject, the latest one being Quebec bashing : morceaux d'anthologie. Du Lac Meech à la délirante Jan Wong just this year. There was considerable opposition to the very existence of the article on such a controversial topic. While some of it was legitimate, the article indeed needing to be neutralized, most efforts came from people who simply did not like that such a thing could exist and be real, as real as any other social phenomenon. The links to the press articles in reference were removed as they were hosted on a site which republished them and it was unclear whether that site violated Canadian copyright rules or not. At some point, the article was renamed to what it is now. Already at that point I had signaled that as a consequence, the article needed to be completely reorganized as the content was not about "Anti-Quebec sentiment" in general, but about Quebec bashing. The reorganization of the contents never occurred. The principal contributor to the article (User:Liberlogos) has stopped taking care of the article, disgusted by the struggle he had to engage in to keep the article from being vandalized daily (I got this from word of mouth, as I know the person behind the user name).

Second, I did not source what Soulscanner said I sourced. I sourced a quote from an article of the London and Westminster Review written by British philosopher John Stuart Mill in which he commented the affairs of the Canadas in 1838, just after the beginning of the civil war and before Lord Durham landed at Quebec. I confess guilty of sharing most of the political POV that Mill had on Quebec, the other colonies, Ireland and England. But I was not trying to advocate "The Ballot, Justice to Ireland, Justice to Canada" here. The reason I posted this was simply to illustrate how far back we can go when trying to reference observations made by various people, some of them quite notable and credible like Mill, on the misrepresentation and calumnies against popular politicians from Quebec.

Third, the link indeed points to a copy of Mill's article that I personally wikified on a personal site of mine where I often publish English translations of French texts related to the history and politics of Quebec. The site indeed promotes the independence of Quebec, democracy, equality among nations, linguistic human rights and other related subjects. I could have given this link instead, but I chose to link the version of the article with the pretty images and wiki links. If really it directly violates some rule or even some official suggestion, I do not mind substituting one for the other. We can even remove it completely.

As for the proposal to censor my comment, which includes a quote from Mill pertaining to the subject, supporting the point I am trying to make, I find it is rather shameful. I understand that Soulscanner might not be a great fan of Mill, but still, what he wrote on Quebec in 1838 is deeply related to the [original] subject of the article, that is delusional calumnies written on Quebecers who denounce the injustice of the British North American rule over Quebec now or denounced the injustice of British rule over all colonies in the 19th century.

And I am sorry if my post is long. All my posts tend to be like that! ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Naruto134

Work in progress; comments welcome

I am reporting User:Naruto134 for his discription of his edit on Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon it is edit done on 01:58, 2 May 2008 it says "Fixes, and dude, do something about your horrible spelling. What are you, a preschooler?" the history page is here. Click Here Save The HumansTalk :) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While this is hardly the nicest thing to say, and it could have been said more civil, I think the best thing to do would be to go to the user's page and ask them about this. Generally, except in an extreme situation, a wikiquette alert should likely be filed after talking to the editor (either on their page, your page, or the article talk page). In addition, you should also contact this editor and let them offer an explanation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes i have asked now. But he hasnt repled so i just had remended him that he hasnt answered yet. Save The HumansTalk :) 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I will put a gentle reminder on his Talk Page about this. Hopefully it is just an error that (s)he is embarrassed about, and it will not happen again. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon really exploring this editor's Talk Page, he has been warned several times before about this, and has deleted these warnings. This needs to be bumped up a level. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a report at WP:ANI. I will also report this to Naruto134. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:87.194.247.89

Hi there, hopefully this is the right place for this, user 87.194.247.89, keeps making edits to articles including the University of Manchester Students' Union which I'm working on, to push his pov on the way we twinned with the university of An-najah. I now notice he's edited the page for An-Najah National University in a similar way. I've left a message on his talk page and stuff on the article's discussion board but I'm not really sure what to do next. Billsmith453 (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian (again)

Resolved

 – RFC/U filed. Discussion is now occurring there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm becoming rather displeased and dismayed with User:Yorkshirian's abuse against myself, and would like some intervention. Yorkshirian seems to hold a bizarre prejudice (even racist sentiments) against me, keep calling me a "Lancastrian", when I'm not from Lancashire and implying somehow that it nullifies me as a worthwhile editor with a voice anyway (I have warned him I take offense several times too). Some facts/incidents:

• [18] - Warned about incivility and poor conduct.

• [19] -Calling others concerns trolling, and ([20]) that they are a timewaster.
• [21] - Abusive edits saying I'm a Lancastrian.
• Promised to behave following ANI.
• Blocked for WP:3RR.
• [22] - Saying I am a bad faith editor.
• [23] - Saying I troll.
• Saying I'm a random person from Lancashire, and I stick my nose in and other changes deface articles.
• [24] - Calling legitimate content changes vandalism.
• Being incivil on talk pages and working against consensus.
• [25] - Calling me a troll and a "Lancastrian", despite me warning him here (please read the thread) that I find it abusive and I'm not from Lancashire.

Given I feel disheartened, constantly abused with no intervention, and generally made to feel unwelcome on the project by Yorkshirian, I'm more than happy to suspend my content building and elevate this to full mediation and take this as high as possible. This simply can't go on unchecked anymore. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern with this editor User:Yorkshirian is his crediting me on the Yorkshire talk page Talk:Yorkshire with statements that I did not make, then implying that the were POV.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have grave concerns over this editor and find dialogue with him incredibly adversarial and inpolite, which is a shame because he clearly has breadth of knowledge. He appears to have taken a dislike to me because I live in London. [26] There have been several attempts to persuade this editor to, well, be a bit nicer to people, (see his talk page and archive), but it just hasn't worked. Yorkshire-related articles are not easy places to make constructive contributions anymore. MRSC • Talk 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the claims Jza84 makes in his attack/post in this section range from the proposterous to personal attacks made in an attempt to cover up his poor behaviour in regards to me by projecting. For example, in the very first lie/line Jza84 launches a personal attack on me and calls me a "racist" despite the fact that I am probably the same race as him and have never made a racist comment on Wikipedia. This is an unabashed smear by Jza84, a person who on their page cites complaining about races as a "personal hobby". Jza84 seems to have a problem that he is from the historic county of Lancashire, which his hometown of Shaw and Crompton falls within. This is very strange, off the wall behaviour which is certainly in no way mainstream within the United Kingdom. Jza84 expects people (in this case me) to "randomly guess" that he is ashamed of his roots and considers it a form of "abuse" or "attack". Its extremely unreasonable for him to think any normal person should be able to guess such an unorthodox, radical world view.

Despite this, Jza84 insists on editing articles which are highly controversial in relation to the counties of the United Kingdom. For example he attacked the article of cultural group Saddleworth White Rose Society, a group entirely centered around their affilation to the historic county of Yorkshire, by removing a category which shows they are based within said historic county. Jza84 followed me to that article and made an unabashed attempt to antagonise by attempting to sever their cultural links, despite his opinion not following with that of the United Kingdom government or the United Kingdom royal family which rules him (explicitly, Prince Charles, the future king).[27]

I first came across this user in January, when he was trying to propagate a historcially insignificant cotton town, which just happens to be from the county he comes from, as the "second city of the United Kingdom". This despite it never having any official status, or real, historic recognition in such an area. Nevertheless, he decided that, after this encounter he would follow me around this website and attempt to antagonise me, all the while hiding behind smarmily worded comments, which his actions did not match his comments. Early last month, Jza84, decided that he would like to play again. So he followed me to the article on Beverley and he began to troll me edits. However, he didn't stop at one article, he violated WP:POINT and went on to do the same thing on another article I was editing![28] All the while refusing to take part in any discussion on the talkpage,[29] and leaving smarmy automated messages on my talk. Hypocritically warning me of an edit war, in which he had instigated.[30] Clearly antagonistic behaviour, he seems to have a problem that I'm from Yorkshire and like to contribution to articles relation to the Holy Land. If I am improving any article on the county, Jza will not be far behind trying to wind me up.

For example today. He comes to the Yorkshire article, trolls me with an edit summary of "see talk" despite the fact that he had not even contributed anything at all to the talkpage in question and that on the talk it had been solidly presented that the information which he put back in the article was incorrect.[31] If that was enough spitting on Yorkshire related articles for a day, he then went on to commit the Saddleworth White Rose Society atrocity mentioned earlier in this post.[32] When I messaged him on his talk, requesting an explination for his antagonistic treatment of myself, he basically put across that he couldn't really be bothered to enter the discussion on the talk (and still hasn't) or read the message which I presented before his edit. He then said he was going to report me for saying he is Lancastrian?? I don't understand. This message is very long, I realise, but Jza's playing the victim and attacks on me are so full of it, I just can't accept the way he is behaving when I'm trying to edit articles about my homeland. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This summarises well the tone and approach Yorkshirian takes to discussion and it is unfortunate he has decided to refer to a long-standing, well respected, hugely constructive and trusted editor as "a troll" again here. I note the links he cites as evidence for his rebuttal do not point to specific diffs. MRSC • Talk 14:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And how do you describe Jza's attack on me, claiming I'm a "racist"? That is the definition of trolling for a reaction, as I have never made racist comments anywhere, let alone on a website. Whether Jza has snuggled up to certain people while he has been here, is not a vaild excuse or margin for the behavour of the kind catalogued above and backed up strongly by the diffs. Whether you "like" him or not is entirely irrelevent. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Q.E.D.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still hoping a third-party person can take a look at this. Clearly, there are three editors who have concerns with User:Yorkshirian and I think the diffs I've cited speak for themselves. There are several problems with Yorkshirian's reply; this pseudo "homeland"/"them-vs-us" attitude that somehow excludes my right to contribute or change a "Yorkshire" article (Anti-Lancastrian sentiments) are a disgrace (would Anti-French or Anti-Black be tollorated?).

Anyway, I'm hoping to see some third party involvement here. If not, perhaps we can take this to an early stage formal mediation. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be making less ad hominem attacks Jza. Yes, the evidence speaks for itself in the four lengthy paragraphs I wrote, backed up with links. However your continued whining attempting to personally attack me by painting me as a "racist" is simply pathetic and makes you look ridiculous. Counties within Britain which are bordered now are "racially" different are they? Sort it out.

You know full well why I made a comment in the edit summary of the Saddleworth White Rose Society with the word Lancastrian, after you had attentionally defased one of their categorys, only seconds after you had hit and run attacked the Yorkshire article with the "see talk"[33] nonsense where you never (and still haven't) entered talkpage discussion.[34] You understook full well what you were doing, just as you understand full well what you are doing with this ridiculous "racist" personal attack you have yet to apologise for. Antagonising in the hopes of eliciting a reaction. Well guess what Jza? if you go out of your way to antagonise me you will get a reaction. I do not care who you have a little clique with or if you hide behind smarmy wording while actually editing in an antagonistic manner. I will call you on it, a spade is a spade. And I hope a third party will review what you have been doing.

You have yet to explain any of your actions. In fact in your main post, you are so desperate to whine about me that you're referencing things from months ago in an unrelated dispute to you, which I had overwhelming consensus from no less than three admins from. You seem to be making a strawman.[35] However I'm waiting for your explination for the way you have intentionally, culturally attacked the Saddleworth White Rose Society in an extremely offensive way, against the wishes of the organisation,[36], the United Kingdom government,[37] and the future king of the United Kingdon Prince Charles of Wales.[38] Apart from it being a balant attempt to antagonise and get a rise out of any proud Yorkshire person, or specifically myself as it was my edits you followed, what is your explination for this behaviour? You may not have used forthright wording, but make no mistake, your action are ten times the "attack" that any comment that has ever come from me is. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved with this please offer some insight or comment? MRSC • Talk 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing. Give me a few minutes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after reviewing the diffs and some related history, I think it's pretty clear that Yorkshirian's behavior has been quite abrasive. I see many attempts on the part of multiple editors to deal with Yorkshirian in a very civil manner - good for you guys - and most of those appear to have been met with either uncivil responses or signs that he intended to ignore those messages. I have no comment on the actual content dispute going on here, since I have no knowledge of the matter, but I find myself in agreement with Jza and MRSC.

Yorkshirian: I would strongly advise you to go read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:VAND and WP:CONSENSUS, and make sure you're familiar with them. Many of your comments throughout the various content discussions have either stepped over or bordered on incivility and personal attacks, and your comments appear tinged with a disdain for editors from specific regions. While you are certainly entitled to your opinions about other editors, if you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia content, you need to play by the rules put forth in its policies, and currently you don't appear to be. Calling others trolls, accusing them of vandalism, and generally discrediting them with statements about where they live or what not, is only going to cause rifts in your project. Additionally, it appears you've acted more than once in the absence of consensus, and multiple editors in the project have tried to direct your attention to where a consensus discussion was taking place. This gives others the impression that you're exerting ownership over the article(s) in question, whether that's what you intend to do or not.

You are not obligated to apologize to others (though if you have any intention of reconciling with people you are at conflict with, it often helps, and shows that you're willing to take responsibility for your part of a conflict). But at the very minimum, I would very much advise you to be sure you're familiar with the policies and agree to abide by them. If you believe strongly that a certain piece of content should or should not be included in an article, work toward consensus through constructive discussion - for example, pointing out that you have an authoritative book on the subject is good. Telling people that "common sense should be kicking in right about now" is inflammatory and unnecessary.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. MRSC • Talk 06:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Additional comments to Yorkshirian: I see that you've taken particular personal offense to Jza's comment in the initial WQA report that your comments bordered on (or seemed to contain) racist sentiments. In most instances, this sort of comment would itself be a violation of WP:AGF and possibly a personal attack, but given the history of the dispute between you guys, I don't think I can really fault him for thinking this. With edit summaries such as "remove some trolling of the catergory by a Lancastrian", you are specifically stating that because he's a "Lancastrian" (something he denies being, but that's beside the point), his edits are automatically "trolling". This does, in fact, impart a feeling of racial (or at least regional) superiority - again, that might not have been your intention, but that's why it's important to watch what you type here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made several attempts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties to draw him into the conversation here. I hope we can work something out so future discussions will be on a civil and constructive basis. MRSC • Talk 07:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Yorkshirian ignored WP:AGF and accused me of being biased! I was the one who started a discussion on the talk page and made sure another editor made the changes to ensure that I wasnt directly involved. I found this user offensive and quite plainly...rude! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope there will be some indication of resolve on the part of Yorkshirian to significantly improve his conduct. I have asked him to make such a commitment here on his talk page. If this is not forthcoming could I have some indication, from those who have been involved with this user, that they would support a user conduct RFC? MRSC • Talk 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MRSC; the diffs above are shocking...and at the moment I see no commitments for improvement on Yorkshirian's part... = ( --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was extremely unhappy about this supposed quote here.I would never have made such a statement.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the objectionable behavior continuing after I left my replies above? If so, or if it does continue after those comments, then you certainly may request an RFC/U or whatever other form of dispute resolution you feel is necessary and appropriate. But if nothing more has happened since my replies, I'd give it some time first before going that route - give him time to read over the comments and respond if he wishes, and see if it changes anything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Harkey is still whinging about the same older comment he/she "brought to light" in only the second post of this section. However, I think the "advise" you offered was very one sided. You pretty much admitted that Jza's claim of "racist" was a personal attack, yet you offered him no "advise" to disuade him from further extreme attacks. Also I feel you pretty much ignored all the evidence I put forward on Jza's behaviour in which I feel he has been intentionally trolling me on certain articles in regards to Yorkshire in an attempt to get a rise (backed up strongly by links). He even continues to do this evem since opening this section, here is a clear example, all the while showing up here and pretending to play the victim.

Whether or not you looked at this one sidedly because my user name is in the title of this section, I do not know. Even mildly suggesting I should apologise to somebody who has out and out attacked my name by calling me a "racist" when I'm not, is well... fairly unreasonable to say the least. I would like you to directly review Jza's behaviour which I detailed in my orginal replies in this section to give less of a one sided offering of advise, because up to now you haven't addressed any of what he has done. Thank you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input here guys/girls. Certainly I agree that we must see what Yorkshiran has to say for himself in response before seeking a way forwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Break

This position and edit summaries like this are unfortunate. We need to move this on quickly so we can get back to constructive editing. MRSC • Talk 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate, is even after opening this section, that your friend Jza should follow me to yet another article and wholesale remove a large chunk of work in an attempt to antagonise (again). Please explain how you feel this behaviour is acceptable. Continued and blatant attempts at antagonisation such as that documented in Jza's behvaiour is not constructive or acceptable. Also if you consider me saying in that edit summary "Jza you seem not to have learned a lesson" as something worth highlighting as "unfortunate", then you must be wrapped in cotton wool. How do you expect me to reply to his following and destruction; "Oh Jza, the way you followed me to this article and just ripped out the work I've just added is so great and nice of you". Reality check, please. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How about you describe your edit for a change, rather than attacking another editor?? Looking at your contributions, you generally only provide edit summaries when they're contentious, why can't you at least provide them for every edit you make and without making personal attacks?86.141.153.34 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are trying to make you realise your approch is wrong and that we have established codes of conduct that we need you to abide by. Insulting comments like "you must be wrapped in cotton wool" appear to me to be a continuation of your lack of understanding or willingness to cooperate. The conversation here is a second stage attempt (the first being conversations on your talk page) to resolve this dispute. It appears to have failed. MRSC • Talk 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you insist on making such a big deal of tame expression in conversation, blowing it out of proportion and deriding every single word I say as "insulting" or "unfortunate" as if somebody commited a murder is extremely unconstructive. Please stop trying to violate my freedom of expression just because you disagree with me on some of the articles which we edit. I have read and follow the rules on Wikipedia, I always cooperate in discussions on talkpage when requested, I'm cooperating in discussion here despite the "witch hunt" by you and your friend. And most importantly when it comes to editing articles, I always do so in a constructive manner, citing my sources. I apologise if the way I express myself in words is not dull and stoic enough, however as expressed to you before my comments are not intended to insult anybody personally or otherwise, even if I disagree with them. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to elevate this. Once again, Yorkshirian is using his "fake policy/consensus" tactic he's used before ([39] - WP:PLACE is firmly against his position) to edit war. This is clearly not the kind of mindset we want from you Yorkshirian, and it does little to further your repuation here. Incivility is one problem, but damaging mainspace and project space to illustrate a point is, in my eyes, a much more serious issue. Unless Yorkshirian has anything else to say, I'm inclined to go for RFC. --Jza84 |  Talk 

You seem to be WP:Wikilawyering Jza84, to push your social minority and entirely unorthodox view that the local government administration areas (such as Greater Manchester) invented in 1974, which are subject to change at any time, are actually recognised cultural areas in the sense of the "traditional counties" are.[40] You make such hit and run, unsourced reverts to the UK geography project guideline.[41] While refusing point blank to engage in talkpage discussion, this is in violation of our editing policies and completely unconstructive behaviour.[42]

The fact that you have the nerve to then come here (playing the victim) and suggest my edit to the guideline which was made with sources from United Kingdom governmental and royal figures[43] is a "damaging edit" because it does not support your social minority POV, is clearly and undoubtedly a violation of WP:NPA. You of course, have a history of personal attacks against myself, with your earlier "racism" attack. I would be interested in having an uninvolved, unbias party review the behavioural actions of this editor, including the tendancy to refuse talkpage discussion, Wikilawyer in an attempt to place the burdon of social minority view before government and monarchy stance, as well as the tendancy to engage in personal attacks. Would I need to start a new section on here?- Yorkshirian (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the stance taken by any other editor. You're failing to acknowledge or discuss that three/four/five editors have commented that your actions are problematic; none have made such statements against me. Much of your response above isn't coherant or backed up by any kind of real fact. This notion that I have "the tendancy to refuse talkpage discussion" is, fairly clearly, rather baseless, and doesn't help move the discussion along (not to mention I have a notice on my user page that I currently have a broken metacarpal imparing my typing speed). If you have concerns that I'm perhaps a) using foul language b) using inappropriate edit summaries c) misattributing policies, d) name-calling e) not using any edit summaries (I have 100% summary usage btw) e) adding unsourced material f) treat others unfairly, g) I'm a disruptive troll, then that's a matter for you to raise.

That all said Yorkshirian, are you satisfied that we won't find a resolution here? Perhaps you can raise your concerns at an elevated dispute stage? To be clear, I'm still displeased with your actions; infact, I'm even more displeased now (given you've warred your grievances elsewhere now, and failed to acknowledge you generating problems) than I was when I first posted this report. You've done little to explain your actions as good spirited and good faith, and thus I standby everything I've raised. I suspect others do too. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, can something done about this editor? I am becoming extremely frustrated by having to pussyfoot around his sensitivities or be lambasted by verbal abuse. This is no less than bullying to support his sad POV edits.Consensus is being overridden. If my language here is less than moderate it is an expression of my extreme concern at the damage being done to Wikipedia by this opinionated editor, whom I have tried to engage in constructive discussion on several occasions. Can I now expect a volly of insulting retorts?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that I have not spoke to you once since this section was began, I'm curious as to what you are going on about now? If you could specify with links, that would be of great help. Thank you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)

May I here implore you, in the words of St Benedict "tempered in all things, so that the strong may have something to strive for and the weak nothing to run from". Several editors have been making contributions which have been nullified by your actions so others (including me) have been notable by their absence.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This second stage of dispute resolution has become unproductive. Yorkshirian has not taken the issues raised here about his conduct on board and clearly does not accept his behaviour as problematic. Proceed to RFC. MRSC • Talk 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you, or your best friend Jza actually engaged in discussion of the points I brought up here then it would be more constructive, however it would seem your playing a bureaucrat game. Could I ask you why you pined and insisted to the extend of bothering me on my talk to reply here. When, after I very kindly obliged to your request and replied here, you and your best friend Jza just ignored everything I said anyway and refused to reply/address any of the statements I made here? If you're unwilling to engage me, then it seems like a waste of time. I'm not interested in playing little games, I'm here to edit articles. If you simply refuse to enage here, then I don't see why I should enter any of your further games. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's regrettable. I must say however that I object to you saying me and MRSC are "best friends"; it's a rather immature statement to make, and again, does little to further your reputation as a well spirited user who can collaborate with others. Please don't make such statements again as I find it offensive. I think we've exhausted this now. What do you propose Yorkshirian? Do you think that we have no point to make and our concerns are baseless? Have you no apology, gesture or committment to make? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to proceed to RFC, more in sadness---.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Filed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian MRSC • Talk 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've marked this WQA as "Stuck" then. Sorry we couldn't do more.

Yorkshirian: My advice to you was "one-sided" because I happen to find myself in agreement with the other editors' assessments of your behavior. I don't see that they did anything wrong in terms of being civil or acting in good faith, and I gave specific comment on the "racist" comment that you took so much exception to, mentioning that in this particular case, I saw it as an observation of your behavior, not an unfounded attack. You seem to not be willing to consider responsibility for your own incivility. It's a two-way road - you can't demand that other editors stop being "uncivil" when you continue to be uncivil toward them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User 12.111.29.12

Resolved

This anonymous user who signs his posts "Bert" keeps placing uncivil reamrks on Talk: Ayn Rand. I, and others have removed the comments but he keeps putting them back and threatening other editors with banning if we delete them. You can see the edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=prev&oldid=209782356 Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethan's not telling the whole truth. Oops. It turns out that Bert wrote the comment then Ethan and another Randist kept deleting it, while I kept undeleting it (and I think Bert's done it, too). Ethan's also not mentioning that he wrote some nasty little comments on that very same page, and that some of them were deleted by third parties. Or even that he's been summarily removing Edward's comments. What else hasn't Ethan been telling you? Things to think about, before you allow him to manipulate you. 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

SIGH Edward's last comments were left, as they didn't include his usual insults. Edward is also a blocked user avoiding the block (spinoza1111) Anyways, the edit histories tell the truth. Read them don't take my word for it. Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethan: Per Talk page policy, you should not remove comments that have been left on a talk page, even if they are uncivil. If they are just blatant nonsense or vandalism, that's a different story, but it appeared in this case that "Bert" had a point to make, and that should be kept in the talk discussion, if for no other reason than for historical purposes. If it is an uncivil comment, it can be dealt with through this and other channels. But unless it's just flat-out vandalism, please leave it there. Ignore it or respond to it as you wish, but keep in mind WP's policies: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:POINT and WP:NPA.

If you feel that the comment needs to have action taken against it, you can report it to WP:ANI. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, I understand. I removed the comments of Edward Nilges based on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=207243151 As for Bert's uncivil remark, another editor undid them, he put them back, and then I removed it again. Based on your comments here and reading the policies I won't do that again. I've stopped editing those pages as I was tired of fighting with the abbusive anons. Hopefully someone can do something about them, but, if not, I expect that time will see them leaving. Ethan a dawe (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the best. If you see clear abuse, feel free to reopen this report, or take it to WP:ANI as appropriate. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas

Unfortunately, a problem has arisen with User:Viriditas that appears somewhat insoluble to me. We have both edited the same article Children of Men off and on for over a year, and every time I make an alteration to the article, he reverts it, refusing to discuss a compromise or seek a valid consensus. Instead I receive increasingly uncivil remarks and personal attacks.

The specific content prompting this complaint about Viriditas' behavior regards the primary sourcing practice of observable phenomena (ie, the laughter of children during the closing credits) to use the film as the primary source. Initially the matter was in regards to using the {{cite AV media}}: Empty citation (help) template to provide a time-stamp for where the laughing occurred * (I disagreed, considering the matter within the same purview that we consider plot summaries as well as being redundant and unclear; the section where the info was used is called “Closing Credits” and the laughter occurred throughout that part of the film. As observable phenomena which was also noted by closed-captioning does not need citation, I removed the template) - Viriditas saw that as an act of [[WP::NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground|war]].

His discussion behavior is unnecessarily dismissive, impolite and littered with personal attacks and incivility. I have been accused by him of trolling, ([44]), wiki-lawyering, cherry-picking information and/or gaming the system, ([45], [46]) and repeated again ([47], [48], [49]), pov-pushing (at least every other post of his makes the same accusation presuming without current evidence that I am trying to edit in a "pet theory" interpreting the laughter), and sock-puppetry, though only by hinting at such ([50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]) which presumably release him from the responsibility of actually proving such through SSP or RfCU.

This behavior extends outside the article and beyond singling out only myself for abuse; any folk that disagree or comment on his behavior are dismissively characterized by Viriditas as trolls, harrassers or (quite often) wiki-stalkers, and removed their comments from his user-talk space, almost invariably accompanied by an entirely inappropriate or misleading edit summary ([59], [60], [61], [62]). These are just the instances of other established editors being dismissed in just the last few weeks.

While we have always taken a more liberal approach towards refactoring one's own usertalk space, he also removes dissenting comments from article discussion ([63], [64], [65]), which in itself is a Civility violation. More often, he simply dismisses their posts with an uncivil comment that evolves into greater incivility through sequential, small edits or labeling them negatively ([66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]). Many of the editors treated in this fashion withdraw from the article and discussion, thereby leaving Viriditas to edit relatively unopposed.

As I have been the frequent recipient of this unfriendly behavior in the past, I took specific pains to avoid reciprocating this incivility and personal attacks when they re-occurred in Children of Men (article and discussion) as well as elsewhere

Unable to provide equitable counter-arguments to my policy/guideline supporting explanation of my edits and dissent ([77]), Viriditas first added cn tags to the info ([78]), and then stated that he was going to remove the instance of the laughter before removing the citable information completely. ([79], [80]), and began edit-warring ([81]) his version into the article, always quite careful to go up to, but never across the 3RR threshold.

This was accompanied by his increasingly confrontational approach to the discussion process in not only article discussion, but forum-shopped it to two separate noticeboards (NOR and [[RS) and the Wikifilms Project as well. To whit:

1. He has repeatedly referred to archived posts I made while still a new editor, presumably to imply that I am adding an OR interpretation to the article that I simply have not in over a year. This is presumably to poison the well as to my contribution value.

1. He has also repeatedly referenced various anon accounts that do offer interpretations of the sounds,* a veiled reference that I am socking via these anon accounts. These accusations are made without substantiation from either SSP or RfCU. My requests that he provides evidence of either complaint or checkuser have been pointedly ignored and even repeated afterwards in several venues *. If the well weren’t poisoned enough already, adding repeated accusations of sock-puppetry jolly well makes it nigh radioactive.

1. Viriditas’ demeanor in discussion has been marred by personal attacks and significant incivility in both the article, ensuing discussion and other venues. I could list at least a dozen diffs that indicate where it is stated that I have never read a policy, am ridiculous and apparently have the IQ of a over-ripened eggplant (though not specifically that particular vegetable).

1. When it was pointed out in ‘’both’’ noticeboards (by at least five different editors) that the laughter ‘’could’’ be added and sourced to the film, Viriditas refused to accept a compromise that would end the stalemate, demanding that music played during the closing credits should be added as well to the section (instead of the section entitled “Music”, where it would be more accessible to the reader). This refusal of his came with the speculative (OR) assessment * that “removing the music adds interpretive value to the children’s laughter” *. I noted that this assessment was as speculative as the archive interpretations he kept referencing himself.

1. After edit-warring his 3RR (1, 2, 3) for at least the fourth day in a row, and after his last revert, requested page protection less than 10 minutes later.

As I noted before, many other editors have encountered this same abrasive behavior, and it extends back beyond the 1 1/2 years I have been a user here. While Viriditas does make valid contributions to some articles, his demeanor ‘’always’’ turns ugly at any sign of dissent, and those who do not back down are then subjected to his vitriolic attacks. This doesn’t foster the best examples of politeness, professionalism and the assumption of good faith that helps Wikipedia work effectively. Viriditas knows this, as he admits he is being uncivil ([[82]]). However, this admission is followed by even more personal attacks and incivility, which suggests that he is either unaware of the behavior, or cannot prevent himself from engaging in it.

Since repeated requests and attempts at DR ([83], [84], [85]) from me are always mischaracterized or simply removed without comment ([86], [87]). I would further note that attempts at mediation (the most recent attempt by MPerel, a friend of Viriditas) have all failed because Viriditas has shown a marked unwillingness to participate in any discussion where he must admit he is acting incorrectly.

---

Therefore, I am submitting this wikiquette alert in the DR process to share my concerns with the community, as this appears to be the last step prior to taking action that would have lasting (if not permanent consequences) for Viriditas.

I would ask that an intervention be initiated, to help counsel Viriditas on dealing politely with those whom he disagrees with. As the only other recourse is to simply report him to AN/I, for which he would almost certainly be blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)

I’m disappointed that your first edit back after being blocked is to continue the war with Viriditas. I don’t believe it is in your best interest to draw attention to your behavior in this, as you are not innocent and it is unlikely you’ll get the response you are hoping for. My suggestion is that you move on from this dual between you two that has been the source of much wearisome verbosity, and at the least, try to avoid each other. The matter over which you both are battling is not worth all this. --MPerel 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you are disappointed, but the matter that ended up with both of us blocked doesn't mitigate Viriditas' claim of innocence here. As you are clearly his friend, it is expected that you would defend him, but I don't recall you piping up to tell him to knock his edit-warring off whilst it was going on. I don't recall you even noting how his behavior was at all objectionable, and you're his friend. You could have nipped this in the bud, and told him to fix, curb or otherwise cease his behavior, but you were oddly silent throughout it. While it boiled over in my dealings with him. The very fact that he has been this way with others, and yet somehow could not stop himself from violating all of the incontrovertible claims I've noted above while you stood silently by rather voids your rather inappropriate claim of 'disappointment'. Before you pipe up to defend your post, maybe you could point out where you pointed out your disappointment to Viriditas about his behavior. I am guilty of not tolerating his behavior, and edit-warred with him; I take the hit on that. I was not guilty of anything else, 3RR, NPA or civility violations - I was only guilty of not putting up with his OWNish nonsense. Perhaps you missed that in your hurry to express your disappointment.

I am not sure what sort of response you think I am expecting; Viriditas tends to archive or blank (with a variably unpleasant remark) any note of his unacceptable behavior. This could easily lead others to feel that no one takes exception to his behavior. This fairly proves that such is not the case, and I can back up my claims with recent citations.

I am not interested in battling with Viriditas; he clearly doesn't believe he is capable of mistakes and it is equally clear that he cannot accept criticism even from those people who he doesn't feel at odds with. He simply isn't worth my time; having been blocked twice for having to deal with him/her pretty much sums up my feeling towards dealing with them. I will not seek Viriditas out, but I will not back down in any situation involving that editor, especially when they pull the crap they have. As his/her friend, you might counsel them to avoid me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dearest Arcayne, you say you will "not back down in any situation involving that editor". This is the intransigence that has you two at loggerheads and is blinding you from seeing what’s really important. My simple advice (to both of you), let it go, be willing to be big enough to back down even if you think you are right, for the sake of higher priorities. If you empower someone to push your buttons, you make yourself weak and lose all objectivity, which is why you only see the villain in each other. I’m not an admin, btw, precisely because I don’t wish to be a policeman. I’d rather appeal to you as a fellow human being and peer, and as such, I encourage you to shake it off and move on. Cheers, --MPerel 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that this advice is tendered only towards myself, MPerel, and not towards your friend - or did I perhaps miss a post on his user talk page? I think you are personally a nice person, but you aren't being exactly neutral here. I appreciate your input, and am not empowering anyone, except maybe for myself. When I say I will not be bullied by Viriditas, I mean precisely that, and naught else. My information above is objective; the diffs essentially speak for themselves. If I used old posts of yours aggressively and called you a sock-puppet, you'd have me in front of AN/I so fast, my grandchildren would have whiplash. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to write me off as the friend of your enemy to discard my advice, it is entirely up to you to take it or leave it as you see fit : ) I’m not sure any of my "friends" would find me an advantage in Wikipedia disputes, since I hold my friends to much higher standards than mere Wikipedia policies. In fact, in the case of Viriditas, as far as Wikipedia goes, though I find him more in the right and the greater victim of injustice in this conflict with you, I have refrained from jumping in to defend his cause (thus my public “silence”). This is because, from my perspective, the personal conflict between you two is of more concern to me than the state of the article you are battling over. People are intrinsically more valuable than this project, and so I refuse to join in battles over silly things, or encourage such behavior in my friends, even if they are technically in the right. And they hear as much from me behind the scenes. And actually no, your grandchildren are safe from whiplash, if you made wild accusations against me (as you’ve kinda done actually, but no worries, I let it pass), it would not be my way to run to AN/I, as I’m not one who feels compelled to correct people’s misperceptions about me; I let people believe whatever they like. A final thought… You might consider the possibility that in the higher realms you and Viriditas are good friends and together planned to irritate each other in this lifetime in order to help each other become better people. --MPerel 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting theory. If true, I must remember to kick the crap out of my higher self when I get there. Viriditas is not my "enemy," but I have little assumption of his good faith. He needs to bank that up quite a bit of that to warrant any consideration from me. This isn't even a matter of 'once burned, twice shy'; I've been burned by him to do anything but expect the worst in any given conversation. I appreciate you taking hte time to contribute your comments, but I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with your assessment of his "victimhood" in this matter. The diffs noted above prove them to be overlooking rather considerable failings. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Last I heard of this Arcayne Children of Men problem was at Wikipedia:RSN#Closing credits on Children of Men, and according to posts there, you had also brought it up elsewhere (NOR is mentioned). Consensus was clearly against you (Arcayne); I find it hard to understand why you are still on about this, unless the goal is to simply overwhelm with verbosity. It seems very straightforward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Sandy - maybe you actually missed the actual wikiquette alert, posted above? The consensus from the different talk pages was something rather off-point from this particular page. The point had very little to do with seeking consensus (btw, Viriditas did not find a consensus to remove the sound of the children's laughter; when he didn't, he simply threw in some wrenches about the music, and then games the system to get the article locked). I realize that with a fairly long and invlved issue, its kinda hard to keep the eye on the ball, but I thought the wikiquette alert was pretty clear. Take a moment to actually read it, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas: arbitrary break 1

Btw, Viriditas was a member of the complaining party in a recent Rfc (against Ed Fitzgerald), and was among a few editors specifically asked to refrain from disruptive and unseemly conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Ncmvocalist, all I see there is your own "outside view" endorsed by no one else that you posted after you were called out for your own inappropriate behavior at the RFC. --MPerel 06:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

MPerel, could you please confine your comments to those regarding the Wikiquette alert? It seems that Ncm was confirming a problem that I've pointed out. You may counter that by noting the inaccuracy of the editor's statements. Let's avoid motivations, since none of us are mind readers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor's statements are inaccurate, yes, as Ncmvocalist's "confirmation" was, as I pointed out, nothing of the sort, since he is only referring to his own comment that no one else endorsed, in a post he made at an RFC where Ncmvocalist was actually the one called out for being disruptive. --MPerel 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get your facts straight because there is no inaccuracy. My conduct was not considered questionable by the admin who warned him for his disruptive and unseemly conduct at the Rfc (the personal attacks particularly). I also noted such misconduct in my findings (with evidence), as well as a clear warning that failure to refrain from such conduct may result in intervention by an administrator, or the Arbcom. My note at the Rfc was confined to the conduct in relation to that dispute. Although I have not gone through this alert in detail (except to note a few examples of incivility), if the editor is engaging in such misconduct elsewhere that has led here (eg; incivility, edit-warring), and the behavior continues, then there is no choice but to exhaust the final steps of the DR process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, need I remind you of WP:CIV? You appear to have a habit of accusing people of civility violations right after making rude comments to them. In the future, please be mindful of your words. Instead of suggesting that MPerel get her facts straight, you could at least show your fellow editors some respect. This is exactly the kind of behaviour you engaged in on the RFC talk page when you tried to ridicule me by insulting my knowledge of RFC evidence. Hopefully, you'll take this warning to heart and stop it. And for the record, contrary to what you claim, at no time did any administrator specifically ask me to "refrain from disruptive and unseemly conduct". User:Toddst1 contacted me to say "Please do not make personal attacks as you did here", and I replied to him on his talk page, thanking him for his polite warning. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To Viriditas (subject of this alert): Unlike you, I am not in violation of any policy or guideline here (or at the Rfc), but if you feel otherwise, you are welcome to ask an uninvolved admin for their advice on the matter (as well as on what constitutes disruptive/unseemly conduct). And for the record, labelling something I've said as inaccurate, when it isn't, is not only incivil and disrespectful, but is a demonstration that a) she did not fully familiarize herself with what actually happened, or; b) she deliberately misrepresented my statement to further her friend’s position - (one of the many problems of being ‘involved’ but in any case) I did not consider it the latter as it would be assuming bad faith on Mperel.

To Arcayne: you may find a mere Wikiquette alert is not effective for this editor, because clearly a warning (however polite) by an admin was not enough to stop him. But seeing you’re here, see how it goes. If he persists in engaging in disruptive or unseemly conduct of any sort (including edit-warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, misrepresentation, disruptive point-making or the like), I suggest you take it straight to AN/I. If this again has no effect, then there is only one option left. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Ncmvocalist. It's good to have confirmation outside of Diffs that Viriditas isn't all that polite. This Wikiquette alert is in fact an attempt to use DR correctly. Personal contact at his page has been ineffective. Contact in article discussion has ended up in both of us being blocked not once but twice. This was the logical next step. When (and not if, unfortunately) his behavior recurs, this step will have been documented. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, the irony of you posting a wikiquette alert against another editor I’m sure does not go unnoticed by the many editors with whom you’ve had conflicts. Viriditas has shown remarkable patience with you which I have not seen returned by you, and I’ve tried to nicely advise you that continuing your vendetta against him is unproductive for all involved, particularly in light of your own poor behavior, not only with him, but with many other editors. I prefer to spend my limited time at Wikipedia on more positive aspects, like working on articles, but if you’re going to continue disrupting the project by harassing a very productive editor (in the top 100) with 60,000 edits, who has created hundreds of articles, brought many to FA and GA status, along with producing countless DYKs, then perhaps my time will be better spent preventing this persistent disruption by documenting your problematic behavior in order to bring it in check. The preferable route of course is that you simply stop this pursuit and consider the negative effects of your behavior, how you are creating a tedious, wearisome environment for many other volunteers who invest time on this project. Please think about what I am saying. --MPerel 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have thought about it, MPerel. I would submit that his "remarkable" patience is matched and even surpassed by my own patience at his antics. That I hadn't called for his immediate blocking back when his tendentious behavior started says that I was patient beyond reason with him. I appreciate your friendship with him, and I know you think that his 40k edits makes him the best thing since sliced bread, but I have a few edits myself. That I don't have as much free time as Viriditas has to feed the wiki is clear. That you seem all too willing to ignore his crappy behavior and discount my pointing it out is cause for concern. You've made your point: you think Viriditas can do no wrong. Got it. I utterly, utterly disagree. His good edits do not excuse his abrasive, wiki-lawyering, demeanor. While I know you like to only focus on the positive aspects, it doesn't mean we can ignore (or excuse) the negative aspects. Please think about what I am saying, MPerel, before responding again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To MPerel: please do not attempt to intimidate other editors by threatening to retaliate. This is not the place (if any) to make such remarks. You're of course welcome to take any route you wish; whether they will have any merit is yet to be seen - you may want to think twice before prusuing any such route. And, I would like to remind you (or in case you didn't know, inform you), that immunity is not provided to any editor who violates basic policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To Ncmvocalist: please stop your bad faith assumptions, which are incorrect, as there was no such threat of retaliation. And please stop jumping into these pages creating more heat than light. --MPerel 19:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To MPerel: please take your own advice and stop making frivolous accusations of bad faith against others. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate what I said earlier: the WQA page does not exist only to endorse people's comments - however, it does not exist to make threats of any sort, let alone this (If you don't stop pursuing the DR process against him, then I will consider pursuing it against you for your problematic behavior (even though I would not if you drop it)). That is retaliatory - plain and simple. The DR process does not exist for such a purpose. Therefore, you have been warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne's WQA complaint is part of a longstanding dual between him and Viriditas and only furthers the bad blood between them. I doubt you have looked into the history or you would not be making these idle threats and so called warnings against me. My own part has been to try to help resolve the conflict through informal means, apparently to no avail. Other editors have withheld calling Arcayne to account for his behavior, because most productive editors would rather focus on actual encyclopedia work rather than waste volunteer time in dispute resolution, which rarely has a positive end. In fact a very one-sided misrepresentation has been allowed to thus far stand unchallenged, only because responding to it would only drag things out into an unproductive battle and most editors who have the project's interest at heart would rather invest energy elsewhere. If you read what I said carefully, the gist of my statement was to question whether Arcayne really wants to pursue a formal route, as it will only waste all of our time from more productive work, and Arcayne will not find himself at any advantage or achieve any positive outcome if the time is taken to adequately answer his accusations as it will draw attention to his own behavior. I don't see how you can read retaliatory threats into what I said. You are unfortunately forming opinions based on very little knowledge of the situation. --MPerel 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, MPerel. While there is a long-standing contentiousness between myself and Viriditas (not a duel), the complaint addressed his behavior not only with me but with others. I am unsure why you continue to ignore that; you seem quite intent on pointing out only my past troubles (of which I am aware). I am aware that I am no angel and instead of engaging with Viriditas, should have immediately ignored his trollish behavior and simply reported him to AN/I. As well, I have had past difficulties with other editors. How does any of that invalidate the complain presented above? I have pointed out that Viriditas has failed every attempt at dispute resolution thus far - even those initiated by yourself. He has been staggeringly rude to more editors besides myself, and the only editors with whom he doesn't share this dismissive attitude are those who choose to agree with him.

The best defense is not a good offense, MPerel. Rather than highlight my difficulties with other editors, perhaps focus your comments on the content of this complaint on its merits or flaws. If you find you are unable to do so because of your pre-existing friendship with Viriditas, I would alternately ask that you please avoid attacking the person bringing the complaint. My past does not invalidate the complaint. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm ... when you bring a dispute you're party to, your role in it is usually examined. Have you considered, after so many years of this, that others might see it differently than you do, and it might be more productive to edit another area for a while? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand that my role in the matter is actually examined, but - apart from edit-warring (which is bad enough) - I have not made any personal attacks or violated any civility rules. MPerel was pointedly ignoring the initial complaint to say that Viriditas should be lauded for his behavior, and not counseled to improve upon it. Precisely what do you see different, Sandy? What in my wikiquette alert do you see that is inaccurate?

And I do edit elsewhere productively. And not once have I edit-warred an article before trying to lock it in place in an article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To MPerel: again, when another editor has engaged in misconduct, it does not invalidate the complaint. WQA is an early step of the DR process - if the subject of the alert stops engaging in misconduct hereafter, then that's as far as it will go. It really is that simple. What you said (about a dual) can only be taken into consideration if the misconduct did not continue, but Arcayne made meritless claims in other steps of DR - this has not happened. Clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

MRSC

Resolved

 – Tentative - discussion now taking place at RFC/U. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite several warnings,[88][89][90] MRSC has attempted to bully me around Wikipedia and has violated Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, amongs others only this morning, in his all consuming crusade against me, an obsesive crusade in which he is attempting to drag me away from peacefully editing articles.

• Examples of violation of WP:EDIT WAR can be found on Saddleworth White Rose Society, where he also violated WP:VER by removing material[91], which is sourced[92][93] without discussing his controversial change on the talkpage first.
• Examples of violation of WP:POINT, WP:NPA and WP:TALK can be found here[94] on the talk page of the article Yorkshire, where violating the "comment on the content, not the editor" philosophy of WP:NPA. He disrupted Wikipedia in order to make a point, violating the purpose of WP:TALK which is to discuss the article and its content.
• Examples of continuous violations of WP:HARASS can be found in the fact that he, along with Jza keeps antagonising me in regards to my RFC both on my talk[95][96] and in MRSC's case the harassment and disruption has spread to talk pages of articles.[97][98] This despite the fact that MRSC has been made fully aware of the fact that I have 30 days to completely compile my countering evidence for the RFC (which he began only last night), which understandably takes some time and thus why the "Closing RFCs" timeline policy is in lane.[99] And the fact that this morning, I have discussed it with administrator KieferSkunk[100].

The way MRSC and friend address me on my talk page, is in a "can do no wrong" condoscending, and "holier than thou" manner, which is in itself offensive and a cause for friction. MRSC's almost trance like obsession with me, unwillingness to let old disagreements go, is exemplified in him following me around from article to article only this morning, when I was add information to them. It is an uncomfortable feeling, to the point of weirding me out that, every edit and move I make on Wikipedia is being watched over my shoulder by MRSC and friend, ready to jump on me at any moment in an act of harassment and Wikilawyering in an attempt to get legislation against me for the simple reason that the two disagree on some elements of content disputes. Concerning the most recent behaviour, and given he is ignoring talk page comments about it, what can I do? - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason editors are encouraging Yorkshirian to respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian is because since the RFC was filed his conduct has continued to cause increasing concern and disruption to the project. The claims against me on this page and the serious allegations against User:Jza84 here and here are an escalation of the problems we and other users have politely alerted him to on his talk page. MRSC • Talk 09:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just the same, Yorkshirian does have a right to request that you stop talking to him on his talk page. Notifying him of processes and such is still fine, but continuing discussion on his talk page is not likely to be productive at this point. He has requested that you all leave him alone. As far as his talk page is concerned, I think you should abide by that. If disruption continues, you've already come here, requested an RFC, and opened an incident report at ANI, so escalate as appropriate if he continues to disrupt and refuses to respond to the RFC. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Yorkshirian does have a right to request that you stop talking to him on his talk page" - does he? Even at the expense of him calling users trolls, vandals, bad faith editors, wikilawers, harrassers, bores and other unsavoury things explicity prohibited by WP:CIVIL? I've been smeared three times by Yorkshirian; what exactly does he have to do before somebody is bold and steps in? Myself and MRSC have done everything the process asks of us, and (though we've challenged him) given Yorkshirian a level of dignity that he's yet to show others. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that he wants you to stop talking to him on his talk page. That's fine - no matter how uncivil someone is, they do still have that right. That doesn't mean you have to stop pursuing other forms of dispute resolution and/or admin intervention. All I'm saying is that since he's asked you to stop interacting with him on his user-talk page, you should do so and continue with your other forms of WP:DR.

Don't worry, I'll prod the folks at ANI for another eye on the situation, or ask them for a more appropriate forum since WP:DR doesn't appear to be working. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept we have little option but wait for the RFC to end. It is unfortunate that there appears to be retaliation since it has been filed in the form of some very serious allegations. Using talk pages to engage with Yorkshirian has failed to produce an amicable outcome, so it is right that we cease informing him of transgressions of the style we have already informed him of our concern about. That said, there should be somewhere we can go to report worsening conduct problems (such as the disruption involving the bogus "vote rigging" claims) and I'm concerned that ANI did not provide us with a route to dealing with these issues. MRSC • Talk 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mark both of these WQAs as resolved for now, since we now finally have some sort of mediation discussion going on in the RFC/U. This should help us keep from forking the threads too much. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rosalind Picard

I'd like some independent eyes from this noticeboard directed to this page, particularly with reference to this and this response. Perhaps this exchange is relevant too. I stand ready to alter my own behaviour as advised. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if I think there are some clear problems, I'd prefer if you could be a bit more specific. Could you name which editors are actively involved in the dispute (other than you, Raul654 and Filll) whose conduct you'd like looked at by 'independent eyes'? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Several people are involved in the dispute; I wouldn't want to single out anyone. I was hoping for a review of my behaviour and that of those people specifically invoking WP:CIVIL in particular. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's a long discussion so I can only go through little by little.

• Baegis was blocked previously, is subject to an ArbCom sanction, and was warned again 5 days before he made the attack (on May 5) that would constitute another instance of unseemly conduct.
• Filll was previously blocked and then unblocked half hour later because of insufficient warning for personal attacks. He also engaged in unseemly conduct (incivility,assumptions of bad faith,wikilawyering,assumptions of ownership) several times [emphasis added] on the same day (5 May). They got worse the next day (6 May), to the point of personal attacks, although he modified some of it on request. The incivility continued.
• Raul654 made unwarranted personal attacks on 6 May. He also threatened to block an editor that he was clearly involved in a dispute with. Further no apology, or at the very least he could've retracted the entire statement - he didn't. If this, is among other instances of poor judgement, then AN/I will not be sufficient to deal with this problem.
• Relato refero made comments later (still on 6 May though) that are inflammatory to the dispute. They might not be as bad or unacceptable as those by the above editors, but making those sort of remarks (however tempting) is not constructive, and are not looked upon favorably. I'm making a more direct sort of alert to you because you opened this.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

In South Slavs section this user has started off with instant blind reverts with swear words [[101]] to my attempts to enrich the article. BalkanFever often defends this article from being increased and any new reliable sources from being reflected, as the article at the moment does not even make the distinction between Slavs and South Slavs and this to BalkanFever seems to be his aim for some unknown reason. This is very odd behaviour, and I suspect foul play here, can somebody assist? Noonien Soong (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Noonien Soong has been blocked for sockpuppetry. BalkanFever 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kobra85

User:Kobra85 is not behaving in a constructive and civil manner, he constantly insults other editors and undermines their work. Whenever someone tries to communicate with him, including me, he often responds with a certain dose of arrogance, cynicism and mild personal attacks.
Just a while ago, after I tried to solve disputes with him on his Talk Page, he blanked it with an edit summary:
QUOTE (verbatim):

• 13:33, 7 May 2008 I'm tired of listening to people bitching about not getting their way

The history version of my failed attempts to communicate with him in a normal way can be found HERE and HERE. Other examples of incivility:
From his Talk page edit summaries:
QUOTES (verbatim):

• 16:02 6 May 2008 Kobra85 stop bringing this crap to my talk page
• 10:33 7 May 2008 Kobra85 you wish you contributed that much
• 16:07 15 April 2008 Kobra85 I need a break, idiots are annoying me

Additionaly, he tries to impose himself as an exclusive "admin" on many articles, especialy those related to the Republic of Macedonia and its culture. He often reverts other people's work maybe because of political reasons. He unilaterally removed some templates from many Ethnic Macedonian music-related articles, without making proper replacements for all of them in advance, which may also qualify him as vandal. A consencus can not be achieved, so I kindly ask the administration to take the necesary measures. Thank you. --Dzole (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One more example of his explicit language on: User: Revizionist's Talk Page
QUOTE (verbatim)

• 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Signed as Köbra (same user as User: Kobra85): Don't be so bloody ignorant, I reverted the article three times to rid it of your god-forsaken bullshit. If I had reverted it a fourth time, which I have not, then I would have broken the "three-revert rule"... Christ Almighty!

(end of quote)--Dzole (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for Kobra on his talk page making sure that he is aware that he needs to abide by WP's civility policies at all times. This also includes a 3RR warning and an explanation of how 3RR works. However, I also noted in my response that I have not had time to fully research the whole issue, so my response is to be considered incomplete right now - I may have more to say to all of you later. (This may also come from another WQA "staffer" if they get to it before I can.) Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivil behavior - User:Kobra85 (again)

After several warnings by several users about User:Kobra85's incivility, I couldn't stand his insults, and had to report them. This is only one of them:

• User: Kobra85: Don't be so bloody ignorant, I reverted the article three times to rid it of your god-forsaken bullshit. If I had reverted it a fourth time, which I have not, then I would have broken the "three-revert rule"... Christ Almighty!

Source - User: Revizionist's Talk Page

Regards--Revizionist (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative note: merged this second WQA into the main complaint since it regards the same issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Insults and other misconduct by newcomer to discussion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Hogenakkal Falls regarding the location of the falls relative to the border. A party who was recently entered the discussion, User:Sarvagnya, has since he entered the discussion acted as follows. He belittled others for treating an editor with a few months experience the same way he himself treated an editor with not even that much experience when that editor was new, the editor in question being one of the participants in the current discussion. He has not apparently bothered to familiarize himself with any of the discussion which took place before his arrival, as is indicated by his appearing to produce the same arguments that had been made and dismissed earlier. He has also regularly insulted virtually everyone else involved in the discussion, often in ways which have little if any bearing on the discussion itself, and, basically, acted outside the rules of conduct. I do not believe this is the first time this party has engaged in such conduct. I believe it would be a good idea if this party were told by an uninvolved party that his behavior in this matter is less than acceptable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with what John Carter has said. A skim-through of the article Talk page, searching for "Sarvagnya", should verify this quite quickly. (Of course, any editor wishing to carry out a more complete read-through is most welcome to do so.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He's had repeated trouble with civility ever since he was a newbie himself. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, it is an ongoing problem. But I suggest an Rfc (user conduct) might be more effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My observations as an editor of Hogenakkal Falls. User:John Carter (came on board under solicitation by Wikiality123) and User:SheffieldSteel (accidentally joined while trying to prematurely settle AN/I issue against Wikiality123 as an Admn though he is not an admn) are newer (appeared to had no knowledge about the topic) to the Hogenakkal Falls than many other editors including Sarvagnya (see archived discussions). Looks like they joined just with an intension of supporting user:Wikiality123 and repeatedly/deliberately ignored views of others. The language by user:wikiality123, User:John Carter and User:SheffieldSteel is quite intimidating and often offensive towards anyone who try to correct current mistake in the lead. One of them had gone to the extent of using BS. They have fueled into escalation in heated arguments Sr editors including an Admn involved have not made any efforts to keep discussions cool. It is requested to keep discussions calm and move forward towards a consensus than foot dragging. Naadapriya (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Naadapriya was repeatedly told directly that the material he sought to add was not in fact supported by the evidence he provided. He repeatedly, and at least once expressly, ignored any and all such comments. He also repeatedly tried to introduce POV material, stating that it was NPOV. His own abject failure to respond to the valid points he was repeatedly advised about could hardly be said to have helped the situation. It has been repeatedly noted that Naadapriya is a comparatively new user. However, I do not think that his misunderstandings of the policies, guidelines, and processes of wikipedia are the responsibility of anyone but himself. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another ongoing problem. Again, I suggest Rfc (conduct) - 2 separate ones - 1 for each of them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC was initiated, but Naadapriya and Sarvangya chose not to take part in them. As for the use of BS by me I have repeatedly pointed to Naadapriya that I was talking about WP:BULLSHIT. If he wants I can show him diffs of his guru Sarvagnya himself using it several times!! Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW can Naadapriya point out a single edit that he would have made to the Hogenekkal falls article other than about the jurisdiction? The intention of this editor and what interests him to this article is well explicite. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Correction: There was a request for Mediation involving Naadapriya, who disagreed with the proposal. As far as I know, no request for Comment has been filed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case, I strongly recommend going straight to Rfc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure is SheffieldSteel is aware that Sarvagnya did visit the previous RfC, which was obviously of the same issue. He left message on the talk page saying that my RfC was filled with total bad faith, whereas the user could have joined the RfC if he really intended to. I would support an RfC if initiated, but nevertheless, I won't be too optimistic about the outcome. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to filing an RfCU when an alert here is still not completed? Having minimal knowledge of this particular process, I welcome any informed input. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see Ncmvocalist, Wikiality123 and John Carter getting together here. Something common I found from all three about me.

1. were more interested to block me than answering my comments
2. tend to get offensive when facts are shown that contradict your POV
3. lobby to get others involved just to oppose
4. Try to taint with false accusations

To John Carter : It is a puzzle to see that you refuse acknowledge seeing an WP:RS I pointed out from the existing article which even Wikiality123 has acknowledged (see discussion on rejected mediation page). Editors need not have to invent a new RS if there is one already in the article. Also I was under the impression that you were mostly helping towards reaching a consensus. Now you sound different by going back to already settled discussions. Is this an action as an Editor or Admn?. To understand your role better still you owe an answer in open for my inquiry posted on your talk page To Wikiality123; As usual looks like you forgot about discussions on speculative water project section To Ncmvocalist : Surprise to see you here (hope voluntary not by solicitation as other editor did) all of a sudden but I am lost on what you are talking about now.

BTW : Team efforts are good when they are constructive Naadapriya (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have worked extensively with Sarvagnya over the last two years on dozens and dozens of articles. IMO, he is a very pleasant and high quality editor and has several invaluable contributions to wikipedia over the last two years. After a quick survey of both Sarvagnya's and the Carter's contribs, I must say that this wikiquette alert seems to be motivated by content issues in which the Carter and Wikiality seem to be involved in against Sarvagnya. It would be better if Carter sorted out content issues on the talk page instead of taking barbs at his opponent here. I also see no need here for a RFC or any such thing. It would almost a violation of WP:POINT. Thanks, KNM ^Talk 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Sarvagnya is easily one of the most amazing editors I've come across. He's one of our best defenders of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and also a content-editor of high quality. Thanks to him, scores of articles have improved from using sources like tamilnation.com and blogs to using better, more academic sources. This here is mob lynching and nothing else. A very quick look at your recent histories shows that you guys got your bluff called on a certain talk page. And you decide to get even by filing this dishonest alert. I completely and emphatically disagree with this ganging up against and attempt to browbeat one of our best. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Neither of the editors above seems to have noticed that several people had commented that virtually every comment Sarvagnya had made on the page prior to this posting here was at best a violation of civility, often worse. While I welcome informed discussion, I have to say that I don't see anything here, other than perhaps an attempt to whitewash the comments of Sarvagnya which were adjudged by virtually everyone involved as being clearly unacceptable. The RfCU may well go ahead in any event, when this discussion is closed, as even several other editors, including Relata above, who I believe tends not to be involved in these subjects often, seem to disagree with both of the last two editors above rather markedly. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeated reinsertion of personal attack at Talk:Aspartame

Resolved

 – IP user warned

99.145.9.206 (along with a series of other IP addresses, all very likely the same person) inserted some unreferenced statements at Aspartame. After the material was removed and the matter raised at Talk:Aspartame, the editor became increasingly aggressive. The latter of the two personal attacks has been removed four times. Each time the message is removed, it is promptly reinserted. This is a kind of combination personal attack-edit war on a talk page!

Does anyone have any suggestions? I would personally like to see the user threatened with a block if they continue to reinsert the attack.

The target of the abuse, User:Edgar181, is an administrator, but I imagine he is reluctant to use his powers against this user as he is personally involved. I thought this incident was worth mentioning here, because it is wasting quite a lot of time and is rather unpleasant.

Ben (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I took a look and gave a "this is your only warning" to the IP for violating WP:NPA and coming close to violating WP:3RR. One more repeat of that and I'll block him (or another admin will). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Superb, what a response!

Cheers

Ben (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)