Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 157: Line 157:


I have no idea why an editor like Athaenara is being so one-sided in this dispute. It's a disgrace. In addition, Athaenara is aallowing "SethSwirsky" to post personal attacks against me on Athaenara's own talk page, but deleting my responses. [[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why an editor like Athaenara is being so one-sided in this dispute. It's a disgrace. In addition, Athaenara is aallowing "SethSwirsky" to post personal attacks against me on Athaenara's own talk page, but deleting my responses. [[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the date of last harrassing email from MoeLarryandJesus was February 9, 2007 12:49:30 AM PST. Should I post a screenshot?
Furthermore, as proof of his personal bias towards me, read his reasoning for changing the disputed line of text. o you think it reeks of a some pilitcal bias 9and hatred): From MLJ: "In my latest edit I have used the term "former liberal" instead of "conservative." I can see why someone would not want to be described as a conservative these days, since the word has now taken on very unpleasant meanings. In America these days "conservative" is now synonymous with "torture-loving warmongering religious fanatic." I would certainly never want that label attached to me. Hopefully "former liberal" is not as controversial. MoeLarryAndJesus 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)". As I said, I would never gotten involved in this if someone didn;t alert me to it. The line should read: Swirsky, a self-described Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" Jackson tradition, writes articles for...". At the HuffingtonPost.com that is what is stated in bio: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/ (click on bio). There are other places on the internet that attest to that. I am a registered Democrat -- the POV of MLJ ddisagrees with me and it's why, for the last 4 days +, we have to be engaged in this nonsense. You should see how his original vandalizations of my political bent read. I am convinced that --through his behavior, his unkindliness and his explanation in his latest edit that it's personal with MLJ -- and would request that he be banned from posting on the page a number of people have obviously have worked hard to honestly contribute to. -- Seth Swirsky

Revision as of 22:55, 19 February 2007

Shortcut

Wikiquette alerts are a streamlined way to get an outside view about possible problems with how editors are working with each other.


Are you in the right place?


Procedure for this page

At the bottom of this page,

  • Post a single link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting [diff] or section of a talk page).
  • Describe the problem or issues as neutrally as possible.
  • Do not sign your comment and do not use names. Instead, type ~~~~~ (five tildes), which gives only a timestamp.
  • Please avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page. Instead, continue discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to you!

If you would like to get an outside view on your own behaviour, you may post an item here about that, as well.

Editors who follow the link provided in an alert are encouraged to make a constructive comment on this page about any Wikiquette breaches they see.


Archiving

Items posted to this page should be removed after seven days.


Archived alerts

Active alerts

2-February-2007

  • Can someone look into this? Thank you. --NE2 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I see a long-time contributor to Wikipedia exchanging messages with you, and he's a bit frustrated with some renaming/moving that you did and with your arguments that what you did was correct. I haven't looked at the actual moves, though some of the other editor's arguments do appear a bit persuasive on their face, and I won't, because you're not bringing a content issue here but rather one of etiquette. So: in my opinion, while a purist could criticize bits and pieces of what the other editor said, the vast bulk of the comments were civil, and I'm personally not inclined to get involved by posting anything on anyone's user page.
    • May I suggest that you temper WP:BB by also observing Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - that is, the moment your boldness hits resistance, you should go into discuss mode, not press on. Further, for moves, if your boldness is going to result in something not easily reverted, then discussion beforehand seems merited, as irritating as it may be to have to delay something that may seem obvious for a couple of days. In addition, trying to see the merit in what the other editor says - he/she may not be 100% right, but typically other (long-time) editors are not 100% wrong that often - is among the best ways to arrive at something acceptable to all. And finally - I realize that article names are important, but really, to have a huge honking fight over the name of some places in New Jersey - really? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 06:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not certain where to place this; I have been falsely accused of personal attacks by User:Dreadlocke, first on the Talk:Psychic page, and then on my own User talk:Noclevername page. As far as I understand the rules, I have not done anything wrong and have attempted to remain civil, only to be met with increasingly strident repeated accusations that I was violating the NPA rules (all while he kept repeatedly telling me in his posts to "keep cool" and to restrict my comments to the article). When I attempted to discuss the matter on his talk page, assuming that he had simply misinterpreted or misunderstood my posts, I was rather rudely informed that I was "not welcome" to do so. I am uncertain what to do; ignore it? Seek an administrator's help? I am not experienced in Wikipedia, and I find this situation confusing and frustrating. --- Noclevername 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3-February-2007

  • Can someone take a look at Mike Cline (talk · contribs) and User_talk:Mike_Cline#Conflict_of_interest.3F? I got involved thinking this was a minor COI incident, but I now count five articles he's written and another he's substantially contributed to, all on subjects his company consults on, in all cases introducing his company's published material and his company's founder. 05:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at User_talk:Sanchom, User_talk:88888, and Talk:Comb_over. You will have to look into the history of User_talk:88888 since some parts of the discussion have been deleted. I'm interested in a civility check for both sides of this discussion. 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seemed pretty civil to me; I didn't read every word, but the tone of what I saw seemed quite acceptable. Deleting stuff on one's user talk pages is acceptable. At one point, it looks like there was no response (except deletion) of a proposal for a third opinion; I suppose that's incivility, but at worst it's still minor and the right thing (as was done here) is to ask if the user missed the question when doing the deletion.
    • The only other things that comes to mind, reading the discussion about the text in the article that was in question, is (a) labeling unsourced but almost certainly common/reasonable knowledge as "original research" is, in my opinion, a mistake; putting "fact" on it if it's minorly controversial or you really think that a citation would add value is, in my opinion, sufficient; and (b) there was room for a compromise here, I think: rather than "the two most famous men who ... ", it could have simply been "two notable men who ... ". If there's a content dispute involving two reasonable editors, as appears to be the case here, it's actual unusual not to be able to reach some sort of compromise that's acceptable, although it's also common (as is the case here) for one editor, perhaps one who feels less strongly, to just drop the argument and concede the point, particularly for minor points. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like somebody to weigh in on recent edits to the HoHos article. Belina007 added a paragraph that I feel is bad information and is unsourced. I reverted it, and posted a notice on User Talk:Belina007 asking him/her to please source the information and write it according to WP:NPOV guidelines. The paragraph has recently been added back, just as before, with no sources. Belina007 has not responded to my comment on his/her talk page, and writes no edit summary. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I really feel that this paragraph does not belong in the article, at least without sources. I'd fix it myself but I don't have the source that Belina007 apparently is reading this info from. 05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My suggestion is to revert unless sources are added or Belina007 communicates, and warn with {{subst: uw-unsourced2}} or {{subst: uw-unsourced3}} or {{subst: uw-defamatory2/3/4}}, progressing in number each time (I've already warned him/her with the 1st template). If Belina007 continues not to respond and just add the section after the 4th template warning (there is no unsourced 4th template, but this counts as defamatory, so you can use that one) you can report Belina007 at WP:AIV. I haven't seen this in practice so another editor may come and contradict me (feel free to, John) but the claim of going from size 6->size 24 in 2 weeks, no other edits, and no communication, I think the templates are the best way to go. And I have to go! I'm late! RB972 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good advice. The following words from WP:BLP are also relevant: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. Wikipedia:Libel is also relevant, although I find it lacking in such basics as actually giving an operational definition of libel. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4-February-2007

  • Have a look at User:Prosfilaes's endless reverts at [Unwinnable article history]. Dispute resolution has already been done (WP:3O) - with result in Talk:Unwinnable#Third opinion. However, User:Prosfilaes refues to accept the decision and continues revert-warring. He removes all warning templates placed on his user page. He removes comments from the article talk page. He uses personal attacks. So we are all too frightened to do anything. The user seems less concerned with the welfare of the article (he has now slapped an "OR" banner on the page in a fit of pique) and more concerned with "winning a battle" (the wikipedia-as-MMORPG mentality). Its hard to know how to proceed in this situation as the dispute resolution has already been done, but the user won't accept the result. What now?
    • In general, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lays out a policy for dealing with content disputes. You've done a third opinion; the next step is an RFC.
    • He removes all warning templates placed on his user page. - This is a point of widespread confustion. In fact, the current policy is that removal of warnings is acceptable. A user deleting a warning is presumed to have read it. Warnings are still visible via the history of the user page, albeit researching them is a bit more work for admins. Please do not argue further over this point.
    • He removes comments from the article talk page.. This is generally unacceptable per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (exceptions include such things as personal attacks; talk pages aren't sacrosanct if used inappropriately). I reviewed the talk page history and found only one example of this, on January 28th, and have posted a note about it on Prosfileaes' user talk page. As to handling this in the future, you should simply revert the deletion if you believe that the original posting was appropriate for a talk page; WP:3RR means that any edit war over this results in an automatic block for the editor trying to keep a comment off a talk page (again, assuming that it really does belong there; if this is a gray area, it's best to discuss it on user talk pages).
    • He uses personal attacks. I read the talk page, and saw no evidence of personal attacks. He said some negative things about edits by others, but that does not constitute "personal attacks".
    • he has now slapped an "OR" banner on the page in a fit of pique. Pleae note the WP:AGF guideline. Unless he actually said this (and it's hard for me to believe someone would say that he/she was going to do something "in a fit of pique"), or something similar, it's not clear what the factual basis for your statement is. Similarly, more concerned with "winning a battle seems to me to be problematical given the AGF guideline. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6-February-2007

  • Please take a look at User:Thunk00. He and another anonymous commenter (AnonFE) are using the Talk:Fire_Emblem page to air personal vendettas (specifically, Talk:Fire_Emblem#Quit_adding_Fire_Emblem_World_to_the_list_of_external_links.). They are completely false (elaboration and proof can be provided if necessary), and even if they weren't they have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or Fire Emblem and are nothing more than hurtful, offensive slander. Any help on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thanks. 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What I see is what looks like a bunch of pre-teens arguing about who did what to whom, when, and why, at other websites, including one editor (presumably the same person who posted this alert) posting a response in a section that hadn't seen any activity for six weeks - that would be re-open the argument, I suppose.
    • I've posted a note about what talk pages should be used for at the article's talk page, in the section with the squabbling. I recommend following it.
    • Finally, I think you have little idea what serious WP:NPA violations really look like. I suggest that you read the advice at that page and at WP:CIVIL regarding minor stuff - ignore it. The world will be a better place if you do. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for incorrectly placing my complaint; I'm not familiar with Wikipedia and this SEEMED like the best place to do it. Second, I (the person who reported this) have never posted on the Talk page. My concern was that the Talk page was being used for, as you called it, "a bunch of pre-teens arguing about who did what to whom, when, and why," and it was degrading into hurtful slander, so I thought it seemed like the time for some kind of administrative intervention. Anyway, thank you. 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You did post to the correct page; I apologize if I gave the impression that you did not. What I was grumping about was the elaboration and proof can be provided if necessary comment included in the alert, which seemed to suggest continuing the off-Wikipedia fight here. To summarize: the talk page was being misused; I've posted a note about that on the talk page; and hopefully editors will stop bickering about personal things and discuss only content issues. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at Talk:USS Liberty incident#Totalitarian Ethnic Activism Destroying Scholarship which is a pretty blatent personal attack by User:63.3.10.2.13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty hard to make much of an impact on anonymous IP editors, particularly because there isn't any guarantee that the account is being used by just one person. Looking at the edit history here, there are at least three threads: constructive edits to articles about TV shows, raw vandalism, and crankish ("fanatic zionist") postings, just recently. It's not clear that's the same person.
    • In any case, I've deleted the comment; it goes over the line when it mentions another editor by name uses the wording it did. And I've posted a note on the article talk page about why I removed it; that will hopefully encourage others to remove it if it's reposted.
    • Finally, I note that the anonymous editor's "NPOV" tag on the article was removed by two different editors (correctly, due to lack of any specific details on the talk page). The second time was after a different anonymous IP address reposted the tag - which makes me suspect that this individual has moved on to another IP address. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8-February-2007

  • Please can someone look at Restormel Castle. An anonymous IP has added a paragraph titled Controversy over the site. The same paragraph also appears at Pendennis Castle, Tintagel Castle, Chysauster Ancient Village and many others. To me it was a blatant attempt at publicity, so I removed all occurences. They soon reappeared, with an additional copy on the talk pages, claiming a political fact is not against wikipedia rules so long as neutrally written. I personally think the paragraph is very POV oriented, and should not be in the article. Even if it was neutral, it is not relevant to the article. I do not want to get into an edit war, so I just want to get some more opinions please. 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've edited the Restormel Castle page; please take a look. The information added is relevant, in my opinion; the problem was that it was at excessive length, which is an WP:NPOV violation. So yes, it should be in the article (in my opinion), but not so much as it was.
    • When you have a content dispute with another editor, a good place to look is Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. You'll find mention there of the "third opinion" process, for cases when just two editors (as appears the case here) disagree. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My objection is that an anonymous IP, has added it to all English Heritage sites in Cornwall, plus the English Heritage page. The actual story is that three people performed an illegal act, conspiracy to cause criminal damage, which nearly resulted in a custodial sentence. There is no mention of this in the paragraph. Plus the fact they also change the location from England to UK, it is just a blatant attempt to get publicity. 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • This is not the place to argue over content issues, as stated at the top of the page. I have suggested a rewrite that is three sentences long rather than an entire section; if you feel that is unacceptable, all I can suggest is that you follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, as I mentioned before. (Yes, the cited BBC story is mostly about the three protesters who were arrested; it's up to the discretion of editors to decide what parts, and how much, of any news source to actually use in an article - only the most relevant should be used, even if that isn't the main thrust of the article.)
        • As for blatant attempt at publicity, Wikipedia generally discourages any comments about an editor's motivation (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). If you think that the editor might have some connection to the organization he/she is posting about, you could mention the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy on his/her user talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Points taken, thank you for your input. 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

9-February-2007

  • Hello, I have place a tag regarding original research and non-objectivity at the Electronic voice phenomenon article. I have expressed my concerns as best I can, and an editor keeps removing the tag and insulting me rather than dicussing the issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#content_policies_tag-05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If I hadn't already read all the complaints about your behavior on your user talk page, and comments about you elsewhere, I'd be more sympathetic to the language you presumably object to (because you hate the article, complaining across the help boards, because you are too lazy to check for yourself). Given your edits to date, I'm not sure that this language rises to the level of violating WP:CIVIL (and certainly isn't a violation of WP:NPA).
    • What I am sure about is that, to date, you appear almost totally unable to figure out that when lots and lots of people have negative things to say about you, and they are established members of a community while you are not, then it's your behavior that is the problem, not theirs. You seem to think that you add value to Wikipedia by tagging lots of things as needing work, when in fact there are hundreds of thousands of articles that have tagged for many months as needed to be fixed in some way. There is no corps of volunteers standing by, waiting to rush in and fix, at an instant's notice, anything that any editor thinks is a problem. Please consider doing constructive work in Wikipedia rather than continuing to provoke others with pointless tagging. If you don't want to work on adding information to articles you're personally interested in, then take a look at Wikipedia:Maintenance - there is plenty of work there, of a wide variety. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't seem that you have analyzed the situation with any degree of diligence. I have placed many tags, and there have been a very tiny number of complaints in proportion to the number placed. Of the complaints, here is a good example of how things worked out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nixie_tube#references_tag. It seems that at the articles where there has been an objection to a tag, the objection is resistance to fixing the article, not to the tag. Placing the tag calls attention to the problem, and others intervene to fix the article. In the electronic voice phenomenon article, it appears that there has been an ongoing POV dispute, and that at the time I found the article with the random button, the article was dominated by one POV, which included an editor with a strong conflict of interest. Now other editors are involved, the tag I placed has been re-instated by someone else, and discussion is going on. The great resistance by one editor to allowing the tags to remain was not helping the article. Also, I do not insult anyone, and I do not believe it is acceptable for anyone to insult me. -MsHyde 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11-February-2007

  • Talk:Gus Grissom - Sections were removed for violating WP:ATTACK or for containing off topic content[1]. The removal was reverted[2]. 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The comments were unacceptable, some from both sides of that discussion. I removed the blatant personal attacks and archived the discussions as they were not discussions about content of the article. I also added the talk header at the top to explain to editors the purpose of the talk page. A lot of the comments were being made from a often changing ip address, so there seemed to be no route to take for a personal warning. I did explain to one editor that was identifiable on their talk page the reason for the changes and prompted them to remain civil. Sancho McCann 18:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12-February-2007

  • User_talk:Khoikhoi - Please, check this page. User User:Nareklm not only persistently attacks other people, such as AdilBaguirov and several others, including myself, accuses people of being sockpuppets, but also uses foul language, such as the following: Who the fuck is this guy? he comes out of no where and starts supporting these guys they are sock puppets! Nareklm 15:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Please, address the issue, as this user's activity is very disruptive. Thanks. Atabek 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never attacked anyone yet you use sock puppets. Nareklm 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14 February 2007

  • Please take a look at Talk: Columbia Pacific University. The repeated accusations of "libel" by one editor - and recently, mention of legal consequences ("...and libel is a crime.") - have become troublesome. 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The statement I would like to remind you the undisputable fact that publishing a false and defamatory statement damaging a person's reputation is libelous, and libel is a crime. is, in my opinion, approaching a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. I will post a warning on the user's talk page. But generally I find the discussion to be reasonably civil, and I urge the editors of the article to (continue) to focus on finding and adding statements supported by reliable sources to the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a look at Ben Bledsoe. An unregistered user keeps putting what sounds like an advertisment in the article and has started an 'editing war'. I want unregistered users blocked or this guy blocked but I am unable to do that (I am unsure how). Please help. 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've put a note on the user talk page asking that the user provide a source or not add the information. But - really - you've got a lot to learn here:
  • You're relying solely on the edit summaries to have a dialog with the user. That's wrong. Post something to his/her user talk page (again, I've done that), or to the talk page of the article, and say, in the edit summary, "see talk page". A talk page is a good place to have a discussion; it also brings the matter to the attention of people who may not be following edits of the article that closely.
  • You're having a fight about some information that the user wants to add to the article that is unverified. Text such as He is currently planning a European Tour is a little-bit advertising-oriented, I suppose, but it's well within the acceptable range: It's a fact, unverified, but a fact, as opposed to, say, "He is a tremendously promising artist and leading talent", which would be unacceptable as puffery.
  • You're both getting close to WP:3RR violations. I'm not sure at all that you, personally, could convince an admin that you were reverting vandalism here (which would mean you could do unlimited reverts). If I were an admin, in fact, I'd be tempted to block you for removing info rather than the anonymous IP editor for adding it (except that you've not been warned yet.)
  • That one anonymous IP editor has made four edits to the article in the past two days is nowhere near enough of a problem (if a problem at all - see above) to justify protection of the page against all anonymous IP edits. You're welcome to follow the process for getting such protection (just click on the link), but I warn you that not only is a reviewing admin unlikely to act on your behalf, he/she is likely to put a 3RR warning on your user talk page.
  • I strongly recommend that in the future you (a) edit down anything you consider puffery to consist only of potentially verifiable facts, rather than removing it, and then (b) put a {{fact}} tag on what is left, which asks the editor to provide a source, and warns the reader that the statement is unsourced. (Rules on negative information are different - remove it on sight if not adequately sourced; that's not the situation here.)

15 February 2007

  • Please take a look at Talk:Police memorabilia collecting, the original author insists his are the only valid edits, that he is the only expert on the subject and thus the only one qualified to edit the article, and has now started bringing personal attacks from userpages into the article talkpage. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement has tried to talk him into being an editor who works well with others, without success. Please help, thanks. 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like User:SGGH has taken an interest in the article, and has made some constructive suggestions on the talk page that may be acceptable to all. I suggest waiting to see how that turns out; if there are still problems in a week or two that don't seem like they are being resolved, feel free to post here again. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please have a look at IMADEC University and its talk page. An unregistered user – apparently affiliated with the institution – keeps deleting sourced and, IMO, relevant and NPOV parts of the article and has also blanked the talk page at least three times. Does not write edit summaries, does not respond to requests for discussion. The article doesn't get a lot of attention and my experience with WP conflicts is limited, so it would be good to get other users' opinions. Brindt 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user was blocked earlier today for 24 hours, for removing content. Blanking the talk page is vandalism. If he/she does it again after the block expires, just revert and report the blanking at WP:AIV; I can assure you that the next block will be longer.
    • I note the offer of User:Bobzchemist to act as unofficial mediator here. I am skeptical of the usefulness of this offer, given that the unregistered user has only - at least by my cursory look - been interested in deleted information that is properly sourced. I suggest responding with a very brief comment that you'd like to hear what the other user objects to in the article, since he/she has been deleting information, and then you'll respond. I think you're dealing with a vandal here, essentially, so reverting and reporting is really the only thing you need to do. Wikipedia has pretty good (quick) responses to this. If for some reason you can actually get a dialog going (again, I'm skeptical), then presumably mediation would be useful. In general, you'll find guidance at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, but, again, that's based on editors who want to engage over content, and doesn't really apply (yet, at least) in this case. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intervention is needed for User 74.195.3.199, who is back up to his old tricks again: personal attacks on other editors (example: [3], adding gibberish to pages, and refusing to listen to any other Wikipedians who attempt to set him straight on policy. He's been blocked before and comes right back again with the same behavior. There's enough here for a RfC (several editors have commented on his conduct) but seeing as it's an IP number, I don't know if that is even doable. 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you can do an RfC with an anonymous IP editor.
    • The user here seems to have a limited amount of self-control, unfortunately, because he (I'm guessing) seems generally well-intentioned, if often clueless even after reading policy, and it would be nice if he were to concentrate on improving articles.
    • My suggestion is that you use the standard warning grid - see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and specifically the npa series. (You'd put something like this on the talk page: {{subst:uw-npa2}}.) I suggest starting at level 2, incrementing by one each time; after you give a level 4 warning, if the user does this again, post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents requesting admin assistance and mentioning the user was blocked once already for this problem.
    • Don't argue with the user - just post warnings and civilly explain any real questions (rhetorical ones like "WTF are you warning me about?" can be ignored, as can complaints that he didn't mean to offend). Don't be overly sensitive here - just post warnings about profanity and other attacks that occur in edit summaries and talk pages of articles, or on your talk page, not on the user's own talk page.
    • Adding gibberish is just vandalism - see the page for warnings about that. When/if you post a level 4 warning and it occurs again, report it WP:AIV; blocking is pretty automatic. Again, your role is to simply to escalate the warnings if inappropriate behavior occurs, and then to report any violation that occurs after a level 4 warning. It doesn't matter if the user deletes warnings (don't revert; deleting is acknowledgment of reading, and the user's contribution page can be easily checked to see the deletions) or protests; an admin will make the final decision. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. I did leave a Level 2 template on his Talk Page...I'd previously tried to explain to him why people kept blocking him/etc. and he blew it off. Someone else blocked him for incivility tonight. I'll keep an eye on the situation and avoid arguing with him. DanielEng 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17 February 2007

  • Can you look at Talk:White_people? User:LSLM keeps making remarks about what he thinks the political views of editors are, along with insults to Americans...09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked. This involves a long-running disagreement that you (under your current name, and as User:Thulean) and others have had with LSLM and others. LSLM has been warned previously about civility, and has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing (and you've apparently gotten a fair number of complaints yourself about your behavior); I'm not going to waste anyone's time by reminding them of policy.
    • I will say that insults to Americans is not, as far as I known, the type of thing that is covered by Wikipedia policy. If it were, would Wikipedia ban "insults to members of the KKK"? insults to gay and lesbian activists? insults to conservative talk hosts? Would editors be able to say anything negative about anyone? The purpose of talk pages is not, of course, to discuss subjects of articles, it's to improve articles. But commenting on an article is often commenting on the subject: for example, "This article on the XYZ freedom fighters is too positive - it doesn't mention their killings of innocent civilians, or how they financed themselves by drug smuggling." So saying something negative can certainly be about the article as well as the subject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user Bridge & Tunnel has been making bald accusations on user Bi of bad faith, and also trying to include into articles information which is questionable at best. Bridge & Tunnel also seems to be a WP:SPA. See [4]. 06:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


18 February 2007

19 February 2007

(User also reported on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Seven 3RR before warning; three more (so far) after warning. 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC))
User has also (as noted here and here) harassed the subject of the bio article personally by email. Is there a Wikipedia forum/noticeboard which specifically addresses this kind of activity? Athaenara 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have most certainly NOT harrassed said user with e-mails. Ataenara has NO evidence to support such a scurrilous accusation except for the word of said user. I dispute the accusation utterly, and consider it to be libelous.

I have no idea why an editor like Athaenara is being so one-sided in this dispute. It's a disgrace. In addition, Athaenara is aallowing "SethSwirsky" to post personal attacks against me on Athaenara's own talk page, but deleting my responses. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the date of last harrassing email from MoeLarryandJesus was February 9, 2007 12:49:30 AM PST. Should I post a screenshot? 

Furthermore, as proof of his personal bias towards me, read his reasoning for changing the disputed line of text. o you think it reeks of a some pilitcal bias 9and hatred): From MLJ: "In my latest edit I have used the term "former liberal" instead of "conservative." I can see why someone would not want to be described as a conservative these days, since the word has now taken on very unpleasant meanings. In America these days "conservative" is now synonymous with "torture-loving warmongering religious fanatic." I would certainly never want that label attached to me. Hopefully "former liberal" is not as controversial. MoeLarryAndJesus 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)". As I said, I would never gotten involved in this if someone didn;t alert me to it. The line should read: Swirsky, a self-described Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" Jackson tradition, writes articles for...". At the HuffingtonPost.com that is what is stated in bio:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/ (click on bio). There are other places on the internet that attest to that. I am a registered Democrat -- the POV of MLJ ddisagrees with me and it's why, for the last 4 days +, we have to be engaged in this nonsense. You should see how his original vandalizations of my political bent read.  I am convinced that  --through his behavior, his unkindliness and his explanation in his latest edit that it's personal with MLJ -- and would request that he be banned from posting on the page a number of people have obviously have worked hard to honestly contribute to. --  Seth Swirsky
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=109411865"