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:IronDuke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elonka, I appreciate that you are trying to be evenhanded, but IronDuke has not engaged in incivility, and Zencv certainly has. For instance this unfounded accusation of "stalking" [1] is certainly a violation of WP:civil, and from an editor who understands the implications of such an accusation.. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Urbanrenewal

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response from 4wajzkd02:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:EuroHistoryTeacher

I've already posted here once before about EuroHistoryTeacher, and a message was posted on his talk page [2]. But he is continuing to be abusive towards me because I am asking him to provide references, repeatedly accusing me of biased editing on the basis that I am a "hispanophobe", that I "don't have a clue what I am doing" (I wrote most of the British Empire article, by the way)

• [3]
• [4]
• [5] - writing patronising "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
• [6] - writing that I am a "clear hispanophobe"
• [7] - writing on someone's talk page "LOL go see what i did in ferrick's page" after he wasted Wikicommons resources uploading a map called "hahaharedhatofpatferric" and linking to it on my talk page [8] to make a point.

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

Also, I am getting rather frustrated trying to get EHT to understand what providing references means. When I reverted an addition of his to the Spanish Empire page on the basis that a claim about something being "humiliating" required a reference, I got this by way of response [9]: a copy and pasted extract from another Wikipedia article, on my talk page. He then preceeded to readd the material, without any inline reference, and put in the edit comment "I have provided references". I have asked him to read WP:V and WP:RS so many times now, and he clearly does not wish to. I just don't see how editors like this can be reasoned with... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Apologies (I don't have to do this very often). Per your note on my talk page I see you have done it for me. BTW - one more (admittedly before the notice was placed on his talk page) where I am labelled an "extreme hispanophobe" [10] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I should point out that this user has just come off a university undergraduate course specialising in Spanish/LatAm colonial history, so they clearly do have a valid interest in these topics. On the other hand, he does appear to have an issue with perceptions of "hispanophobia" at Wikipedia - see his reason for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin nationalism, where he is not attacking anyone in particular (until he later attacks me at the bottom). (The funny thing about him accusing me of it is that I am half Spanish myself) He also appears to believe that, because he has studied this subject at university, he knows more than anyone else and is excused of having to provide references. And he continues to not follow even simple things like learning how to indent posts on talk pages (see his response to my polite request on that [11] - "I couldn't care less") So for me, the issue of personal attacks is just one manifestation of his inability to follow Wikipedia policies and conventions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

It's still coming... [12] [13] And again - more claims that I am biased, this time on WP:ANI, ironically enough [14] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Keverich1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Pedrito

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

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

How about the case when he removed all the references, confirming that EU and US view Hamas as terrorist, and said that it was POV pushing?? [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keverich1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC) More to the point, when I told Pedrito that adding relevant links doesn't represent a POV pushing, he initially allowed then into the article, but withing a few minutes he deleted the references again. Currently the article about Gaza strip makes no mention that Hamas (ruling party) is veiwed as terrorist organisation by many countries. I'm not sure this is appopriate.Keverich1 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I have notified Pedrito of this alert. [17]. Pedro :  Chat  16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest you look at this [18] edit in greater detail. Saying that other user "has a nasty habit" is not a contribution, it is a personal insult, which doesn't exactly conform to the spirit of collaboration that Wikipedia tries to promote.Keverich1 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Personal attack by user

User:NoseNuggets has initiated a personal attack on me [19] after I have repeatedly warned him to provide references for his edits and not to edit-war over formatting. [20] [21] [22] [23] Diffs provided. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

SlyFrog making persitent personal attacks against Matt Windman

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

ScienceApologist

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#user:ScienceApologist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having spent enough time seeing SA's name both here and in ANI, I knew that trying to deal with it "quietly" was a pipedream. My apologies. ♪BMWΔ 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:EdmOilers023

Not really an incident, but I posted a warning template[24] on his talk page for unnecessary over-linking, after which he took issue and started accusing me of trying to own the encyclopedia.[25][26] I told him that there was a style guideline for overlinking,[27][28] but he took issue once again, and resumed his accusations of how I'm trying to own Wikipedia. I then told him that the reason I see unproductive edits quickly is because of a watchlist, [29] but he couldn't care less and continued on his tirade about how I'm trying to own articles.[30] If someone could point him in the right direction, it'd be great, cause I'm tired of his antics. Pandacomics (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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