Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:18, 18 February 2009

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.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Shortcut

WP:WQA

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

Incivility by Fnagaton and Greg_L

Stuck

– When blocks are desired, it needs to go to ANI and is clearly not resolved.

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

I came here a few days ago after being accused of lying by User:Headbomb (and the claim was repeated here also by User:Fnagaton). I was asked by gerardw to take the discussion back to the talk page, where I have now been accused of harassment by Fnagaton [1] and invited to sell leprosy by User:Greg_L [2]. What should I do now? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is actionable, although I agree that they are being impolite. Probably they are frustrated and offended by the squelching noises coming from your horse. Dropping the stick might bring this to an end. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out Scheffield, the Thunderbird will unleash WP:WQA/SheffieldSteel on you for your "personal attack"!Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird, I suggest you simply walk away from the whole dispute and begin working on improving other areas of Wikipedia. Walking away is the best option as trying to continue the debate is only going to increase tempers on both sides, and you apparently have no chance of gaining consensus for your position. That said, I have no opinion about the actual proposal, and this is not the place to discuss it anyway. The fact remains that the only thing you can do now is to disengage. If you continue trying to argue about it I don't see any other possible outcome than you eventually being blocked for disruption, as your continued arguments are not changing anyone's mind. Don't take this as an attack on you or your position, this is simply how I see this playing out if you don't simply walk away from the debate. Is it really that important after all? The Seeker 4 Talk 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-bird is using Wikilawyering and misrepresentation to portray himself as a grieving victim of incivility. He, as well as anyone else, knows I was not seriously suggesting that he go into the business of selling a contagious bacterium to rogue nations. I was employing a facetious metaphor to tell him that no one is interested in his proposals, which, by the way, amount to nothing more or less than WP:tendentious and endless haranguing on an issue that was settled long ago. Now…
T-bird: You are without a doubt a WP:Single-purpose account (your contributions and your user page) dedicated to a lost cause and are purely WP:disruptive to Wikipedia. If you persist at this, I can certainly abandon employing glib, dismissive humor in my dealings with you, and will be more than pleased to deal with your disruption in the manner befitting here. Greg L (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird2 is again using misrepresentation against other editors and forum shopping, both actions are in violation of the RfC/U findings about Thunderbird2's behaviour. To Thunderbird2, when are you going to remove the uncivil harassment and misrepresentation content on your talk pages which is documented in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2? To others, how long are constructive editors like Greg, Headbomb and myself going to have to be subjected to the continued misrepresentation, harassment and disruptive forum shopping behaviour of Thunderbird2? Fnag aton 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird2, listen to User:Theseeker4 because "you apparently have no chance of gaining consensus for your position" and you should "walk away" because "if you continue trying to argue about it I [The Seeker4] don't see any other possible outcome than you [Thunderbird2] eventually being blocked for disruption.". Please, Thunderbird2, listen to other editors when they tell you to stop. Fnag aton 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of alleged provocation, these posts [3][4] by Greg_L contain abusive taunts. They cite diseases in an attempt to make "facetious metaphor" Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They cite diseases in an attempt to make "facetious metaphor". Oh dear! And if Wikipedia talk pages were frequented by 2nd-graders, mentioning leprosy might not be appropriate. Too many editors try to hide behind the apron strings of “civility” and come whining to WQA or start an RfC as an insincere battle tactic when they are loosing and their ideas or behavior have been criticized or mocked. The result? Some editors here trip all over themselves in an effort to write posts that are inoffensive when admins are doing “Monday morning quarterbacking.” Your criticism, Cuddlyable3, is absurd and insincere.
I’m thinking that you are still smarting over my adding this animation to the Mandelbrot set article ~~and you deleted it. Splendid *contribution* there;~~ I spent hours with three separate programs to make it and keep it ultra-compact for fast load times ~~,and your *contribution* is to hit the “undo” link.~~ So, we editwarred over that, and you came here to WQA to whine about a post of mine, and got soundly rejected and the blame placed on you for creating the conflict in the first place. That seems to be what you do: create editing conflict with others while simultaneously hiding behind a veneer of wikiword civility. Looking at your contributions, you seem to make frequent use of WQA’s as an editwarring tactic as you were here only eight days ago. Perhaps you’ve honed this tactic and find it a useful. However, it reminds me of insurgents in Iraq who hide behind women and children in the streets while shooting at Coalition forces (oops, I did it again: I used a “war” metaphor).
Finally, all this was back in November; get over it. I note your block log, where one admin wrote Continued Disruptive editing despite warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators. So, just pardon me all over the place for not endeavoring to be more like you in my editing behavior and interactions with others; it doesn’t impress. Greg L (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Re. strikeout on 14 February 2009, see below[reply]

Greg L, your sarcasm and unique metaphors/similes towards others are truly provocative. Agreeably, they are rhetorical and not meant to be taken at all literally. However, how you say things is causing the problems here. Are you admitting above that you may have "criticized or mocked" someones "ideas or behavior"?? If yes, welcome to the land of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Sarcasm too has been outlawed on Wikipedia? Bwilkins, it honestly seems to me that you have confused en.Wikipdia with Red China. Our talk pages are marketplaces for the exchange of ideas. Wikipedians pitch ideas on talk pages and debate them and see if there are any takers in an effort to arrive at a community consensus on editorial content and MOS and MOSNUM guidelines. I demand that you point out where it is against Wikipedia policy on civility to “criticize” bad ideas or other editors’ bad behavior. Patently absurd. And you hope to be an administrator one day?? I suggest you go and actually read policies you linked to above. But…
On second though, you just might be right about this. Perhaps Wikipedia is a venue where even really, really bad behavior should not be criticized because everything is relative—even *truth*. So, although I don’t exactly completely wholeheartedly agree with your belief system wherein it is improper to criticize others’ tendentious and disruptive behavior here on Wikipedia (doing so might make them feel poopy about themselves), I give you an A+ for effort! Thanks. I’ll try to do much better next time.
And, to (finally) answer your question directly, yes; I freely admit that I have criticized Thunderbird’s behavior here. (*sound of audience gasp*) Greg L (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is against community standards when used to attack others. Wikipedia is not a public US forum with free speech rights (it is privately owned by Wikipedia Foundation). It is possible to discuss content and other editors behavior while remaining civil. Gerardw (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is against community standards when used to attack others. I absolutely agree with that statement. No one should be subject to “personal attacks”. And what does that policy actually say since there seem to be a few editors here who are oh-so anxious to link to stuff in an “if I made it blue, it must be true” fashion?? The following paints a clear picture of the nature of conduct that is considered to be a “personal attack” on Wikipedia:

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:
• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

So with regard to my post being “used to attack others”, there is no evidence that I did this because non exists. Any reasonable interpretation of what I wrote that passes anyone’s *grin test* here reveals that I was not “attacking” Thunderbird with the equivalent of “you are a one-eyed, baby-killing palestinian homosexual” or some such nonsense; everyone deserves the right to participate here on Wikipedia and not be subjected to such treatment. I didn’t even suggest T‑bird has bad breath. My message clearly was (and is) quite simple: “no one is in the least interested in your proposal.” That much is plainly obvious and I utterly reject disingenuous or misinformed attempts to paint it as anything other than that. Notwithstanding T‑bird’s protestations, he didn’t really think for a nanosecond that I was seriously suggesting that he go into the business of selling a contagious bacterium to rogue nations (which would be a career suggestion, not a personal attack, if interpreted literally).

If someone here wants to make it against Wikipedia policy to employ facetious and glib metaphors to tell another editor that no one likes his or her idea, first go revise WP:No personal attacks. I conform my behavior to the community consensus on what constitutes a personal attack; not your interpretation of it. Now…

T-bird’s professing being “attacked” is pure wikilawyering to circumvent the inconvenient truth that he is being tendentious and disruptive and wants to persist at it. Anyone who has had the misfortune of having had to deal with T-bird understands this. User:Theseeker4 hasn’t had to deal with T-bird and still managed to write an extremely insightful post that hit the nail right on the head.

Now, no one is really that thin-skinned here; they just pretend to be in order to create wikidrama or to impress others with how they can write absurdly politically correct ramblings in hopes that it somehow qualifies them to be an admin. It doesn’t. Either that, or they are spouting off here without fully understanding the basic facts. Either way, I’m quite done here. Goodbye.

P.S. I don’t care if you drink beer, Gerardw; I doubt anyone does, but I will defend your right to proudly proclaim that fact on the privately owned Wikipedia Foundation. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is with Greg's comments. They are clearly meant to draw attention towards Thunderbird2's weak unsubstantiated point of view and not personally directed at Thunderbird2 himself, therefore they cannot be a personal attack. It would be a sad day for Wikipedia when it is against policy to use a sarcastic metaphor when drawing attention to a fallacious statement. Wikipedia is not there yet and I hope it never will be. It is disengenuous when someone screams "personal attack" each time their weak unsubstantiated point of view is highlighted by sacrasm. It is also against guidelines for that person to beat the same dead horse and continuously forum shop their weak unsubstantiated point of view all over the place. For example when someone uses a forum like WQA citing "incivility" when actually there isn't any invility and wastes everyones valuable time and effort. Fnag aton 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more of Fnagaton's unfounded accusations of lying: [5] [6]. It seems he is unable or unwilling to follow WP:AGF. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above post is another example of the user misrepresenting the situation because the diffs cited do not support the claims made by the user. In actual fact the diffs cited above are further evidence to demonstrate how the user is continuing to forum shop the same issue in multiple forums and continuing to misrepresent the situation, this bad behaviour is documented in the RfC/U Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2. WP:AGF does not mean an editor has to assume good faith when there is obvious and repeated overwhelming evidence of bad faith actions, this situation applies to Thunderbird2's repeated violations of guidelines and policies which are also documented in the RfC/U. The only remaining question is when is Thunderbird2 going to comply with the findings of the RfC/U? Fnag aton 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my question is when can this be closed and archived?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely for a long time. Sarcasm used to undermine someone's input (and even to discourage it) is uncivil. All the rhetoric in trying to defend such actions are really allowing them to dig a big deep hole . I keep waiting for one big action that might help them fill it in and actually join the Wikipedia Community. Until then, I see a light at the bottom of that hole ... is that ... China? Nobody is blameless here, so a couple of people need to start accepting their role, and changing their ways (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing their ways would be Thunderbird2 agreeing to comply with the findings of the RfC/U and modifying his beahviour and removing the harassment content. Then people can move forward.Fnag aton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins I generally approve of your role on this noticeboard. To date you have not struck me as someone who accepts naively any claim of incivility. Please consider whether the complainant is not frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive by claiming to be personally injured by what is, in reality, nothing more than gruff straight talk.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GMW ... I appreciate the comment. I agree the complainant is pushing the envelope, however, as acknowledged, one of the "offenders" has, indeed, acted sarcastically towards them in order to dissuade additional input or put them down. Admission, and contrition are two separate things. I sincerely believe that once the sarcasm stops, everyone can move on...that's all I'm looking for from my POV. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acted sarcasticly towards the point of view, not the person.There is a world of difference. I think you need to read the RfC/U against Thunderbird2 with all the evidence and then you might see that Greg's comment about the single purpose position Thunderbird2 keeps on beating (for months and months, constantly) is actually really quite reserved. Fnag aton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to draw up a list of "speech acts" you don't want to see on Wikipedia, with 1 being negligible and 10 being the worst, where would you put death threats?¹ Where do you put racial slurs? Where do you put garden-variety insults ("moron", "asshole")? What level is the cut-off for when a user incurs sanctions? What's at level 1, and what's at level 10? Where does sarcasm rate on the scale? And where is sarcasm specifically prohibited by WP policies?

¹ user:EVula does get some creative ones, though, so even death threats can have redeeming features.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird2 is "frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive by claiming to be personally injured by what is, in reality, nothing more than gruff straight talk." - I completely agree with that quote. So what can be done about Thunderbird2? Fnag aton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once you accept responsibility for your role, and then cut it out, then I expect Thunderbird will stop being "vexatious". If he doesn't, then I expect to see an RFC/U that involves both of you together. It's the easy and adult way, isn't it. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"your role"? I accept all I did was: 1) Provide a stronger argument than Thunderbird2. 2) Refuse to accept Thunderbird2's lack of answers to direct questions. 3) Refuse to accept Thunderbird2's violation of guidelines and policies followed by Thunderbird2's harassment and misrepresentation when it involves other editors and myself. 4) Provided part of the evidence in the RfC/U which several other editors, involved and uninvolved, certified. Basically, I'm not going to say I'm sorry for being part of the group that helped change the guideline text for the better by developing consensus with other editors while Thunderbird2 repeatedly became disruptive to the process of consensus building. Are you trying to insinuate I'm somehow not being adult with your last remark? The fact is there is an RfC/U standing against Thunderbird2 and he needs to accept his role and modify his behaviour first of all. Fnag aton 13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, Thunderbird has had an RFC/U to do with handling of arguments and consensus. Your role was to include admitted sarcastic comments to demean and dissuade further editing by Thunderbird. You fail to see that those comments were an issue, and attempt to both laugh them off, and you also attempt to justify them. If you fail to see that this is the what appears to be the final issue in the resolution of this WQA, then I'm not sure how much clearer this can be made. The two are separate - whether you believe someone to be an SPA or a "pain in the ass", does not give you the permission to act untowards in their direction. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my role at all and I don't think your summary is even slightly accurate because you are trying to call into question my motives by incorrectly asserting what you think I meant. Since you do not know my mind then you are incorrect to keep on trying to claim you know my mind better, especially when I have already stated the accurate interpretation. i.e. Any comments posted are there to draw attention to a fallacious point of view, not to demean or attack anyone personally. Also your summary misrepresents the situation because nowhere did I "admit" that any comments were "demean and dissuade", if you have any link supporting that claim then please post it, otherwise retract your unsupported assertion. Indeed I see Greg's comments as meaning to try to get Thunderbird2 to stop beating the same dead horse and to stop Thunderbird2 from violating guidelines and policies. I do agree with Goodmorningworld that the comments are gruff straight talk. I note you have not answered the question put directly to you about your "adult" related comment. Why is that? Please answer the question made above. However, applying your own (incorrect) strict interpretation regarding sarcasm back onto your own words (to demonstrate how fallacious your point is): I take your lack of answer to mean that your comment is intended to insinuate something against me personally by making a sarcastic comment intended to demean me and inhibit further editing. This means, of course following your own strict interpretation, you don't appear to follow the same "high standards" you expect for others. Now then, I see two future actions for you. 1) You answer the question and correct what you really meant such that you state that what you meant to write was not in any way a personally targetted comment, with a retraction of the original comment. I would then accept that correction, of course since to continue to call into question someone's motives in that situation is counter-productive and churlish. The conclusion from that is therefore that questioning the motives of someone after you've been corrected with respect to those motives is wrong. Which of course means you retract your incorrect assumptions about what you think "my role" is above where you call into question my motives. 2) You then drop this meta-debate here about sarcasm (it isn't the correct forum) and move it to the relevant policy talk page instead. Then if you really want to apply very strict no-sarcasm to the relevant policies then you'll have to persuade others that your argument has merit, which currently your argument does not. Fnag aton 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought your "adult" question was rhetorical due to the obvious nature of the meaning. The comment as intended was "as we are all adults" - an inclusive word meant to show collegiality and brotherhoodliness. No attacks, no incivility, merely stating what I thought to be obvious. You may be a 15 year old girl, I don't know; however in that case I was wrong to assume, but it would not make any of us less equal than others on Wikipedia. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology and take it to mean that you have now retracted your unsupported claims made above. Fnag aton 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I invite anyone with the time and patience to read this discussion and this one and ask themselves whether either can form the basis of a legitimate consensus. While you are reading, please also consider whether there is any evidence there (or anywhere else) for the alleged provocation of which I am accused. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird2 this is not the place to forum shop the same issue that you have been forum shopping for the past months. In the RfC/U there is the evidence and it was concluded that you have forum shopped the same issue and that the link you have posted has already been refuted by much stronger arguments presented in the full archive (note not the cherry picked diffs you made above) of the discussions Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive/Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008). You have already been told by multiple editors to stop forum shopping otherwise it will lead to your block. As can be seen in the full archive link I've just posted and in the RfC/U you need to correct your bad behaviour with respect to the harassment, misrepresentation and forum shopping. When are you going to comply with the RfC/U? Fnag aton 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this one. It's obvious by Fnagaton's "holier than thou" attitude that they will never admit to having been part of this issue. Thunderbird's recent addition to the WQA did nothing but harm his "case". Based on your actions, the two of you are not meant for a community. There's not much more I can do than to recommend RFC/U's against the both of you for your actions, as at this point they're not blockable. Good luck to you both. If someone else wants to take up the mantle with this one, please go ahead, but to me, neither of these two actually want to become good community editors of Wikipedia. I'm out. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have again made an unsubstantiated personal attack by trying to question my motives. The comment about "holier than thou" is nothing but a personally directed attack intended to demean me and therefore tries to inhibit me making further edits. However I don't run away from people who try to misrepresent me, instead I challenge their statements and in so doing expose the weak unsubstantiated points of view to the bright light of day. The "they will never admit to having been part of this issue" misrepresents the issue because obviously I have acknowledged my part to the extent that is detailed in my "13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)" comment above, obviously there is nothing for me to "admit" as you put it. It is now up to Thunderbird2 to now ackowledge the RfC/U and to comply with it. This is against the backdrop where in another comment [7] you wrote "Maybe I'm off base expecting people to treat others fairly", well I don't see much evidence of you treating me fairly with your attempts to misrepresent me and personally attack me. I on the other hand have treated Thunderbird2 fairly because I followed the guidelines and created the RfC/U giving everyone an equal oppertunity to comment. The conclusion of the RfC/U certified by several involved and uninvolved editors is that Thunderbird2 needs to correct his behaviour. I think you need to acknowledge your part in this and accept that your point of view about sarcasm (when it is used to expose a weak unsubstantiated point of view) is not supported by the current policies and guidelines. The fact that I agree with earlier comments made by Goodmorningworld (the one I quoted) and disagree with your point of view (regarding sarcasm) does not deserve an RfC/U and does not deserve the personal attacks from you directed to me. I think you've made some comments while angry and when you cool off you can consider retracting them. Fnag aton 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins is correct, the seemingly never ending saga is not adult. WP:CIVIL says no taunting, and Wikipedia says Sarcasm is intended to taunt. So there. But Wiki-Lawyering is not the point. And an inconclusive RFC/U isn't a magic talisman to excuse one's own substandard behavior. You're not getting any support from third party editors, so WQA is probably not going to be helpful to you. Gerardw (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins is not correct because using a personal attack is not a valid argument. Therefore your claim is also incorrect, firstly about the use of "sarcasm" for the above mentioned reasons and also because you are incorrect about "not getting any support from third party editors" since there are the comments: From Theseeker4 (about Thunderbird2 beating a dead horse), Goodmorningworld's comment about Thundebird2 being "frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive" and the comments actually being "nothing more than gruff straight talk", then of course there are the uninvolved editors who certified the RfC/U. Thus the RfC/U is not inconclusive and there is plenty of support here and in the RfC/U. Not to mention the current sub talk page where once again the consensus is demonstrated that Thunderbird2 should drop the stick. Fnag aton 03:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned User:Greg L about civility and left a warning for User:Thunderbird2 about tendentious editing and forum shopping. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me I didn't get through to him. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

A bit frustratin' ain't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Suggestions.3F_.28if_you_have_a_few_moments.29. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that Gwen was trying to be helpful. Now to her point: I’ve struck my original post here (scroll up), which T-bird found uncivil and offensive, and replaced it with something that properly speaks to his disruption. Greg L (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous claim

Greg_L has chosen to make claims above about me though I am uninvolved in his dispute. I commend editors here who see that as irrelevant. Greg_L's claim that I deleted his animation is untrue. (In fact I edited[8] 4 words of text he wrote. That edit has not been contested, not even by Greg_L.) A libellous falsehood goes beyond incivility and is not tolerable. Greg_L is aware that WP:Civility states “[incivility includes] Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.” I take the direct action of STRIKING (though not deleting) Greg_L's falsehood above. I do this on my own responsibility and refer to the record[[9]].

I see no reason to respond to Greg_L's inspection of a block log from 2007.

Cuddlyable3, Yes, without even inspecting the record, I recall that you are correct ~~; all you did was strenuously object to the animation;~~ you did not delete it. Please accept my sincere apologies. Seriously.
Where we got crosswise was your being uncivil to me here on Talk:Mandelbrot set and me getting a little cross with you for it. That precipitated what I would call, a wikilawyering action on your part where you came to this very venue to file a WQA about my behavior. That resulted in this correction, where Bwilkins (“BMW”) wrote as follows:

Wow, you egg him on, then seem surprised that he [Greg L] got a little upset? He hasn't even been uncivil towards anyone in particular ... there's no violation of WP:NPA that I can see - in fact, your previous post to the diff you provided was rather provocative, and more along the lines of WP:NPA. He responded in a snarky manner to your snarkiness. Perhaps you need to take a few steps back and see cause/effect.

I was perfectly willing to forget all that. Actually, I had forgotten it. None of this would have even come up if you hadn’t weighed in here again to get in some sour-grapes digs against me. In rebuttal, I pointed out your cheap-stunt WQA wikylaywering stunt against me here in November and incorrectly recalled a detail of your behavior. I’m very sorry about that. But I really wish you would WP:Assume good faith and not presume that I intentionally lied when recalling events that happened in November. I don’t make it a habit of lying in real life. And I certainly don’t make it a habit to lie about another editor doing something they didn’t on Wikipedia, where there is a clear record to prove exactly what did and did not happen; that would be more than stupid of me.

Again, for the record, I will be first in line to proclaim that you did not delete the animation. I can not but notice that the last block on your block log has this comment by the admin: “Attempting to harass other users: Fresh off his block but no change in behavior”. Regrettably, I’m beginning to see a pattern with you. You seem to carry grudges. Note BMW’s post comment with regard to your filing a WQA. And here you are again proclaiming an endless list of grievances against me over how you have suffered at my hand. And it all started because I spent hours making a nice, compact animation to add to Mandelbrot set ~~and you objected to that contribution~~ [10]. Quite interesting. I really wish you would leave me alone now. Please??

I note that you have now twice struck the text in the above paragraph.[11] [12] Please note that this does tend to highlight a rather tendentious aspect of you. I’ve long held to the view that the proper response to bad speech is ‘better’ speech. Towards this end, you posted below that you did not object to my contribution of the animation. Very good. But then you felt at liberty to strike text in my post. Twice. Rather than engage in such childish antics as reverting you again (which would be no-doubt futile), I will allow what you did. Please, now, for God’s sake, leave me alone. Greg L (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Imagine my surprise, when I see this ‘let’s let bygones be bygones & work together in peace’-post from you on my talk page, where you wrote (in total)

Please satisfy yourself by inspecting the record that I have never deleted any animation you have submitted. If that is understood, I wish no barrier to our civil collaboration in future.

…and then I come here and see this. You will rarely see a two-sided Greg L. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This latest dispute

Greg L continues to post at voluble length his taunts, gratuitous references to diseases, his pet phrases such as "excuse me all over the place", continual assumption that his opinions represent "we" not "I" and presumption that Wikipedia is the place for his efforts at "dismissive humor" and "facetious metaphor".[13]. Examples of Greg_L's abusive comments include: "it would also make it look like you were more of a grownup if you didn’t come here to whine about how other editors failed to leave an after-dinner mint on your pillow.." later exacerbated[14]with an ilustration as "it would also make it look like you were more of a grownup if you didn’t come here to whine." and "..reminds me of insurgents in Iraq who hide behind women and children in the streets while shooting..". This behaviour follows the WQA[15] (which follows a previous WQA [16]) that I raised about Greg_L's incivility, which one hoped had put an end to Greg_L's ad hominem name calling such as balled[sic] faced, Mayor of the M-set and censor. I do not see that warnings to Greg_L have achieved the necessary improvement in his behaviour. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal and comment in regards to Cuddlyable3's post at Feb 14, 12:24 UTC

I wouldn't be against a 24 hour block for an adamant refusal to see that he did anything wrong. If he isn't willing to abide by our policies, then that's fine, he can go edit somewhere else where his behavior won't poison the editing atmosphere, somewhere other than wikipedia. It's obvious from the continued comments from admins and other users that his 'metaphors' are uncivil. He has been told this multiple times, but he has shown that he either doesn't care, or he is too self-righteous to see the truth. Under wikipedia policy, his 'metaphors', constitute as uncivil comments, and from the above post, it is obvious he isn't going to stop any time soon. In order to prevent further such comments from happening, I would say, at least, a 24 hour block is order. Maybe that will help him see that this behavior is unacceptable.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind blocks are meant to be preventative and never punitive, it seems to me Greg L has now acknowledged and apologized in good faith for a string of misunderstandings. I guess many editors would likely agree these misunderstandings were stirred up by his lack of civility (which I thought all along Greg L didn't see as a lack): Now that he knows there have been civility worries and he has had to deal with the kerfluffles and wasted time which have stemmed from them, let's see what he takes from this, hopefully tamping down a bit on how he says what he has to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept Greg_L's apology. His continuing comments to me seem to be a distraction from this specific WQA that I as an uninvolved part shall not comment on beyond this stipulation:

I have neither deleted nor objected to Greg_L's Mandelbrot animation. On the contrary [17], [18] and myself have expressed[19] our consensus that it is nice compact animation, a valuable addition to the article, Let's keep it (my words bolded); Greg_L was also reassured that Nobody has "objected to the very existence of the animation". Enough said. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block: Fnagaton

Oppose Fnagaton reacted during a dispute with Thunderbird2 in a way that was unhelpful but not egregious. That is not actionable. He has taken WP policies, and I believe this WQA, to heart.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block: Greg_L

One is reluctant to apply sanction to one of our hardest working contributors. It is fine when Greg_L apologises when confronted with a mistaken allegation. It is not fine that he made such an allegation without bothering to check the record that he inconveniently forgot. It is not fine to raise a content dispute, whether or not it exists as he believed, as an irrelevant distraction here. This WQA and previous WQAs all concern Greg_L's behaviour. Greg_L's stance in the references is unremittingly combative. The project in which all of us are active is to create a new encyclopedia, not to exercise smear tactics by means of vituperative sarcasm. It is not okay to denigrate other editors as whining babies or disease spreaders. It was not okay to link me to terrorist shooting. The list of Greg_L's vitriolic metaphors could go on but the community cannot let that happen. It must stop now. The principle WP:POINT is serious and relevant here. It does not assess whether a POV is correct or not. It puts focus on when disruption is caused that threatens the collaborative environment that we need to protect. That disruption can be measured by the burden of one editor provoking a string (3) of WQAs that must stop here. Editor's views have been expressed at length. A block has been envisaged. I agree with Gwen Gale who is mindful of the reason blocks are imposed. A 24 hour block is lenient and is no significant punishment. It serves as a signal that Greg_L's behaviour has transgressed our collective standards and that there is consensus that it must stop, if necessary by escalating blocks later.

Support 24-hour signal block Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This WQA is now closed; if you desire blocks or other binding disciplinary measures, then please try an administrator noticeboard - none will be issued here as clearly stipulated near the top of this WQA page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Amandajm

Amanda and I have been making progress on the layout of images on the Leonardo da Vinci article and posting on each other's talk pages, unfortunately this suddenly escalated when Amanda came to my talk page and posted: "PLEEEASE stop stuffing around...You have never worked as a layout artist, that is patently obvious!....I'm really busy and I get sick of having to revert layout edits that are a) not good solutions b) look bad c) diminish important pictures d)cause gaps in text when viewed on a wide screen." Amanda did also say that "I know you are meaning to be helpful. But too strenuous application of a set of rules can make things worse not better. You have editorial skills in other areas! Please use them!" I responded here [20] Although well-intentioned, the editor has preferences regarding having large images in articles, regardless of accessibility. I have brought this here because, in spite of the warm words at the end of her post, the earlier attacks were sufficiently unjustified. Tom B (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda is a straight-talking Australian, don't take offence: keep talking. The essence of this is image size, and that's just a matter of preferences, not worth fighting over. The guideline is only that, though it is a criterion at FAC, when it becomes enforceable. My suggestion is: put image sizes aside for the time being, because winning such a small argument is no big deal in itself; you both have a lot to offer on a subject you share an interest in, so continue to work cooperatively on other aspects of the article, and the issue will probably resolve itself in time. In my experience, images sizes are often changed from thumbs to pixels to thumbs and back again by a series of editors and are impossible to nail down permanently. qp10qp (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cheers qp, on image sizes there are some constraints outlined by wp:mos regardless of individual preferences and screen sizes...as you say, it is an FAC criterion. i'm sure A has a lot more to offer on the subject of the article in question, for me it's not about winning arguments but collaboration to develop a better encyclopedia. the most straight forward way i've found to stabilise image sizes is to remove all pixels and then to adequately justify any forcing. Tom B (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vouch that although Amanda pulls no puches (nor should she), she is both well-intentioned (as you say) and usually right. Tom B, reading, I see no reason that you had to bring this to this. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Opinoso

In White Brazilian Talk Page: [21] [22] Is it possible for someone to talk to this user about this behaviour? Donadio (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you object to? Toddst1 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those "here we go again's". At this point, we need to dig through the last Wikiquette discussion, and possibly revisit some of those items. Toddst1, lemme grab the links and I'll be right back here... Edit Centric (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Evidently, there's still issues happening since the last interaction for edit warring. The applicable discussions already engaged in;

At this point, the edit war and edit incompatibility between these two editors might be best taken to RFC. Edit Centric (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated links to show history. Before an RFC process, perhaps these editors would consider formal mediation? Edit Centric (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to him removing Fact Tags where the links are broken, and then, when called on it, making completely unrelated comments, including misconstruing my positions, that constitute ad hominems.

I am open to formal mediation. Donadio (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, his aggressions and attempts to put words in my mouth seem to have escalated:

[23]

[24]

[25] Donadio (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's getting bolder, perhaps because he's thinking that no further discussion here is an endorsement of his behaviour:

[26]

Accuses me of vandalism, for an edit clearly intended to improve the article. Refuses to explain what he finds wrong with the edit, but unendling repeat that I have "suppressed information" and "added wrong information", both of which are false. Plus, seems to think it is a good idea to repeat that I "use phone books as source", which is blatantly false.

[27]

Calls my attempts to civilly discuss the issues at the Talk Page "obsessive". Is clearly "gaming the system", "wikilawyering", to keep information he knows that is false - his idea that White Brazilians previous to the Great Immigration were not of Portuguese descent. Has an idea that there exists an objective, "correct" concept of White races, which is contrary to the mainstream consensus that races are social constructs, and bases his edits on such idea.

Please, take a look at that, and talk to him about this. This editor has already been blocked twice for incivility; he has managed to make a lot of Brazilian editors quit either posting on Brazilian population articles, or Wikipedia at large. Donadio (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In the interest of resolving and closing this here, I'm suggesting that you take this one to Third Party Opinion, and put in a request there for assistance. We've done all we can do here, this needs to be elevated there before it can go any further up. If WP:3O does not resolve this, then formal mediation might be possible. Donadio, go ahead and navigate to WP:3O and put in a request at your earliest leisure. Edit Centric (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Requests for a WP:3O have been turned down twice now, [28] [29] mainly due to the failure of past attempts to offer a third opinion (and I can't say I disagree). An RFC has been ongoing for some time about one particular part of this issue, but has also failed to achieve anything thus far. Anaxial (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be interesting to settle the content dispute. But here I am complaining about his incivility. I particularly resent his repeated assertion that I use phone books as a source, even where this does not have anything with the discussion, such as in "Genetic Researchs" in the Talk Page. Donadio (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donadio, to be terribly honest and pointed on this one, what I'm seeing here is a content dispute. He's being bold in his assertions, and you might be taking offense to something that he doesn't seem to think is offensive. (Saying that you're using the phone book as source material.) What I would suggest is doing the 3O thing, and going from there. One thing I DID notice; Opinoso, children get Y chromosomes from their dads, but mtDNA is passed down through the maternal side. But anyway...

I will however, place a reminder about civility on both user talks, noting that we've visited these issues before...Edit Centric (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Centric, there evidently is a content dispute. I have taken that issue to WP:3O. But the content dispute is the environment in which civility issues rise. For instance, the edit I made in "Genetic Research": perhaps it is wrong, and should be replaced by a different text. But it clearly is not "vandalism", nor it removed any information that was previously there. However, Opinoso cannot simply revert it; he has to claim that I am removing information, which constitutes vandalism[30][31]. Then, when I take the discussion to the Talk Page, he repeats the accusation that I removed information, and accuses me of vandalism:

You can't be serious [17]. Not only removed informations, but also substituted the original text for a confusing, nonsense explanation for Y Chromossome and mtDNA. Do not remove sourced informations: vandalism.

Again asked to explain himself, here he comes again:

You included unsourced informations and even worse: wrong informations. Also, you erased informations. Lots of vandalism in a single post.

But at least this time he comes with an attempt to explain his disagreement with my edit, in which he essentially rephrases my edit, but insists that a complete line of ancestors is the same thing as a "single ancestor". And then adds,

What's this? Nonsense, unsourced and wrong information. It's even hilarious. Please, if you are not able to understand these differences, do not post in this article.

And, though it does not have anything to do with the edit in question, he brings it:

Moreover, do not use Phone Books as source, please.

The "phone books as source" is completely false. I never used phone books as a source. I merely referred to them in the Talk Page, in a rhetorical question.

In the context of discussing the "ethnicity" of White Brazilians, this could perhaps be construed as an excessively harsh way of making a point. In the context of a different discussion, however, it is an ad hominem. It means, "you don't have the right to an opinion on the genetics of chromosome Y, because you have expressed an opinion that I deem ridiculous on the subject of Brazilian surnames".

The overall behaviour seems to be this:

1. If anyone edits the article in disagreement with his ideas, revert the edits. Repeat until 3RR becomes an issue.

2. If anyone makes more than one edit, and he disagrees with only one of them, revert all of them in a single move.

3. Try to avoid discussion on the Talk Page. Instead, take the discussion on the content to WQA, ANI, etc. Use the Talk Page preferably to discuss etiquette and procedural issues.

4. If impossible to avoid content discussion at the Talk Page, manage to make it a hellish experience to the other editor(s). Hopefully, they will get tired of trying to improve the article, and quit messing with his feudal domain on Brazilian demography/ethnography.

All of this may involve content issues, but it seems to me to also involve civility issues.

Thank you for your patience. I hope I'm not abusing it, or breaking any rules in posting this here. Donadio (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, he's back to stonewalling:

I will stop "discussing" with him, so that all this can stop and leave you administrators take care of him. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009

Donadio (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point at the top: most of us in here are not Admins. We cannot issue blocks or bans. We're here to provide fresh, uninvolved sets of eyes on disputes and provide advice. We have provided as much assistance as we can, I think. If this is indeed an incident, you will need to pursue the next step in dispute resolution. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... but when I got to WP:DR, it says that this is the place to deal with uncivil posters.

On the content dispute, I'm trying to discuss it in the article's Talk Page. With the results I have posted above:

I will stop "discussing" with him, so that all this can stop and leave you administrators take care of him. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009

It seems a nice situation. I can't edit the page without discussing. I can't discuss, since the other editor doesn't want to. I can't complain about such behaviour here, because it is a content issue. And nobody is able to take a position on the content dispute, because the sources are in Portuguese. Donadio (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements about the allowability of sources belong at the reliable sorces noticeboard. Dispute resolution does tell you that if WQA cannot help (which, as you're asking for admin action, is the case) you may want to try WP:ANI. You might just want to ask for a third opinion on the sources/article itself. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wuhwuzdat

Resolved

– Blocked

by user:NawlinWiki indef

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wuhwuzdat is placing TfD tags anywhere except that purposed policy weither it be a good or bad edit and action must be taken.I will not stand for such immature behavior. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user above, and his suspected sockpuppets, have exhibited a pattern of vandalism. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User appears to be an SPA sock. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility by User Wikilibs

Hello,

User:Wiki libs keeps on deleting sourced material without trying to discuss with me or find compromises. Also he uses offensive comments and tries to belittle me because of my language skills. English is not my mother tongue, so I may make mistakes. But still I think my english is comprehensible. Besides, if my english is wrong anyone is free to fix it. I don't see why this sourced passage should be deleted just for that.

But for some reasons this user keeps on belittling me because of my language. I tried to discuss and find a compromise, arguing that anyone can fix my english if it's so wrong. But he just seems to ignore and keeps on deleting and making condescending comments to bellitle the relevance of my edits:

[32] [33]

I don't want to engage myself into a dispute or an edit war, so please, can anyone help or tell me what to do? Frankely speaking I consider the disputed passage is relevant for the article plus it is sourced with reliable scolar and referential published sources, so I don't see why it should deleted without any serious explanation.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, remember to notify a user you file complaint against on their talk page. I have already left them a note that this complaint exists. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry Fred D.Hunter (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his original edit summary, the editor never claimed to write the poorly written content... he stated that he was replacing it after it had already been removed. So the comment about the poor quality of the text... or the fact that it was off topic and useless within the article in question.... was not directed at him. It was a general comment directed at the non-quality/off-topic aspect of the text... text which was likely added by several inexperienced users over a stretch of time where it started out bad... was never improved on... and ended up being a very un-required trivia tidbit within the song article. If the user felt that that my comment on the poorly written content was directed at him then I am sorry he made that mistake. His edit summary should have indicated that he wrote the text rather than just say he was re-adding it after it was justifiably deleted a long time ago for several reasons. As I have suggested in my own edit summary. A separate article about this so-called triad should be created. And if it were, then I would gladly help to improve it there. But it has no place in the article about the song so it was not worth working on there. The best overall edit was to simply restore the article to its earlier state. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the conflict here, as that should be discussed on the talk page and use other DR if needed. Calling something 'poorly written' is not incivil it's one editors opinion and fair comment. Commenting on edits is fine under the general 'Comment on content, not on the contributor' rule. I see no real civility problems here and urge all involved parties to discuss and refrain from edit warring/reverts until the matter is resolved. --neon white talk 20:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Revan ltrl

This user has been using uncivil language on Talk:Pink Floyd#Sales (a section which he initiated) while discussing what may be a legitimate complaint about another issue being discussed on Talk:Led Zeppelin. He has been warned by other editors including myself, and clearly regards these warnings as hostile, and feels the need to counter-attack; see especially his latest post [34] which I reverted. I would also like to apologize for my edit summary on my revert of this; in a previous post I warned the user his posts look like trolling (but not actually saying this is his intention), and on the edit summary I mentioned "trolling" as a reason for the revert, and may have been out of line making that accusation (which, of course, I can't undo). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above statement, including the excuse.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 12:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some more diffs. What warning were given and what were they for? I cannot see any recent warnings given on the talk page. --neon white talk 14:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were several recent warnings, well, there's WP:AIV for such cases. This is a site to resolve cases and not to just block, right?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea to discuss matters with the problem editor on his/her talk page as a first step in resolving an issue. From what i can see this editor misunderstands how wikipedia works, the problem is he/she isnt a new editor, in fact one who's many edits dating back to march 2007 should demonstrate a far better underestanding than the one demonstrated on this talk page. --neon white talk 14:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV is not for incivility, it's for vandalism - and only where it's been warned properly. WP:ANI is for horrific cases of incivility, again where they have been properly warned. The last warnings on this specific user's page are more than 6 months old. Step 1 in dispute resolution is to discuss with the other party first. Step 2 is to visit us at WP:WQA for some informal assistance/some neutral pairs of eyes. Step 3 may be WP:ANI or it may not be. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to both of the posts above, do you think there is any hope in trying to discuss this further with the user? His posts have a trolling style, and all advice being given to him has been ignored. I already consider myself done talking to him, unless he tries to edit articles with insincerity again (changing an article in a way he knows is wrong, because he couldn't get the right edit in sync with a different article). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean "warning" as a precursor to admin action, which would belong on his talk page, but advice given within the discussion, warning he was exceeding the civility rules. He was told his accusations that others posting to him are admins, or people trying to assert authority unfairly, are out of line [35] [36] [37] [38] and previously warned that his posts resemble trolling [39]. He has been uncivil in most of his posts to this section, mocking previous replies; surely that is evident? My reason for posting this alert is that it has reached the stage where a post needed to be reverted, which should only be done in extreme cases. If it's extreme enough for that action, it's also extreme enough for an alert. This is not a request for a block, it is a request for a warning to be posted on his talk page by an admin, an action which for which I do not have authority, but which should accompany a revert of this type. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Ok, most of the diff's you provided are your posts, and not the "offensive" ones. However, I have been able to see a few of the editors comments. So far, I fail to see any of them as violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. If he thinks you're an admin, then he simply doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. I see valid discussions of sources and article inclusions, and cannot see any points of incivility. Maybe I'm blind, or maybe I'm too neutral to see what may be perceived nuances? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted diffs from myself and another editor because I was asked what I was referring to by "warnings" given to the editor. The only really problematic post that I'm asking for help on, was the one I reverted: [40]. In case I'm not being clear: as I understand it, a revert like this should be accompanied by a user talk page message similar to: "Your edits have been reverted for (reason)... if you continue, you may be blocked", which I should not be posting because I don't have the ability to block. But I think I do have the right to revert an attack against me, and this revert should be accompanied by a talk page warning from somebody. That's what I'm requesting at this time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I tend to agree with Bwilkins here, I don't see anything that would quantify the incivility assumption. "please keep your shallow amateur analysis to yourself" hardly qualifies as incivility. I've read through all of this, and come to the healthy conclusion that no action is warranted. Knight, I understand that you've been with Wikipedia not but a year. Something I've learned over the past three years here is that you have to have a "thicker skin" on some things. Now, if the user had typed something like "Your edits are s^&%, go pound sand!", then I'd say you definitely had something there. In this case, nah. Revan's only error here was mistakenly identifying non-admins as admins, which is moot point at best. Edit Centric (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, consider him advised. (Bwilkins, check me on this, apropos?) Edit Centric (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Now let's not make it sound like I run the place though! LOL (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "please keep your shallow amateur analysis to yourself" is not incivil, it's not the worst you'll hear but it's pretty rude. Though in this case there are similar examples of 'rude' comments aimed at the editor that may have antogonised the situation. I think it's one to keep an eye on. --neon white talk 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I apologize if I'm taking the "no nonsense" approach to the WQA alerts, someone hasn't had their coffee today! (The Mr. Coffee went on the fritz this morning!) Edit Centric (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, and for Noen white's offer to keep an eye on what heppens next. My sense is this user does have a legitimate beef, but is going about addressing it the wrong way, and can't tell when people are trying to support him. He will probably be reading all this anyway, so I'll just say he seems to be trying to take a flimsy excuse for resisting his changes at the LZ page, one that could be knocked over with a feather, and instead of doing that, wants to bulldoze the house next door in retaliation. (How's that for a metaphor!) I also don't really think he is as mistaken as he purports to be, about how Wikipedia works. Anyway, thanks again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note: Another editor put back the talk page post I reverted, and admonished me (in the edit summary) for reverting it. I presume he did not realize I posted this alert. I've pointed him to here from his talk page. Hopefully he doesn't put it back again; I don't want to get into an edit war over this! If that happens, can someone make a decision on whether the removal was appropriate? That was never discussed here, so I presume nobody had a problem with that action. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was me - I reverted your revert because I agree with the people above who didn't see anything that uncivil in the comment (I've been the target of far, far worse without being able to make a case for WP:CIVIL). However, I'm fine with letting it stay removed as long as everyone else is. Don't worry, we won't get into a revert war on that: if anyone reverts it again, it won't be me. Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and/or personal attacks by User:Mokele and User:Jwinius

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

– Users warned about maintaining civility during content discussions.

If its appropriate to request this and you have time, would you please check out comments made at Talk:Python_reticulatus#Debate_regarding_length_claims_made_by_various_zoos and Talk:Python_reticulatus#Verifiability. It is my position that I've endured days of personal attacks and incivility from User:Mokele and User:Jwinius.

User:Mokele has told me "Cry me a river. I see absolutely no reason to listen to a mere amateur. Come back when you have a graduate degree in herpetology. Until then, stop wasting our time" and represents his editorial standpoints as "I don't give a crap if the news articles meet some overly-vague WP rule...we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY" and has referred to my good faith edits as "unencyclopedic crap" (all comments at [41]). Please also note this edit summary by User:Mokele "Put up or shut up, amateur. Show me this mythical "outside arbitration", because you seem to lack the balls to use the talk page anymore."
User:Jwinius has informed me that I am "silly", [42], "petulant" , "irritable", "thin-skinned", etc. [43] etc. Each time I have specifically reminded this user about WP:Civility.

I've lost count of how many times I've encouraged courtesy in these users. Ultimately, this dispute is about a claim made by User:Mokele and User:Jwinius to disallow certain content at Python_reticulatus#Captivity that they deem unencyclopedic. Thanks for considering my comments. -- --Boston (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is something. Let me read through this stuff. (could you please provide the specific diffs, so we don't have to rifle through the whole talk page looking for the specific referenced examples? Saves a LOT of time with things like this! :-D ) Also, did you notice both editors on their respective talk pages that you had posted a Wikiquette about this? Edit Centric (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've hit a "waitaminute" here, and it has the odiferous emanations of edit warring on the part of User:Boston. Boston, you've already violated the Three revert rule today. I would first advise you to stop the edit warring. It's definitely not apropos to engage in edit warring, then post a Wikiquette alert. If you're going to bring something substantive to WQA, make sure you're in the right before doing so... Edit Centric (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Boston has not informed us, nor did he on prior instances when he tried to use the 3RR to force his changes into place. I'm only aware of this page because I suspected he'd try something behind our backs in order to avoid letting us express our views on the topic. Mokele (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article twice today (Feb 14th) in my timezone (EST). The appearance of a third time is me correcting my edit summary. If I did in fact violate this rule, it wasn't my intention. If I violated the spirit of this rule in recent days (I don't think I did but...), I'll own responsibility for that. I'm happy to sit back and wait for Administrator involvement. I'm not interested in more conversation with these users until the profanity, incivility, and personal attacks stop. Comments from User:Mokele are particularly inappropriate:

Comments from User:Jwinius aren't relatively minor breaches of civility:

Thanks for considering this situation. --Boston (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how dare we get frustrated by a user who repeatedly inserts garbage into a page in spite of being given very good reason not to, fails to provide any worthwhile reasoning on why it should be included, refuses any attempt at compromise, and still drags this out. It's like dealing a creationist. Mokele (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made reminders of policies in conversation after each instance. I haven't used the wikialert for etiquette before so did not post it (I actually of forget it existed). My reminders regarding civility and non-personl attacks were pretty much scoffed at. A vandalism alert to User talk:Mokele deleting paragraphs of encyclopedic content was quickly removed and characterized as "whining" [44]--Boston (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This is so easy. First of all: Mokele, please try to avoid incivility in edit descriptors, such as this one. It is neither constructive, nor does it do anything but perpetuate the vicious cycle of edit warring and civility issues. Second, Boston, consider yourself strongly warned regarding today's violation of WP:3RR. You've been an editor here just as long as I have, and you should well know the ropes by now. I will also be posting these on the respective user talk pages. I see absolutely no profanity here, but there is a fair amount of angst and disagreement regarding article content. My suggestion to the three of you is to step back a minute, breathe, and then approach this again from a basis of Assume good faith. Edit Centric (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did attempt to re-approach it, even making a compromise edit which combined both sides without any loss of information. It was immediately reverted as unacceptable simply because it wasn't what Boston originally wrote, and he refused to even discuss any compromise which represented more than a minor deviation from his original edit. Good faith has long since passed - he refuses compromise, refuses to discuss anything, refuses to listen to points, and uses reverts and admin actions as weapons to cudgel those who disagree with him. His unproductive attitude has eliminated any progress on this article, including one edit I have been planning for a while now, simply because I know he'll simply twist it into some sort of evidence that I'm out to undermine his precious edit. It should be abundantly clear that outside intervention is absolutely necessary at this point. Mokele (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and so it's abundantly clear, Boston has not made the least bit of effort, even after several posts here, to inform Jwinius of the existence of this discussion. I had to inform him myself. Good faith indeed. Mokele (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously being caused by a content dispute. I think requesting a third opinion would really help. --neon white talk 22:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a third opinion, the other user named in this dispute. He has repeatedly agreed with me in the dispute.Mokele (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, User:Edit Centric, you are correct in saying that I violated WP:3RR as seen here. My blunder was thinking about the calendar date rather than the fact that the rule is about edits made in a 24 hour period. I hope I might also benefit from the assumption of good faith in this regard. As to the editorial conflict at hand, I have been assuming good faith and believe these editors are genuine in their desire to make the article as good as possible. Mokele, in particular, has professional expertise potentially valuable to Wikipedia. To achieve their goals, however, they behave in ways that can't not be condoned. I'm always interested in compromise but Mokele's comments I've cited are far more than minor infractions, and I'm not weathering that level of abuse without getting paid for it. Even on this page he's called my edits "garbage" and spat out more angry words. Thanks for taking time to consider the situation and for the reminder about other wikialerts that are available. --Boston (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the reason that I have not yet addressed the concerns regarding Jwinius is due to that fact. I was hoping that Boston would have accomplished this already, but so be it. My final thoughts on the rest of this have been posted here and here respectively. Please allow me to make this abundantly clear at this point; edit war stops, or this will get moved to WP:AN3, and will quite possibly result in a block. I personally don't want to see that happen, as I tend to try to be an optimist most of the time... Edit Centric (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement William M. Connolley refers to was not cited and was part of an edit that removed lots of encyclopedic material that was cited. If I am have supposed to have edited indelicately, please examine the (well-almost) equally indelicate alternative edit. In no case was there an issue in which a scientific journal was presented as contrary evidence to a news report. I would have received that with enthusiasm! The editorial issue is summed up by User:Mokele as "I don't give a crap if the news articles meet some overly-vague WP rule...we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY." --Boston (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009

Ok, has crossed a freaking line. AFTER this discussion was terminated by Edit Centric, Boston seems to have done NOTHING to try to work towards a compromise as instructed, but instead recruited even more admins/'higher-ups', and polluted my talk page with more of his dreck about me being incivil. He just cannot let this lie, even for a few hours. Consider this a formal complaint about his behavior with respect to this issue. Mokele (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, *real* scientists have better things to do than run around with a tape measure checking every stupid and pointless claim a zoo makes. And I've got better things to do than put up with your puerile crap because your feelings got hurt. Mokele (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we need an admin in on this now. Boston, I already warned Mokele about trying to maintain civility, but that was not enough for you. I see that you deliberately went to Mokele's talk page, and copy-pasted a long laundry list that you deemed...let me read this so I get it right..."egregious breaches of Wikipedia guidelines". Yes, you are now taking the edit war to a new level. I DEALT with this, and I showed no favoritism in the process. I also warned you to stop edit warring.

Mokele, Please redact the profanity above. Everything else in that paragraph is understandable. Other than that, I got nothin'. I tried. Edit Centric (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to come down to the fact that major news sites report information about the size of a python, which are later disproven, and that zoos exaggerate regularly. There is apparently no way to determine the exact size of a living python. So while the wikipedia rules say that you can include anything that you can reference as being from a major newspaper, in this case it shouldn't be done, since they don't bother to verify claims for stories like this, and apparently often get them wrong. If it isn't scientifically proven and confirmable, then it shouldn't be in there. Anyway, have a consensus on the talk page about the issue, and see what everyone else believes, and then follow the consensus. Don't do an edit war. And even during a dispute, try not to be insulting or hostile, no matter how frustrated you get. Dream Focus 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't actually say that 'anything that you can reference as being from a major newspaper' is reliable. For many subjects books and journals are far more reliable. --neon white talk 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SaltyBoatr tag-bombing users talk pages with 3RR warnings for single edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Closed for archiving. New concerns should be added under a new WQA thread.

it's passive aggressive, and that is not conducive to calm discourse. i made a single edit to an article, reverting one editor's edit - the first time i've ever reverted that editor. there's no basis for suggesting it constitutes "edit-warring". i'm aware that 3RR can be applied to a single edit - but that's in a case where an editor has previously been warned about a 3RR violation, and is skirting the spirit of the rule. this doesn't even show up on that radar. i acknowledge that Twinkle makes it easy to apply such tags and warnings, but perhaps it makes it a bit too easy, because in this case all it managed to do is piss me off, being unjustly accused of edit warring where no such state obtains. the tag bombing:[45]. i've made my feelings known on the talk page of the article in question - which, frankly, is where the edit should have been discussed in the first place by user saltyboatr, rather than doing drive-by tag bombing. Anastrophe (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(SCREEEEECH!) As we put the brakes on here for just a minute. Are you completely sure that this was on purpose? This might be a case of Twinkle glitch, or something else done inadvertently. Let's calmly revisit this one, and find out what's going on. Did you touch base with SaltyBoatr about this first? Edit Centric (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's not a glitch. he's done it to me and other editors in the past. Anastrophe (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. First of all, I don't see 3RR as being an issue here, so let's put that one to bed. Also, Anastrophe, it's customary (if not polite) to let the other user know that you've initiated one of these discussions about them, by posting on their talk page. No worries though, I've taken care of that detail note.

I also noted that you've addressed this in article talk, which is a "good on ya". I would definitely like to get SaltyBoatr's take on this one though... Edit Centric (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for alerting saltyboatr. i always prefer discussing articles on their respective discussion pages - and the 'you may be in violation of 3RR' tag even says that's where matters should be discussed. so the irony of being robotically tagged on my user talk page simply adds to the annoyance. Anastrophe (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. It does seem like an annoyance, but then again, it's simply that, and nothing else. If you know that you're in the right and on the level (be SURE!), then you have nothing to worry over, and have the resources on your side. As long as you're not actively engaged in an edit war, and providing justifiable edit descriptor comments, you're good to go. And now (hopefully)....SaltyBoatr? Edit Centric (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone a sec. I just noticed that SaltyBoatr did this at Yaf's talk page as well, same date. (Reference DIFF, Old revision)

Now I'd really like to know what the "411" is on this... Edit Centric (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With this one, there is history. And peculiarly, the history leads directly back to the article in question, over the past year. Therefore, I've paged an admin whom I trust implicitly, to shed some light on this situation. Once he gets his message, hopefully he'll chime in here. Edit Centric (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long term problem and long term pattern of edit warring here, and I am trying to be helpful to break that habitual problem. Do you have advice of how to bring back collaboration to the editing there? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a point of fact here, Yaf and Anastrophe are in fact engaged in 'tag team' edit warring the good faith edits by use Hauskalainen. See the history[46]. How shall I encourage collaborative editing instead of this ongoing edit warring? Are edit war warnings on talk pages hostile acts? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Talkpages? They are generally permanent discussions. Who would revert discussions on Talkpages? ONLY 3RR violations (or close) should ever get 3RR warnings ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, he was referring to edit war warnings on talk pages, not edit warring on talk pages. Anastrophe (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a single reversion by a single editor on a single article where no previous reversions of that single edit by that single editor on that single article have taken place most emphatically does not warrant passive-aggresively issuing a warning to the editor that he may be engaging in edit warring and that he may be blocked. that's not encouraging collaborative editing, it's throwing gasoline on the fire. clearly you did not like that i reverted a lengthy, for the most part unsourced, prose addition to the article. the way you register your concern is on the talk page of the article - just like the tag bomb you applied to me states! and i formally dispute your linking me and user yaf. i don't know yaf, and i've never communicated with him anywhere but on article talk pages. where's your evidence of collusion to suggest we're somehow 'in cahoots' here? bad faith. as i noted above, i've never reverted user hauskalainen before. Anastrophe (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, stayed up late here, so had to catch up on Z time. Looking back through things again, I have no doubt that Hauskalainen's edits are good faith edits. I also see that the few corrections to these edits were good faith corrections, and DID correct inaccuracies in Hauskalainen' understanding of the inner-workings of U.S. government.

Before I broach the other main aspect affecting this, let me get some input. This one is a bit complicated... Edit Centric (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before THAT, let me attempt to stop the revert war that Hauskalainen is propagating at the article... Edit Centric (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, situation handled, back to the matter at hand. Since my last edit here, I see that active and productive discussion has begun at the article's talk page, so that angle of it is "TKO" (taken care of/totally knocked out). SaltyBoatr - Before I address your hasty 3RR warnings, please allow me to elaborate on something here. Amongst what I do here at WQA, I tend to view each WQA alert from a neutral perspective. I look at the following areas;

Each user's User Page, Talk Page, Edit History and all applicable logs.
Article page and talk page, edit history.
Related WQAs, AN/I's and other applicable discussions.

Parsing all of this information, I become intimately familiar with the "global view" of the situation. Having done that here, I can see where your view of this would be affected by the given history behind the article over the past year, and I'll leave it at that. To the point, issuing 3RR / Edit war warnings without clear evidence of 3RR being trespassed could be construed as incivility and / or "wikihounding". My suggestion to you is, in the future, be more judicious in the manner which you issue these warnings. In the case of articles where you have a history of being personally involved, I would suggest letting another uninvolved editor look into the situation and issue any warnings that are deemed apropriate. Edit Centric (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here's the thing. i'm always quite rigorous in giving very clear (and often too long) edit summaries for why i did x, y, and z. i clearly and plainly explained why i reverted hauskalainen's edit. it was unencyclopaedic prose, it contained errors, and the need for the lengthy explication of those details was not at all clear. similarly, i'm highly collaborative on talk pages, very willing to engage in discussion of the article in question, the basis for additions and removals, rationale behind my actions, etc.. There is a ton of history between myself, user saltyboatr, and several other editors, all in relation to article having to do with firearms/firearms law. collaboration on the talk pages practically constitutes a serial novel in the sheer volume of verbiage expended. and that is how it should be. deal with the disputes on the article talk page. user saltyboatr has in the past reverted lengthy prose-style additions to articles that contained no (or few) cites, and i entirely support such actions - particularly on incendiary topics such as gun rights/gun control. regrettably, he reverted my reversion, with the edit summary "restoring passage, with addition of citation request tag. Give him a chance. Avoid edit warring this please.". he knows better. adding unsourced material to the article on Honey might fly for a few weeks (or years, in fact), but on deeply contentious topics such as these, unsourced additions have no chance of standing, and that is how it should be. Anastrophe (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crime I am accused of here is simply pointing out a potential problem on a talk page. Mentioning a potential problem is not fairly called a "tag bomb" and comes hardly close to an act of incivility. Soul searching this, I am still mad at being personally, bluntly and falsely accused[47] of "being patently devoid of good faith". That is fairly described as an unrepentant personal attack. And, upon asking for an apology, I get a thumb in the eye[48]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well now that we're dredging up old grievances, if i were to relentlessly label you and your edits as "anti-gun" or "anti-rights" you'd be raising a hue and cry. it is indeed patently devoid of good faith to constantly label your fellow editors and their edits as being "pro-gun". it's as simple as that. good faith does not assume that a given editor or his edits fall within a generalized, stereotypical label. Anastrophe (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This is neither the time nor the place to air dirty laundry, dredge up old grievances or start direct incivility. I am therefore STRONGLY WARNING both of you to cease the above conversation track before it reaches that ugliness. It's getting us nowhere in resolving the issue at hand. That has already been addressed, and SaltyBoatr has been accordingly counseled in the finer art of the prudent issuance of warnings. In fact, there's a bit of dirty laundry there that I could have aired, but chose not to, giving the editor (and you know who I am referring to) the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who reads me here at WQA knows that I am a very patient, reasonable and honest person. Honestly, the sniping here needs to stop. If y'all have a content dispute, address it in a calm, concise manner on the article's talk page. Otherwise, it doesn't need said. Here are a few things for you to remember;

When you point the finger at someone, remember that you have three pointing back at you.
If you can't say anything nice...
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

These are things that we learn in grade school, but unfortunately seem to forget as our lives become jaded by becoming adults. Everyone following this would do well to take these examples to heart, and try harder at applying them here. With that being said, let's put what's already done to bed, and concentrate on collaborating on what should become a good article. That is what we're here for. Edit Centric (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New person adding to complaints against SaltyBoatr. FYI: I currently have two different computers connected to two different internet services. Earlier today the other(newer) computer was banned for a 3RR violation which never happened as a result of what I believe to be a report by SaltyBoatr.

The computer was posting under ID 141.154.110.173. I was posting on the Second Amendment board. Revision history is here so you can confirm that a 3RR violation never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&action=history

While there was an undo war earlier today, I stopped at 2 while the other person went to 3, realized he had stepped over the line and we then discussed the situation and reached a mutually satisfactory solution which resulted in him reverting one of his own reverts bringing his revert count to 2. I do not wish that person harassed unless he is the one reporting the bogus 3rr violation. The issue has been settled and I consider it closed.

SaltyBoart however, after a dispute over the validity of source material used in the Second Amendment article threated to have me reported for a 3RR as as well as a NPOV violation - here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:141.154.110.173

Since other editors have been having problems with Salty Boatr I cut and pasted the complaint in the discussion page with the disputed issue so that other authors were aware of his activities - here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

See section # 22 Additional POV bias issue - Chicago-Kent Law Review Issue 76 for full details of the dispute. It may be bit confusing since yet a third person (Philo-Centinel) hacked the complaint

As part of this complaint I wish to ask for remedial action for this harassment and ask that SaltyBoatr be banned to the maximum amount allowed by wiki for harassmewnt.4.154.237.88 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...no. That's not the way Wikipedia works, we're not going to play the "blame game" over you getting blocked, and I'll leave it at that. (I should have marked this thread "Resolved", sorry, got tied up IRL.) Edit Centric (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Doktorspin

Resolved

– Doktorspin has been warned repeatedly regarding these types of edits. Now blocked 48 hours. Further occurrences will see escalating blocks. --VS ^talk 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need help in dealing with the SPA Doktorspin. He is very insulting, and incivil towards other users, ridiculus them, and does not assume good faith.

Examples from Talk:Nativity of Jesus:

Example from AN/I:

[60]

Example from user talk:

[61]

Evident in his edit summaries:

[62]

Demonstrative that I'm not the only one who finds him incivil:

Thanks for any help rendered. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Carl, has Doktorspin edited in the manner complained of since I gave him a final warning and then William M Connolley blocked him (per this diff) - if yes can you provide a pointer to those exact diffs please?--VS ^talk 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- He's continued adding substantially the same table despite rather unified opposition, eg [66]; he has also returned the page to CE, despite being informed that his argument of IAR is invalid, eg [67]. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, and, the diff I provided under 'example from user talk' is particularly incivil and insulting, and is since the block. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the accusation of SPA quite disheartening. However, with the singleminded refusal of Carl to enter into a dialog over the material he continually removes extremely rude and aggressive. It occupies a lot of my time trying to find some way to make the material acceptable only to have it unconstructively removed again. He has been dauntingly unhelpful in the issue and I will admit that I have let anger of his behavior get to my comments.

I do not understand his refusal to deal with the issue. Can I sincerely assume good faith when he has continually made it clear that dialog is not open?

I attempted to halt the removal of the material in order to force a dialog, by putting in a 3RR against him. William M. Connolley responded by assuming that I wanted Carl blocked rather than the topic and I failed to get any dialog.

This is a very daunting process. --spin^control 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorspin - I have blocked you for 48 hours because you continue to attack editors that you disagree with, even after you were given clear warning by myself and at least one other administrator to cease such activity. Your edit here is the final straw. Blocks will escalate dramatically if you continue to edit in such a way - and if necessary a topic ban may be put in place.--VS ^talk 23:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of vulgarity

An anonymous editor, or possibly more than one, has been inserting a crudely worded section onto the talk page for Wilfred Thesiger. Here's one diff where I've removed a vulgarity. I am not a prude -- I am happily editing cunt -- and do not object to the underlying question, but the tone seems out of place in an encyclopedia. I know the bios of dead people are treated with less kid gloves than those of the living, and talkpages have more latitude than mainspace, but still, there are limits. What is the correct procedure for dealing with this? I don't want to break WP:3RR. Is it the same for anon editors as for accounts? I have nowhere to leave a message for the editor(s), even if I knew what to say. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it - talk pages are for discussing how to improve the associated article, not asking schoolboy questions about sexuality. I can see how the same (kind of) question could be reasonable, e.g. "Madeup Skollar remarks that Thesiger may have been gay - is it worth mentioning this in the article?" would be fine, but the question asked was purely trolling. Cheers This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific diff you provided is simple vandalism, so you can remove such additions as many times as you want without worrying about 3RR. You can also leave warnings on the user's talk pages (IP's have talk pages just like accounts) and report repeat offenders to WP:AIV. Even though it is a bio of a non-living person, not a BLP, reliable sources are still required for any such addition to the article itself. The Seeker 4 Talk 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt help! I'd appreciate it if you could keep the page on your watchlist, for any further disturbances. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Comparison of wiki farms

Talk:Comparison of wiki farms is frequently used for personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and the like. Most recently, I requested that editor 2005 refactor his latest comment User_talk:2005#Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms_2. In response to editor 2005's comment, editor Timeshifter has escalated the situation considerably [68]. I think it's time for some outside help. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any incivility. Could you please provide diffs of the exact post where WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL was broken? Thanks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Камень

This user is an editor on both en.wikipedia.org and ru.wikipedia.org, and has been editing the article on asteroid 1999 RQ36. This object is the subject of current research, in particular radar shape modeling (I am very familiar with the work, although I am not a coauthor on the paper that is in preparation), as well as having a series of potential Earth impacts in the late 22nd century (hence the article).

On JPL's near-Earth object website (neo.jpl.nasa.gov), we routinely provide rough size estimates based on optical data, which we state are uncertain by up to ±50%. For RQ36, the optical diameter estimate is 560 m. The Arecibo and Goldstone radar data have provided a much more accurate size estimate (510 m ± 50 m). I therefore changed the article to reflect this, and cited "Nolan et al. 2009 in prep.". Камень contended that an article in preparation is not a reliable source, so I have linked a conference abstract describing the shape modeling and our online logs of the radar observations (see the article). Even this has not satisfied Камень, and he posted the uncertain value back to the article (here and on ru), and left this message on my talk page: "Next your action will call sys-op justice".

I consider this to be a simple misunderstanding on Камень's part, but it might be a good idea for one of the admins to explain that calling sys-op is not the preferred way to resolve a minor dispute. Also, have I breached etiquette by revising size estimates in the RQ36 article on ru.wikipedia.org and explaining my edits in English (my keyboard is not configured for Cyrillic characters)? I don't intend to return from retirement, but I have professional interest in RQ36. Thanks. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I would do in this case is to solve the issue of reliable sources first and then that should finish off the possible incivility. Either the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or Project Astronomy should be able to confirm the use of the source. Honestly, as the other user obviously has English as a second language, there really is no incivility - what he said is not much different from the en.Wikipedia template about reliable sources and administrative action. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 481: / Line 481: @@
 [[Talk:Comparison of wiki farms]] is frequently used for personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and the like.  Most recently, I requested that editor 2005 refactor his latest comment [[User_talk:2005#Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms_2]].  In response to editor 2005's comment, editor Timeshifter has escalated the situation considerably [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AComparison_of_wiki_farms&diff=271233431&oldid=271228977].  I think it's time for some outside help. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
+:I'm not seeing any incivility.  Could you please provide diffs of the exact post where [[WP:NPA]] or [[WP:CIVIL]] was broken?  Thanks.  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;Bwilkins / BMW&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 11:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 == [[User:Камень]] ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards