Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

User:Riwnodennyk

User:Riwnodennyk reverted an edit in the article on Ukrainian language made by User:Glebchik with the following edit summary: "Rv Russian fascism". Prior to this, Glebchik already did replace an ethnic map with a language one and gave a reason for it in an edit summary. Riwnodennyk having been asked to comment on his edit, responded in an inconclusive manner. --Ahnode (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Use the article talk page to discuss and gain consensus for the edits, if necessary ask for outside assistance. --neon white talk 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not about "consensus for the edits" but about calling someone a fascist without a reason, which is insulting and unjustifiable. --Ahnode (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however there's a discussion on his talk page already and I've also given a more formal warning about it. Wikipedia is not a battle ground, thus please drop the grudge and get on with building an encyclopaedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks from 9Nak

Would like assistance to ask the community to intervene against 9Nak from continued abuse and personal attacks e.g. You are an even bigger idiot than I had previously thought. 9Nak (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Julius.mampara (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You've already warned the editor and the behaviour has not continued so there's not much more can be said.--neon white talk 22:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that "Julius Mampara" is a derogatory name for a South African politician named Julius Malema. This editor is in fact a troll, and I'm about to file a report at UAA; just commenting here first. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst this editor is incredibly incivil, it's too early to label as a 'troll', so i ask you to assume good faith on that matter and avoid accusations that could potentially inflame matters. --neon white talk 11:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith has long since been trumped by action. Specifically, this diff. 9Nak (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you posted the wrong diff there but that seems to have no relevance to this at all. --neon white talk 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the right diff. Julius.mampara identified himself as responsible for the edits of that IP in his first two edits after registration. Sorry, I though even a cursory examination of the edit history (to determine whether this is a troll or not) would have made the link obvious. 9Nak (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing there that really suggests bad faith. You need to remember not to make assumptions and assume good faith if possible. Accusations of improper behaviour require strong evidence not supposition. --neon white talk 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You don't see strong evidence of bad faith? I find that utterly astonishing. Indulge me and let's just run through the series of events here.

* User posts that claim of HIV, which links to a source that has nothing at all to with the content posted (dif).

* User undoes the vandalism reverts by two different editors – then changes the claim from a false source to personal knowledge while harassing a reverter. (IP contributions)

* The page gets protected and the IP blocked, so the user registers Julius.mampara, an insulting username, to evade the block. (creation log)

* In order to evade the page protection, user creates the entry Julius Mampara (deletion log)

* User approaches me to insert a link to a (newly created) website that implies HIV infection of the subject in the original entry. (dif)

I see a troll trying to start an online smear campaign. But I'm 9Nak (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have every intention of continuing the behaviour. I will not be civil towards morons who attempt to use Wikipedia in online smear campaigns. Trying to use fraudulent sources to claim HIV infection in a BLP is, in fact, idiotic. On the basis of that and subsequent actions I'm also comfortable with calling this editor a cretin, an imbecile, a dunce and a lamebrain. 9Nak (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires you to be civil towards all editors. If you come across articles which are not written from a neutral point of view then work on them with other editors to improve them. If you come across editors that disagree seek outside help to gain a consensus. Text that violates WP:BLP should be removed immediately, if it continues to be added there are several ways forward. Firstly, speak to the editor, explain wikipedia's policy on bio info without resorting to personal attacks, you need to assume that the editor is unaware of the policy. If it continues to be added you can request protection or bring a particular editor to the attention of an admin. All this can be done without the need to be incivil. If you can't do that then you are harming the project and will likely face a block. Issued a final warning if it continues file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --neon white talk 11:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

9Nak, your approach and outlook is not constructive to this project - it is important you follow Neon white's approach in order to avoid being blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, from this discussion it would seem that my approach is indeed in conflict with the values of the community. I'd never have thought it. 9Nak (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community is largely made up of people from countries where directly criticizing someone in a workplace is considered the highest form of sin. The accepted course of action is not to directly confront them but to bring other people around to your side and thereby ostracize the other person without ever making an impolite comment. This is all laid out in far nicer language in Wikipedia's policies, but that is the gist of it. I would recommend playing along - I see that you've decided to retire, and I'm sad for that. Esn (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• As evidenced here, there's incivility on both sides. I urge both of you to cut it out or risk being blocked to prevent further disruption. Move on and get back to building an encyclopaedia please. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Notes for reviewing party: ANI report from two days ago and UAA report from today.

Constructive edits being repeatedly called "vandalism", block warnings posted without any attempts of discussing the matter

Resolved

 – Closed by filing party.

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

[1] [2] [3]

While the first two times were reverted with either a blank edit summary or illogical reasoning, last time I found sources for the obvious fact the Jerry Seinfeld is a Jew (gotta love Wikipedia for that). The last edit, which as I mentioned is properly sourced, got reverted with a "last vandalism warning" before blocking [4]. The previous (and first) warning was on level 3 [5]. As far as I know, you should try and discuss the matter before even issuing level 1 warning. I know that I myself hurried into templating the user here, but I apologized here. I don't think it's a proper way to welcome a new contributor, especially considering my edit history, which contains mostly constructive and useful edits. Drone2Gather (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1) The link already existed in the article, there wasn't a need to move it. 2) The link specifically calls him "American Jewish" -- you can't ignore the "American" part simply because you were raised with a particular viewpoint ("it is a part of what I am and how I grew up"). Please, again, use a verifiable link to a credible source that says exactly what you're saying when you reference it when changing the nationality of a living person, in accordance with WP:BLP His nationality is not solely "Jewish", he is a citizen of the US. I notice that you haven't mentioned the discussions that have occured on other users pages and on the Jerry Seinfeld talk page -- there were several attempts to discuss the matter. Banaticus (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• "American Jewish" consists of two words: American – his place of residency and citizenship, and Jewish – his nationality. As you said yourself, "he is a citizen of the US." Yes, his citizenship is American, but his nationality is Jewish.
• A discussion that starts with "stop vandalizing pages or you will be blocked" is bound to go awry. I made that mistake myself, but quickly apologized; besides, I carefully chose the template so it has the least aggressive wording to it. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why can't his nationality also be at least partially American? You seem to think that it's an either/or situation, that he can't have both Jewish nationality and American nationality. But he lives in, works in, has citizenship in and apparently doesn't have a problem with the US, at least you haven't shown a reference that says otherwise. Why can't the article continue as it currently is, why does it apparently have to be an either/or situation? When you say, "I carefully chose the template..." which template are you referring to? Banaticus (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to take my words out of context and to generally misapprehend me. Why does he have to have a problem with the US? What does this have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that a Jew is born a Jew, simply because of having Jewish parents. I don't have to remind you why it is so, historically speaking. Seinfeld is an American, no doubt about that, and he's been proudly representing the US worldwide. Still, "American" refers to his citizenship, while "Jewish" refers to his nationality. My Israeli identification card indicates my citizenship being Israeli and my nationality being Jewish (it's fairly old; the nationality's been omitted from Israeli ID's for several years now for privacy reasons). Growing up in the USSR, I always knew that while my citizenship was Soviet (Moldavian, to be precise), my nationality has always been Jewish. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep having what's becoming the same discussion in two places at once. You pick the place, either Talk:Jerry_Seinfeld#.22Jewish_American.22 or here, then I'll continue that discussion in that place. Banaticus (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please post a clarification on my talk page regarding your "stop vandalizing or you'll be blocked" template. I've erased it, but it still looks bad on my history. When we're clear on my good faith, I'll gladly continue the discussion as we both want the best of Wikipedia's interests. (I gotta sleep soon, so it'll most likely be tomorrow.) Drone2Gather (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Take content discussion to the article talk page, this is not the place for it. Vandalism means a deliberate attempt to compromise the project, good faith edits are not vandalism and use of the term is best avoided. --neon white talk 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although your quote about the term being best avoided is the point I'm conveying here: I am not a vandal and let this be noted, crystal clear. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• • For the record 'nationality' should be what it says on a persons passport. It should not be subdivided on the basis of ethnic origins, political affiliation, religion or anything else. Such info can go in the article. --neon white talk 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When one is born to a Jewish mother, they are automatically considered Jewish by nationality. You are more than welcome to conduct a research. Drone2Gather (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's ethnicity not nationality. There is no sovereign nation known as jew, jewish or jewland etc. like there's no italian america, native america or african america. They are all just American nationality regardless of what ethnic group they belong to.--neon white talk 10:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Jerry Seinfeld must be the holder of an American passport, it carries the wording: "Nationality: United States of America." I suggest that User:Drone2Gather's frequent reverts of the Jerry Seinfeld article, though they are not vandalism, are very close to edit warring. If Drone2Gather is concerned that a vandal warning will look bad on his record, his repeated reversion of a highly-visible article to a version that only he supports will not look good on his record either.EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

All parties please note' This page is for discussing breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. While it is good that you are discussing it now, please keep the content dispute on the article talk page where it belongs. (give me a minute to review diffs and I will comment on possible civility issues) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, it does not seem that Drone was acting in bad faith, so vandalism warnings probably are not appropriate. However there is edit warring occurring and all parties should cease and desist and go to the talk page. If you find yourselves having trouble reaching consensus there, get help from WP:3O or WP:RFC. If edit warring does not stop, request protection at WP:RPP. As is often the case, this is a fairly minor point that is getting blown up into something bigger than it needs to be. May I suggest that the involved parties take five. The world isn't going to end if this article doesn't read the way you want it to for a few hours or days or even forever. There are several million other articles that could use some help, and also a handy "off" button on your computers that can help you get some perspective on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote on the Seinfeld talk page – Jewish American it is. Closing discussion due to requests. Drone2Gather (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Landon1980 Incivility/Personal Attacks

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Although this IS a WQA topic, you have forum-shopped this into WP:ANI. Don't do this again

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

User:Landon1980 has been attacking me recently. The issue began with an editor who wanted to change a lead sentence for Thousand Foot Crutch to say they are Christian rock instead of just rock. Landon responded claiming that "When a band is listed as being many genres you put the most general one in the lead sentence, not pick on of the many and place it there." Seen toward bottom of this thread. I responded that "I'm certainly not opposed to keeping it as just "rock" if it is indeed policy to list the most general one in the lead sentence." I went on to say that I did agree with the other editor, but I would side with policy. Here's where Landon gets offensive.

Landon stated: "I'm not having another brick-wall discussion with you, nor am I taking the time the educate you regarding the common practice of genres on wikipedia. Use some common sense, Christian rock is one of three genres that are listed for the band, all which are some type of rock. I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion with you. If you have problem with the current version request a third opinion, or seek some other type of dispute resolution. Now I think I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer."

1. Describes my point of view in discussions as being consistent with a brick-wall.
2. Insults my knowledge of Wikipedia policy/practices when I simply/politely asked for the policy he was claiming.
3. Said I don't use common sense.
4. Compares our discussion as beating a dead horse and pointless.
5. Ends by implying he'd rather bang his foot with a hammer than have a valid conversation about article content with me.

I responded and told him that the comment was disrespectful and told him not to insult me again. I also left a comment on his talk page stating: "I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by categorizing my input and consensus in discussion about an article (which was entirely appropriate and polite). I honestly have NO PROBLEM at all adhering to any policy (whether it by spirit or letter of policy) that specifies to word the lead sentence a particular way. I do, however, object to you just blurting out that this is how we do it without any justification or grounds. Have a great day."

He then removed the comment from his user page, which I understand is allowed although not preferred. However, in the edit summary he insulted me again by writing "I would appreciate if you would learn how to read, and how to use a talk page."

1. He implied that I do not know how to read (although I'm not sure what it is he was expecting me to have read).
2. He also implied that I was incorrectly using the talk page, by warning him of his incivility. However, he has in the past used my talk page to warn me and falsely accuse me of incivility. (This was quite some time ago, and this complaint is not related to or in response to that event).

Also, he went on to respond to my comment on the Thousand Foot Crutch talk page by stating: "Seriously though, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot as talk to you."

There have been other, recent personal attack incidents involving Landon's hostility. They were filed in the wrong place and may or may not have been correct, but it might be beneficial to look at. This can be seen here.

None of this is helpful in fostering a hospitable environment for editors. It should be noted that Landon did go on to revert my edit without gaining consensus (the only two opinions other than his were mine and the editor who originally suggested changing the lead-in sentence). Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User:DreamGuy Incivility/Personal Attacks

User:DreamGuy has twice reverted my attempt to create a reference on the original Psychopathia Sexualis book by Heinrich Kaan, falsely attributing it to Krafft-Ebing (who wrote a book with the title Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia Sexualis - New research on the field of Psychopathia Sexualis). While this is just an academic dispute, when asked for explanations on the issue, he's answering in an obviously abusive and offenssive way (see [6] and [7]). I ask for help. --MaeseLeon (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything too incivil there. --neon white talk 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the underlying content dispute goes, I agree with DreamGuy 100%. However, he could have been a little bit less direct in his choice of language. One has to be really careful when an edit, or an idea, seems "silly" or "pedantic" or "anal" - it is all too easy to give other editors the impression that such terms are not being directed at them. I don't think that was the intention here, and I hope DreamGuy will take this on board in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the extremely aggressive tone MaeseLeon approached me with right from the start and the extreme mischaracterization of both the dispute and my actions, it's a bit ridiculous for him/her to run off here to try to complain about my behavior. But then that particular tactic is one that others have tried in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be extremely interested in knowing what "extremely aggressive tone" I used to approach DreamGuy, enough to justify his calling me "pedantic", "attempting to give article space to an unknown book" (by merely mentioning a well-known book in the History of Medicine), "ridiculous" and so on. Also, I would also be interested in knowing what "tactics" are you speaking about, and how am I trying to "bully" you, because it's me who is feeling bullied here by simply sustaining a position. --MaeseLeon (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Extremely aggressive tone is your initial post to my talk page, the article talk page and edit comments. "Pedantic" is trying to insist that the title of a famous book is something other than what it actually is because you saw one edition with an extended title and ignored all the others with different extended titles. "Unknown book" because it is just that: unknown, especially compared to the famous one of the title. "Ridiculous" is a combination of the above. "Tactics" would be going straight to reporting me here instead of trying to make some sort of real justification for your edits. DreamGuy (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to revise my position somewhat in the light of the above responses. Both parties need to tone down their belligerence and aggressiveness. It should be possible to come up with a compromise as far as the content is concerned (indeed I have some ideas along those lines) but that does require both parties to be willing to talk politely, without accusations, and with an assumption of good faith on the part of the other. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a suggested compromise, by all means make it on the article talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jza84

Stuck

 – Jza84 has made it abundantly clear on his talk page that he will not respond to this thread, and wqa cannot force him to apologize anyway.

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

I really don't want to do this, as it's probably a bit of a storm in a teacup. However, Jza84 insinuates here([8]) that I am a sockpuppet.

The background is a discussion over a merge of Leeds and City of Leeds, which went on for a while, and of which I was an active participant. Jza was also involved, and disagreed with my (and several others') viewpoint. The merge went ahead, which Jza has been annoyed about, and has since been saying that it was a 'backroom decision' etc, and has made his accusation against me. He has made these comments without any sort of proof, and apparently without referring to my edit history or anything. Not only am I not a sock, but I wasn't actually involved with the merge at all. At no point did I say that there was consensus to go ahead with the merge, so if he's annoyed at the decision he should be focusing his attention elsewhere.

I have approached him on his talk page User_talk:Jza84#Random_accusation, which was met with a rather snide response. I have further replied, asking that he remove his allegation and make it clear that it was unfounded, but have yet to receive a response.

I am unhappy that Jza has gone around talking about me. It was only by chance that I stumbled upon the conversation in the first place, and am concerned that it will tarnish me in the eyes of other users. I wouldn't be so concerned if it weren't for the fact that he is an admin, and a user who has, to be fair, done a lot of good work. I don't want him hung out to dry, but at the same time, don't want these allegations to still be out there. I don't think I'm being oversensitive, but I'm sure you'll all let me know if I am :-) Quantpole (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be one thing to insinuate being a sock, but if the behaviour becomes more of an accusation multiple times it is uncivil: the basic rule of thumb is "file your SSI report, or STFU". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying I have no right to ask him to rectify his comments? I wouldn't be bothered if it wasn't an admin, as their opinions generally carry more wait, and they are held to higher standards of behaviour than the general user. Quantpole (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe he is saying that without a report, it has no meaning, and that Jza should either file one or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he should have asked for a SSI, however, it's not like he's saying it all over the place. But given that I've expressed my concerns to him, I would at least expect him to remove (or strike) the comment, preferably with some sort of explanation. For some reason he hasn't done this. Quantpole (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All he says is there's a slight coincidence ... that's not even insinuation. It's only insinuation if you're indeed socking :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• He's not going to come here and respond, strongly suggest you just forget it and move onBeeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Deathmolor

• Talk:Timeline_of_file_sharing#Prior_Work_Before_Napster
• User_talk:Old_Death#File_sharing
• Talk:File_sharing#Napster_First_Issue (and sections below)

I removed vanity content, user reverted, 3rd+4th opinion was against the content. Throughout this process, Deathmolor has been accusing me of writing 'revisionist history' and 'being involved with Napster', demanding that I out myself, stating that he's checked my contribs and I'm only interested in one article, and so on - generally trying to discredit me as making legitimate contributions to WP. I've tried to remain civil and to stay on topic, have asked him to stop repeatedly, have linked the relevant policies. This is becoming unmanageable now, especially since he writes volumes, usually in response to his own messages. I'll need to take the content issues to rfc, but it would be nice if his editing was civil (and much more... terse) by the time that started.   M  01:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• It seems you are correct, every time consensus seems to be against him, Deathmolor resorts to attacking your motives and credibility. That is not acceptable. Content disputes are about content not the persons creating the content. And you are also correct that many of his responses are overly long. That is not a violation of any particluar policy, but being long-winded is often counter-productive, as many will simply say they won't read it because it is too long. (By the way it is usually considered polite to inform someone they are being discussed here, I have notified him now.) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's harassment

Sevearl times over the last year or so I have asked Neutralhomer to stop referring to me by my previous username. Here are three examples of when I've asked him to stop: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Complex_thread_from_WP:AIV, User_talk:Willking1979/Archive_2#Re:_Guess_Who.27s_Back, and this most recent one (posted 5 days ago). Despite all this, and telling me he's not going to deal with me any further, he continues to refer to me as such. He's been asked to stop at least three times, and yet, he continues. Something needs to be done because this amounts to harassment at this point. There is absolutely no reason to continue referring to me that way, especially after I've asked him to stop. He gets upset when people refer to him by his past names/socks, so why should he refer to others in that way? either way (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all I saw was lots of bickering back and forth. But I do agree with Metros to some extent. I wouldn't mind it if some called me Kingrock, but after being asked to stop, it does amount to harassment.--(NGG) 11:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For the love of Pete...everytime you get a wild hair somewhere, you fire off an ANI post or a Wikiquette "alert". This needs to stop. Are you going to file one against NGG above for calling you "Metros". If you are going to be fair, you should. If not, this is just standard hypocrisy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A user should not hide previous identities unless he's got a legitimate reason for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Aggressive User:202.89.167.125 (anonymous editor) on homebirth page

At the homebirth article we are having difficulties with the aggressive tone and counter-productive edits of one anonymous user, IP address 202.89.167.125. I have posted a note on his/her talk page in an attempt to mitigate the aggressiveness and to provide appropriate links to WP etiquette. I referenced this on the homebirth discussion talk page that he/she checks almost daily [9]. I have received no response in more than a week, and the uncooperative tone of his/her comments has not improved [10]. I don't think this can be blamed on being a newbie to WP, because it has been ongoing since August 2008, despite suggestions and comments from several editors [11] [12] [13].

We are locked in a significant edit war because of this editor - he/she is unwilling to work with the other editors but demands that the article be made to his/her specificiations or he/she will revert all changes rather than reach consensus [14]. Most of his/her attacks are against one editor whom he/she has labeled "pro-homebirth" and has denoted as inappropriate to work on the article [15], but he/she is also quick to attack anyone else who contradicts him/her [16] [17]. Unfortunately, he/she does not contribute any text to the article for us to comment on or discuss, but deletes and reverts what others write and demands that we "do better" or "try again". The article is currently protected due to the edit warring, but as you will see from the discussion page, we are no closer to consensus, even after significant discussion.

A minor point to add, he/she is unwilling to use the 4 tildas to sign his/her comments despite several requests to do so, making the discussion slightly more difficult to follow. Many thanks to any and all who help us resolve this and move forward with this article. Lcwilsie (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)