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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

Many comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab are bordering incivility and personal attacks and many appear to be in breach of WP:AGF.

Ironically, many of these AGF complaints I have are about AGF complaints made against us. They claim that by my nominating the project, I am failing to assume good faith; a claim I disagreed with here. Brangifer claimed the nomination was 'based on a failure to AGF, which is itself a policy violation, thus rendering the nomination illegitimate', when in fact a number of valid concerns had been made. I believe that this in itself is a failure to assume to assume good faith in me. And the later part in my opinion is wrong and calling something illegitimate is wikilawyering.

Many arguments by editors in support of the project are ad hominem against those who oppose it. Editors have claimed argues against the project are based out of 'ignorance' [1] (User:BullRangifer, a comment that is clearly directed at the project's opponents. Drew R. Smith claimed that 'it almost seems like you were skimming for keywords and didn't read his post at all' to an editor, a claim which in my opinion clearly violates the assumption of good faith. Drew R Smith disagreed with me that this could be seen as incivil [2] after I rose the issue on his talk page [3]. Drew actually suggested I raise the topic here.

I would very much like all editors, perhaps including myself, to be more civil but this is problematic when users refuse to acknowledge that their actions could even be seen as incivil. Computerjoe's talk 14:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I failed to see the reply on User talk:BullRangifer, where he justifies some of the words used. I still find them a little strong, though, and still contest his assumption of good faith. Computerjoe's talk 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed a section from the WikiProject's page that takes a very hostile tone and really very much fails to assume good faith. [4]. Computerjoe's talk 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it too much, but I don't know who put that there. But I agree, that needed to go.Drew Smith What I've done 20:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer put it there it would appear [5]. I invite his comment. Computerjoe's talk 22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I most certainly have doubts about the person who invented this project, but that doesn't diminish my support for the project itself.Drew Smith What I've done 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the notice and tweaked it so as not to offend the extremely sensitive sensibilities of the one who raised this issue. This board should not be misused to complain about small perceived slights. That's not proper. This board is for more serious matters.

As to my comments about "ignorance", a bit of context is needed to avoid being misled by the comments above. My comments at the MfD were clearly framed to be specifically about the ignorance of my comments that has been going on. I started the project in good faith, and many false statements and speculations have been made, so I have made specific replies in the MfD to set the record straight. Then the same false statements have been made and repeated by a number of editors, showing that they have been ignorant (in "ignorance" of) of my comments. I have not accused anyone of being dumb, just in "ignorance" of my comments. Any other interpretation, considering my specific comments, is an assumption of bad faith aimed against me. They should be reading my comments and accepting them, instead of replying as if I was lying or as if they had not read them. I think the latter is the case. If I had stated that they had "ignored" my comments, that would have been a strong accusation of deliberately acting in bad faith. I did not do that. My comment was accurate, and the one who started the MfD has taken offense. I suggest his sensitivities need to be adjusted up a notch to an adult level.

This matter doesn't even rise to the level for an accusation of incivility. We're adults here and should be able to talk straight talk without fearing that we'll be censored. Already the starter of this thread has attempted to intimidate me and Drew R. Smith with warnings on our talk pages. That's not a nice way to deal with the situation. He has the nerve to attempt to prevent a fledgling project from getting established and showing its true colors, then he and his sympathisers attack it with speculations based on their own fears, not actual facts, and he expects his attack to be met with abject submission and kowtowing? No, we have a right to respond and defend ourselves, but he doesn't like that. Too bad. I have responded in a civil but direct manner, and see this thread as yet another attempt by him to silence all opposition.

Now that Drew R. Smith has expressed his doubts about me (for some unknown reason), I'll leave him to deal with this and the project. I will not work in an environment of distrust and assumptions of bad faith. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not for an unknown reason. I expressed doubts after learning that you were the one who posted the attack. This doesnt mean leave the project though.Drew Smith What I've done 04:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll oblige you out of curiosity. What "attack"? (BTW, I consider the MfD an "attack".) -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<---- This attack [6]. This kind of thing is unacceptable.Drew Smith What I've done 04:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how grammar and parsing works in your part of the world, but if you read that again, it is a response to an attack, IOW a notice akin to the one at the top of that page. Since someone questioned it, I reworded it, since someone apparently has overly sensitive sensibilities, can't take being disputed, and actually admits he doesn't know!. He can dish it out by starting a premature MfD, but can't take any contrary response or defence. It was a notice about an attack. If one were to be pendantic about it, it could be considered a counterattack, but it wasn't the first attack. I'm not considering your starting of that matter an attack, but the following use of it by enemies of the project. Those are the attacks I was referring to. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The MfD wasn't premature. I nominated it based on the content at the time. Whilst some concerns have been addressed, not all have. I do not know the action plan your project has so I thought it would be inappropiate for me to answer that user without redirecting them to you. Your tone is remarkably rude, in my opinion. Calling people enemies and such really isn't suitable for Wikipedia; all Wikipedians have the same goal! Computerjoe's talk 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what I said. It seems the only way this could be offensive is if the editor really did skim the post, in which case, he/she deserves to feel offended.Drew Smith What I've done 18:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda

User:Jacurek calls an edit made by me, referenced with reliable secondary sources in Strategic bombing during World War II as 'clear Nazi propaganda', when mediation was asked for, he refused any discussion, and implied that I am the same category as Holocaust deniers. Kurfürst (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Remind the editor that while they have no obligation to take part in disussion or dispute resolution, if they choose not to they simply have no input and a consensus will be formed with or without them that they will have to accept. Also notify the editor of the alert. --neon white talk 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look at your edits and try to avoid using Nazi propaganda sources and repeating its claims on the talk page - this should help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, British Student Television and Glasgow University Student Television

I don't know whether this is the right place to raise this, but the situation surrounding these two articles is becoming untenable.

The contentious issues began over the Glasgow University Student Television article. JMalky and Tomisaac and myself became involved in a notability conversation with Sherzo. There was no consensus and after a period of time had elapsed, Sherzo re-directed the page towards a new article British Student Television, mostly taken from Tomisaac's sand box. I recreated the GUST article and nominated it for AFD and that's where the trouble really started.

After the AfD ended, Sherzo nominated me for a RFCU (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TorstenGuise) with a group of other editors as they had previously not been involved in the article. The RFCU was thrown out on the grounds of fishing. After which, one of the users involved, Bluecord in his own conflicts with Sherzo stupidly created a sock-puppet to attack Sherzo (which I have condemned).

Since then, there has been a serious level of incivility by Sherzo towards any editors having a position in favour of the GUST and the British Student Television. Sherzo is acting as if he owns the articles and any change made by such editors are usually marked as vandalism.

I've come to the end of my tether with all of the abuse and almost left the community for good. JMalky is currently suffering the abuse from Sherzo and I'd like the community to try and mediate here. TorstenGuise (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence in the form of diffs and notify the user about this alert. Sounds like another avoidable situation created by an improperly closed afd. Seen as it was some time ago, if the article is still contentiuous then i'd suggest another afd is needed. On first glance the article is severly lacking in notability and reliable sources and, in it's current state, would be unlikely to survive, solves all the silly edit wars. So i'd go with that first. --neon white talk 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User notified. The simplest evidence is the articles history. The majority of edits made by this user are reverts. I'm not going to comment on notability, but the AfD was unopposed, which was probably why an admin closed it. I created the AfD for that purpose. to establish notability and end the edit warring. However, it was following the closure that the abuse really started. For the start of the abuse, please see Here. The relevant statement that began the abuse is:

wikipedia is not a democracy,and your hopes of it existing ad infinitum because no one cares is poor form

The counter debate is here. A report was made, by Sherzo, on the administrators noticeboard that can be found here and the response made by multiple editors over his actions are here.

Other that that, just check the history of the articles noted. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"just check the history" or "just check his contributions" are the quickest way to get it ignored. We're all so busy building an encyclopedia, we don't have time to fish. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think another AfD is the best and quickest way to settle this. Strike that actually. At the moment the argument is over references in the article. A second opinion on those would be a better place to start. JMalky (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of etiquette it is laughable, since I have frequently engaged in debate despite the hostile tone that has been taken by Tortenguise etc, both Tomisaac and Jmalky have admitted that personal involvement has lead to misleading information in an attempt to overstate the notability of such groups in the hopes that they can remain on the sight, with little or no reliable sources. This is yet another part in Jmalky and Tortenguise in what A Man In Black said was "seems that he's trying to get support to bully an editor to prevent a merge" Sherzo (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, the article has been through two AfD's, and attempt to merge it with a very poor 'british student television' article. Having not had your way in those arguments, you've been carpet bombing the page with 'citation needed' tags, cleanup tags etc, and posting anti-vandalism notices on my talk page. You've got a bizarre vendetta against the GUST article which I honestly can't get my head round. Tomisaac has come to the point of leaving wikipedia because of your bullying behaviour, and I'm considering doing the same. Finally, I can't speak for Tomissac but yes, I've been involved with GUST and student television in the past. But I wasn't aware that being involved with an article's subject precluded you from contributing to it. AfD's, merge discussions etc are between many editors and I thought reflected an objective consensus. JMalky (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I see you're reverting edits/adding threatening notices to the talk page of a third user, Cloudo, as he's making an honest attempt to improve the page. JMalky (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for you. Accusations of impropriaty need strong evidence otherwise they are personal attacks. Nothing at all disruptive about tagging an article for clean up or requesting citations. --neon white talk 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. On my talk page there are discussions going back over a year involving further users who've complained about your editing on this topic, and in the last AfD discussion you accused all the users who voted to keep the article (100% of the vote, incidentally) of being sock puppets, and posted abusive tags on their user pages. JMalky (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for far too long. There are a legion of editors in Sherzo's wake. Xrateddan, CR7 are two I can name at the drop of a hat and the tactics have mostly been the same: Either abuse or marking edits as vandalism. This is a prima facie breach of WP:OWN on both articles. It needs to end so we can continue to constructively build an encyclopaedia!. TorstenGuise (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Again you all need to stop the accusations and work with all editors on a solution without the edit warring. --neon white talk 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you can name as a quick look at your edit history shows you are engaged yet again in an attempt at vote stacking, perhaps you should try improving the articles rather than playing games which is only a detriment to this encyclopedia. Sherzo (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of impropriaty need strong evidence otherwise they are personal attacks. Stop now. See WP:CANVAS for the guidelines on this. --neon white talk 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Informing editors that have been previously named as suffering abuse in this debate has been made out of courtesy and not votestacking. TorstenGuise (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lack of help. JMalky has left Wikipedia because of it. TorstenGuise (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:William Allen Simpson

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) called me "obstreperous" [7] and accused me of "silliness" [8].

He creates an atmosphere of "it's him against us" with edits like "Obviously, we deliberately decided by consensus" [9], "And who the heck is Debresser (talk · contribs)? I don't see a lot of contributions here!" [10], "the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed" [11].

He repeatedly used "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" when undoing (amonst other things) edits I made [12], [13], [14] e.g.

Debresser (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of the edit references in the first paragraph are identical (the same CfD nomination).

1. Obstreperous seems accurate, as Debresser harangues folks that revert his edits on their User talk pages, or on other Talk pages and posts a notice on our talk to go read his diatribe.
   • Note also the recent WP:ANI against administrators who reverted his category edits (that began without any discussion at CfD), forgetting the "revert" in the WP:BRD cycle. Rather surprising for somebody that's supposedly been around for over a year....
2. I can think of considerably less polite terms than "overly literal silliness" for edits that remove categories from both a parent category and various related "see also" lists, based on the names of most containing "deletion" and those he removed are "discussion".
   • As he'd know, should he ever bother to examine 4 years of history in the categories that he changed, I'm the person that chose the term "discussion" (migrating from "deletion"), so that all the shortcuts would still work meaningfully (many in old edit summaries, very hard to update).
   • Some processes changed their name, others didn't. WP:RFD moved their project page, but not their category. They still work together relatively harmoniously.
   • Truly, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!

I'm unable to discern the "him" in his second paragraph. Presumably the "us" is related to "we"; that is, the many, many folks that arrived at the previous consensus decisions after extensive discussion at WP:CFD over many years. I expect that folks (even those still behaving like a newcomer after a year, yet bragging about his edit count) will follow the instructions at our policies and guidelines, especially after we point them at those instructions.

I don't have the time to respond to each and every such item that he rains down. I'd have thought him a high school student that had a lot of time on his hands during a summer break, but his user page says he's married with children.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding insult to insult. Seems to feel he owns the area of Wikipedia connected with categories for discussion (as I have stated before here). Debresser (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

---

• Among other things, Mr. Simpson labelled as racist an edit replacing the categories identifying Ayn Rand as ethnically Jewish (which she was) which he had removed, as shown here: [15] [16]. This is highly inappropriate and combative behavior, especially given the troubled history of that article. Attempts to engage with Mr. Simpson on his talk page were rebuffed. I do not know what a proper remedy would be, but I do know that it is totally inappropriate for other users to be using the word "racist" as their edit summaries, as this clearly qualifies as an attack on other users. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• These blatantly racist edits are the bane of Wikipedia.
  • TallNapoleon is currently banned from editing the Ayn Rand article.
  • TallNapolean was not the editor in question.

• Moreover, TallNapolean is factually incorrect: Ayn Rand was not ethnically Jewish. Although explanations abound on the Rand talk, its talk archive, and my talk, here's a shortened version:

The edit was marked racist — which it is by definition: "... racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race...."

He repeatedly assigned several heritage categories to a person that did not consider themselves of that ethnicity.

Because of the sad history of racism, it is Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage that:

Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.

Moreover, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories policy requires:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

As he admitted, my edit specified that policy. He reverted my edit, demonstrating that the revert was a violation of policy, evidenced by its summary (Her heritage is attested in reliable sources).

The assertion is that Rand was Jewish by matrilineal descent.

1. Rand herself was an ardent atheist.
2. Rand's original surname is commonly associated with Jews. She changed it.
3. Rand's parents lived outside the Jewish community — the Jewish Pale of Settlement — and were not observant. They qualified neither as cultural nor religious Jews.
4. The Jewish descent was implicitly assumed to be from a grandparent, although based on no information in the article, as there are no references in the article for any grandparents.

That's deductive speculation. QED.

Re-adding a person to categories based on her grandparents' probable religion is racism at its worst, no different than the Jim Crow "previous condition of servitude" laws, and "grandfather" clauses.

We do not consider persons that have "one drop" of Jewish ancestry to remain Jewish.

The definition is sufficiently notable that Wikipedia has had an article "Who is a Jew?" since its earliest years.

There is no WP:GOODFAITH exception to policy. I have long removed such racism whenever I find it rearing its ugly head!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I was no party to this discussion, I would like to point out that:

1. Atheist convictions are not proof of not being Jewish.
2. According to the definition provided by William Allen Simpson "... racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race....", is see no racism in calling somebody Jewish, or Negro or whatever. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Mr. Simpson does not "get" Judaism. More accurately he is conflating two different notions of Judaism. One is religious, and here he is largely correct. Rand certainly did not practice the religion of Judaism, and her parents were either irreligious or didn't care very much per "ayn+rand"+jewish&ots=h4Av96K4Qe&sig=GHKf94SVl3j2RamFiGqRqthN3_o#PPA7,M1. However, there is also a second definition of Judaism, which is purely ethnic. Under this definition, the fact that her parents were Jewish--never mind if they practiced or not--makes Rand Jewish by definition. Obviously, care should be taken not to place undue weight on this--the appropriate weight is very, very small. Perhaps a mention in her childhood. However, I see nothing offensive with having her listed in those categories to which Mr. Simpson objects, and it certainly is not justification for accusing other editors of making racist edits. This is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I would also invite Mr. Simpson to take a look at "ayn+rand"+jewish&btnG=Search, which shows that there is indeed discussion--albeit not much--of Rand's ethnic background in reliable, academic sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither of your links work correctly. On behalf of my Jewish friends and relatives, I'm appalled by your condescension. I'm from Oakland County, Michigan, home of the Birmingham Temple. Your assertion of perpetually heritable Jewish ethnicity is repudiated by most branches of Judaism other than Orthodox, and responsible for racist pogroms and the Holocaust. Also, Ayn Rand is very popular among Mormons, and the post-death baptism of her and her parents into the Mormon faith has as much validity.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Assigning people to a religious category based only on their descent seems undesirable. It is up to Wikipedia how we want to assign these categories, but literally using descent as the criterion would imply that Jewish converts to Christianity would be classed as both Jewish and Christian. Hardly helpful to our readers. It's like saying, 'You are the same religion as your parents whether you like it or not.' I still don't like WAS's use of the word 'racist' in an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's fairly common for people to class Jewish converts to Christianity as both Jewish and Christian. There is also the well-known phenomenon of Jewish atheists. Judaism is fairly unique (and confusing) in that it is both a religion and an ethnicity, but denial of the religion does not remove the ethnicity. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not whether the use of "Jewish" as an ethnic term is acceptable. Honestly, I think it's a bit more serious than the accidental "racism" for Mr. Simpson to overreact so extremely to so many posts. The reasons he has provided for editing have been pretty obviously made to get a reaction from other Wikipedia users, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. ConstantCabbage (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, only the 4th contribution of new user ConstantCabbage (talk · contribs).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish" is a faith group. The majority of the members of the faith group happen to have a similar ethnic background, but not all. Caucasians, Asians, and those of African descent can all be Jewish. "Semitic" is an ethnicity that primarily includes members of the Jewish and Islamic faiths. The majority of people who practice Judaism happen to be Semitic. "Jewish" is not a race or ethnicity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bust in here but this is a huge pet-peve of mine - BMW is absolutely correct. Judaism is a religion, Hebrew and Semetic are the prominent races, and the nationalities are far too numerous to mention (Ottoman, Israeli, yadda, yadda). Whereas I don't agree that it's racist to simply believe a person to be a certain race, it's also of little note and, at least in this case, wholly inaccurate. Padillah (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) WP is actually, for once, quite clear (there have been a lot of similar cases). If the person is Jewish only by inference, and neither by self-identification nor by verifiable fact, then the category is not applicable. If "perpetually" is invoked, we are all, by virtue of Eve, Jewish. Per WP:DEADLINE we have a lot of time to find out if she was Jewish, and then, and onnly then, should the category be added if corect. Collect (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Can we stick on topic please? Content disputes need to be resolved on the articles talk page. Stick to discussing the incivility of William Allen Simpson who has demonstrated a poor attitude towards other editors including bad faith accusations. He must recognise that in order to be a constructive editor of the project, you need to work with other editors; whether in agreement or disagreement remaining civil is the only way that is going to happen. --neon white talk 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So what can be done about William Allen Simpson's "poor attitude towards other editors"? Debresser (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideally the first course is to encourage the user to be civil and convince him of the necessity of assuming good faith in collaborative projects. If that fails and the behaviour continues then it will have to dealt with by an admin. --neon white talk 11:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He has been accused of incivility and personal attacking before, including a block, and a wp:ani discussion: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and more recently [23], [24], [25]. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a level 3 NPA warning to William Allen Simpson. While trying to deal with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues here in WQA, he took the opportunity to generate new attacks. Agreeably, his concerns (and personal misunderstandings) have given rise to possible WP:OWN issues, he must ensure that he remembers that we comment on edits and never editors on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User: Nuberger13

I've encountered a particularly difficult individual in editing the Sand Mountain (Alabama) article, who engages in personal attacks, and labels my good faith edits as vandalism. Being told "burn in hell you little communist" is laughable, but it's rather disruptive to getting a good article put together. There seem to be only the two of us interested in this article, so there is no third party help involved in article discussion. Examples of Nuberger13's lack of civility are at Talk:Sand Mountain (Alabama), particularly the final entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sand_Mountain_(Alabama)&curid=10669367&diff=292795444&oldid=292776328. An example of his labeling my edits as vandalism is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sand_Mountain_(Alabama)&diff=292794886&oldid=292776935. I note that Nuberger13 has various other warnings for civility and vandalism at User_talk:Nuberger13. Please take a look at this so I can get back to the business of editing. Eastcote (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism diff was clearly a misuse of Twinkle. He also appears to display ownership mentality with respects to the current article. Anybody may edit a Wikipedia article, even if you do not live in the town the article is about. His remarks about Kumbaya show that he doesn't understand our policy about assuming good faith, yet your response that he "seek help immediatly" was a bit patronizing and I suspect only added fuel to his fire. His response to your warning about the policies that he has broken was unacceptable. Nuberger must realise that he can and will be blocked if he continues to make such personal attacks. ThemFromSpace 03:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

addendum I just looked through his contributions and this edit summary (for the most minor of mistakes) is a doozy. This overreaction is highly disruptive and will most definitly lead to a block for civility in the near future if he keeps it up. Nuberger13, you have to stop this immediatly. ThemFromSpace 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, this kind of insulting conduct has no place on Wikipedia, and needs to stop right away. I have left a warning note on users' talk page and removed the worst of the personal attacks from the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)