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

Dikstr & Awickert

Stale

 – 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr has been making what I consider to be some inappropriate allegations for some time now. I think that the base reason for the incivility is our disagreement about global warming related issues, but I feel that the accusations that he/she makes are unproductive towards any resolution and often leave me feeling rather frustrated.

• The feelings of frustration cut both ways. There is a persistent AGW-GHG bias amongst some of the 'entrenched' editors in the climate change areas of Wikipedia. An old boy (and girl) network gangs up to RV any information contrary to their POV. I have made repeated attempts to bring some balance to these discussions but have been met with obdurate responses from some members of the AGW-GHG advocates who will not brook any middle ground.Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to work with any specific issues you bring up, and I will promise to do my best to be fair about it. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As a rough chronology, our interactions started some time back as a roughly-resolved content dispute on Solar variation. I had no negative feelings towards Dikstr at the time. However, after that he/she has targeted a number of editors including myself with a number of global warming - related accusations.

• Awickert has difficulty dealing with dissagreement and criticism of his viewpoints, probably stemming from (as he admits) inadequate specialized training in the climate change area which leaves his arguments vulnerable to criticism.Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that my specialization is in a different area, but I'd like to know specifically where it seems I dislike criticism of my viewpoints. I've always felt that I've done a reasonably good job (or at least tried to) when working with those with whom I disagree. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for the disputes he/she has had with me. (He/she has had some disputes with other editors as well, but I don't want to speak for them.) They are in approximate chronological order from earliest to preset:

I repeatedly notify an IP editor who posts a list of complaints to the global warming talk page. Other users remove the list because it has no directly actionable items to improve the article but is rather a discussion of the topic (per WP:TALK), but the IP reverts. I wait for (as I remember) 10 reverts before requesting that the IP is blocked after several notifications, which I thought was more than generous. After that, and without notifying me, Dikstr leaves this comment on the IP's talk page that accuses me of POV-pushing. I see the message some time later, and because I was accused of POV-pushing in a situation in which I was trying to notify an editor about talk page policy, I leave a message at Dikstr's talk page and the following spat ensues.

• Awickert cannot distinguish the difference between a disagreement and a 'spat'. I stand behind my comments - they were fully justified, stated in polite 'queen's english' - and hardly a personal attack!Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps not a personal attack, but an accusation of POV-pushing that I take personally as I do try to subscribe to WP:NPOV. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• We all have our POV's. The objective of a discussion venue like Wikipedia should be to provide a rational debate of them and that is not POV pushing IMO. Suppression of other points of view by rv-ing gangs with the same bias is definitely POV pushing.Dikstr (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• But my question is, "how is that particular issue POV-pushing"? Awickert (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr jumped into another discussion on talk:Global warming by writing what I took as an accusation of sockpuppetry. I took offense at this as well, and notified Dikstr at his/her user talk page (full discussion given in diff) that he/she should have checked the edit history and seen that it was simply an unsigned edit by another user. His/her response was that he did not think it was an accusation, and I dropped the issue.

• As you will note from the dialogue he references, I didn't accuse Awickert of planting a 'convenient interrogative' for his follow-on statement. I merely observed that it was a 'convenient interrogative'. Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• That wasn't the troublesome part. The problem I had was suggestion that it was a sockpuppet post by me. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He/she then made some nasty comments (e.g., [1] [2]) and more accusations of POV-pushing by editors at talk:Global warming. I warned him again at his/her user talk, and he/she told me I was confused (as he/she claims I was about the sockpuppetry charge) and that I need to be more thick-skinned to edit on Wiki. I told him that I disagreed and that he/she would hear from me when I made a complaint about his/her actions [3], as I am doing right now.

• Nasty comments? Awickert has apparently never participated in the vigorous give and take of direct scientific debate. The heavy -handed rv techniques some of the AGW-GHG advocates wield with abandon in the climate change areas of Wikipedia are far more onerous for legitimate discussion than any characterization I have made of their approach.Dikstr (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have, indeed. I simply like to try to make things productive, and I find that bringing personal character into question creates many more problems than it solves, in that it brings the debate to a level that science is several levels of complexity above. When I discuss science, we talk about the issues involved. Awickert (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I am OK editing with Dikstr; as you can see our initial messages at his/her talk are much more collegial. However, his/her continued disruption of talk pages with accusations about editors not being NPOV bothers me. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In summary I would like to make the following points:Dikstr (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia needs to maintain balanced discussions of its various areas to be a useful resource.

2 The coordinated efforts of action groups of similarly biased editors in some topics, like climate change, and their disinclination to admit information that may not support their views, will ultimately be detrimental to Wikipedia if allowed to persist.

3 Hypersensitive editors who have difficulty dealing with controversy and debate waste the resources of both Wikipedia and its other editors by abusing this venue with trivial complaints.

1. Yes, no argument.
2. No argument in principle, but I'm going to leave out anything about the particular issues as this would become a content dispute.
3. I'll add "hypersensitive" to the list, but that simply explains the problem. I expect a certain level of civility, and you expect less. I do not think that I waste Wikipedia's time, however. I write and develop a large number of articles, while it seems that your principal goal is to insert your research into related articles (which is also a good thing to do). If you have an issue (and you do) with the whole global warming boondoggle, I suggest that the better way to deal with it is in a more formal venue. Inserting snide remarks is simply disruptive. Awickert (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User Harout73 - hide info and threath people that change his version

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to article talk page to discuss content issues; failing that, use content DR.

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

Hi, well I am new here, really sorry if I make any mistake in write it here, just I search for some fair help. I heard many time ago about a problem here in wikipedia in an article of a music band (Modern Talking), but I never paid any attention until now that I saw myself and realize that it was true, there are an user called Harout73, I really don't know who is, or if he has any influence here in wikipedia, but he doesn't accept that we include some information in the biography of Modern Talking. I tried to have a polite conversation, I do all with respect, but this man only threath and is closed to open his mind or give some freedom in modify his version, and he doesn't allow to add some information that he consider not serious, or that don't come from a reliable source... the things I write I am sure with more than reliable sources, because I know many about this issue by a private investigation that I started since years, also this is easy to find for someone neutral (not like a crazy fan like it seems he is), whoever can read the solid proofs about the truth of Modern Talking, this is not vandalism, I am not attacking, or offending to anybody, I simply add some missing things in the biography, with all the respect to all the artists involved, but this man, just come and threath, you will be blocked, i will dennounced... what?? why?? for say the truth??, he is the only vandalist here!!!, he makes that like if he had any authority in the issue, well since I read that he didn't know some facts that are more than obvious it gives me the reason, that he really doesn't know too much about Modern Talking, and his real story, so with what right, only his version can be considered like a true??. I ask please that my text would be keep in the story and don't delete it again please!!. He deletes and deletes and then is warning me that i will be reported or so... please, where are we??, there are a dictadure by someone that want to keep only the version that he likes!!?. Please I ask to a third person that can put some order with it, I am not saying nosense info, are just some facts from this band that the public need to know, specially the new public. Is really unfair what is happening, I am not just a fan or somebody that waste time by internet, I am interested in keep a real serious article and not the text from a manipulated music magazine. I know an old user tried also to write something about that, but was attacked by this same user, he reported him or blocked... well, I really don't know what happened, but this was also unfair. Another thing, he wants to keep, some fansites in extern links that are really not serious included an illegal warez and mp3 sites that damage to this artists, etc. Somebody really neutral can help please?. Again sorry if I am asking some help in the wrong place, is my first time here. Bluesky84 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Talking biographer

Can you provide a link to (a) the article, (b) the offending user (c) some diffs that show where he has caused a problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bluesky, you will need to be a bit careful here, based on your signature. If you are an biographer of a subject, please read WP:COI carefully. Can I also ask you to use edit summaries on each and every edit that you make - this helps other editors to understand your edit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Background on this issue may be seen at:

• Modern Talking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Harout72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bluesky84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Bluesky84's talk page there are suggestions that Bluesky84 may have added inappropriate external links to the Modern Talking article. Harout72 is a long-time editor, while Bluesky84's account was created August 11. We should give him a chance to get oriented to Wikipedia and explain our policies to him. However his present complaint, speaking of 'attacks' and such, seems over the top. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he's getting aggrieved because he wants to add information on the backing vocalists. I've just taken it out (again, probably the fourth time someone has removed it) because he keeps sticking it in the lede first sentence, and also in the first sentence of the next para. I'm sure it's ok to add somewhere in the article that the backing vocals on the cds were by Huey, Louey and Dewey, but it is a fairly trivial piece of info. Perhaps he needs someone to explain to him about the structure of articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have been unable to find any "hiding" of anything, and the only "threats" are to take the situation to the admin's noticeboard for intervention for repeated policy violations (and darn close to breaking the 3 revert rule). Bluesky is a new editor, and a) does not appear to have English as a first language, and b) does not understand many of Wikipedia's core rules on reliable sources, external links, and the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Because of this, I have left a big welcome template on the user's talkpage.

Bluesky, here's some specifics: Geocities cannot ever be used as an external link - an automated "bot" has removed your addition more than once. Do not revert the removal again. Speaking of reverting, if you are bold and make an edit, and someone reverts it, then you are not permitted to re-add it without discussion on the article's talkpage to reach consensus (see WP:BRD). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please I ask for patient because I am new here in wikipedia and I still can't understand the formats and codification. The problem happen in the article of Modern Talking. Is true I am new, but tis don't quit me the reason and don't give to this user harout73 the only true, only for his time here... he has many familiarization with wikipedia so he has advantage in this. But please check in this article, the part of discussion and the part of historial, you will realize how this user change again and again the contributions that other people always tried to do before me. He pretend to cheat wikipedia with his only version, I added a link that showed realiable source, but he deleted it intentionally, and then threath that will report me as vandal, when he is the only who has been a vandal here. I am being neutral, and having respect for all the artists involved. But harout73 delete my contributions again and again for keep only his manipulated version. Please look in discussion, other people suppored me, and it show more people is agree, check in the historial, how before, similar contributions were deleted. We have rights in tell the true and don't hide important information that the world need to know, if they search about this music band, the one it is showed here has been until now, just a manipulated version, that never talk about the facts, trials, and demands that this band had, and are necessary for make of this article a really serious and neutral source of information. The current article is not neutral, and has to harout73 like the first person that don't allow it become serious. --Bluesky84 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Talking biographer

Bluesky has just added it back again, and I have taken it out again, and suggested that instead of arguing about truth and lies, a paragraph about the band's sound - to which the aforementioned Huey, Louey and Dewey have contributed, is hashed out on the talk page. Bluesky, an uninvolved admin will block you if you persist in adding the information, and you definitely cannot keep shoving it into the lede of the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone up for a visit to the 3RR noticeboard to get this guy to actually read policy? Between the geocities link multiple reversions and additions, and other repeated edits, he has broken it at least twice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the problem exist here in this version of wikipedia, this band had a polemic situation due to some hardcore-crazy fans try to continue cheating that the supposed singer was the singer, when he never was, and the real singers, all information about them is always hide. I try to find a neutral solution, having respect for everybody, and this would be that we can simple add to all of them together in the lead of the information, and that's all!!, end of all problems!!!, I don't accept your suggestion in this sense, this people not only contributed, they made more than a simple choir, but I don't enter in polemics here, just writting the fair information. By the way, I am not an english speaker, sorry, but I promise to make my effort for make less mistakes. I ask for a really neutral person that can help with this issue please!!, we are near to reach some justice if we can keep this contribution to wikipedia. Another thing, this issue about the geocitie, this is not the problem please!! this was only an example how this user keep the links that are in his favoru when he want (he had one of geocities added and accepted before, but when was for give info about the choir, he deleted...), please don't confuse, the problem here is to try to get a neutral article, and not only a manipulated version --Bluesky84 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Talking biographer

I'm going to recommend this once: stop editing the article right now, until you have read all of the relavant policies - both those I have quoted above, and the ones in the Welcome menu on your Talkpage. Understand that we all have a goal of neutrality, but it must be done within the Wikipedia policies. And, let me repeat: START USING EDIT SUMMARIES FOR ALL EDITS. I expect to not see you back on that article for about 12 hours ... beginning ... now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have advised Harout about this WQA, seeing as the OP did not. I have also added the article to my watchlist, and reverted two absolutely mind boggling edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat meet pigeons - I have just removed that geocities reference from Systems in Blue along with the info about the lawsuit that is only sourced to the geocities page. [4] Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned this user a few times already that he/she cannot insert material as significant as that into the article without providing a source. I left the user WP:RS link at the talk-page of Modern Talking, so he/she could familiarize his/herself with the entire operation of how/where editors need to use sources. I doubt, that she/he read any of it, instead went ahead and told me to read the credits on the booklet written on one of Modern Talking's albums. The names of those she/he persistently inserts are there but it's unclear exactly why the duo thanks them. Besides, that alone would not do help, we need a reliable source confirming her/his statements.--Harout72 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's reasonable evidence that these guys sang on the albums. Rolf Kohler worked regularly with Deiter Bohlen according to a number of sources [5] and [6] - I'm sure Sony would have sued if it wasn't true. What I have grave doubts about is this account of a lawsuit, which is only referenced by a geocities page and the references an IP has put into Systems in Blue after I knocked the geocities ref and associated text out. I'm not at all happy about seeing that anywhere without a report in a reputable journal.

Part of the problem seems to be the messaianic zeal to "set the story straight" on the part of Bluesky and the IP editor. I'm sure (as suggested) that the article can quite properly say somewhere (not in the first sentence!!) that Huey, Louie and Dewey worked on all the albums, link to Systems in Blue, creating the characteristic sound, without any suggestion that the band are other than the duo, or that Bohlen wrote all the songs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't argue whether or not these people have produced vocals for the duo, and they may have, but if there are no third party reliable sources confirming these claims, then perhaps, having their names within the article is not significant. After all, many groups/acts hire singers from outside their loop and have them provide with vocals, we don't necessarily have to include every single musician's or vocalist's names within our wikipedia articles just because they have participated in the recording studio while recording albums/singles.--Harout72 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to bring talk page discussion here, I also think you need to look at some of the sources being submitted. This appears to be a long term collaboration, and it would be appropriate to include it within the article (although without mentioning anything at all to do with setting records straight, court cases etc etc) as part of a section on the sound of the band. Refusing even this is beginning to look like unreasonable behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not even try and put the idea in these editors's heads that they could support statements with unofficial sites or You Tube, the next thing I know, the entire page will begin to fill with ludicrous statements probably stating that now Anders is a fake. They wish to insert those statements into the article I don't mind as long as they come forward with a reliable source. Long time ago, we had editors at the same page, who had entered something like Modern Talking is known as a gay group in the UK" completely unsourced. As I mentioned before the credited vocalist have never been part of the duo, and I personally have never come across a reliable article in German-language that mentions their names. Perhaps, I will look around again within Germany's google to see if there is anything reliable we can use, but I am beginning to believe that those editors surreptitiously are trying to advertise the act Systems in Blue.--Harout72 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved third party, I concur of your view that someone or some group is trying to advertise SIB in a sly way. Take a look at this edit and make an educated guess for yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong but User:MT SIB really sounds awfully a lot like User:Bluesky84. That said, is CU necessary now? --Dave1185 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not rightly sure if they are all one person - the mangled English is clouding the issue I feel. That said, SIB's own website [7] (select "About Us" as the text is in a box so the url doesn't change) claims that they have worked with Bohler for years, on Blue System as well as Modern Talking. I fancy Bohler (not to mention Sony Corp, who now own the rights) would have sued the pants off them if it wasn't true, so I see no reason to doubt that statement or, given that the squeaky voices are a major component of the sound, any reason not to give it a mention in the article. I kind of like the way Discogs says it [8] - "studio line up included...." I think any talk of lawsuits is best left out - I did find another reference [9] which purports to have been the english language version of the official BMG russia site [10]....but I have my doubts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, can this go back to the article talkpage as a content/sourcing issue, rather than a WQA issue? Seems like warnings ("threats") were valid, based on the combative editing style by the OP - I don't think there's much more to accomplish here in WQA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have said we have clarified what the problems are, and are now thrashing the answers out on the talk page (AND I now know the german for sockpuppet). I'll keep an eye on the article for a bit if you like.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 14 August 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:Brudder Andrusha

Resolved

 – Both parties warned.

This user has been continually abusive towards me for my adherence to policy regarding live association football score updates in various articles. The most recent example of this user's attitude can be seen in this edit and its corresponding edit summary. Other users at WP:FOOTY have noticed this obvious attitude problem and commented on it. Another example of the user's attitude problem can be found here. Intervention would be helpful. – PeeJay 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This user has been reported before for harassment of me. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me that this dust-up is not because someone is actually updating articles with on-the-fly scoring, which is completely against policy? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would seem so. Brudder Andrusha seems to think it is counter-productive for me to enforce policy (which it may be, but as long as my edits aren't offensive or contrary to the MOS, I don't see why I shouldn't continue) and so he has resorted to name-calling and childish insults. – PeeJay 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Peejay - can you confirm in this forum that you are equally aware of this policy regarding on-the-fly scoring? You have also been "guilty" of the same. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the incivility issue, but there's no point in denying it. – PeeJay 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You broke policy. He broke the same policy. You gave him heck for breaking thay policy, he effectively called you a hypocrite, and it escalated. That's the cause of the incivility. It doesn't excuse it, but sure does explain it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should investigate the individual User:PeeJay2K3 who brought these so call infringements and ask him why is allowed to get away with live updates and others are not. On Sunday August 9, 2009 during the 2009 FA Community Shield the same individual made 15 live updates during the match between 14:58 and 16:05 History - last 100. Hence it seems that this individual is quite hypocritic in his approach to live updates - as long as it he who is doing them. Obviously there is a double standard which this individual uses to harass those on WP so as to control who and what is doing the updates in real time. In regard to live update of sports events that are being played there are numerous events i.e. 2009 PGA Championship (not completed yet), 2009 Wimbledon Championships - Gentlemen's Singles that are updated here on WP without being dragged through Wikiquette and subject to stringent WP:Policy_Check. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said on YOUR talkpage (please do not post the identical statement everywhere). PeeJay has been made aware of live update policy. It doesn't matter - if someone ELSE is doing something wrong, it doesn't mean that YOU can too. On top of that, it never excuses your incivility. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to rely on both of you now to not only uphold the policy, but ensure that others do to. It's a good thing you're both active on various sports. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

lets all become civilty deputees, we could even form a posse!·Maunus·ƛ· 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming and shaming

Resolved

 – Section title renamed. Rd232 ^talk 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On 6 August a new User named Quantumechanic began contributing to Wikipedia. His early edits were all on the article Entropy. Three days later (9 August) a new thread was started at Talk:Entropy called:
Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all?
This title still appears at item 35 on the list of contents at Talk:Entropy.

This title is condescending and it names Quantumechanic explicitly. I believe it names and shames this newcomer.

Wikipedia should not name and shame individual Users, especially not on a much-visited talk page such as Talk:Entropy. Wikipedia is founded on its five pillars, the fourth of which is the Code of Conduct. Naming and shaming individual Users is not consistent with the Code of Conduct.

The User who created this new thread is a highly experienced contributor (3440 edits, first edit in 2004). I have written to him twice at his User talk page and asked that he amend the title of his new thread. See User talk:Count Iblis#Civility. He has not yet amended the title, and has defended his actions.

Wikipedia should not name and shame individual Users. The title of this new thread should be changed. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in fact does name and shame individual editors by blocking or banning them for violations of policies. So, your last statement suggesting that naming and shaming should never happen on Wikipedia, is not really true. This then means that in case of my edits we have to look at the circumstances and see if what I wrote was reasonable. You cannot simply reason like: "naming and shaming is never allowed, and you clearly did do this, see this text, so you are guilty".

Now, before I give my explanation, let me first say that the title of thesection was chosen deliberately not per se to "name and shame" (although it was inevitable to have that effect), but it was to make clear a relevant point to everyone. In the unlikely case that I was wrong, user quantumechanic would have all the oportunity to turn the tables on me by explaining exactly the formulas and then it would me who would have been "shamed".

So, what was the justification? The exact chronology is as follows (I think all of it is relevant, so you have to read everything, I'm afraid). User Quantumechanic made edits to the entropy page which I reverted on the grounds that they were misleading and then I decided that since the entropy page was in need of revisions anyway, why not do it right now? Now, user quantumechanic was insistent on editing the article in a different way along the lines of his first edit.

Then, I thought, why not let him have a go? It would mean entropy would be introduced from a phenomenological POV, which is not my favoriute POV, but if he is willing to spend the time to do a lot of writing, why not let him do that? I would sit on the fence and make some comments and perhaps make minor corrects myself.

I wrote to a Wiki Admin, see first paragraph of this posting here about this plan. This Wik Admin had seen my first revert of his edits and reacted to that and we discussed that a bit previously. So, I was notifying him in advance to avoid trouble. You can imagine that quantumecanic editing again starting from the version that was later reverted wold be interpreted as edit warring by that Admin.

But not long after he started editing again, did it become clear to me that his knowledge of the subject was simply way below the minimum level needed for him to be able to contribute in an effective way. The fact that he insists that "there are errors which he's correcting", while in fact there are no errors and he is editing in nonsense thinking that he's "correcting errors" and pointing that out for every instant takes a large amount of time, led me to conclude that he should not contribute at all.

I wrote on the wikiproject physics page about this, see here and on the Adminstrator's noticeboard, see here

I explained why it was now not practical for him to edit from his preferred version and that I would be editing starting from my prefered verion. Since this could look like I'm edit warring, so I thought I needed to explain myself first before doing this.

Now, let me explain that section on the entropy talk page. I did not spot the flawed integral expressions for the entropy by user quantumechanic when he first edited those in. This happened later and at that point I concluded that that my suspiciouns that I already had about him were correct: He really doesn't know much about this topic.

But because he was constantly pretending to be an expert, in the sense that he constantly argues that he has an advanced book and he has spotted erors in the entropy article and I'm removing his sourced edits etc. etc., the only way to make clear to everyone beyond a reasonable doubt that his judgement cannot be trusted, I had to write that section in that way. He choose to have a big mouth, look at his edit summaries where he says that he's correcting errors. He didn't want to consider that he's wrong, that the article is correct, and that he's editing in nonsense after detailed discussions.

So, I decided that it was now time for him to put up or shut up, so I copied and pasted his own flawed edits on the talk page and I now directly questioned his expertise. I see absolutely nothing wrong to act in this way in a case like this. Count Iblis (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin51 - this was along the lines of a scholarly debate, not an attack. Headlines on talk pages highlighting a particular editor are not unknown, and Count Iblis is careful to word things in a civil manner. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading the contributions by User:Count Iblis and User:Elen of the Roads I think my purpose in raising this matter has been misunderstood. My purpose is not to criticise Count Iblis or to have action taken against him. My purpose is to get Talk:Entropy changed so that it no longer names and shames Quantumechanic, a newcomer to Wikipedia.

If we assume some benefit was achieved by naming and shaming Quantumechanic on a much-visited talk page, there is a valid question in asking for how long should Quantumechanic, or any other individual User, be named and shamed on a Talk page? Is one week sufficient, does it take a month, or a year, or should this individual User be named and shamed in perpetuity?

Quantumechanic was named and shamed at Talk:Entropy on 9 August, almost a week ago. My view is that little or no benefit will be achieved by continuing this naming and shaming any longer. Talk:Entropy should be amended promptly to put an end to the naming and shaming of Quantumechanic.

This whole affair is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its five pillars, the fourth of which is a Code of Conduct that includes protection of individuals, even including vandals and newcomers. Wikipedia also has:

• WP:Please do not bite the newcomers
• WP:No personal attacks
• WP:Do not insult the vandals
• WP:Civility

and yet, in spite of these laudable statements of good intention, it appears that Wikipedia may be willing to see a newcomer named and shamed on a much-visited Talk page on only his third day of contributing. Newcomers will always be inclined to be over-enthusiastic, and in doing so will cause a little damage and upset experienced Users. Wikipedia has legitimate strategies to deal with such behaviour from newcomers. I watch with interest to see how long Wikipedia is willing to allow this illegitimate attack on Quantumechanic to continue.

Talk:Entropy should be amended immediately to put an end to the disgraceful naming and shaming of a newcomer. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'll say again - this is a lengthy scholarly debate, not a naming and shaming. If Quantummechanic his/herself is at all bothered by the headline, s/he knows where the edit button is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This section seems totally unnecessary. I'm a pure mathematician and as such not sufficiently familiar with the kind of mathematics that physicists do. So I can't comment about the errors discussed in the "naming and shaming" section. But in the section that follows it, Talk:Entropy#The introduction still doesn't make sense., it becomes clear that Quantumechanic is one of those editors who think the possession of one or two good books on a subject which they haven't learned properly entitles them to argue against real experts who are already active at the article. (The fact that log can be taken to various bases depending on which subject you are working in, and that in a physics context it almost always means ln, is hard to overlook in any kind of university-level physics education. I hope that at least Count Iblis had some fun writing his eerily calm and controlled a/b/c response.) Learning a subject by proving the experts wrong until they have patiently explained why they were actually right, and doing it again, and again, and again, is quite convenient – for the learner. For the teachers it's simply unacceptable. Attacking them for using the only method they see for stopping it is not OK. This is a project for writing an encyclopedia, not for teaching superior students.

If Quantumechanic is bothered by the "naming and shaming" section, there is an easy way out: stop the problematic behaviour and archive the thread, or ask a more experienced editor nicely to do it.

To Quantumechanic: When something doesn't seem to make sense, "I don't understand why..." is going to give you much better answers than "The following is wrong: ..." and will make you appear more intelligent, not less. Hans Adler 20:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the section to be deleted. I'm only asking for the title of the section to be amended. The title of the section appears in the list of contents at the head of the Talk page. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I suggest that you follow this link, which will take you to the section in question. There will be a link called "edit" to the right of the heading. Follow it, and you will see that the first line looks like this:

== Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all? ==.

You can change the heading, but be careful to leave the = signs as they are, because they are needed. If anybody disagrees with your edit, discuss it on the page itself or on user talk pages. In case of serious problems come back here. If you have similar problems in the future I recommend trying WP:Help desk first. Hans Adler 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied over from my talk page, as I prefer to keep the debate in one place, and it also responds to Hans's SOFIXIT challenge.

Hello Elen. Recently you contributed twice to WP:WQA#Naming and shaming. Thank you for adding to the debate.

You commented that the matter in question was a scholarly debate. I agree that all the postings on the subject constitute a lengthy scholarly debate. However, my complaint is not about all the postings on the subject. My complaint is about the title of the thread:
Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all?
If you read my opening statement at WP:WQA#Naming and shaming you will see that I use the word title five times.

The title of the thread is only eight words, beginning with Quantummechanic, the name of a newcomer to Wikipedia. Hence my use of the word name in naming and shaming. The remainder of the title is the condescending, rhetorical question do you understand this topic at all? Hence my use of the words and shaming. This question was not asked in good faith!

Eight words written by one User cannot be described as a debate. A seven word question that is both rhetorical and condescending cannot be described as scholarly.

My objective in raising this matter at WP:WQA is not to have the lengthy scholarly debate deleted or amended in any way. My objective is to have the thread's title amended to something more civil. In particular, my objective is to have an administrator rule on the matter so that all of us who are interested know whether this thread title is acceptable, or not, on Wikipedia. That will be a useful precedent for the future.

Thank you for your interest. (Posted by Dolphin51 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC on talkpage for Elen of the Roads and copied here by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Did you suggest that they be bold, and politely amend it themself? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quantummechanic doesn't seem to have expressed an opinion - he seems more interested in the argument about the equations (a true mathematician). If you meant did I say this to Dolphin51, then no, because Hans Adler had already said it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I've renamed the section title. Section titles should focus on content, and this did not. These mistakes get made, but when an editor requests a change, it is only polite to do that. I've done it now, I hope that's an end of it. Back to content. Rd232 ^talk 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. But I will respect the wishes of the people here of not having a title like this. Then, the only solution is to delete the entire section, which I just did. Changing the title will misrepresent some of my edits in the section itself. When quantumechanic replied to what I wrote, I wrote that he had answered the question I asked in the title (i.e. he confirmed my very strong suspicion that he has a very poor understanding of the subject). But with the changed title, my reply to quantumechanic's answer has a totally different meaning. Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Developing Situation with User:Small Victory

Stuck

 – Escalated to ANI on 17 August 2009 (UTC).

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

There is a developing situation with an editor. He has increasingly insulting people both on the page history summaries, talk pages and other wikipedia pages.

Examples (bolded by PB666):

• diff You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest'

• diff Stop your lies and distortions

• diff You're the problem, not me.

• diff Have you completely lost your mind?

• diff Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it.

• diff Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations.

• diff And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic.

• edit summary Removed Pdeitiker's ridiculous, incomplete and improperly sourced table. [Note: the table was actually removed even though it had references Small Victory has converted Absolute sample frequencies to percentages without disclosing the source of the numbers, once this was found out the material was promptly removed - the problem was that he scrambled the references in his citation such that they were difficult to follow]

• edit summary Do you not understand what a combined sample is?

• edit summary Pdeitiker, don't revert to Muntuwandi's version after coming out against it on the Talk Page

• diff either you're mistaken about being "a person of reasonable intelligence" or you're just not trying. Because the charts are explained very clearly and even color-coded to make reading them easier. WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break }}

• diff You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex.

• diff Are you kidding me? It's clear that you still don't understand my analogy, even though I've explained it and corrected your misapprehension several times. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? LEARN HOW TO READ!

And then you wonder why I talk down to you.

• [11] I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable.

• diff You're quite delusional. That article was deleted because it was a WP:CFORK. And your POV-pushing, original research, 3RR violations and sock puppets had more to do with it than anything I ever did. In fact, the article was problem-free until you (and Andrew Lancaster) came along and started tampering with it. Let's remember that you're the one who's been blocked for repeated rule violations. My record is clean. So if anything, the deletion was a referendum on your approach. Take the hint.

PB666 ^yap 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The OP has been asked to refactor based on the instructions for this page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I was forced to do it myself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did notify Small Victory on Genetic History Of Europe that his behavior was unacceptable, I have been busy for the past day or so I just now rechecked.PB666 ^yap 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC) (see diff Small Victory, this is to let you know I am not doing anything behind your back, the language you are using has been brought to the attention of Administrators in the pre-mediation board. If you continue with hostile editing and insulting of people it will be brought to arbitration. Revision as of 23:03, 14 August 2009 Pdeitiker. Again I thought this was an informal premediation board that was a prelude to arbitration.

Unless I have missed something, notification is a very strong community norm, rooted in the belief that there are two sides to most stories. I would have liked to have heard from the other party before action was taken. Why didn't User:Pdeitiker notify user:Small Victory of the posting here? Why did User:Bwilkins admonish SV without getting his/her side of the story? This was very poor form. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OP= Original poster. BWilkins asked PB666 to lay out his complaint differently to meet the guidelines for this page. I don't believe he or anyone else has communicated with Small Victory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Two responses. If no one has communicated with SV, that's a problem; indeed, it's the same problem that I identified. Why has no one notified him/her? Their actions have been raised here, an action that could result in sanctions, and that ought to trigger notification as a matter of course. Second, as I said, Bwilkins has communicated with SV to issue a stern warning, see [12]. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise - I did not realise Bwilkins had communicated with SV. While I hold no brief for Bwilkins, I would be surprised that he has done so without (a) notifying SV of this thread and (b)noting here that he has done so. Since the warning was given six hours or so earlier than Bwilkins post here, it seems it could be the case that the warning was given independent of reading this complaint, and Bwilkins may not recall that he warned the same editor earlier in the day. You are correct that the complainant should have notified SV of the complaint - do you wish to do so now? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :) I notified SV of this posting a little earlier ([13]). I have to admit that I would be surprised if, by sheer coincidence, BW just happened to warn SV about the same conduct that was reported here by Pdeitiker, after Pdeitiker reported it here, independently of that report. (I will take it in good faith if he says otherwise, of course. ) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I did advise the complainant to both advise Small Victory, AND to refactor his comments (see their talkpage). Indeed, I rarely investigate until I am sure that they were advised. I did, however, see a few of the concerning edits firsthand - based on what I saw, regardless of the discussion on WQA, there were significant (and regular) violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that required immediate warning. I did fail to advise Small Victory of this WQA thread, and failed to advise WQA of my actions. Sorry, a little WP:AGF as it was early. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the various statements made by Small Victory, qualify, either individually or in totality as incidents that can be handled by WP:ANI. Small Victory has been warned several times about his incivility yet he continues. Some of his uncivil comments date back to 2006. I have mentioned this in other talk pages, but will do so again. Small Victory appears to be a single purpose account, who is apparently trying to push an unscientific POV. For the last three years, his edits had been focused on one article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. When that article was deleted, the debate shifted to Genetic history of Europe. Essentially Small Victory has only edited the two aforementioned articles, and a handful of related articles. His edit count reveals that in 3 years of editing, he has only edited 23 unique articles, and now about one third of his live edits were deleted when Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (SSDAE) article was deleted. The few other articles he has edited were all in some way related to the SSDAE article, such as AFD and noticeboard postings. Small Victory has only a small number of edits, approx 300 in 3 years. These uncivil comments and personal attacks, aren't spaced out between several edits. They are actually quite frequent occurrences. It is my opinion, that he has been warned enough times, and that warnings will no longer suffice, he has even been bragging about having a "clean record" diff. Administrative action may be warranted. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

These are comments from the deleted page Talk:Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. I cannot provide diffs because the article is deleted. However, administrators may be able to access the comments to verify. Examples by Muntuwandi.

I can see you have trouble following simple logic. Using your example, if a sub-Saharan with E-M78 had offspring with a European, that offspring could not possibly get E-M78α because the alpha cluster is not present in any sub-Saharan populations. It's only present in Europeans. Therefore, E-M78α is not evidence of sub-Saharan ancestry. It can only be evidence of European ancestry. And the clusters of E-M78 are in fact completely independent lineages. A recent paper by Cruciani found that they each have membership in different unique event polymorphisms. The alpha cluster, which doesn't have an African origin, is monophyletic and corresponds almost perfectly to newly defined haplogroup E-V13 (see Table). Small Victory

This issue was already debated here when another obvious Afrocentrist tried to pull the same garbage that you're pulling now. He lost. Please refer to discussions 6, 7 and 8. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Having been totally exposed and defeated, now he's just reinserting his OR and POV without even giving an explanation or trying to make his case on the Talk Page. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The debate about content is over. You've been proven wrong, and consensus has been reached. In fact, it was over three years ago when Yom tried to pull the same thing and was also defeated by consensus. (Notice that your pal Llywrch intervened there, but backed down when I explained everything and he saw that I was right.) The situation we have now is a "crazy Afrocentrist" (by your own admission) trying repeatedly to reinsert OR and POV into the article, and in doing so continually violating the 3RR. This has to stop. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you delusional? After we arrive at consensus that you're guilty of OR and POV pushing, and we cease to indulge your nonsense as a result, your twisted Afrocentric mind interprets that as consent for you to reinsert your biased edits? Get real.The only "silence" here is yours, and it's deafening. You need to produce a source that uses E-V13 and E-M81 as evidence of Sub-Saharan African admixture. If you can't do that (and it's obvious by now that you can't), then you need to back off and stop vandalizing this article. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be very clear: Your OR and POV will never be included in this article. Ever. Not as long as we have something to say about it. And if not us, then someone else will come along to stop you. Because you're in the wrong. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got a lot of nerve accusing others of OR given your track record. It's not a question of what the Auton study says, it's what it shows (or rather, doesn't show). Do you know what an admixture analysis is? Have you heard of the STRUCTURE program? I suggest you familiarize yourself with these things before making outrageous and idiotic accusations. Start with the Pritchard and Rosenberg papers referenced in this article......Small Victory (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing the content, but it's impossible to get anywhere with someone who's so clueless about science, and population genetics in particular, and more interested in advancing an Afrocentric agenda than learning anything. A graph is not "shaky ground". It's a visual representation of data, and you would know how to properly interpret the graphs in Auton if you understood population structure and the study in question. The dark green component is Sub-Saharan African because it makes up 100% of the Yoruba sample. Just like the red component is European and used in the study to detect European admixture in Mexicans. The reason African admixture isn't mentioned with regard to Mexicans (or anyone else) is because they don't have African admixture. And the graphs show that clearly. Get it? ---- Small Victory (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mexican sample in Auton et al. shows no significant Sub-Saharan African admixture. That doesn't mean that there can't be other samples in other studies that yield different results (do you understand anything about how science works?). In fact, here's a study that found some African admixture in certain other Mexican samples. More importantly though, note that it uses the Yoruba as representative Africans. Just as it uses Zapotecs as representative Amerindians because of their near total membership in the cluster of inferred Amerindian ancestry.Small Victory (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Wapondaponda (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why the above section (from an article that appears to have been deleted months ago) has relevance? If you're trying to establish a pattern of action, then you need to file an WP:RFC/U ... in WQA, we're not that interested in ancient history - we're here to resolve current difficult discussions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article was deleted less than one month ago, on 18th July. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory's side of the story

I admit, sometimes I get a little snippy with people, but I'd say that very few of those examples qualify as insults. Some of them are reactions to being accused of things without evidence. Others are due to exasperation from having to repeat myself endlessly because people read selectively or don't pay attention. Still others express bewilderment at the poor understanding people seem to have of the subject under discussion. And then of course, there's the elephant in the room. My main adversary (Wapondaponda/Muntuwandi) is an unrepentant Afrocentrist. The modus operandi of these types is OR and POV, in his case primarily Information Suppression to emphasize dubious claims of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in Europeans, and remove all evidence that refutes, contradicts, questions or clarifies his information. And nobody seems willing or able to do anything about it. If there were a "Nordicist" editor distorting science to place "Nordic blood" in all sorts of different populations, he wouldn't last a second here. Yet these Afrocentrists with their comparable distortions are permitted to run rampant. There should really be some kind of system in place to weed them out.

One has to wonder why Wapondaponda has gone to such lengths to have me discredited or even banned, obsessively saving comments of mine from a deleted article, some of which date back years, and why he's tried (unsuccessfully) to have key genetic evidence prohibited. The answer is simple: I'm the only thing standing in the way of his agenda to propagate Afrocentrism on Wikipedia. It wasn't always like that. In fact, he's been blocked numerous times for edit warring and 3RR violations because people determine his contributions to be OR/POV, but he ignores the consensus and simply reinserts them. He also essentially recreated the aforementioned deleted article, but has yet to be reprimanded for it. (I would like to point out that, as of right now, my own record is clean, a fact of which Wapondaponda is painfully aware. Also, contrary to what's been implied, I never received any prior warnings, which made the "final warning" I received yesterday a little surprising.)

Naturally, I'll try to reign in my snide remarks and other outbursts (I already do, but I'll try harder). However, when you consider what I'm up against, I think a little leniency is in order. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And he continues his personal attacks by referring to me as an "unrepentant Afrocentrist". I have said this numerous times, I resent being referred to as an Afrocentrist, and I view this as an attempt to caricature me, so that I am not taken seriously. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

View it however you want, but it's not a personal attack. It's calling a spade a spade based on his OR and POV. And what you're trying to do is deflect criticism:

Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review.

Referring to you as an Afrocentrist is my review of your edits, which I maintain are all organized around propagating that ideology. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Small Victory, this is not about Muntuwandi, you have insulted or talk-down to two admins, me, Andrew (the last two on repeated occasions), and other editors. You refuse to work toward a consensus and engage in endless Edit-Warring, and other items. Muntuwandi did not create this thread, I did, because I thought it was time this went up for a wider airing. I am not an afrocentrist. The fact that you are argumentative about why this thread was created indicates to me that you are unlikely to change your behavior.PB666 ^yap 00:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Ani#Persistent_incivility_by_User:Small_Victory, as I feel this warrants administrative assessment. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:15, 17 August 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.

Some remarks by Milomedes.

Resolved

 – Misunderstandings clarified.

As I feel that a remark that Milomedes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made lately on WT:EL was not aimed at the discussion, but at the users who argued against his arguments, I left a post on his talkpage. Also that was, in my opinion, met by a similar type of remark.

In the first remark he states: "The guide is launching extremists from this page. The best way to limit extremism is to change the guide language, so that they have less guide basis to harass local editors with extreme interpretations." In my opinion, that remark has a chilling effect on the people who argue that the wording in the sentences under discussion is fine and who follow that, and drowns a bit the discussion (in my way of reading: if you remove a link and warn the user who added it pointing at 'links to avoid', then you are an extremist, and are harassing the local editor). As the argument is more describing the people who follow the guideline then as against the argument itself, and I notified him (both in the thread and on his talkpage) that I interpreted that as such, and pointed him at WP:NPA (comment on the argument, not on the editors). I agree, I may have over-interpreted the remark, though I don't see it as helpful to achieve consensus (more the contrary).

From that Milomedes found it necessary to remind me, that he was "an editor for a year longer than you have" (2 diffs).

I'd like to have some independent admin have a look at this, before this escalates. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a need to escalate. I only read the last couple posts (and diffs), but I think s/he was addressing the verbiage of the article more than any individual editor. I just looked very quickly, but did you notify him/her of this thread? I do admit, pointing out tenure, edit counts, age, etc. doesn't really carry that much weight here - or at least it's not supposed to. Doesn't seem all that confrontational at the moment, hopefully it won't get that way in the future. — Ched :  ?  13:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, user is notified. It was in my opinion not addressing the verbiage, but, IMHO, describes the editors who follow the verbiage as it is there currently. That was more the reason to bring it here. It does not exactly bring the discussion that is at hand further. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a read through the whole EL talk page later today. If I can think of anything useful to add, I'll try. Best of luck. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, or perhaps a question. If I'm reading the contribs right - I'm seeing less than 3,000 edits since 2005. vs. about 20x that for Dirk. Is that right? As I said, tenure and edit counts hold little sway here - but I find it rather ironic that someone with about 2,000 edits would try to pull a "I've been here longer than you" rabbit out of his hat. Curiouser and Curiouser. — Ched :  ?  14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to drop that argument in terms of who is more experienced here (I did not go against it in detail, as that indeed comes to 'what do you call more experienced'), it is more the question about the type of comments, which are not aimed at an argument, but at the user(s) who placed them or others who want to comment. To me it is not helpful to create an atmosphere of 'if you ever reverted an edit where someone added a (type of external link), and you gave as reason 'does not fit WP:ELNO No. #', then you are an extremist who is harassing local editors'. That is not an atmosphere in which I want to argue, but as I am involved in the situation, the argument, and now have a dispute with the editor itself, it is better to bring it up for review. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"before this escalates" Well now, it already has escalated hasn't it. Oddly, this all started out by my being very complimentary to Dirk Beetstra.[14] Go figure that by being exceptionally nice to him he would thank me like this.

Eventually, Beetstra made a serious reading comprehension error, jumped to a conclusion, and I'd say he's now trying to make it my fault. As a long-time editor, I know without fail that I must have the facts to evidence every statement I write – because of possible occasions just like this one. Ok, I keep careful records and I'm ready.

"was not aimed at the discussion, but at the users who argued against his arguments" It didn't happen. Beetstra freely interpreted what I wrote as "...saying that all people that remove external links according to the avoid rules are extremists..." (Dirk Beetstra 12:50, 14 August 2009)[15] That's completely improper reporting. I never used "all" or any other such absolute generalization. I didn't write "people" either.

Reworking his statement into a correct reporting of what I wrote could read, *extremists are removing external links by extreme interpretation of the avoid rules*. The fact that as corrected it doesn't make a good sentence is rhetorical evidence that I didn't equate "extremists" to any group other than four editors of whom I had contextually informed him in a previous thread[16] – which he seemed to have forgotten about until I reminded him.[17] So does he have a bad memory contributing to the problem here?

"met by a similar type of remark" Translation: I said he was wrong. I was working on the detailed evidence that he was wrong when he decided to post here. I guess he really wasn't interested in learning the details of exactly why he was wrong. That's understandable, but if he didn't want to take the time to work it out with me on my page, he should have just dropped it.

Beetstra removed my remark from context. The complete sentence was "I've been an editor for a year longer than you have, and I don't write things I can't prove."[18] When one makes the kind of mistake that Beetstra did, I assume that I'm being treated like a newb. A reminder of my editing seniority, I consider useful and completely fair to reestablish the proper balance.

Tellingly, he posted the first half of that sentence to the talk page,[19] completely without understandable context or need. Accordingly, I have the sense that his umbrage over the "year longer" remark, yet another fact, is what this visit to AN is really about.

One further point about Ched's question on edit counts. (1) I care nothing about edit counts, only quality. I usually submit work completely polished off line, whereas others inflate their edit counts by editing on line. (2) I've worked on two major articles that were deleted, though maybe that's part of the 2-3,000 count. (3) There are pages to which, IIRC, I'm the 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd highest edit count contributor.(4) For what it's worth, I've contributed some unknown but significant percentage of 54 MB to the project (the size of my Wikipedia files). Milo 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So you keep comparing. As I said, and as Ched defines, and as said, it does not say anything. It is a matter of what you want to count. And the fact that you care about quality, and that there are pages where you are the main contributor, are both duly noted.

What I mean, Milomedes, is that it is not helping the discussion, to say that a guideline gives others a reason to do something. That is not an argument. Our blocking policy gives admins a reason to block for violations, I could rewrite your remark: "The blocking policy is launching extremists admins (...). The best way to limit extremism is to change the blocking policy language, so that they have less policy basis to harass local editors with their blocks".

However you interpret, you do say here, that you find that local editors are harassed by extremist editors who read the guideline. Please, show me, if you have proof of that, then we get somewhere. Are there really editors out there that eradicate every single MySpace/FaceBook/BlogSpot/YouTube/Twitter they encounter, because the guideline is saying that they are to be avoided? I simply don't believe it. We don't have extremism of that kind.

You do link to a previous discussion item, where you argue that a Twitter link does no harm. No, the thing is, we are not a directory, and there are limits somewhere. Twitter may indeed be informative here and there, but we don't link 'because it does not harm', we link because it adds to the page, because it provides encyclopedic information. Does the twitter of Britney Spears give encyclopedic information, no, I doubt it, her MySpace might actually be a better link, but that is not linked there.

I, someone who does revert MySpace/FaceBook/BlogSpot/YouTube/Twitter which do not follow the guideline, see myself here depicted as an extremist who harasses the editor who adds them. I may interpret it wrong what you say there, and maybe I am not one of the extremists you seem to refer to, but that is not an argument against my reason for removal, it is a remark that I feel is aimed at those editors who remove these links, and therefor it is a chilling remark, it does not encourage further discussion. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the open issues that I see, stated with my initial positions:

1. "you find that local editors are harassed by extremist editors who read the guideline. Please, show me, if you have proof of that, then we get somewhere."

1 It will take days to assemble and present the evidence, and then you will still dispute parts of it, especially as you have already decided "We don't have extremism of that kind" prior to getting the evidence.

2. "Are there really editors out there that eradicate every single MySpace/FaceBook/BlogSpot/YouTube/Twitter they encounter, because the guideline is saying that they are to be avoided? I simply don't believe it. We don't have extremism of that kind."

2 With degrees of variation, that's what I saw. I was shocked also which is why I made an issue of it.

3. "I, someone who does revert MySpace/FaceBook/BlogSpot/YouTube/Twitter which do not follow the guideline, see myself here depicted as an extremist who harasses the editor who adds them."

3 You made some assumption(s) that I did not state or imply. Also apparently you had forgotten that I had already explained what I meant in the other thread. Most people do not have such short memories.

4. "I may interpret it wrong what you say there, and maybe I am not one of the extremists you seem to refer to, but that is not an argument against my reason for removal"

4 You simply assumed that I was claiming your reason(s) for removal was extreme. I have no idea if it is or not, but it's unlikely that you would do what those four editors did.

5. "it is a remark that I feel is aimed at those editors who remove these links, and therefor it is a chilling remark, it does not encourage further discussion."

5 That's position is absurdly out of touch with WPEL. I can't remember a more loudly outspoken group of editors as at WPEL. One couldn't stop them from discussing, especially anything they disagree with.

6. "it is not helping the discussion, to say that a guideline gives others a reason to do something."

6 That statement has no logic; that's what guides are for, to give others a reason to do something. That's why it's called a guide. Anyway "not helping the discussion" is in this case matter of opinion.

Since you were born in The Netherlands I'm concerned that you are an ESL who doesn't know U.S. English with the great rhetorical precision that I do. (Yes, yes, you're probably bristling already at my questioning of your language skills.) For example, "drowns a bit the discussion"; that's exceptionally odd usage for a native English speaker.

Because connotation plays such a great role in misunderstanding and taking offense (which you did in #3), it's possible, though not certain, that we have no penultimate basis for certain kinds of communication or shared philosophy. If for example, you are a monarchist, I'm likely to grate on you, since as a U.S. citizen I "don't know my place" in European class society. If our exacting connotative language and/or class expectations are not compatible, we can only expect a limited outcome from communication, perhaps in some cases, agreeing to disagree.

If I have estimated these circumstances correctly, mediation is probably the best way to communicate these listed contentious issues, since you probably won't believe me when I tell you that certain phrases connote certain meanings (in the U.S. of course).

I have other things to do, so I don't expect to be able to work on this again today. Milo 20:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much to add but to agree with your last analysis. Indeed, I am not a native in English (and will never be), and, as I already suggested early in this, I asked for an independent evaluation whether I did understand it wrongly. It is also absolutely true, that we will have to agree that we have cultural differences which may be incompatible, or even clash. Additionally, sure, I agree that we have to agree to disagree sometimes. I am sorry for the misunderstanding, and I apologize for that. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just spotted this bit of watchlist evidence of extreme tendencies at WP:EL (though nothing like what the four editors did):

14 August 2009

• (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:External links‎; 20:11 . . (-225) . . Kingturtle (talk | contribs) (→Links normally to be avoided: removing "most fansites" bit. it's *all* fan sites.)

Milo 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastairward

Involving:

• MickMacNee (talk · contribs) (poster)
• Alastairward (talk · contribs)

Events in diff chronological format.....

• Alastairward 19:24, 13 August 2009 Alastairward recently removed a column from a table
  • Alastairward 21:38, 13 August 2009 with an explanation
• MickMacNee 01:54, 14 August 2009 I disagreed with this edit and reinstated it
  • MickMacNee 01:59, 14 August 2009 citing WP:BRD and giving my rationale
• Alastairward 08:51, 14 August 2009 His reply contains "Are you leaving it in so that the article can be padded and kept", which I consider an assumption of bad faith.
• MickMacNee 17:10, 14 August 2009 The discussion quickly reaches the stage where imo we obviously need a third opinion, which I ask him to do if he still has an issue.
• Alastairward 18:22, 14 August 2009 He simply ignores that and reverts me, removing the column again,
  • Alastairward 20:07, 14 August 2009 merely giving the same justification for the removal
  • Alastairward 18:20, 14 August 2009 coupled with "This is not the place for discussion, suffice to say that you do not own the article", which I find extremely rude, considering it follows him reverting me, in contempt of the accepted model of both bold-revert-discuss and dispute resolution.

I have filed a third opinion request anyway on the article talk page, this WQA is simply to get some feedback on the proper methods of content dispute resolution, in light of the fact that I consider my actions here totally reasonable and the comments, and edit warring, highly innappropriate, especially as Alastairward claims to be a good faith and experienced editor. As far as I am aware, we have never interacted before, and I only came to this article two days ago.

MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it that this is a two way process, and input from me is welcome? I think it would be important to note that although MickMacNee had asked me to seek other editor's consensus, I was already acting on the suggestion of another user. In the deletion discussion for this article, it was suggested that a section be removed (see here), and I acted on this. It seemed to me to make the notion of seeking a third opinion moot.

Other information I would like to add was that in the middle of the deletion discussion for this article, MickMacNee renamed the article, quite changing the entire purpose of the article (from identifying notable use of certain actors, to being a mere list of all guest actors). Having seen this user make this change, I couldn't understand then why my edit, which was intended to tidy the article and not remove any information that would take away from its intent, was noted as "extreme".

From my own point of view MickMacNee's response here did seem to logically suggest that they were not seeking ways to improve the article, but maintain it so that it would simply pass the deletion discussion.

And in all honesty I wasn't sure what to make of this reply, I really didn't see any attempt to explain the worth of their edits to the reader or what was so wrong with my own. Alastairward (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• The rename is irrelevant after you decided to revert
• You had ample oppurtunity to say you weren't acting unilaterally, you didn't, instead merely flipping me off
• So, it's OK to assume bad faith as long as its a logical deduction? You want the article deleted, so by deduction, removing information from it would be a good way to do that, no? Does't really work does it? Either you respect my motives or you don't.
• Not understanding someone's rationale is NOT an excuse to ignore it and edit war. MickMacNee (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If we take away anything from this, its that I can tell you honestly that you seem to me as blunt as you characterise me. Alastairward (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Either explain yourself, or don't. This is not an explanation. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that an editor who has been blocked eight times for incivility (as MickMacNee has, by my count) are going to find it difficult to get anybody to take a WQA report seriously unless the case is very clear, and this one certainly isn't. Looie496 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you had disclosed your previous account name with this opinion, I might have cared what you think, or entertained your rather odd position that a good faith WQA report need not be looked at if the reporter has a bad record. It strikes me that if your motives are sound, you should be doing everything in your power to persuade me, a proven 'bad guy', not to handle the situation highlighted with this editor with incivility and edit warring. Anybody on the pedia who takes this attitude is not helping the project, admins in particular. MickMacNee (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Going through the diff list, I think this is merely a great big misunderstanding. Nevertheless, this is what I found, and my advice to you both, MickMacNee (M) and Alastairward (A).
• 01:59, 14 August 2009. M, please note that calling his action an "extreme" measure was a perhaps not a good choice of words, but more importantly, was merely your opinion rather than a matter of fact. Making it clear that it was your opinion would've perhaps cut the core misunderstanding in this conflict, and explaining your position in more detail would've achieved the same end.
• 08:51, 14 August 2009. A, asking a more simple question ("Can you please explain why you are leaving it in the article?") probably would have been handled a little less aggressively by MickMacNee than what you'd asked - certainly, another source of misunderstanding.
• 14:30, 14 August 2009. M, if the question was posed, I would avoid thinking of it as an assumption of bad faith or an accusation - rather, he didn't understand what you were doing/saying, and merely made a suggestion to try to figure out (with the aid of an unfortunate assumption - that may be incorrect). A simple answer to the question would've sufficed, rather than jumping to the conclusion that he was accusing you of something.
• 17:10, 14 August 2009. A, please note that pointing to the section at the time would've probably cut the need for this entirely. It would've also possibly cut your concern of ownership.
• 18:20, 14 August 2009. M, the article talk page is the most suitable place for the discussion. Also, if you'd made those comments, despite being aware of the section where the user was acting on another's suggestion, then understandably, an editor may feel that insisting your opinion trumps on the article is showing signs of ownership.
• M, It is due to such potential misunderstandings that no further reverts were a good idea. However, you do need to relax your stance (and perhaps your approach, as well as the language you use) a little bit. Most people would appreciate it, and in turn, I think you probably would too. :)
• A, had M reverted, would you have reverted back? If no, good. If yes, then that would be very unwise - where you reverted last in this dispute was where the line should be drawn.
• If your differences cannot be resolved in terms of content, I would suggest mediation first off. Mediation helps keep discussions focused, so that less misunderstandings develop, and content is attacked with hopefully the same goal to further this project's purpose. Mediation can either be formal WP:MEDIATION, or informal. That said, if mediation is not successful, or nobody is both willing and able to mediate, then article RFC is what's left. These are the content dispute resolution mechanisms available at Wikipedia-en.
• Finally, I must emphasise that this is merely my opinion, and it may be in need of improvement on a few facts or explanations. But I do hope that helps you understand how this could've been approached to otherwise avoid the need for this WQA. I also do hope that this clarifies any misunderstandings that resulted from Looie496's unhelpful post. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Naziism

Resolved

 – Sadly, user retired. Filing party also warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Romandrumanagh, in the midst of a content dispute on the article Drumanagh, has called me a Nazi. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe (nazism, fascism, communism et al) in order to make "disappear" contrary opinions to their dogmas, ideals and points of view. This is not the same as calling you a Nazi.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see a great deal of difference between being called a Nazi and being told I'm behaving like a Nazi. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see that either. You are being told that you made an edit of a type that is also used by many others to "make disappear" contrary opinions. Don't assign attacks by trying to read between lines, as that's contrary to WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Hairsplitting of the most pusillanimous kind. So comparing a fellow editor to a Nazi is perfectly fine, but objecting to it contravenes the assumption of good faith? Christ. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It was a stupid comparison to make since it serves no purpose other than to aggravate, but you taking it to heart doesn't accomplish anything more than that either. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It seems a rather disingenuous comparison to make - why was nationalism mentioned at all if not to antagonise? Pretty unhelpful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I have told the editor not to use that kind of rhetoric devices in discussions as they serve no purpose.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
            • There seems little doubt that it was because, as can be seen, the title of the talk page section where that edit occurred is "Celtic nationalism?" and nationalism was actually the subject of the ongoing discussion. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • When Bwilkins says that you're reading into the comment something that isn't actually there, to a disinterested party, xe isn't either splitting hairs or being pusillanimous. Moreover, when xe tells you that you are not being compared to a Nazi, you have no justification for completely distorting that statement into the claim that "comparing a fellow editor to a Nazi is perfectly fine". You came here for third party advice. Listen when it is given. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm glad some others have weighed in with other opinions, because if I thought this kind of patronising sophistry was the standard response to abuse of this sort on Wikipedia, I really would despair. I didn't come here for impartial advice on whether being compared to a Nazi (which is there, I'm not reading anything into it) is a breach of Wikiquette, I came here for help in dealing with something that self-evidently is. I'm not sure what irritates me more, abusive editors or those who indulge them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a POV pusher, who skirts just below the line of actionable personal attack. In these edits: [20] [21] (same text; he chose to post it multiple times) he uses race/nationality as a subtle jab. The user seems too familiar with policy for a brand new account. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have NOT called Nicknack009 a nazi or communist. I have only written "It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe", and I want to repeat that "I hope to be mistaken". I am sorry if he misunderstood me. Allow me to appreciate the comment of Elen of the Roads, Bwilkins and others. It is not easy to deal with nationalistic groups, even in the italian wikipedia (where I mainly post). Sincerely.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As you see, despite a warning, he persists. I don't believe this level of personal abuse is acceptable. Sadly, there does not seem to be a mchanism to warn and block editors for personal abuse, as there is for vandalism - the WP:NPA page only suggests mediation, and I am not prepared to discuss anything with this editor until he stops with the personal abuse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I DECIDE TO RETIRE FROM WIKIPEDIA: I retire from Wikipedia as a form of protest, because is too much controlled by groups of fanatic nationalists like Nicknack009, who calls "INFERIOR" (sound racist, isn't it?) my posts from the first moment in the talk page of Drumanagh. He has made me change the high esteem I used to have of Celtic Irish people.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...and I have had enough of Nicknack009's attacks on neutral editors in this forum, and his additional, unsubstantiated accusations on Romandrumanagh above - so horrific that an editor was driven away. I have warned Nicknack009 for those personal attacks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight. Romandrumanagh explicitly compares me to a Nazi, but that's not horrific. Me pointing it out as the abuse it is is horrific. While he continues to call me a nationalist and a racist, not a peep. But I point out the complacency and indulgence of his behaviour by you and others, and I get slapped with a personal attack warning? I have made no personal attacks, only criticised what Romandrumagh, you and others have written - that's "content", according to the terms of your own warning on my talk page. Your priorities are peculiar, to say the least. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I've just noticed, you have also called me a nationalist. How is that not a personal attack? I am not a nationalist, and there is no nationalistic content to my edits to the article, which have been entirely concerned with the quality of the article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Horrific"? An exaggeration perhaps? Romandrumanagh's last post is a clear indication of the problem here - Wikipedia is "controlled by nationalistic nationalists"? Suggesting that people are using "racist" terms? And why has one editor's behaviour changed his view of an entire ethnic group? If he's a neutral editor, I'm a Dutchman. I hope Nicknack009 doesn't take the warning too seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

By "neutral editor" he was referring to people like himself, but you're quite right. For the record. A single-purpose editor comes in, inserts claims which are not backed up by any reliable sources (and arguably of marginal relevance to the article in question). When an editor reverts his actions, he accuses him of nationalism akin to Nazism, which is really an ad hominem argument of the worst and most unconvincing kind, tries to shift the burden of evidence, and walks off like a diva (I didn't say he is a diva, just like one). Case resolved (unless he really is a diva and comes back). We don't really need this situation, do we? Cavila (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am an italian friend of user Romandrumanagh (sorry for my english). He requested me to thank user:BWilkins for him. He even requested to substitute the word 'nationalistic nationalists' with 'fanatic nationalists' (it was a mistake, writing in a hurry). I personally believe he should calm down, get back to en.wiki and ask for an arbitration about Drumanagh. But I understand -reading the comments of user Cavila and user Bretonbanquet (both clearly "celtic")- that it will be 'very very very' difficult to achieve it in an impartial and calm way. Finally, even I find the book of Hughes (British Chronicle) a Google book worth to be included in the bibliography of the voice Drumanagh in the italian wikipedia (and should be even in the en.wiki...), because wikipedia must accept all the points of view and I don't believe Google accepts low level books. What strikes me more is the intervention of the admin Kathryn NicDhàna, who seems to be totally on the celtic side, cancelling the posts of my friend asap.Yours. Roberto M.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to the insinuation that I am incapable of being objective in this matter due to my Celticness. Some of us are bigger than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicknack, it has been explicitly pointed out that you were never called a Nazi - you're reading between lines to accuse someone of something that may or may not exist, and the person whom your complaining about has even addressed it. On top of this, "nationalistic" != "racist", and to suggest so requires a little shake of the head to clear the cobwebs. Nicknack, you have spent more time attacking the neutral editors in this forum, than to read those neutral comments in the light that they have been provided to you. If you're not willing to read, then you are not willing to be helped. This forum generally requires BOTH parties to bend a little - and you're not; so much so that you have driven an editor from en.Wikipedia - that is contrary to policy. There's a little article about WP:POINT ... and something about climbing something dressed like Spiderman that you should read. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) ^{Not sure how well your memory's working, but those are the words used by Romandrumanagh. Glad to assist, Cavila (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)}

You, and a couple have others, have indeed told me that Romandrumanagh's personal abuse, including specific uses of the words Nazi, nationalist and racist, is entirely in my imagination. Thing is though, you're wrong. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus among neutral editors in this forum is that although the comments were not a personal attack, that kind of rhetoric was unwise. He was warned not to use that type of commentary again, and seeing as he has retired from the English Wikipedia, there's no need for further discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't noticed his "friend" coming back to continue the same "unwise" rhetoric then? Or are you you going to argue that calling people "fanatic nationalists" isn't actually calling anybody a fanatic nationalist? That's quite apart from your own unwarranted accusations against me. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, this discussion is setting a useful precedent for the definition of "personal attack" at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'd suggest we add the following disclaimer:

Note that indirect abuses are not personal attacks. Examples:

• "You are a Nazi" is a personal attack. "You are like a Nazi" isn't, it's a simile. Neither is "You sound/behave/edit like a Nazi."
• Don't be a Travis Bickle. "I'm leaving this discussion. It is ruined by fanatic nationalists" is not a personal attack, because you can never be sure it's you who's being targeted, even if there are no other targets around.

Cavila (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper

Resolved

 – I'm sorry for bringing this here, and I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper consistently assumes bad faith on my part and on the part of other editors. I realize he has legitimate policy concerns about a number of articles, but his decision to ignore my attempts to resolve the situation and engage in discussion is, honestly, infuriating. Some recent diffs, [22], [23], [24]. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The above user is WP:WIKIHOUNDING#User space harassment me on my talk page, and has posted 4 times since I requested he not post there, ever. This report is an additional part of this abuse of his editing priviledges.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not desire to harass User:Wolfkeeper. I would like to point out that I was not "asked" to avoid talking on his page. I was instructed to[25] in an inappropriate tone. I have since refrained from using warning templates on the user's talkpage and have tried to open up into friendly conversation. Each posting has been unique and different, and an attempt to engage in cooperative discussion. I have looked at the user's history only in regards that I disagree with his habit of renaming articles on English affixes, which I fully recognize to be a disputed practice. I am not ignorant of why the user might wish to make these changes, I just wish to discuss them and bring them to the attention of those WikiProjects that might be associated. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If somebody asks you not to post on their talk page, it's best to follow their wishes unless you have something to say that is absolutely essential, such as notification of deletion or of an ANI report. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how else I'm supposed to contact him, as I'd really like to just discuss the situation, but if that's what policy/guidelines say, then fine. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note, this user seems to have no interest in dropping the issue. [26] Irbisgreif (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Finally, I see that this user is quite happy to repeat his accusation of harassment in any place we are both involved in discussion... I have tried to assume good faith with this user, but edits such as this [27], as well as this user's history, (see [28] and [29]) have convinced me that this user will not assume good faith on my part and will not discuss the issue with me under any circumstances. What are appropriate ways to try and resolve this dispute? Irbisgreif (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Irbisgreif, the DIFF that you provided that supposedly shows a recent accusation of harassment (#36) actually predates much of this discussion. The other DIFFs are from 2008 - how far back in time do you want to go to prove a point? You were asked to stay off their talkpage, you always need to disengage from the user - continuing to try and discuss is, indeed, harassment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have, in fact, attempted to disengage. I have not gone to the person's talk page, I have not gone to their user page, I have, for the most part, tried to not talk to the user at all. However, I find that in any case where I am in disagreement with this user, this user accuses me of hounding him. I'll admit that I should have left the user's talk page alone, as instructed, but this user, after I opened this and after I requested he assume good faith on my part, responds to my comments with accusations of bad-faith editing. For an example, see [30]. Since consensus seems to be that I cannot be involved with anything this editor has touched, I will drop all issues and refrain from participating in affix-related articles altogether. I'm sorry that my attempts to constructively discuss renaming and deleting a large number of articles was harassment, as I never intended it as such. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Implications of template and edit summary use

Resolved

 – Further discussion here is not required at this time. Policy issues maybe raised elsewhere if necessary, and dispute resolution for any other issues followed appropriately. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

This is a simple case: is it considered a personal attack to call another editor a troll?

• 02:32, 14 August 2009 User:Jack Merridew posts on a AFD, m:DFTT. [31]

• 21:07, 15 August 2009 As per WP:NPA, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." I remove the comment.[32]

• 21:17, 15 August 2009 I place a warning on User:Jack Merridew's page.[33]

• 01:37, 16 August 2009 Admin User:Lar then restores the troll link[34]

• 01:39, 16 August 2009 Admin User:Lar then places a warning on my talk page:[35]

Do not remove the remarks of others from discussion pages

This edit: [36] was unacceptable. You may comment on it if you disagree, but do not remove the remarks of others from discussion pages. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• 01:40, 16 August 2009 I remove the comment.[37]

• 01:54, 16 August 2009 Lar posts a second comment.[38]

== Removal ==

Your removal of my administrative warning is within policy, (it means you've read and understood it) but as an admin, I will post warnings and communications when, and where, I find necessary. If you remove the comments of others again (on pages other than your own, as you did at that MfD I was warning you about), you may find yourself blocked for disruption. I've replied to you on my talk as well, you're entirely welcome to continue discussion there, or not, as you like. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now ignoring the history we all have, which these editors will inevitably attempt to bring up to confuse the two simple questions:

1. is it considered a personal attack to call another editor a troll?
2. should a admin be defending one user for calling another user a troll?

If so, is it acceptable to call other editors, trolls?

Disclaimer, I left out a few edit diffs, which I can provide if necessary. Ikip (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been discussion in the past as to whether using a template such as WP:DFTT, or using a template such as WP:DICK with phrasing like "don't be a WP:DICK" is actually calling someone a troll (or a dick or what have you) or not. There has also been discussion about whether edit summaries that consist of statements such as "remove trolling" are calling someone a troll or not. These cases seem fairly analogous to me. I think it's a very interesting question and am interested in the community view on this. Note, I've changed the heading because I think the crux of this is not about a particular user (Ikip, Jack, me) but rather about a norm. ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So Lar, would you agree with the statment that characterizing good faith comments by others as "trolling" is disruptive? Ikip (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm no longer really sure, one way or the other. Here's another example (note the edit summary) ... my wife thought it was at the very least, lacking in good faith assumption, if not actually disruptive... what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about that edit summary? Would you find it disruptive? Ikip (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the summary I am asking you about, the very one, and I asked you what you thought. Did you want to answer or were you going to wait till I did? ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I strong feel that anyone calling anyone else a troll is a personal attack, that includes A Nobody. How do you feel about it? Ikip (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm somewhat in tune with Malleus, below... if someone actually IS trolling (and there is little or no reasonable doubt about it), it's not an attack, per WP:SPADE. If someone absolutely is NOT trolling (clearly my wife felt she wasn't trolling, when she left a gently worded admonishment at A Nobody's page, and I think most everyone would agree), why then, it probably is an attack, at least a mild one. The cases in the middle, where reasonable people disagree, are the hard ones. Hence why I think this is a good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why everyone is so precious about this kind of thing. If anyone feels that someone is behaving like a troll, then why not call them on it? Either directly or indirectly in an edit summary doesn't really matter does it? "Personal attack" is just becoming a sad joke, something for the trolls to hide behind. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I agree with you, to a point. (see WP:SPADE )... it's when someone characterises activities that clearly AREN'T trolling when things get stickier... it tends to raise hackles. Maybe we all need to (as I've been saying a lot lately) "man up" ? But see the recent Civility poll. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My view on the "civility" nonsense ought to be well enough known by now. I'll spare you the expletives. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note in passing that one of the omitted diffs was this one: [39] which I found rather interesting. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I really must insist that this not be called "Lar"... the original incident is Jack and Ikip sparring, my warning of Ikip is tangential. I have changed the summary to "Implications of template and edit summary use" again, please leave it that way. If you MUST use names, why then call it "Jack, Ikip, Lar" or something. Let's not edit war about this. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: I guess I'm somewhat in tune with Malleus, below... if someone actually IS trolling (and there is little or no reasonable doubt about it), it's not an attack, per WP:SPADE. If someone absolutely is NOT trolling (clearly my wife felt she wasn't trolling, when she left a gently worded admonishment at A Nobody's page, and I think most everyone would agree), why then, it probably is an attack, at least a mild one. The cases in the middle, where reasonable people disagree, are the hard ones. Hence why I think this is a good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar, your vague position now is really quite surprising because 2 days ago you criticized A Nobody for calling someone else a troll:

03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Have to agree with Jack here... AN is starting to look like the source of the problem to me. Complete failure to constructively engage, blows off advice given by others, characterizing it as trolling, repeats behaviours warned about, and so forth. Time to impose the proposal made on John's page and then enforce it, because it's pretty tiresome.[40]

14:30, 14 August 2009 (ec) Ikip: They may be "facts" but they're irrelevant. Who did what first is playground talk. This constant beating Jack about the head with charges of stalking, harrassment, "he started it", etc, while characterizing good faith comments by others as "trolling" is disruptive.[41]

It is okay for Jack to call A Nobody a troll? [42]

But it is not okay for A Nobody to call another editor a troll?[43][44]

Who decides who is a troll and who is disruptive Lar? You do? You then have the authority to block other editors you are personally involved with?

You are a highly involved and biased editor Lar. You are defending an editors personal attack while condemning another's. That is not the expect behavior of an administrator.

If you block A Nobody or I, you seriously jeopardize your admin privileges:

Wikipedia:Block#Conflicts_of_interest

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

There have been several recent arbcom cases about involved editors blocking others they are involved with and many admins have been desosyped.

So no more threats about being "blocked for disruption".[45]

No more reverting Jack's personal attacks followed by using your admin status to defend these personal attacks, because it makes you look like you are abusing your administrative authority, which you did tonight.

I would highly appreciate it if any uninvolved editor would revert the personal attack of Jack Merridew[46] which administrator Lar seems to fully support.

Thank you for your time. Ikip (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's quite the wall of text.

1. First off, you've confused WP:DTTR (about not templating the regulars) and WP:DFTT (about not "feeding the trolls")... two quite different pages. I think you need to take another look at what you've said in light of that, it may need some considerable revision.... specifically it is not correct to say that I have called you a troll and you need to retract that.
2. Second, I think (as you do) my wife's comment to A Nobody was one that almost no reasonable person would characterise as trolling, and A Nobody was out of line to remove it with that edit summary. It's pretty cut and dried. Other comments raised in this discussion seem less cut and dried to me. If reasonable people disagree about something it's not so easy to say "don't do that thing".
3. Third, if I felt someone I was involved in a dispute with needed blocking, I'd find an uninvolved administrator and ask them to take a look and decide for themselves. Don't confuse warning with blocking. I feel free to warn, but not to actually block. I think your admonishments to me go too far, I've been an administrator since 2006 and I know how things are done here. Perhaps better than you do.

I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the DTTR mistake, my apologies for my mistake. thank you for pointing that out. Ikip (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You should restore the comment and strike-thru, as it can be confusing to simply remove it. UnitAnode 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, strikethrus are vastly preferred after other people have responded. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• The biggest problem I see above is Ikip removing another user's comments at the AfD, as well as his dropping templates on regular contributors, and now trying to prohibit Lar from using his tools. Trust me when I say that Lar will not be losing his tools anytime soon. He's one of the best administrators we have on this project.

  This needs to stop, Ikip, as it's unproductive and pointless. And please do not change the name of this thread back to "Lar", as his participation in the incident only arose out of your own initial misbehavior in removing Merridew's comments at the AfD. UnitAnode 03:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nod, @Unitanode. However I think there may be some merit in considering the questions asked (when we cut away the irrelevant material we're left with two good questions):

• It is okay for Jack to call A Nobody a troll?
• But it is not okay for A Nobody to call another editor a troll?

Well, my answer to that (as I said above) is as follows... it's OK to call someone a troll, if they are indeed trolling (although there may be more effective ways to address the matter). It's not OK to call someone a troll if just about anyone would say there wasn't any trolling. So then:

• Jack's characterization of A Nobody as trolling: Correct, IMO. Jack could have made his point more effectively though, and I recognise not everyone agrees... which is why instead of removing, a reasoned response to the comment is a better approach.
• A Nobody's characterization of Josette as trolling: Incorrect, IMO... and I dare you to find anyone who thinks she WAS trolling.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Given your and your wife's defense of Jack in various venues, such as at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive69, it really feels like husband/wife tag teaming to have both start up arguments with me practically simultaneously and when I have no extensive past interactions with either in seeming defense of that user and when I see hyperbole laden edit summaries like "So sick of all the fan cruft BS" with a WP:PERNOM vote rather than argument once again in support of that same editor with whom I am in obvious dispute (not to mention their earlier team up to describe User:Daedalus969 as "shit"), I cannot imagine anyone reasonably seeing it as anything but some kind of ganging up or biased attack. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing the point to this whole thread, given this is an incident oriented board and not a discussion oriented board. it appears to be a debate on examples of incivility or personal attacks, using specific example from the parties involved in the debate. It would seem far more useful to open a wider RFC on whether or not Wikipedia:Don't call editors trolls should be elevated to a policy at Wikipedia talk:Don't call editors trolls and avoid using specific examples (which rarely are helpful for deciding future actions). MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• There was no need to make this comment directly at the AFD; particularly given the apparent history. Foolish and unhelpful.
• Instead of removing that comment as if it had a sense of urgency, a polite note regarding the appropriateness of the edit, in place of this or this would've been more ideal. Templating regulars in that way was foolish and unhelpful.
• Another set of actions involved reverting the removal, with this warning, and then testing the limits by reposting at a talk page [47] when it would no doubt further provoke the dispute. Together, the actions were more (if not equally) foolish and unhelpful. This is not the first time this has happened. Any further notes, cautions, or otherwise, should have been left to another administrator (that is, one who is utterly uninvolved).
• Are you all looking for ways to further disputes around this project? Or would you rather work in a collaborative environment to help make this an encyclopedia free of problems and disputes? If you all have a chance of getting along, then interact (and use each others talk pages) with a tad bit more respect for one another. Otherwise, make a greater effort to avoid others with which interactions are not positive - so far, such efforts have been limited. If that's the case, then a reminder: if you can't make a mutual effort to avoid even a chance of interacting with one another, then there's a problem - this means avoiding entire Wikipedia discussions where necessary, rather than sliding into a few, like at certain deletion discussions, noticeboard discussions, RFAs or elsewhere. If there's still problems, because a user refuses for any reason, or because you all work a LOT in that area, that's when DR is needed.
• MBisanz has hit the nail on the head on where where the discussion should occur about "trolling" itself. However, there's an obvious difference between pointing out trolling in your userspace, and specifying it in areas like deletion discussions where there's an obvious heightened importance to focus on content (rather than an individual contributor).
• Foolish, foolish, and more foolish is what sums this whole thing up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please do not equate, in any way, Lar's actions with Ikip's here. Restoring content to an AFD that was removed by someone other than the person who posted it is policy-based. Issuing a warning in such a case is simply standard practice. And he did not just "restore" his warning to the page, he left a wholly separate message to Ikip letting him know that removing the initial warning was simply an indication that it had been read. The fault, in this case, lies with Ikip, not Lar. And you mentioned "inflaming" things. What exactly did you hope to do with this extensive post? Mbisanz's was well-considered, succinct, and should have been the last word. Yours seems less so, is all I will say. UnitAnode 04:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  Unitanode, I can understand your desire to participate, even if you only just started editing at Wikipedia-en 6 months ago. However, this does does not mean you can tell me what to do, succinctly or otherwise, so please back off. If the actions were not equally or more foolish, I would not have said so. That is, I'm well aware of what happened here, and by contrast, what ought to have happened.

  Policy pages specify that they should normally be followed - that is, you should not follow it without common sense. Restoring inappropriate content (that also added no real value to the discussion) does not demonstrate the type of good judgement that is expected of an admin. Ideally, a good admin would have tried to explain (to the user who removed the content) why he believes the content should be restored. This involves giving the editor an opportunity to restore it himself or to at least explain the underlying reason why it should stay removed. No where does this involve escalating needless conflict. Note: a warning does not come into this either. There was no urgency to take the actions that the admin did here. Reposting at the talk page where the admin was clearly not welcome was plainly disrespectful and extremely foolish. Any further notes should have been left to another administrator (that is, one who is utterly uninvolved). Though, an established user would be aware that removing text from the talk page also indicates that it was read.

  The approach used by all involved could be considered equally unhelpful and foolish - though I've explained why it would be even greater in the case of the concerned admin. My comments were (and are) not invitations for you to rewrite your view. I'd already duly considered your view which you made earlier, where you glorified the admin in question - quite obviously, I rejected it as both biased and incomplete. Those should be my last words on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  Save your condescension about length of tenure, please. I'll be more direct, then: your post was ill-considered, and I fail to see any point in your having made it. You have every right to do so, and I have every right to point out that your post -- ironically enough -- only served to stir a pot that Mbisanz's post had effectively cooled. UnitAnode 14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  Unitanode, you are responsible for the ill-considered and disruptive postings you made here. Ikip (the filing party) seems to have confirmed on my talk page that MBisanz post was insufficient to resolve the tension. Yet, you've tried your hardest to pretend that it has, and that the only problems in this dispute were with the user who filed the WQA, when this was plainly not true. Please refrain from making such misrepresentations again. Instead of stirring the pot further by pointing at my analysis and badgering me about it, hoping yours will suddenly become valid, find a way to fix your the problems with your own approach (such as with your own analysis). And no, there's no condescension, but a logical explanation regarding your unhelpfully problematic approach here - that it is perhaps a direct result of your lack of experience (you've been editing for merely 6 months). Regardless, I'm going to leave a similar warning on your talk page to make this point clear - if you continue to employ such an approach on-wiki, then your tenure here is likely to be short indeed. For the final time; back off. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please refrain from throwing around tenure of service claims in this discussion. It's unhelpful to say the least. You have no right to insist that anyone here "back off", so I'll take that for what it's worth. You inflamed a discussion rather than cooling it. That is a fact. Ikip's own attitude and actions are a major part of the problem here. Enabling his attempts to extract some kind of measure of "justice" on Lar isn't helpful at all. And I think you'll find your empty threats about my tenure on this project being "short indeed" will be treated with all the respect they deserve. UnitAnode 15:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  You should not be making technical comments when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Your editing of (about) a mere 6 months is a fact [48]. However, your assertion that I did anything but cool the discussion is a claim. Similarly, your claim that Ikip is attempting to extract some kind of measure of justice on Lar, and that I enabled such an attempt, is nothing more than fanciful - much like the threats you imagined. You've been warned; what happens after that will be a result of your actions. Repeatedly misrepresenting the situation is the most foolishly unhelpful thing you can possibly do, and it is disruptive. All I did was give a plain and fair view of all the actions taken by the 3 users during the dispute - if this includes pointing out how foolish Lar was during this dispute, just as the other 2, then so be it. Your attempts to suppress this fact are futile, period. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  I think that most people reading the sprawl of this discussion -- and especially your contributions to it -- can determine for themselves who has been disruptive here. Rd's post below was timely. I'd encourage you to read and consider what he's written. UnitAnode 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Why am I not surprised you foolishly continue with your misconduct and misrepresentations? Despite the fact I clearly read and considered what Rd wrote below (in my reply), you try to make out that I did not. Case in point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Again with the condescension and bad-faith assumptions. When I posted the above, I hadn't noticed you had responded below. There's irony in that the board where you're becoming this antagonistic toward me is the WQA board. As I said before, it's pretty clear who's being disruptive in this discussion. UnitAnode 16:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  You posted 4 minutes after I did above, and 2 minutes after I did below, yet you expect others to believe you were not EC'd - even if that was to be believed, if you bothered to assume good faith and check if I'd reviewed what Rd said, this would not even be an issue. You have no one but yourself to blame for the disruption caused. When you continue to use the same problematic approach that you've used over a few days, and others are not surprised, that's not assuming bad faith - rather, it's called common sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we let bygones be bygones and try and move forward. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I can't see this discussion achieving anything at this point, apart from multiplying wikidrama. I suggest instead of digging through "he said she said", everyone goes back to editing the encyclopedia. Everyone has been reminded of relevant policies and getting back to content would be the most constructive thing. If there are policy issues, those can be addressed elsewhere; if there are ongoing issues of failure to collaborate, WP:AGF, etc, those can be addressed specifically as and when and probably elsewhere. Rd232 ^talk 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is the same basic post Mbisanz made above, and as such -- since I fully concurred with that post -- I also concur with this one. UnitAnode 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Admin conduct was an issue that was not being considered here; now that it has been, I agree that we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 18 August 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.

Abusive language by User talk:90.194.217.153

The above IP has resorted to abusive language in edit summaries whilst editing Sébastien Bassong. This is following a couple of reversions I and others had made and a warning I administered for repeated adding incorrect info as per WP:BLP. See here. I have noticed from reviewing his previous edits he appears to have made a habit of this and has been warned on previous occaisions for his actions. I do not wish to inflame the situation further so have stopped editing the page but would appreciate advice and have referred here after reference to WP:CIV. Given his past history and reaction I saw no advantage in trying to resolve this matter by engaging in discussion on his talk page as I judge this would inflame the situation, advice please as although the edit issue in question is petty I am not willing just to let such incivility to go without it being dealt with in the most approriate way, thanksTmol42 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment

Resolved

 – Filing party blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In an unexpected turn of events, block lifted and at least two of the admins involved have apologised for a misunderstanding of the policy on IP talkpages. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

Hello I am being harrassed and now accused of sockpuppetry on my static IP talk page. I registered an account back in March and have barely edited with the static IP since then, for some reason some editors are fabricating claims of vandalism from my IP. I then left a note on the talk page explaining that I have an account and he put a sockpuppet tag on it. I am kindly requesting help from an honest Wikipedian. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see this AN thread for a continued discussion on the IP user's actions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseless accusation. The IP refuses to abide by policy regarding IP talk. Enigma^msg 03:32, 17 August 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.

Abuse of talk page during block, posting derogatory statements

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

Chris-Gonzales (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice in the last two days for disruptive editing - and he also appears to be edit warring (block log).

After the first block, his ability to post to his talk page was also disabled due to repeated derogatory postings against people from Mexico and Britain (here and here).

Following the second block, the user has again posted a similar message as a reply to one of his earlier warnings posted to his talk page (here).

This appears to be a chronic issue for this user. At the least, I think his talk page needs to be re-disabling his ability to edit his own talk page for the duration of the current block due to continued talk page abuse. But long term, I'm uncertain what can be done. If someone has this type of racial bias, I have little hope of resolving issues through peaceful discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I noticed that while I was posting this notice, another user was also submitting a request to WP:RFPP to have the user's talk page protected. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked. Enigma^msg 06:17, 17 August 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.

Twinking

Persistent incivility by 96.36.28.60 at Talk:Twinking. Diffs: [49] (borderline), [50], [51] (blatant), [52] (borderline), [53].

• He has been warned about incivility by other editors: [54], [55], [56]
• His responses to such warnings: one of his responses to being warned about incivility, another,
• He has been warned about edit warring here and talk page discussion seems to be futile. bridies (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bridies, you were warned about your trolling, edit warring and discrediting sources. Please be advised that deflecting your actions on others is not tolerated here. Making false reports is not either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.28.60 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there's obviously a content dispute going on here - it was brought up at WT:VG as well. I'll try to avoid addressing the content dispute itself since that's out of the scope here, but it seems that the main problem is that the IP user and several established editors disagree about whether the WoW forums qualify as reliable sources. But the IP user has taken the very frustrating tack of quoting Wikipedia policies out of context and acting as though he is an established user, administrative entity, etc. and speaking on behalf of the people who set or enforce policy.

With all due respect, IP, it's nearly impossible to take your comments seriously when you're just sitting behind an anonymous IP address. You should consider creating an account and establishing an editing history. Right now, you appear to be doing little more than pushing an agenda and harassing other users. The policies on self-published sources are very clear, and edit-warring, making personal attacks and tendentious editing are only going to get you blocked. If you dispute the policy or want to clarify whether the World of Warcraft forum posts are acceptable under the policy, I suggest you take it up there or engage in good-faith consensus discussion. Calling established editors "stupid" will get you blocked if it happens again. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Having an IP or name doesn't make someone any more right. I stand by what I said. Bridies' trolling and edit warring need to be stopped. The article is about "twinking" not World of Warcraft. If necessary, a separate page written specifically about WoW twinking can be made where Bridies can post his POV all he wants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.28.60 (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

96.36 - first, one of Wikipedia's core requirements is for you to sign every single post that you do not make in articlespace - talkpages, or even here in WQA, you must either type 4 tildes ~~~~ or click the signature button. Second, you're getting angry when people tell you that WP:RS is vital - well, it is vital. A post in a forum or on a blog is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. In terms of overall incivility, I cannot tell - when links are made to the secure side of Wikipedia, I cannot read them - however, from what I look, someone (the IP address) is very mistaken in policy, and this is leading to a content dispute. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And my point to the IP editor is that the way you're throwing around terms like "trolling" and telling Bridies to read up on policies is kinda like walking into a library, making a bunch of noise, and then trying to tell everyone how libraries work when the patrons and librarians tell you to quiet down. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, BWilkins, I fixed the diff links so they point to the main server, instead of the secure site. That should help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A forum post FROM Blizzard, Inc BY a representative of Blizzard, Inc is considered reliable. Blizzard, Inc has been using this method to communicate with players and making judgment calls for years. I do agree that many 3rd party forums are not reliable sources. 96.36.28.60 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now see, that is discussion about the content issue. I would recommend you re-post this comment back to the original discussion on Talk:Twinking, or to WT:VG where a broader discussion is taking place about it. There have been exceptions made to WP:SPS regarding administrator posts in forums, and I do agree that it's possible for the admin posts in WoW forums to be considered reliable.

HOWEVER: That is not the point of this Wikiquette Alert. The point was that you were becoming uncivil in the way you were arguing your point. This is a different matter - you may be 100% correct on the content discussion side of things, but if you're being abusive about it, you're still going to get yourself blocked. Deal with the content, don't attack the editors. That's all we're saying. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not the one becoming uncivil. I was the one who warned Bridies to stop edit warring and deleting information without giving good cause and he continued to do so. 96.36.28.60 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So much wrong - first a post by an employee of a software company made inside a forum belonging to that company is not necessarily a reliable source (please, do read WP:RS). I could give an example of a gigantic f-up regarding one of the Silent Hill games that blew up badly, as it was very wrong. Second, edit-warring is not uncivil - that's why we have a noticeboard where admins take action specifically related to WP:3RR and edit-warring. Articles are based on WP:CONSENSUS - if consensus is that your source is not reliable, AND that your edits do not belong, then guess what? If you are in a content dispute, you never are given free reign to take matters into your own hands by becoming uncivil - let me repaet, never. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I could give you examples where Microsoft posted on Microsoft.com information that was incorrect, that still does not discredit them from Microsoft information. Statements from Blizzard, Inc employees are about as credible as you are going to get as far as information on the subject and you won't be able to prove it wrong otherwise. Regardless, that is not what this discussion here is about. It is about Bridies attempting to vandalize a perfectly good information page and making false reports. 96.36.28.60 (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what do you call this? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The statements by you that are in question here are as follows:

• "You seem like one of the few people who are angry about the recent demise of twinking in WoW. Please remember that we do not care about your personal views and this is not your sandbox." -- WP:AGF
• "You're obviously just an angry edit warring individual. Discrediting reliable and acceptable sources because you do not agree with them is not tolerated here. Please go somewhere else for your sandbox." -- WP:AGF, WP:NPA
• "The editors here ARE stupid, thats the point we're trying to make." -- WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA
• "You seem to know little about the topic. Why are you even editing?" -- WP:CIVIL
• "Admitting that you're a troll doesn't excuse your incompetence. Please go away as you're not making this article any better." -- WP:CIVIL

Interspersed amongst these inflammatory comments are valid arguments about the nature of the content dispute, and statements along the lines of "That's not tolerated here", which anonymous editors are not really in a position to say. The only people on Wikipedia who can truly say whether something is tolerated or not are Bureaucrats, blocking Administrators, and the Arbitration Committee. All other editors are expected to abide by consensus, and the policies on reliable sources, self-published sources and VGProject Guidelines were all arrived at by literally years of consensus discussion. So if you have a dispute with the policies, you need to find more appropriate ways to voice your concerns and see if you can sway consensus. Calling everyone "stupid" is not helping your case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will also point out that at no point in the conversation on Talk:Twinking did Bridies ever say anything uncivil. The closest he came was when he said "How about you just read through Wikipedia's basic policies" and linked several of the Five Pillars core policies. If that had been his very first response to you, I would probably have suggested he be careful of biting newcomers, but it's obvious this conflict has been going on for some time, and the pattern you've shown has been that you'll bait people into becoming uncivil and then turn around and accuse them of treating you unfairly. That's not how it works here - accusing someone of being a troll when they obviously are not is itself a form of trolling, and it will not be tolerated further. (And in reference to my statement about who can say that, I will point out that I am an admin, and I'm very familiar with the blocking policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not baiting anybody. I have the utmost respect for people who want to make the most out of this site. Those anarchists who come here and remove good information then discredit things for no other reason than because "they say so" while trying to completely change an entire article should not be allowed here. This isn't the first time someone such as Bridies has tried to vandalize this article and i'm sure it won't be the last as recent changes to the MMO in question have changed the face of "twinking" a great deal and there are a lot of people who are very angry about the subject. I'm sorry about your obvious misunderstanding and I do not blame you. 96.36.28.60 (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While normally I never go along with anything posted by IPs, I have to say that 96.36 is actually in the right here. He appears to have reverted a few edit war changes while informing Bridies that edit warring is against the rules. This isn't the first time i've seen Bridies try something like this. You really should consider getting a user name, 96.36. Stormrider99 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted vandalized changes before and never had a problem. There are just certain people who are good anarchists. It's kinda like the people who break into other's houses, steal things, injure themselves, sue the person who owns the house and actually win. 96.36.28.60 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Boy, if that ain't the most blatant assumption of bad faith I've ever seen... :P

Let me make this very clear: It is an assumption of bad faith to say that the changes Bridies put in were vandalism. You've been asked many times now to read the core policies, and each of the blue words in everything I've said is a link to something - in this case, the official policy on what constitutes vandalism and what is not. Edit warring and content disputes are very rarely vandalism, but the fact that you keep calling it vandalism, calling him a troll and insisting that your viewpoint is the only correct one tells me that you either haven't read any of those policies, have utterly failed to understand them, or have deliberately chosen to ignore them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the policies just fine, thanks. Of course i'm going to think my viewpoint is correct. What kind of person would I be if I wasn't confident in what I say? His example of edit warring which constitutes vandalism is done by changing the core content of the page. Let us say for example we were on the page about computer processors. I could change the main paragraph to talk about Intel processors. Those are examples, but not all processors are Intel. So KieferSkunk changes it back, then I keep reverting it, then KieferSkunk changes it back again and asks me to stop edit warring, then I change it again. It's simple to do multiple things wrong at the same time. In the hypothetical above, the person who broke into the house could also smash the person's TV which is destruction of property. He constitutes as a troll for the fact that he's doing it deliberately and trying to make it look like someone else is baiting him. Some people are just good at doing that. I've changed all the parts to the article that needed changed. If you really feel like keeping this going and trying to defend someone who is obviously in the wrong, knock yourself out. 96.36.28.60 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User 96.36, you are not in the wrong here, just ignore it, get yourself a real user name and move on before things get blown out of proportion. Stormrider99 (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Storm, the issue is not with whether or not he has a username. The problem is that the tactics he's using to argue his point are well beyond what's considered acceptable by policy. It doesn't matter if his viewpoint is in fact the most correct one or not - that doesn't excuse his abusive behavior toward Bridies or anyone else. If he had a username and a long, established edit history, we would still be pointing out how his uncivil remarks have no place in a content dispute. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To quickly clarify re the content dispute: it involves two separate sections and several issues (the use of the WOW forums are only part of it). I am also unsure where Stormrider and I might have crossed paths, as he doesn't seem to have edited anything other than his userspace, Twinking, and this page... bridies (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:WriteINGWell

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Now escalated to WP:ANI for little wake-up...and they have a fortnight rest to read those warnings

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

• WriteINGWell (talk · contribs)

I was referred here from Editor Assistance.

My concerns with this user are that he or she seems completely non-communicative in the face of multiple notices about his or her image uploads. He or she continues his or her upload pattern, blithely pushing ahead without paying any apparent attention to his or her talk page. I have posted a request for communication to no avail. His or her only talk page edits have been to delete a brief discussion on Talk:Snow White (Disney) without explanation or comment (twice).

WriteINGWell's article-space edits are often trivial or subtle changes in wording, yet he or she does occasionally provide useful, referenced information. (See, e.g., this series of 13 consecutive edits).

I appreciate any thoughts on where to go next.

-- Powers ^T 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If they fail to respond to talkpage notices, they likely need a little admin wake-up. I have escalated to WP:ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that this user has NEVER edited on their own or anyone else's talkpage, or any article talkpage, I do not believe that even replacing their talkpage with a picture of a bomb going off would have any effect. I suspect that they may not know that such pages exist. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 17 August 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.

request for civility being answer with obscene language personal attack

I politely requested that a user refrain for making personal/profane insults against other editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greglocock

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greglocock&diff=prev&oldid=308297294

and his reply was to call me a wanker. "Whatever gave you the impression that I have the slightest interest in your opinion? Wanker."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greglocock&diff=prev&oldid=308650643

I understand that wikipedia is not censored, but this is an obvious personal attack, from someone who is finding it hard to deal with others.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't focus on incivility given that he made an obvious personal attack. I've warned him accordingly. If there are further personal attacks or incivility, please report it to this administrator noticeboard. Otherwise, this should hopefully be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's resolved and all, but looking for and reacting to "bad words" is easy; underlying issues are more complicated. 119.173.81.176, bringing up incidents from almost 3 weeks ago, in which both editors involved kind of went over the line, and in which you were (I assume) uninvolved, is probably unhelpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nuance and context are incredibly important in such cases. UnitAnode 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said Floquenbeam. Exactly. Greglocock (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The issues are not complicated with respect to this fundamental policy. Some people come across a need to bring up incidents from even a few years ago, let alone a few months, while others don't actually have a need. Why did the anon bring up that particular incident? If Floquenbeam was correct in making that number of assumptions, then I would concur with that comment to the anon. If the answer is different, then perhaps not. But really, it doesn't matter what the answer is: if Greglocock chooses to respond anywhere on Wikipedia, he's expected to do so without resorting to despicable personal attacks. This is non-negotiable, or an express ticket to a block - and it's as simple as that. The question that remains is: why has the personal attack still not been retracted or struck? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Which particular personal attack are you referring to? You really do need to write in clear English if you are going to pretend to be a lawyer's clerk.

I don't regard this issue as 'resolved' at all, and regard your warning on my talk page as high impertinence, and it reeks of self importance. So, let's see if we can do it in baby steps for the hard-of-understanding. A month or so ago I got into a bit of a tiff with an editor, in the course of which I referred to a particular phrase as a bit of wankery, which is a Britishism. Then, when we were arguing on my Talk page I said it made him sound like a wanker. Eventually we compromised, end of first act. Then Mr anonymous shows up on my talk page recently and takes me to task for using the word wanker, so as any comedian would do I replied, and naturally called him a wanker in the process (perhaps he does not masturbate, and never has, but I doubt it). He objected to that, and here we are. If you don't like my Talk page then don't read it. How hard is that, ladies? Incidentally, wanker is not obscene language, therefore this section is incorrectly titled, and the whole thing is a fart in a bubblebath. Greglocock (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The agression (patronising tone, sexism and so on) in the above message, if anything, makes it clearer that your messages were personal attacks, or at least inappropriate. Furthermore, I don't know what part of Britain you're from, but calling someone a "wanker" where I am is hardly considered friendly. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it obscene? Greglocock (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it to a priest, I wouldn't say it to my mother, I wouldn't say it to a police officer. Sounds pretty obscene to me. It refers to masturbation. "Obscene" isn't a word I like, but I would say this is certainly a candidate for "obscene language". J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: the section heading was modified before either of this last post, and almost an EC with the one before :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Using the words "jerk-off", "asshole", "cock-sucker", "fuckhead", and their linguistic equivalents such as "wanker", etc are not, in and of themselves bad. It's recommended not to use them, and they don't belong in say...an edit summary. Where the problem arises is when they are used as a personal attack: "you are a jerk-off/asshole/cocksucker/fuckhead/wanker/etc" is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Then resorting to "how hard is that, ladies" here in WP:WQA is a continuation of the trend, using sexism. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on where you are. Any of those terms you mentioned might get you slugged in America. "Wanker" would probably draw a quizzical look or a blank stare. Or an insult aimed at Brits. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Greglocock is using a language style which may be appropriate for mates bantering at the pub, but isn't appropriate for online debate - at least not on Wikipedia. Besides the language, there's also the issue of general tone and implied disrespect to other editors, which is no way to get things done. I suggest he takes a step back, apologises, and moderates his language and tone in future, and that can be an end of this. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologises for what exactly? The rather Orwellian editing process here has just seen the charges modified, and the state of judgement rescinded, all with no concurrence from the relevant editors. I'd note that even funnier the original complaint was inspired by the anonymous whiner retroactively getting worked up about a resolved issue on my Talk page that didn't involve him at all, in any but the most general way. Greglocock (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with all the hand-wringing above about the word "wanker" -- and especially not with the grim "you will be blocked if it happens again" tone taken by Ncmv -- I think you would be well-advised to simply say "hey, sorry that my use of the word wanker offended" or something similar. I, too, find it odd that the IP dropped a warning for a dead issue, but pragmatism suggests that in the interest of ending this "trial", some for of an apology might be aprapos. UnitAnode 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Apologise for throwing around terms like "wanker" and "whiner", and generally moderate your tone. Also WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - these are not charges and this is not a trial. Wikipedia is a community and there is an appropriate way of behaving in it, and this is a forum which is suggesting that you need to take a step back and consider the manner in which you participate in it. This is unnecessary wikidrama and there's an obvious way for you to defuse it and allow everyone to get back to editing. Rd232 ^talk 12:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my warning to him; how he chooses to take it is up to him, even if he were to use Unitanode's unhelpful 2 cents on that matter. At the end of the day, as long as he relaxes and does not let this approach continue in the future, this would be satisfactorily resolved - even an apology is not needed (though it is highly desirable if he strikes or retracts those terms in both contexts). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please refrain from calling my commentary "unhelpful" when I disagree with you? I have every right to comment on these issues, and the simple fact that we have different approaches to situations brings a better texture to these discussions. Varying viewpoints on such matters is a good thing, not a bad one. UnitAnode 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of calling people names left and right; it's often counter-productive, makes you look foolish, and when it spews forth continuously it poisons the editing environment for others. One-off outbursts are another matter. I was disappointed in the rather simplistic "resolving" of the situation without considering the underlying issue, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically trapped into supporting over-aggressive namecalling.

It looked pretty clear to me that the IP was trying to bait Greg into responding in this way, so he could come running here and report him. Bringing up a resolved issue from 3 weeks ago that occurred on Greg's talk page, leaving a patronizing warning, reporting him here, and then disappearing, is baiting behavior. While it's annoying that Greg couldn't resist taking that bait, the IP's behavior shouldn't be rewarded, or ignored. We shouldn't encourage people to go wandering around, actively looking for things to be offended by.

If this is a one-off issue, then let it die. If it's a chronic problem, then address it as a chronic problem. But the bait-react-report-warn/block cycle that is so common here seems useless, and silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate your comment; the cycle you refer to is indeed a recurring problem, but when it does occur, WP:DNFT/WP:BAIT should be followed - quoting it, resorting to attacks, or not seeking outside assistance, are the wrong way to handle it. I've found that the warning/reminder on attacks is enough to remind most users about that, though obviously, that was not the case here. In this case, for now, we're back to the wait-and-see point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for not finding the offensive comment the second it was made - that must make me a troll. I also apologise for being tired and going to bed, while this process was going on - I should have not gone to bed, or gone to work today, instead I could have sat on wikipedia commenting on the entire drama unfolding here. I don't have to justify my motives in pointing out this personal attack - this is not about me, it is about the user who called me a wanker. I would have thought that my motives were obvious, on the user's talk page I did state that it seemed out of character, implying that he is not a problem editor, if I had been so set on causing problems myself, I would have simply left a message on a few admins' talk pages requesting that they look into it and block him - wikiquette alerts seems to be a place were things are talked over, not a place where blocks are given. I don't need an apology, as it is unlikely to be sincere - I just think that calling someone a wanker is offensive, Britishism has nothing to do with it, I assume I cannot call someone a cunt, and then point out the jovial manner in which Australians call their friends a cunt. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your motives for leaving a "warning" about a 3-week-old issue are important, as it gives the appearance of baiting. Greg shouldn't have responded as he did, but the warning that precipitated the remarks shouldn't have happened either. I think that's the only point that anyone here was trying to make. There is more to this than a simple "he called me a wanker and should be warned." UnitAnode 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll leave you lot to spin your wheels on this for the time being. The (fake?) outrage exhibited by the original complainer when he poked a sleeping bear and got his finger bitten off doesn't inspire me with any guilt, and the lawyer's clerk seems to have a unique approach to problem resolution that seems to involve poking sleeping bears as well. Since this process seems to lack a defined aim, and a path, I assume it is just a talk-fest. I have far more entertaining things to do, and have at least met 3 rational editors in the course of this, so it is not a dead loss. So, thank you, F,U, and J, and as for the rest of you, get out in the sunshine, you are spending far too long in the basement.Greglocock (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Continous flouting of civility by User:Starstylers

The abovementioned user has on many different/seperate occasions insulted (including name callings on several occasions) various editors on Wikipedia, including me, his latest reply to another editor has demonstrated yet again his flippant disregard of WP:AGF as well as WP:CIVIL. If any concerned Admin would care to check the contribution/edit history of the said user, one would most certainly find a track history of various civility issues against other editors here on Wikipedia. Let me just state this, this is not his first time being so rude to another Wikipedian; the said user was blocked on one occasion for doing just that to me and had been unblocked after apologising and promised to not make the same mistake again. Clearly, the said user has no respect with regards to WP:NPA. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: he was already warned for the incivility above (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• NB: Indeed he was warned but that was last year and he has yet to change his attitude towards other Wikipedians. Put it this way, he may have change his tune/music but his dance routine hasn't differ one bit. --Dave1185 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You have not notified the other party of this alert - I have done so now. In the diff, he appeared to be talking to you, or am I reading it wrong. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Corrections, he was being extremely rude to another editor (User:Davidelit) as if he was the owner of a certain article. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This struck me as a particularly abrasive edit summary. Is that a threat? I can't say I'm new this user. Although I can't remember being personally abused, I have been critical of his highly inappropriate comments in the past - which also extend to sources and ethnic groups he doesn't particularly like. His talk page archive is another good example. --Merbabu (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This contains an apparent threat of legal action. Davidelit (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree ... just like our policy sections warn about slander and libel, all this says is that Indonesia also has slander a libel laws. The aggressiveness in that post, and the edit summary noted above is concerning, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is, concerning since it is bordering on implying a kind of legal threat, and if you add it to his long list of sly insults towards other Wikipedians, he's no different from a suit wearing Mafia gangster. Seriously, how far would you still go on to take this kind of remark from him? I think I speak for Merbabu and Davidelit when I say this: "tolerance has a limit and so do we". --Dave1185 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speak of the devil, this is the message he left me, very conveniently skirting the issue raised here and giving me a kind of "faux pas" answer on my talk page instead. Refusing to engage is one thing, passing off a sly insult as a "faux pas" reply is another matter altogether. As what Merbabu once said to me, the actions of Starstylers is nothing less than that of mental masturbation. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - since you brought it up, the term used was "moral masturbation" and it was used by Starstylers himself, not by me. From memory, I was reporting it to you. And it was some time ago. regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim4048

I've requested that user stop acting uncivilly, explaining that they should comment on content and not contributors, but their behavior changed little:

• 21:56, August 17, 2009 - "... You are dishonest George. There is no point to continue discussing with you... saying that 'these sound like things that belong in the Syriac or Maronite articles' is pretty stupid."
• 23:18, August 17, 2009 - Warned the user about incivility on their talk page using template.
• 01:57, August 18, 2009 - "I did call you dishonest. That's true. You are dishonest."
• 10:48, August 18, 2009 - "Again you show your ignorance of Middle Eastern History... I advice you to just stop editing Middle Eastern related articles or if you insist on participating, edit only what you know. Having sunbathed on the beaches of Lebanon, riding a camel or participating in other tourist attractions and taking a hiking trip on Mount Lebanon doesn't give you the expertise to contribute to Lebanon related articles."
• 19:10, August 18, 2009 - Warned the user again about civility on the article talk page.
• 22:36, August 18, 2009 - "Stop threathening me wit bans because I disagree with you and exposed your ignorance on certain matters. If you don't want to be embarassed then don't make statements like 'Syrian is a relatively modern term and it's hard to believe that a 1500 year old religion was known by that term'."

I've already filed a request for a third opinion regarding our content dispute on the article talk page, but the user's incivility is another issue that could use an outside opinion. ← George ^[talk] 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the whole discussion instead of only George's selections you'll see why I called him dishonest and adviced him not to edit on subjects he has no knowledge about. He claimed he knew "quite a bit" about Lebanon and said that he had been in Lebanon but his lack of knowledge about Lebanese or Middle Eastern history shows otherwise. He had never heard of Syriac, claimed information about Syriac and Maronites should be on the Syriac and Maronite articles. He did not know that Syriac followers of Saint Maron started the Maronite church and settled on Mount Lebanon. He did not know that the inaccesibility/remoteness of Mount Lebanon was the reason why so many christians survived the arabicizition of the Middle East which led to the creation of Lebanon by the allied powers after WWI (McMahon-Hussein Correspondence). All this makes that information about the Maronites and giving the Syriac name is essential. So I told him that having been in Lebanon and enjoying the touristic facilities gives him no expertise.

I did call George dishonest but it is hard to call him anything else if someone repeatedly turns around and denies what he has said before. I mean we can all see what he has written. I did not call George stupid though. If you read what I actually said, you can see that I said if .... is the fact then saying .... is stupid. Nor did I call him ignorant but talked about his lack of knowledge/ignorance on certain matters. That is not an personal attack, especially if it is true. You could say that calling my sources (the Daily Star, SIL ethnologue,the Joshua project, Zinda Magazine) garbage is also not very civil.

There should be no content dispute at all. Refusing to allow the Syriac name for Mount Lebanon by claiming that historical names and names in other languages but the official were irrelevant was wrong. See Naming conventions (geographic names) rules. Then continuing to claim the Syriac name is an historical name was wrong. Giving information about (classical) Syriac being displaced by Arabic in the thirteenth century and only used for liturgical uses, next to a modern Syriac name for Mount Lebanon in the etyomology section of Mount Lebanon was also wrong/irrelevant/misleading. That information should be in the Syriac or Maronite articles. It is misleading because it makes readers think that Syriac is a dead language thus denying the existence of 416.000 Syriac speakers in the world [57], approx 50.000 of whom live in Lebanon.

So his opinion that "any editor is allowed to edit any article they so choose" doesn't hold in that there are certain requirements to be met for editing articles. The information should be accurate, sourced, relevant and not misleading. Even though his source about (classical) Syriac being spoken from the third to the thirteenth/seventeenth century when it was displaced by Arabic is accurate, it doesn't meet the relevance and misleading requierements. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there are NO "requirements to be met for editing articles", anybody can indeed edit any article. It's the edit itself that must meet requirements. Never, ever mix the two up. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am saying. The "requirement to be met for editing articles" is that "the information (the edit) should be accurate, sourced, relevant and not misleading". Didn't you read what I wrote? Don't play word games by selectively copy pasting. Either you misunderstood/misread or you deliberately try to slander me. It is obvious that I didn't mean that there are requirements about the editor like that the editor should have a degree, be from some nationality or whatever. What I meant is that in for example the holocaust article you can't give information about Britney Spears because it is irrelevant.

I only adviced George not to edit on subjects he has no knowledge about. If you don't have any knowledge about something, what's the point of editing that article? He clearly has not much knowledge about (the history) of Mount Lebanon. Perhaps he knows something about the flora and fauna or the tourist sector. He could edit on that. He admits himself that he had "never even heard of Syriac before I mentioned it". Yet he inserts information about (old) Syriac being displaced by Arabic in the thirteenth century and Syriac only being used for liturgical uses, next to my modern Syriac name for Mount Lebanon. I proved that Syriac still exists as a spoken language, that it is still spoken by approx 50.000 people in Lebanon and 416.000 people worldwide. This makes George's edit about classical Syriac being extinct irrelevant and misleading if you put it next to my modern Syriac place name. On top of the fact that he clearly gave wrong/misleading/irrelevant information he still tried to push his own view and discredited my legitimate sources as garbage. So why the hell are you defending him and reproaching me? It should be the other way around.

I notice that a lot of people on the internet are against me (sometimes even insulting) when I use my real name Ibrahim (name used by both muslims and christians) but when I use another neutral (western) name on forums, people are generally not that hostile when I say exactly the same thing. It is astonishing. Still I won't change my username Ibrahim4048 to prevent people from thinking that I am muslim. What if I was? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there ... let's not start with the non-WP:AGF ideas that there's xenophobic discrimination by ethnicity or religion here - that's more insulting that you can imagine, and I suggest you strike. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I echo what Bwilkins just said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Best to stick to one username at a time on Wikipedia, anyway; what happens on other sites is outside the scope of Wikiquette. It would be foolish for anyone to make assumptions as to ethnicity, religion, gender or anything else based solely on a user's chosen online name. pablo_hablo. 12:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)^{edited  pablo_hablo. 16:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)}

I suggest you strike? What do you mean by that? Strike like in striking at work or something? Are you telling me not to edit anymore?

What about the fact that George removed my referenced edits and replaced it with inaccurate, irrelevant and misleading information? I showed on the talk page and here how giving information about (classical) Syriac being extinct since the 13th century next to a place name in modern Syriac is irrelevant and misleading. If after all te sources I gave that Syriac still exists in Lebanon and the rest of the ME, George calls my sources garbage and continues to push his POV isn't he vandalizing?

I didn't hear you guys say anything about that. Only complaints that I supposedly told George not to edit and that he should meet certain requirements. What am I to think if George is protected here and I am the one rebuked instead of him? Logically together with all my other experiences I can't help but coming to the conclusion that somehow all of this hostility and unfair treatment has a certain reason. Which I think is my arabic name.

If you have another explanation why for example Bwilkins rebukes me for something I didn't even say while he keeps silent about George's vandalism, please give me that explanation. Otherwise I will have to come up with all kinds of theories myself, like racism, or favouring a friend from the old boys group or another possible theory. What happened here is not normal. You shouldn't keep silent about the wrongdoings of someone while searching for faults in the other and if you can't find anything then make up something. And for the echo, you also think nothing is wrong with George vandalizing but me explaining that editing has to meet certain requirements is a capital crime? Did you really read everything and came to the same conclusion as Bwilkins or do you just back him up because he is a friend? This all only strengthens my believe that something is wrong here on wikipedia. There are groups here who favour friends (even some moderators in the past) and a lot of propaganda is going on. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Strike means to cross out your offensive statements above. This isn't the place to discuss our content dispute, or the quality (or lack thereof) of your sources. This is a venue for discussing behavior of editors. ← George ^[talk] 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Pablo, I only have one username here. What I mean is that on other sites and the rest of the english speaking internet community people are generally biased against Middle Easterners. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, time to call a spade a spade: around here, that kind of talk is pure bullshit. We have a wide range of intelligent Middle Eastern editors who contribute according to policy, and are equals in the Wikipedia project. Stop playing the race/religion card - especially when you have no clue the race/religion of the neutral editors who are trying to assist here - it is becoming disruptive, and is well past being offensive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

RHoPF previously filed a WQA against myself here [58], unfortunately he failed to notify me so I had no chance to actually reply. I noted here on his talk page [59] that he has failed to do this previously. After noticing that he had failed to notify me, I made a polite comment on his talk page here [60], [61] and [62]. He failed to respond, instead deleting my messages and basically leaving a rather curt comment on my talk page here [63].

The main reason for coming here tonight is that RHoPF made a number of unhelpful comments this morning accusing other editors of harassment [64]. It has been pointed out to him that those comments were inappropriate but he has declined to respond. Instead he has chosen to make further personal attacks and bad faith accusations [65]. I also have concerns that RHoPF is encouraging an editor with a POV agenda to forum shop to continue his disruptive edits see [66].

Its obvious any comment I make will only inflame matters, I was hoping that someone neutral would be able to help. Justin talk 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Imalbornoz

User:Imalbornoz appears to be an SPA account focused on the Gibraltar article. Off-wiki he has expressed a strong Spanish nationalist POV [67] on this issue. He has edit warred in an attempt to insert his edit into the Gibraltar article. He has also persistently canvassed both on English Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. He is also forum shopping on the mediation cabal [68], NPOV noticeboard [69] and RS noticeboard [70], [71] and [72]. In response to warnings about his behaviour he has resorted to accusations of harassment [73]. His behaviour on the talk page is to constantly ignore any comments returning to repeat the same point again and again. I think this is probably the last resort before starting a thread on AN/I. Justin talk 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may I'd also like to draw attention to remarks made by the aforementioned user at User talk:The Four Deuces in which he proffers his own political opinion (e.g. "there is a not insignificant probability that Gib[raltar] could return to Spain") and posits wholly false information and half-truths (e.g. the notion of "UN jurisprudence") to tendentiously win the support of other users. I think it is inappropriate that he should make political points and I hardly think he is unaware of our basic principles of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. RedCoat10 • talk 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am a newcomer (I made one contribution in December 2007, on the Dire Straits article, but nothing since).
• I edited Wikipedia for the second time on July 28 2009 after a discussion about Gibraltar in The Economist, when I was surprised that the first sentence of the article directly contradicted the UN position, and that position was not explained until more than 160 lines below! Also, that statement was not sourced. So I have been trying to correct what I see as a non NPOV in the lead of the article and try to get it properly sourced. The reaction from the usual editors of the article has been so intense that I have not had time to contribute to anything else... Once inside, I have found WP's system very interesting, and I intend to contribute in other articles in WP, as soon as I see that lead is OK.
• I have not canvassed. I have just asked for advice to two expert editors that I considered neutral. I have also explained some details about the UN to some user who participated in the NPOV noticeboard (not wanting to spam it) -that's the case that RedCoat10 mentions-. I have also made some comments to 2 or 3 other users who had already participated in the RS noticeboard. In no case have I insinuated anyone to participate in a discussion to unbalance it.
• I have resorted to forums outside of the Gibraltar talk page following the dispute resolution process. In fact, one of the reasons for this is that Justin did not want to keep discussing in the article talk page[74] and did not want to accept the mediation cabal[75][76].
• I have said that repeated false accusations can amount to Harassment (that's a fact). Before that, I have also said that I was starting to feel harassed by him because he kept accusing me of SPA [77] since my fifth edit in the Gibraltar article!!! (the eighth in English WP ever, and the 10th in .es and .en WP) Talk about not biting the WP:NEWCOMER!!! Also...
• ...I have repeatedly asked Justin not to attack me, but he has accused me of: edit warring[78], canvassing[79], impersonating a newcomer[80], bad faith [81], using his talk page as a soap box, edit warring [82], canvassing [83], canvassing [84], edit warring, bad faith [85], bad faith [86],canvassing and bad faith [87], SPA, canvassing, edit warring, bad faith, impersonating a newcomer [88], SPA, canvassing, edit warring, bad faith [89], edit warring, canvassing, impersonating a newcomer, bad faith [90], impersonating a new user, insinuation of sockpuppeting, canvassing, edit warring [91], ...
• I will go through all the necessary steps as established by WP's policies in order to find a resolution for this dispute. I have explained my situation all the time but he has simply kept accusing.
• I have to keep repeating things, if I ask questions such as "Can you give me an example of (statementA)?" [92] [93] [94] and get answers such as "See this example for (statementB)" [95] or “I have already told you” [96] or "I just think that (statementA) is true" [97] (in longer paragraphs, <CTRL + F> for "misconstrued"). The same happens if I say that I see a contradiction in an editor’s position [98] [99] [100] (seek “rationale for a change” in the last reference), and it is neither explained or corrected, only ignored (unfortunately, I can give NO example of a good or bad explanation or correction to this contradiction).

BTW, I would like to know if some editor recommends that I should make a formal complain for Justin A Kuntz's behaviour. Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:TVC 15

I find the last sentence of this comment, to be highly insulting and incivil. I would really appreciate if someone else could have a word with this user, as I'm tired of him accusing me of shilling for PhRMA and speculating upon my mental health. Skinwalker (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)