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

Anonymous IP vandal

I have been constantly harassed and attacked by an editor who is going under several IPs. Examples of his attacks can be found here, here, here, here. The list goes on. I've tried to deal with him but as he's under several IPs, and since I've given him warning through a few of them (example), I'm not sure what more I can do to deal with this editor. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User: Sugar-Baby-Love

I would like to report Sugar-Baby-Love for incivility. Here [1] refuses to address content (which is Warren Farrell) and discusses “sexual libido” and his theory that my name has something to do with sexual libido. Here he does it again [2]. It is a clear attempt to attack me personally instead of discussing his removal of two reliable sources. Here [3] the user questions my motivation, fails to assume good faith, and argues that “we” (that is the user and nobody else) “know what [I’m] doing” because I included a Merriam Webster Definition and an Allword definition in the article and pointed out that the sentence “Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism” does not confirm and cannot be used as a source for the sentence “The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law”[4]. I believe that behaviour like this is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Randygeorge (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The above editor has a patten of making dramatic, huge changes of material done in direct opposition to editorial consensus. He or she has been reverted multiple times by several different editors, including myself. I hope that administrators can warm him or her to cease his or her behavior.

"Randy" means, of course, to be horny-- to have sexual libido. I find his or her username to be offensive and upsetting. I have asked him or her, politely, to change his or her name to one that is not so objectionable. This is a separate issue from anything to do with his or her edits and should be treated as a separate issue. Wikipedia has a longstanding tradition of users changing their name at the request of other editors. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

He or she may not have intended his or her username to be offensive, but that is not relevant to the question of whether or not it is. I believe it is. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy is also a real name in spite of its other meaning. I have a good friend named Randy and see nothing wrong her username. That said I do think that Randygeorge is POV pushing and being disruptive. Half of her edits have had to be fixed by other editors and the other half have been her undoing those editor's efforts. She does not discuss changes to articles on talk pages and does not seek to build consensus with other editors even though all her edits are in controversial gender related articles. She has threatened me with being banned and being uncivil when I disagree with her and is cherry picking inflammatory quotes to include in articles by saying "According to so and so.." and demanding no one remove them because they are verifiable even if they are not reliable or significantly detract from the article for reasons like WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:SYN and are contrary to the WP style guidelines (by putting them in the lead-in, etc). Her MO should be clear by even a casual look at her edit history which has led to at least one article being protected for editwarring. Unlike her I am not advocating she be banned (I do not seek to censor people with different opinions) but she does need to change her editing behavior--Cybermud (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On just a cursory glance, it appears to me that these two editors have been engaged in multiple edit wars on related topics and that things are getting a little heated on a personal level. I find nothing offensive about Randygeorge's username, it is a first name and a last name, or a first name and a middle name, it's clearly nothing sexual in nature in context. However, Sugar-Baby-Love appears to have discovered a distaste for the username in the midst of a content dispute, and is using it as a threatening cudgel (tsk tsk). I also find this comment to be over the top "I'm very sick of you making huge changes of material based on nothing but your own personal bigotries." Even if you get annoyed, you need to keep your tongue in check; see WP:CIV.

Randygeorge also seems rather fond of waving sticks around; I randomly selected 3-4 diffs of recent talk page edits and in almost every one of them there's a threat to report someone or another for this or that, which does not foster an environment where people can cooperate on difficult topics.

To sum it up, both folks implicated by this complaint have been intemperate and haven't always conducted themselves properly. The real problem here is your edit warring across multiple articles, which should be resolved through dispute resolution. I recommend you gravitate to one of those options, and try to cool down a little. — e. ripley\^talk 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The disturbing thing is that these two editors Cybermud and Sugar-Baby-Love miraculously show up at all articles I've ever edited and start reverting my edits. They follow me everywhere I go which is pretty scary. Thank you, E. Ripley, for your comment. Randygeorge (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, George has followed me around. And his spurious allegations about sock-puppetry about me are, in my opinion, a clear form of projection. I very highly suspect that George is the sockpuppet of a previously banned user.

He or she has all the hallmarks of that= (1)Frequent accusations of reporting for behavior, (2)Dramatic changes made against editorial consensus, (3)A refusal to engage with alternate ideas on talk pages, and (4)A narrow, lazer-beam like focus on editing certain articles- which, in George's case, are sexual-related articles.

I believe that a 'CheckUser' test or something similar is in order. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Addressing this user's accusations is usually a waste of time because they are so obviously false but this particular accusation can be addressed really quickly. This should settle who started editing first and who "followed" [5][6][7][8][9][10] I won't even address his other accusations because they are even less believable. I hope that every can see how frequently Cybermud joins the edit-warring. Randygeorge (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

George is well aware that Cybermud and I are different users, and I humbly ask him to admit that. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• George has taken this content dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Add to this report Sugar-baby's tendency to see socks where none exist. See User_talk:Sugar-Baby-Love#Jacques_Dutronc and User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Sockpuppetry. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I said that there could be a sockpuppet situation, but that I wasn't certain. I wanted to talk things out.

And then... when I'm taking to another editor... you respond for him. And then the opposite happens, he speaks for you. This then goes on and on. It's as if you both are sharing brains or something.

If I was to be persuaded that there was no sockpuppetry, then the exact logical opposite behavior occured. Anyone can look at the related talk pages and see for themselves. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This board is for the discussion and, hopefully, remedy of incivility. Sockpuppetry discussions should be conducted at WP:SPI. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sugar-baby, you should make yourself more familiar with the various recent changes pages. Any edit summary that includes "Revert. Edits made with false edit summaries" is going to get my attention, especially when made by somebody with the already rocky history you've accumulated. Yes, I'm obviously aware of this thread and the one on ANI. Unfortunately, this just reinforces a lot of the stuff that's been documented about you already. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, there's been nothing "documented about" me. And, obviously, I have no "rocky history". I've been in content disputes with very unhelpful editors... an experience just like many editors on Wkikpedia have faced.

Are you done here? This is not a space made for people to make threats like "is going to get my attention". Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there has, in the above, at ANI and on your own talk page (and a few others I can't recall at the moment). And I made no threats, merely exposed one of the phrases that catches my attention when reviewing recent changes. Any new editor who claims such a detailed understanding of WP policies in such a tricky area as fair use, non-free and public domain images is going to catch my attention because they're likely a returning editor, self-confident to the point of arrogance or a really quick study. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your attack that I'm "self-confident to the point of arrogance" and just say that I want to move on. I don't want to continue a flame war with you. I'm just going to let this go.

I understand how much having 'the last word' is important, so I'll let you have it (and you can say whatever negative or hostile thing you want- it won't matter). So go ahead. I'm moving on. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wanting a retraction of the false accusation of sockpuppetry. As an IP editor, I get more than enough of them and fight them vigorously. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Update. User Sugar-Baby-Love is writing edit summaries like these [11][12][13] despite being told by other editors that his edit summaries are hostile [14]. Also please read this [15] and tell me that this user is civil. I would also like to add that user Sugar-Baby-Love has recently archived comments on his talk page [16] which were critical of his activity on Wikipedia. Most of the other editors expressed similar problems with this user as I have expressed here. Randygeorge (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Users have a complete right to archive material on their talk page. And it's objectively false to claim that the entire talk page was "critical", you can see from the archive that it had a variety of things. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz refusing to discuss in relation to the use of BLP cleanup template

Recently I replace the template {{BLP unsourced}} with {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} or {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} on about 70 pages. I did this as I believed that it is a more accurate cleanup tag and provides a more detailed explanation of what is needed to be done and why IMDB isn't enough. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (I'll refer to him as HW from now on to save typing) reverted 7 of my edits, with the edit summary restore accurate tagging; Undid revision 3815###### by The-Pope (talk). About 30 minutes later I noticed that one of the articles had been reverted, so I posted a message on his talk page, explaining why I had done what I did. At the time I thought that he'd only reverted one edit, not 7. 12 hours later, having not received any reply on either his talk page, nor mine, despite HW editing prolifically during that day, I reverted the articles back again, with the edit summary of "disagree as per comments on your talk page, IMDB specific tag is more accurate and useful". 25 minute later HW reverted again without any edit summary. I noticed this and was a bit annoyed. So I posted again on his talk page. I did not re-revert. I waited for a response. 10 hours later another user, User:Tabercil (who I don't know at all and don't think I've ever interacted with in the past) reverted one of HW's edits back to the IMDB tag and also posted a message on HW's talk page that he agreed with my use of the IMDB tag.

HW then reverted Tabercil's edit to the BLP article and posted a message on Tabercil's talk page that was pretty close to a [attack on me], or at least my motives. "This is more damaging to Wikipedia than simple vandalism; it sends the message that we don't really care about the BLP problem, so long as we can make it look like it's much smaller than it really is" I was angry at this stage, given how much work I've done on the UBLP problem this year, but also that HW was not engaging with me at all. So I replied, on both Tabercil's talk page and duplicated it on HW's talk page. As I often edit from a mobile device, his extrememly long, unarchived talk page was making communication with him difficult, so I also (I thought politely, he disagreed) asked him to archive his talk page.

The main issue here is should an experienced editor be able to revert other experienced editors three times without any discussion? He avoided WP:3RR, but he did not reply at all to my attempts to discuss the issue with him, until he deleted my posts on his talk page (which I know is his right to do) and put in his final edit summary "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" and "rude user, unwelcome here". I have not since re-reverted and at the moment I believe that one of the 7 articles has been sourced, so the tag dispute is moot, the others have the BLPunreferenced tag remaining, not the IMDB refimprove tag. I also have only used the IMDB reimprove tag since on one article, and won't use it again until this is resolved.

The secondary issue here really should be discussed elsewhere is the "content" dispute, ie whether or not the {{BLP IMDB refimprove}}/{{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} tags are suitable to be used or not. I will only note here that the tag was challenged in a TfD when it was first created and survived it when the nominator withdrew his nomination (but the majority of the !votes were keep). HW has had two previous discussions about this topic - User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#use_of_BLP_unsourced_vs._BLP_refimprove which spanned the creation of the template, and HW didn't comment on the creation of it; and User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Confused in which he states his opposition to it's use.

As I've been asked/told not to post on his talk page anymore, I'm not going to defy him and notify him of this report, so if you think he should know about it, then can someone else please do it.The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

After an admittedly cursory glance, this seems to be far more than a Wikiquette issue. Though someone has not violated the letter of WP:3RR, they can still be blocked for edit warring if it's egregious enough. Have you considered reporting this at WP:3RR anyway for review by an administrator? — e. ripley\^talk 16:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd start here first. I read don't template the regulars to also mean don't report the regulars too hastily. The-Pope (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pope, I don't think you are right to count an EL as a reference. The tag you are applying would be fine if IMDB were being used in one or more footnotes, but not just for an EL listing. Yworo (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And I would have been happy to discuss that reasoning with HW on his talk page or the template's talk page or the WT:URBLP page. Not here. This is about his actions. The-Pope (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a major, long-running problem with this editor, and is not limited to any one article or policy. He absolute refuses to discuss his absurdly strict interpretations of these editor-created policies with any content-creating editor. He continuously treats good editors as if they were vandals or trolls. This forces people who actually write articles to either stop editing here and become discussers and rule-makers/enforcers, or to find projects more welcoming to contributors. The latter is what I have done now, partly due to harassment from users like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but more because of the community's tolerance for this type of behavior at the expense of actual contribution. Until an RfC drives off this user, and policy is put in place to discourage this type of abuse of Wikipedia, I strongly recommend that anyone actually interested in researching and writing on any topic find a project more suited to their interests. The Wikipedia community's tolerance for this type of behavior makes it only a place for liars, bigots and prudes to edit-war in their bias into what they pretend is the "sum of human knowledge". Dekkappai (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you try a user conduct RFC, then? — e. ripley\^talk 16:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Because his complaints are generally false, and have been rejected by the community in the past. My "absurdly strict interpretations" of policy which he complains of are simply 1) nonfree images can't be used as general illustrations in BLPs, and 2) advertising copy isn't a reliable source for verifying BLP claims. Neither of these is even minimally controversial, as interpretation of policy goes (although the merits of standing NFCC policy are often debated). Dekkappai rejects two fundamental Wikipedia principles, WP:BURDEN and general notability requirements; and he has a long track record of hurling invective (like "liars, bigots and prudes") against editors who don't share his views. Editors enforcing standard policy interpretations are not required to engage in extensive, potentially endless, thoroughly unproductive discussions with editors who say "I don't like this policy, let's not enforce it" -- especially when the underlying policy is Foundation policy and can't be relaxed by enwiki consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've probably about exhausted discussion here then. If anybody is concerned about HW's conduct please open an RFC. Otherwise let's move on. — e. ripley\^talk 18:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This was all a waste of time then. We've had as much discussion here about the real issue as we had previously. Oh well, nothing like tangents and offtopic discussions to keep us all busy. The thing is HW generally does good. It's just how he does good that is the problem.The-Pope (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you see a pattern of behavior you think is problematic, WP:RFC or WP:ANI is where you need to go, not here. This is only an informal board intended to help guide people to other steps they can take to resolve a civility problem, and maybe to hand out a few tut tuts where needed. Nothing that gets done here is binding, and I'm not even an administrator, frankly. — e. ripley\^talk 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary Klaas on Talk:Park51

We've had some disruptive talk page editing on Talk:Park51 by User:Zachary Klaas. User is hostile and argumentative towards fellow editors (diff. Believes article is only NPOV if it is highly critical of conservatives. The deeper issue is that he does not grasp WP:SYNTHESIS and has difficulty separating neutral facts from arguments and opinions (they are "factually documented"). While I disagree with some of his mainspace edits, to his credit he has not edit warred. But he is disrupting the talk page. I'm posting this alert after another editor requested that he be removed. Any assistance from uninvolved editors explaining synthesis and Wikipedia's civility policy would be much appreciated. Fletcher (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, Park51 is a very controversial issue. I took a look at the diff. It doesn't look like Zachary Klaus attacked anyone (the "you" looks generic and it was at the beginning of a new section) and even if the "you" is being construed as referring to Fletcher, Zachary Klaus said "Sooner or later, RSes will appear that you can't deny without looking foolish" which is very different from saying "you are a fool." If there are no personal attacks, the only issue is whether the talk page is being used for discussion of the article (rather than as a forum). Scanning the talk page, it seems that Zachary Klaus does confine his remarks to the article and that TSteichen, who complained about WP bandwidth, is also using a lot of bandwidth. I don't see a WQA issue here. Vyeh (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not "resolved". You were just unhelpful, offering a response that was pure sophistry. I was hoping someone else would chime in. Fletcher (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of WQA issues. The diff you gave does not violate WP:CIVIL. In my opinion, the statement that you made, that my response was "pure sophistry" violates WP:CIVIL a whole lot more than the diff you provided on Zachary Klaas. I see three editors with differing views on a controversial subject. I did look at other sections of the talk page and I didn't see anything that suggested Zachary Klaas has done anything wrong or that he is disrupting the talk page. The fact that you and TSteichen are talking about blocking and bringing a WQA issue suggests that you two are improperly trying to settle a content dispute. I put a "Resolved" tag on this discussion, because it was pretty clear from my experience that no other WQA regular would find anything amiss. You may now see another editor chiming in, but don't be surprised if that editor now reviews the entire talk page and looks at your comments, in light of the tone of the comment that you made here. Vyeh (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is accusing other editors of "sophistry" civil, or not? It can't be acceptable by one person, but not by another. Since you didn't object to it, you can't then accuse me of incivility for doing the same thing. Feel free to review my contributions to the talk page. I think you'll find my harshest comment has been to you right here, reflecting my frustration with this Wikiquette project. For the record, I was not looking for a block, and the content disputes should be resolvable, else I would have gone to ANI. I came here precisely because I did not think administrator intervention was needed, but maybe just a helpful reminder to be collaborative and avoid synthesis. If I can't get that short of the user blatantly and unambiguously violating policy, and ANI is used for such egregious violations, I'm left very confused as to the purpose of Wikiquette. Fletcher (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to other WQA editors to see the difference between stating that an editor's analysis is sophistry and using the word in a section heading (for all I know, Zachary Klaas was referring to his own argument). I have reread all of Zachary Klaas' comments on the talk page. While he is passionate in his views and he has said some pretty bad things about Pamela Geller, I don't see any personal attacks on other WikiPedia editors. Vyeh (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite certain he was not referring to his own argument, but responding in continuation to other discussion threads with myself or others. Why would he label his own arguments sophistry? The way you seem to read things is... not the way I read things. For instance you looked for personal attacks, but I didn't accuse him of personal attacks. I said he was hostile and argumentative to the point of being disruptive, e.g., insinuating his fellow editors are stooges blind to the evidence, which isn't a direct personal attack, but still a rude comment. It doesn't matter; I can put up with him. I felt bad for TSteichen, who is a new contributor who I felt might be dispirited interacting with Zachary, but I'm sure TSteichen will survive. In light of your see no evil approach I doubt I will gain any traction here. Fletcher (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I look at the latest diff and I don't see the implication that anyone is a stooge. I think the fair implication is that his/her fellow editors are too devoted to neutrality to call a spade a spade. Maybe another WQA editor will see something I haven't, but I see his comments as attacking certain people's positions and possibly certain notable people rather than rudeness to his/her fellow editors. Vyeh (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

James Frankcom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Vaughan Anwyl and his talk page

A few minutes ago I had decided not to do this, but that was before he accused me of trying to rig the AfD on his talk page. His most recent attack on me is at the AfD, where he claims I've bullied and harassed him and am unfit to be a 'moderator'. I responded at the AfD and his talk page, asking him to retract his attacks or make a formal complaint, and then a bit later trying hard to make it clear I thought he was editing in good faith and that we should try to avoid any conflict [17]. It was then noted on the AfD that he was canvassing (and calling editors, presumably me included, 'anti-Celts' which is silly). I warned him about this - a template I admit, but adding " It's quite possible you don't realise that this sort of post to talk pages, asking people to !vote a particular way, isn't allowed.". It's then that he claimed "You will be able to get people, as I bet you already have, who you know are interested in this wiki to be made aware of this debate and take part. The difference is you can do it without it being tracked and made public.". This isn't the first time he's complained about me, by the way, see [18] which I didn't know about at the time. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that James has gotten a bit frustrated, which can happen from time to time, and as a result made some intemperate comments that he should probably retract. Doug is an experienced administrator in good standing here and if you (James) want to make an accusation that he's behind-the-scenes seeking to influence an AFD you should probably have something to back it up beyond your frustration or suspicion. If you do, you should open a user conduct request for comments, or if you feel like he's abused his position as an administrator, you should bring a report to the administrators' noticeboard. If you can't or don't want to do that, then you should probably stop making those kinds of accusations.

Also, James, you made a comment at the AFD along the lines of that you didn't realize that your every edit on Wikipedia could be scrutinized, but in fact it can be and often is -- anyone can examine anyone else's contributions history, that's the point of this place (here's mine!). It's easy sometimes to take an AFD personally, but more often than not, it isn't intended that way.

It appears from the "Victimisation" thread he posted previously that James feels like he locks horns with Doug a lot, and that Doug invalidates his positions frequently with ad hominem sort of comments. I'd like to hear James' point of view about what his interactions with Doug have been and why he feels that way; diffs would be helpful, if you know how to produce them (see Doug's comments above -- you have to use the "history" button on an article to access them).

One final note to James: It seems that you've made some good contributions and also had some struggles here. I would encourage you to stick around and try to learn something from all of this. Perhaps you might seek out a mentor who can help you when you run into problems. — e. ripley\^talk 13:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

James is more than just frustrated. He said "I and other editors have been bullied and harassed by Doug Weller for years and I say once again that he is quite unfit to be a moderator." James appears to be an experienced editor, so he ought to know that James is an administrator not a moderator. Even I know that. But more important is that this is a personal attack and it just should not be tolerated. He needs to be warned to desist by another administrator, or perhaps blocked if he has been previously warned. Figureofnine (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem

Masem and myself are engaged in a discussion about the notability of list, but in an attempt to undermine my arguments, he has engaged in repeated Ad hominem circumstantial attacks on me personally [19][20][21].

I have explained to him that personal attacks are not appropriate, since the discussion is not about me personally, nor are the questions raised by Masem relevant to the matter under discussion.

Masem is an administrator, and is aware that personal attacks are not acceptable behaviour in Wikipedia. He should know this because:

1. they are insulting, and as such are form of low level flaming;
2. they are not constructive, becasue they neither advance the discussion, nor contribute to working towards a shared understanding of the issues;
3. they are unnecessary, as there is no reason to engage in personal attacks, for all disagreements can be resolved (or not) without them;
4. they are not appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages.

If Masem wants to discuss a personal matter in good faith, then he should bring it to my personal talk page. Staging mock arguments over the validity of my contributions is little more than cheap attention seeking.

In the first instance, I would like a third opinion on this issue. If there is something I have said or done that has offended Masem, I whole hearted appologise now. But if he is not willing to discuss this with me on my talk page, then I am asking him to cease the attacks, and to make amends with an appology. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how these are personal attacks. I have not mentioned Gavin's character in any way, only that his viewpoint is far from consensus. The fact that he takes these as personal attacks is worrisome, on the other hand. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gavin.collins, but I fail to see anything inappropriate in any of the diffs you've supplied. Perhaps it's my eyesight, or I'm missing something written between the lines. In fact, the diffs you've supplied seem to show polite, collaborative and on-topic discussion. (Disclaimer: I keep WQA watchlisted in case editors I'm familiar with appear here, and I know Masem's work from FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• As you know Gavin, I am generally supportive of your positions. However, nothing in Masem's reply even remotely constitutes a personal (ad hominem) attack. Indeed, the very fact that you have taken his comments as such suggests to me that you need to take a brief step back from the debate. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing untoward about any of the linked comments. — e. ripley\^talk 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. These are not personal attacks, or even the slightest bit discourteous. Figureofnine (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And I also agree. Nothing at all to complain about. Jusdafax 14:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too, no personal attacks there. Masem is a good admin and has a lot of patience, the comments in the links above are perfectly reasonable. This page would be overloaded with cases if comments like that were deemed unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering about this diff, where Gavin reverted the demotion of a heading with the edit summary "Do not persist in personal attacks, please". I cannot see that the level of a heading constitutes a personal attack, nor can I read any personal attack out of Masem's edit summary "this is part of Jaymax's proposal to see if there any more support for one specific view". Reverting back and forth over the level of the heading strikes me as lame, (and both Gavin and Masem may need to explain themselves a bit here). However, I cannot for the world see why Gavin would make accusations of NPA violations there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will admit the second revert I did might have been unnecessary, though I note: my comments were originally stated in the previous section w/o header, Gavin added the top level header to my comments, which I felt was unnecessary and also a bit of re-factoring my comments, and changed to the second level header for proper placement as a subthread of the previous discussion. When Gavin reverts that claiming it was a personal attack, something I could not see, I did do the final revert back to the 2nd level header because that seemed like an unnecessary reason to justify that change, and thus did that last revert before Gavin reported here. Maybe unnecessary, but if Gavin was insisting on breaking out that thread that I started, I wanted to make sure it was tied to the proper section. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a great believer in the need for civility, which is why I volunteered for this board, but Gavin was simply wrong to come here with this. His "personal attacks" edit summary and unecessary revert was not warranted. If anyone is misbehaving it is him. I believe that this section should be closed out and that Gavin should be cautioned to not bring these kind of cases without bona fide personal attacks. There was just nothing here. Figureofnine (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, only one editor has acted unreasonably and it is certainly not Masem. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've been involved in discussions with both Gavin and Masem and even though I've disagreed with each of them in the past (I've also agreed with each), I know that both are excellent editors and I can count on them to act in good faith. I also know that everybody needs to step back once in awhile and let other things flow around you besides Wikipedia. It may be time to do that, just as it will be someone else's time eventually. Rapier (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I should not have to put up with comments such as as "Gavin's view seems like an extreme minority position". Even if I do hold exteme minority views (disputed) and even if Masem is always right in such matters (disputed) and Masems views represent the majority my view (disputed), it is just not relevant to the discussion. If Masem has an opinion about the merit or demerits of my personal viewpoint, let him air them on my personal talk page, rather than playing to the crowd. Such insults may seem like clever rhetorical devices, but they are transparently in bad faith. I am requesting that the use of contentious labels to undermine another editor to cease, because they serve no useful purpose.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem is not attacking you, but characterizing your position. That simply is not an ad hominem attack. He is describing your view, not you personally. He feels that it is an extreme minority position. He did not refer to even the position in an attacking way. If he said that you were a "fringe POV pusher" or some other such attacking phraseology I would be in agreement with you. Editors have to be able to describe the positions of other editors. Figureofnine (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with stating an editor has a minority position or view, or has no backing for something. That is not an insult. I would say you may be over reacting, but i am unsure if that is deemed an insult these days too. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the underlying issue. I don't even know what it is. But let's say that Masem is totally wrong, or that this is a pattern of mischaracterizing the facts. You certainly have avenues to pursue such a complaint. But he is being courteous, not insulting, not labeling. Figureofnine (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have stated my case, and received feedback, for which I am grateful. In fairness I must withdraw my complaint. Clearly this matter has got under my skin, and I once again appologise to Masem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, thank you for this gracious comment. If you feel like your opinions are being unfairly portrayed and marginalized through that portrayal I can only imagine that would be frustrating and insulting. Without knowing more about the specifics of the content dispute, though, it's impossible for me personally to know the "Truth" of the amtter. On a passing glance at the links you've provided, I don't see any incivility, but then it seems you're asserting something more insidious than someone calling you dumb or a vandal. I'm sorry I can't be of more help here. — e. ripley\^talk 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Gavin deserves a nod for the well-mannered apology, which is not at all common. I have great respect for that. Jusdafax 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe incivility and talk page abuse

One of the most recent posts from User:BlueRobe is a rather hostile rant.

This is on top of multiple rants, soapboxing comments, and endless repitition of WP:OR. Basically you're likely to be able to pick out any of his contribs at random and have a good chance of seeing some form of problematic communication, but, specifically, over the last week, we have

1. today's rant: [22]
2. other personal attacks: [23]
3. assumptions of bad faith: accusations of "sabotage", a supposed lack of integrity, a supposed lack of integrity again, and yet again with a supposed lack of integrity, vague accusations of "sabotage" by "trolls", the sudden arrival of "people who have never even looked at the Libertarianism page" is attributed to puppetry ..... when an RfC had been initiated.
4. unfounded WP:OR characterizations of reliable sources: the RS are "crackpots"
5. posting of unsourced, possible WP:OR on Libertarian philosophy / soapboxing: [24], [25]

He's received multiple warnings about his problematic behavior: [26], [27], [28].

I think he's a new editor here, but as he has continued despite warning, I think a resolution needs to be sought as this behavior is extremely unproductive. BigK HeX (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A first glance would seem to indicate there is in fact a problem with this user, irrespective of the merits of the issues. Jusdafax 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

issues moved down to the report following this one

bigk are you serious, didn't you call me ignorant a few different times, and someone else a moron yesterday on my talk page? i could understand if you were civil, but come on, be serious. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC) You were able to find this page. Post a report on me if you need and I will address the issue there, especially regarding the WP:BANNED user on your talk page. This report is about BlueRobe. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Nobody's behavior is above examination and you must expect that you'll probably be looked at too when you report someone with whom you've been in a conflict. Darkstar1st, can you provide diffs of what you're alleging? — e. ripley\talk 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC) sure, 1 minute plz Darkstar1st (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I'm perfectly fine with my actions receiving scrutiny and would have no problems with it being here if it were relevant. But the issues he mentions should go in their own report, as the interactions with Darkstar and the User:Karmaisking sockpuppets have no bearing on BlueRobe. BigK HeX (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Agree with the observation that this report should not be clouded up with reverse accusations. Jusdafax 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX

[Branched from the preceding WQA filing...]

bigk are you serious, didn't you call me ignorant a few different times, and someone else a moron yesterday on my talk page? i could understand if you were civil, but come on, be serious. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[@User:BigK HeX:] Nobody's behavior is above examination and you must expect that you'll probably be looked at too when you report someone with whom you've been in a conflict. Darkstar1st, can you provide diffs of what you're alleging? — e. ripley\^talk 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

sure, 1 minute plz Darkstar1st (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkstar1st&action=historysubmit&diff=382290571&oldid=382290366 how he got into a fight with someone on my talk page is confusing, i havent read half of it. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

i do NOT support this or any action against bigk, he is a good guy and just trying to keep him real. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My response in reference to my aforementioned use of "moron" is that the discussion is with a long-term WP:BANNED user (with over 100 confirmed sockpuppets) who is on User:Darkstar1st's talk page giving him "advice" on how best to advance a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Indeed, this banned user even titled the section something like "It's a ground war", filled with such moronic [I stand by the characterization] advice as "distracting" legitimate editors, as he claims that he used to "edit on monetary reform, then fight them on that page, then make small minor edits on the page I was really interested in, like Austrian School" and that "the ratio [of distracting edits] had to be about 20 to 1." And also that, if Darkstar1st desired to "enrage" editors (supposedly such as myself), that he should "try to add Ellen Hodgson Brown, Henry C.K. Liu or Jorg Guido Hulsmann back in WP as notable writers. These kinds of fun and games always enraged them. Because I knew the statist scams so well I knew what would get them going, so these little games were always great fun". I firmly stand by my actions on this matter. BigK HeX (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Conduct of Off2riorob

I was advised to bring a dispute here rather than on the admin noticeboard. Essentially the mains issue is User:Off2riorob's false accusation of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and particular his failure to assume good faith towards me. My supposed sock is User:Cacadores - there is virtually no overlap in terms of article or even the types of articles edited or times. No reasonable person would suspect Sockpuppetry whatsoever nevermind allege it. Here is the accusation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=382494174&oldid=382493944

A lesser concern is Off2Rriorob's lack of civility towards me which is why I've taken particular issue to his false assumptions of sockpuppetry (normally I'd ignore such a statement if it were made in isolation).

--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't describe the above-linked comment by Off2riorob as a civility violation. He said that he had entertained a suspicion of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; calling it an "accusation" is actually somewhat of an overstatement. The situation also has to be seen in light of the fact that Shakehandsman's editing has been deemed problematic by a number of editors in good standing, besides Off2riorob, per comments made earlier at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_Off2riorob. --JN466 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you look at the evidence there are no grounds for suspecting sockpuppetry whatsoever. Therefore as others have stated he has failed to assume good faith. Also the edits that are supposedly so problematic were me undoing deletions by Off2riorob as they were not in keeping with the consensus established in the talk page of the article. I've been enforcing rules and it's Off2riorob who caused the problem by refusing to use the talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I know you were directed to WQA at the ANI discussion, but opening this thread here after it was very thoroughly discussed at ANI is borderline forum shopping. And as it was made perfectly clear to you at the WP:ANI discussion, there is clearly no evidence of incivility or personal attacks towards you in the diffs provided, and therefore there is no need for intervention by anyone else into this situation. There was also evidence which surfaced at WP:ANI which seems to indicate that your editing pattern is to consistently add one-sided POV information to various articles (often unsourced and sometimes blatantly false information). I don't think you're going to find any sympathy for your situation here. What are you looking to have happen as a result of your perceived lack of civility? I would recommend you attempt to resume your content discussion civilly, or if that is not possible, disengage from the discussion and refrain from editing the article or articles in question. SnottyWong ^chat 23:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)