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

Deepsix66

Resolved

 – Not a good idea to file this report, let's put an end to this now

• Deepsix66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Emily Schooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While I know there is no inherent harm in creating Wikipedia accounts to make only a few edits, I am highly concerned that Deepsix66 created and continues to use his account contrary to WP:AGF and WP:NPOV policies. The account was created recently, on October 15th, for the sole purpose of submitting Emily Schooley's article for deletion, based on his argument that she had created the article herself and should not be considered notable.

I am concerned that this was done solely in rebuttal to an event that occurred outside of Wikipedia, where Ms. Schooley publicly outed Frozen North Productions for poor business practices. Despite claims otherwise, Deepsix66 shows a clear bias toward protection and endorsement of Frozen North and continues to make false allegations about Ms. Schooley on the deletion review page and otherwise. He made a number of comments contrary to WP: NPA on the AfD discussion, and continues to troll any discussions about her/her article. Additionally, I am concerned that his behaviour is falling into a grey area of harassment, given his original request to delete her page

• AfD comments [1]
• DRV posts [2]
• Chasing the discussions on individual userpages [3][4]

I feel that his comments were also erroneously taken as a statement of fact by some contributors to the AfD and DRV discussions, which contributed to subsequent comments that were not made from good faith or neutral points of view.

Note that only since the posting of this has he started to edit on topics beyond Ms. Schooley, and Frozen North Productions. Bytemeh (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, a brand new account is created solely to harass Deepsix66, leaving this gem on their talk page, and your response to the trolling is to warn Deepsix that he needs to abide by WP:AGF and WP:NPOV? Given the harassment that DeepSix has received since he nominated the Emily Schooley article for deletion (which ultimately was deleted and upheld despite two deletion reviews), I'm surprised that he has remained as calm as he has. I find it interesting that you are choosing to shine a light on DeepSix66's possible COI given your editing history on the same topics. Fair warning: bringing disputes to this board highlights the reporting editor's behaviour as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, Deepsix66 created his account with what - at first inspection - would be the intention solely to delete one specific article and to lobby against one specific person. Given that in the brief time period preceding this, Ms. Schooley posted this blog posting where she outed Frozen North's poor business practices, it seems highly suspect that he was completely an impartial third party. Casting that aside because it is not a good faith assumption, but still given the way his story slowly unravels and condradicts itself ("came across an argument she was having" vs "read an article in the Star") [5] [6], as well as the lack of answers provided as to how, exactly, he came upon Ms. Schooley's website and why he chose to spend hours on lobbying for her article deletion but not that of Frozen North, the statements he made blatantly not in good faith, and etc [7] [8] [9] ... I am not condoning harassment, just asking for accountability, honesty, and fairness.Bytemeh (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And you created an account several days after Deepsix66 and have only edited related articles. The nomination was sound and the article was deleted. You have now come along with your new account, fighting against the deletion, posting completely unhelpful message on his talk page, and now creating a Wikiquette alert. Do you not see the irony in bringing all of his supposed activities up when yours mirror his? He has denied a connection and yet you continue to harass him about it. Your second edit ever on Wikipedia was to post this message: "There are enough of us willing and able to keep re-submitting her page until it's kept, as the deletion request was submitted purely for spite - and anyone who backs it is probably just as immature and petty". You are essentially admitting to meatpuppetry, warning you will edit war to get your way, and launching a personal attack against anyone who supported deletion, all in a single sentence. Your hands are clearly not clean here, so I would be careful what accusations you make against others. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because someone needs to stand up to bullying and harassment, and call a spade a spade. I am not leaving harassing comments for him, nor have I started to editwar. I saw no point in contributing to the original AfD because it was apparent that I would not be fairly heard. I am looking for reliable sources to help bring the article back fairly - given the accusatory nature of comments Deepsix66 made right off the bat, I am not at all surprised that he managed to rile up so many of us who would like to see Ms. Schooley's article kept. Given the circumstances surrounding the RFD and the overt maliciousness behind them, I am sad but not surprised to see so many people overlooking that evidence. What I think would be most fair - though doubtful that it would ever happen - would be for the Frozen North and Flip's Twisted World articles to be deleted as well. I am trying to remain as neutral, unbiased, and level-headed as possible, as per WP:DR.

However, I am disappointed to see that two others' comments to this got arbitrarily deleted, which suggests to me further unfairness and unequality in the matter. Bytemeh (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What I would like to point out now are two blog posts written by the subject of the article that was deleted, at Emily Schooley. See October 11 and October 27. Latterly, Ms. Schooley has stated that she has verification that Frozen North was behind her article RFD, which is not surprising to say the least. Perhaps if Deepsix66 had not been quite so vitriolous in his initial submission, or not done so at all, nobody's time and energies would have been wasted on this nonsense. Continue to criticize or not my own behaviour in calling these facts to light, but I am willing to bet my left nut that the evidence she has is verifiable. And at the very least, she has chat logs outlining a bias towards her. The RFD was not submitted in good faith, or from a neutral point of view. But that is done, won't be undone, and I will work instead on contributing articles that are. End of story, and all I will say here. Bytemeh (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Bytemeh is the same editor as Missinformative, and possibly the same editor as EmilySchooley. That's a bad way to start. Also, regardless of how the AfD started, it received thorough consideration, and was properly closed, in spite of the pile-in of "keep" votes that were solicited from an external site. We don't like that sort of thing around here. If you want an article about her to go into Wikipedia, pretty much everything you've done up to this point has been counterproductive, and this WQA is just one more counterproductive thing. I'm going to resolve it at this point. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not the same person. Nice try, though. Then again, given the hostility with which new editors and controversial ideas are treated, it's not a wonder she didn't stick around. I don't terribly consider this 'resolved' at all, but that's neither here nor there. Bytemeh (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The user seems to be using Wikipedia as WP:BATTLEGROUND, with select few edits otherwise. Edfan77 (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude. Glad someone gets it. Bytemeh (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Shorecrane1

This relates to the user Shorecrane1, the article List of C.I.D. episodes and its AfD. The user removed the AfD tag, and then made this comment on the AfD page. I deleted the user's comments — which weren't in keeping with the philosophy of AfD, and just wanted to complain about the AfD template — replacing it with a keep !vote and a link to the user's original comments. I also gave the user a warning for removing an AfD template. The user responded by removing the AfD template, for a second time, and posting this angry rant on the AfD page. Is there something that can be done about this user? — Fly by Night (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you really should not have removed his original comment from the AfD ... that was pretty uncivil. It was effectively a keep vote. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And, why not simply help him to learn how to comment on an AFD? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove his comment! As I mentioned above: I replaced it with a keep !vote on his behalf and a link to his edit. His objection seemed to be an objection towards the AfD process itself, and that's why I did what I did. It seemed like a rant... his later edits would prove that to be correct. Obviously, in hindsight, I concede that I should have simply moved his rant to the correct place and added a keep tag. But uncivil is a bit strong. Please investigate my edit history before you assume bad faith... — Fly by Night (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did B say you acted in bad faith? You acted rather clueless about how a person might feel about having their legitimate comments WP:REFACTORed without good purpose. Not bad faith, just bad judgement. That the other, newer user responded inappropriately does not excuse that. At least he had the excuse of being a complete newbie with less than 100 edits. Don't bite the newcomers, try to help them understand our standards. Moving his comment to the bottom was ok. Adding a bolded "keep" to it was borderline. Changing the actual words of another persons remark was absolutely wrong. Remember that it is not a vote but a discussion. The closing administrator will read any comments and evaluate them for what they are. Removing a legitimate comment and linking to the diff of it is not ok, please don't do that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous

• The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has engaged in extensive and constant attacks and vindictiveness. He is the most nasty and uncivil editor I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I have been dealing with this editor since September, and we are on opposite sides of a heated dispute over the Restoring Honor rally article, which is now the subject of an ongoing mediation. He finally joined the mediation after much attempts at persuasion, usually met with nastiness, by multiple users for him to join the mediation and cooperate. Even his agreement to join was an attack on other editors. Since joining his behavior has only gotten worse. He filed a vindictive SPI about me. Regardless of whether or not the SPI is valid, his conduct has been egregious. As another editor noted, this user is now engaged in wikihounding of me, taking completely inappropriate actions 1 2 3 and stalking my edit history for new things to attack me on. Here are a few examples; it would take hours to find them all:

• Here, user attacks another editor, an admin no less.
• Here, user attacks me and attempts to antagonize by saying "All I'm hearing is crickets. Hmmm."
• Here, user blows off my advice to stop attacking another editor.
• Here, another editor warns user about his incivility and user responds by telling him to "chill" and stop "barking orders".
• Here, user downright assaulted other editors and was told by an admin to grow up.

User:Arzel has also taken notice and summed his behavior up well here: "I never said you were disruptive, even though you are disruptive. I said you were vindictive. Probably the most vindictive editor I have ever seen on WP. Normally I would simply remove your trollish comments, but I have decided that others should also be able to see a history of your vindictiveness."

Thank you and God bless. BS24 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually what The_Artist is, is condescending, over and over again. There is hardly anything that infuriates other editors more than projecting an attitude that the people you are dealing with are stupid and that you are laughing at them behind their backs. Of course a truly intelligent editor would not behave in this way, as it makes it nearly impossible to get other editors to cooperate with one's goals. Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When I need to consult a knowledgeable admin regarding WQA, I'll find one besides Looie496. That is to say, one at least aware that filing parties of mediation requests are ineligible to use this non-binding proceedure. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, your are an admin?? I hope your post is just a one time gaffe and not representative for Wikipedia admins in general. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, it seems that all the personal attacks are more in this WQA itself than in the evidence brought up for this WQA. Maybe someone should open a WQA for this WQA...? And then fill it up with even more insults again .... HELLO? Am I still at Wikipedia? Where is the emergency stop button? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my comment above. By this time I should know better than to be uncivil, even in response to incivility. I still hope that that message gets through to the subject of the WQA, though. The_Artist might consider that the reactions his behavior provokes in BS24 and other editors are very similar to the reactions my comment provoked in him. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor point: Equating my response to an insult, which caused no offense (just real doubts about the admin's judgement, which are all not disposed of yet) to BS24's is a whopper. If I played the victim role, petitioned admins to save my ass from perceived persecution, ignored substantial accusations and falsified my record multiple times, it might make some sense to think I am receiving in kind treatment. But BS24's, and multiple known socks thereof, abysmal record of conduct makes this idea to hilarious to consider. Unlike BS24, I have no shameful past to hide. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As for BS24, I'm not taking responsible for this editor's many transgressions and mendacity, all of which are substantially documented at the SPI and on his talk page by another editor. So why is the WQA still open? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically calling another editor a liar (medancity) is not a very civil thing to do and a good example why this is probably still open. Arzel (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, and I thought it was demonstrable incompetence and neglect of duty. Impressions which a manifested respect for WQA protocols would reverse, even at this later stage. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A little confused about that statement, but it seems that you are saying that Looie496 is incompetant as an admin. I thought you accepted his appology. Arzel (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

He apologized for the insult, and is taken as genuine, but that can't release him from accountability and his duty bound obligations. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

He apologized for the statement which you say he should have blocked himself for. You accepted the apology, but later say he is incompetent for not following through and blocking himself anyway. Sounds to me like you did not accept his apology. I would say this pretty much sums up my original assesment. You are vindictive. It is not enough for someone to apologize for some wrong they may have done (to you). They must also be punished for any wrong they may have done. This is clearly expressed in your continued pursuit against BS24. Arzel (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Did you only read half of my last comment? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Vindictiveness", "blows off my advice", "transgressions", "egregious", "antagonize", "pursuit", "mendacity", "abysmal record", "incivility", "nastiness", "incompetence", "assaulted other editors", generalized statements - all of these attacks must stop! Criticize incidents if absolutely necessary, but never attack a person himself/herself. Wikipedia is not a place for hobby-psychoanalysts. And by the way, I have very high respect for Looie496 now. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 00:30, 31 October

All an admin has to do is properly close this WQA like it should have been done from the get. C'mon. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

'WQA isn't moderated or controlled by admins, and discussions generally aren't closed unless both parties are satisfied or the issue is taken to a higher level of dispute resolution. If you don't want to cooperate with the process, simply stop commenting and it will just go stale. Swarm^Talk 06:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The filing party BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [10]The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AKA is now Gloating to everyone involved. Congrats AKA I hope you are happy that your vindictive behaviour achieved your goal. I suspect you won't be happy though unless you get a certain admin blocked as well. Arzel (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The Artist apparently went to every page BS24 ever edited and posted a notice on the talk page to look out for his socks. That is completely unnecessary and demonstrates an unhealthy fixation with this particular user. If you suspect he will come back and edit these articles using socks, put them on your watchlist and keep an eye on them. There's no need to post wanted posters all over Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it's reasonable to notify other users of the SPI result, we're not all in the loop everyday. And for the WQA record here, Arzel is involved in the various disputes mention above and has a pattern of misrepresenting others' comments when he disagrees with them. Full disclosure, I often disagree with him and he uses the same bullying tactics. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A notice on articles where they were particularly disruptive might be ok, but posting a big warning to every page they have edited even once is definitely excessive. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

MarketsGuy

I watch a wide variety of articles on Wikipedia and frequently revert vandalism and large uncited edits. A couple days ago I reverted the edits of user MarketsGuy on High-Frequency Trading. They appeared to be improperly cited so I removed the edits. He seems to have taken this very personally as he has now started sections on 5 talk pages (although only the High-Frequency Trading article was in dispute) titled Financestudent on several other articles, and both our talk pages accusing me of some sort of conspiracy against him, and a variety of other uncivil behavior. Financestudent (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is his user contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarketsGuy

MarketsGuy shows some pretty striking signs of being a sock. Are there any obvious candidates for puppetmaster? (Frankly, I'm not so sure about you either.) Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to check out my account against ips, I only have this account and would be fine with it being looked into. Not to mention I have an edit count of 463, major contributions, and a couple page creations under my belt and his account was created recently and he has behaved this way since it's creation. As for him all I know is he keep starting and adding to sections of talk paged titles my name on here and waging his personal vendetta against me for an edit he obviously took personally out of the large number of vandalism reverts I do on a fairly regular basis. I'd like those posts about me to be removed and that activity stopped if there is someway to accomplish that, even if it was just moved to our talks that would be an improvement over it being plastered accross several articles unrelated to the dispute at all. Financestudent (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:24.60.116.133

This:

• [11]

and

• [12]

and

• [13]

indicate that this user doesn't understand the collabrative model of editing here, nor the proper use of his references. He's already been cautioned on language. No responses to request for discussion on Talk:Nickel-metal hydride battery nor [[User talk:24.60.116.133 ]]. Off to put an alert on that talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit-warring, and will follow with longer blocks if it resumes. As for yourself, since this is WQA let me suggest that you avoid words such as "gibble-gabble" and "rubbish" -- all they ever do is antagonize other editors. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My fault is that I care too much. I was at least characterizing edits, not editors. If one is going to be a regular contributor to Jimbo's dream here, then one must cultivate a certain flexiblity of attitude. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of Chickenguy13 & the woes with Fat (EP)

• Chickenguy13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IllaZilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fat (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chickenguy13 moved the article Fat EP to Fat (EP) without gathering a consensus or requesting a movereq. Chickenguy13 is new & doesn't seem to fully understand the normal policies & procedure that are in place on Wikipedia (which is mostly the norm for WikiChildren). When IllaZilla requests a movereq to move the article back, Chickenguy13 becomes uncivil. They accuse the conspiracy of IllaZilla reverting all their edits & became generally hostile towards IllaZilla; which, in my opinion, IllaZilla has been extremely civil throughout the entire process. The issue originally started out on the talkpage of Fat (EP), but has spilled over to both participant's talkpages. I just would like an administrator looking into this & provide feedback on the situation. Thanks. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  20:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla made in mistake in using the term "other crap" to a new and excitable editor who hasn't yet learned Wikipedian, and everything went downhill from there. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RHB100

• RHB100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Global Positioning System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to report this user for constantly making derogatory remarks where the user is asked to provide proper sourcing for a section containing a mathermatical expose in the article Global Positioning System. This is clearly original research and upon my insistence on the article talk page to provide proper sourcing, the user keeps making these personal remarks.

In an attempt to have the article talk page free of personal comments ([14], [15], [16], [17]) I have kindly asked this user (on his user talk page) to stop making these personal comments on the article talk page:

• In my first request on the user talk page:

• "Also I suggest that you take into consideration that your lack of interest in the useful mathematics provided does not imply that all other people have this lack of interest in useful mathematics",
• "DVdm, you have completely disrupted a discussion I was having with Denelson83",
• "This indicates that you are not qualified to make any judgement on the section. Whether you like it or not, you have got to educate yourself so as to overcoming your ignorance before you are qualified to do productive work. Your comment that it is very simple is a result of your ignorance."
• "I think this view is based on a lack of mathematical maturity"]

• In my second request:

• "... in spite of his admitted ignorance ... " and "DVdm has made the idiotic statement that..."

• A little exchange on my user talk page where the user says that it is OK to say, that I make an idiotic statement, followed by my third request to nevertheless stop doing this.

• In my fourth request:

• "At present you are completely unqualified to say if it is properly sourced or not."

• Finally, when I asked the user to stop disrupting the article talk page, I got this personal attack:

• "DVdm, don't you dare accuse me of disrupting this page. You are an outright worthless liar in accusing me of disrupting this page. All of the other statements you have made in the paragraph above are lies and idiotic nonesense. The statement, "they are original research" is an outright lie and indicates a failure to understand the meanng of original research. You have shown yourself to be a dishonest person and I don't want to hear from you again. This dispute between you and me is going to have to be settled by somebody with better sense than you."

I don't think that this is appropriate, but I don't seem able to explain to RHB100 that this is not the way to handle a request for sourcing. Could someone try to explain to this user? Thanks. DVdm (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I have provided DVdm with more than adequate source material for the material entered in the section, Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS. But here is DVdm's response, "Indeed, I have no access to the journal, but that is not relevant. That is why I ask you, who does have access: are the equations from the article literally present in the sources? This is a very simple question that you can answer, so please do. DVdm (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)". RHB100 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He is admitting that he did not take the necessary steps to acquire and read the source material. Yet, DVdm shows that he is not going to let the little problem that he has not read the source material stop him. He goes right ahead and accuses me of not providing adequate source material despite the fact that by his own admission, he has not read the source material himself. Here is a quote of DVdm, "So it is clear that the equations in the section do not appear in the cited sources". DVdm makes this statement despite the fact that by his own admission, he has not even read the cited sources. DVdm is not qualified to accuse me of not providing adequate source material or of performing original research until he at least educates himself to the extent of reading the source material. It is DVdm who has disrupted the Talk page. The accusation that I have disrupted the Talk page is totally and completely false. RHB100 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I made this entry about RBH100's usage of personal comments. I don't think this is the place to talk about the original research. This is about RBH100's usage of personal comments about my alleged lack of interest, qualifications, education, ignorance and lack of mathematical maturity. I have explained the reasons why I found no need to acquire and read the source material and assume the equations to be wp:original research and wp:synth:

• The edit "These equations are based on those found in..."
• RBH100's refusal to provide a clear yes/no answer to my repeated question "are the equations from the article literally present in the sources?"
• The statement "DVdm has made the idiotic statement that every equation needs to be sourced"
• The plea "The statements in the section, Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS, are based on the reference, Numerical Recipes. The meaning of the word, recipes, is important. As applied to its usual use, cooking, it means that someone has performed the original research research to come up with a method of cooking a particular dish. The cook who uses the recipe follows the instructions in the recipe but does no original research just rote following of instructions. With regard to mathematical algorithms, the user of the recipes in a book such as Numerical Recipes does no original research but instead relies on the original research provided by the authors of Numerical Recipes. The equations provided in the section, Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS, are not original research but instead rote following of the recipe found in Numerical Recipes."

It is clear that the equations are not present in the cited sources and that the section is a schoolbook example of original research. Of course none of the above should actually matter. I tried to remain civil and asked RBH100 many times to refrain from making personal comments. To no avail. DVdm (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

---

DVdm makes the statement, "I have explained the reasons why I found no need to acquire and read the source material and assume the equations to be wp:original research and wp:synth", above. But DVdm does not say what that explanation was. I believe this statement of DVdm is untrue. I don't know what explanation he is talking about. He has admitted he does not have access to the journal containing the article but nothing resembling a clear explanation of how he can conclude the source is inadequate without reading it. The source document is Langley, R. B., "The Mathematics of GPS," GPS World, Vol. 2, No. 7, July/August 1991, pp. 45-50. RHB100 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My failure to answer DVdm's over simplified question with regard to this source does not relieve DVdm of the need to thoroughly study the source in order to determine if the GPS section, "Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS," is properly sourced or not. Unless he educates himself by reading this source document, he is just completely unqualified. RHB100 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DVdm's accusation that I have disrupted the talk page is an insulting personal comment that shows a complete lack of etiquette. RHB100 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The talk page disruption consisted in your repeately making personal remarks (see above) in spite of my repeated requests not to do so.

Anyway, I just have asked a question on the article talk page about the source. Could you please answer that question? Thanks. DVdm (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald

• Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:ANI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Scott MacDonald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• In the course of a previously civil discussion on ANI, an apparently upset administrator turned it into a blatant attack here.
• After a polite, non-templated warning, the problematic conduct continued in an edit summary.
• Comments broadened to include others [18] here.

I think we hold our administrators to higher standards than this. Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you display outrageous stupidity you shouldn't be too surprised if someone points the fact out with drastic words. You can avoid this in the future by thinking before writing. Hans Adler 21:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if it becomes OK for administrators to each other names when their perspective on a situation are different (note that my perpsective aligned with at least on other admin's on that issue), this place becomes unworkable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For some additional perspectives, here you can see how the grown-ups reacted to the matter. Hans Adler 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to second-guess ARBCOMM or anyone else. I made a comment on ANI in good faith. You are free to disagree with it. Folks are not free to verbally abuse other editors, even admins. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"their perspective on a situation are different"? To quote Dilbert "since when did ignorance become a point of view?".--Scott Mac 21:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for calling you an idiot which was an inarticulate personal attack - beneath me. What I really should have said is that your administrative actions are incompetent, your priorities seriously fucked, and your judgement well below the level I'd expect of any functionary on this website. You have continually behaved in a vain and ill-considered manner straining on gnats and swallowing camels. A long-term user, who apparently edits under his own name, makes a serious and (as it happens) well-founded complaint that he is being libelled by association. He is upset and has spoken of (understandably) of legal consequences. Your response? Focus on the fact the victim hasn't been civil - while ignoring the slander. Rev delete his cussing someone out, and then shut down the thread (which has noted that the allegation about the SPI slander isn't being dealt with). Then when I call you on your incompetent judgement, you get more upset about my "wikietiquete" than reflecting on how your actions have helped in a string of re-abusing a victim. Go reflect on yourself, this does not make you look good. I'll not call it idiocy, but it is.--Scott Mac 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling one another idiots should be avoided. Focusing on policy technicalities rather than serious underlying issues should also be avoided. And policies and guidelines should always be interpreted with their underlying purposes in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• May I just point out to Scott Mac, that unlike him, Toddst1 is not only an "awsome wikipedian" but also "reports threats of violence on Wikipedia to appropriate law enforcement authorities" (I expect that means the police). So it may be opportune to back away from this very contraversial situation before it degenerates further.  Giacomo  22:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My own very personal viewpoint: Regardless of the actual events, Scott Mac has a penchant for being harsh to the point of incivility about everyone who doesn't share his own personal "priorities". He is obsessed with the protection of article subjects: while I agree this is a noble objective, I often have the feeling that he is ready to sacrifice every other aspect of WP to achieve this, and this is not healthy to the project and to his interaction with other editors. --Cyclopia^talk 22:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Today's dispute has nothing to do with an article subject and I am not at all certain that this is a helpful contribution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I know we're not talking about an article subject. It's that this kind of ethical absolutism pattern of Scott Mac is pervasive and, while it can be sometimes commendable, it is prone to lead to both minor and major problems, and I think Scott Mac should reflect on his behaviour regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" here. --Cyclopia^talk 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What is much more pervasive in general among Wikipedia's editor population is a complete lack of responsibility. (Fortunately not everybody is as fundamentally anti-ethics as you. [19]) Scott is merely a counterweight to that problem. Hans Adler 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What you call "fundamentally anti-ethics" is simply having different ethical standards, and that's exactly the gist of the problem: people who simply cannot accept ethical priorities different from theirs. The thread you link hasn't even anything to do with ethics: it simply asked to include a widely sourced fact. --Cyclopia^talk 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You insisted on including an obscurely sourced fact on a child, IIRC based on wikilawyering that an explicit BLP rule against that doesn't apply because the child wasn't notable enough for their own article, so technically the rule didn't apply. This kind of behaviour is despicable. Hans Adler 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's quite false as reading the thread will demonstrate. But we're going way off topic now -apart from the fact that you still can't wrap your head around the fact that people can have different opinions on what is appropriate and what is not without having to be called "despicable". This is deleterious ethical fundamentalism. --Cyclopia^talk 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Cyclopia, I think Toddst1 should reflect on his behaviour regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" here. Toddst, sometimes the best way to respond to a personal attack is not to respond at all. (Per WP:NPA.) Sometimes or indeed often. I always thought this was good advice, especially for admins. Let it go, if you feel a user has been disrespectful to you. Look away. It's unbecoming to make a big deal of it, to give the impression that your own dignity is of such importance, and to waste admin time typing up complaints for posting on this or other boards. If they're disrespectful to somebody else, don't let it go and don't look away; the two cases are different. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

• We do indeed, and should, hold our administrators to higher standards. Irrespective of the incident which triggered this, which this is not a forum to discuss, it is entirely incompatible with the function of administrator to go around calling others "idiots", much less to follow this up with a fake apology that is full of more insults (" I'll not call it idiocy, but it is"). For whatever reason.  Sandstein  06:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You are right, of course. When admins are angry they should not resort to bad language. That's what the block button is for, after all. Hans Adler 07:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of this matter and don't care to, really. My intent here is to bear character witness: I have always felt Toddst1 to be one of the finest Wikipedians of my experience. I also agree with his comment that admins should be civil at all times. It sets a higher tone for the project as a whole, in my view. Jusdafax 07:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• So to recount. Toddst1's actions are considered by some editors (including myself) to be fairly poor, Scott MacDonald rather idiotically called him an idiot. Toddst1 then brings this to WQA rather than acting like a grown up admin who can deal with this sort of low grade stuff. This is absolutely pathetic behaviour from both of them and is reminiscent of a catfight. They should both be told to shake hands and go away. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Polargeo 2. I'll rephrase that, if I may, to "Suggest both parties shake hands and move on." Civil resolution is the purpose of this page, as I understand it. Jusdafax 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, therefore they should both shake hands and promise to be nice to each other even in disagreement. SM was wrong to make the comment but also the lack of a serious attempt to reach a resolution by the the user who filed this complaint should not be encouraged by a display of minor outrage. What should happen is an encouragement that both editors communicate civily. This will be better for the long term health of wikipedia as both editors are likely to continue meeting each other. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, fair enough. Whaddaya say, parties at odds? Can we resolve this one here and now? Jusdafax 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this where the new process for voting on Scott McDonald's awesome wikipedian day has moved? Just casting my vote in favor. Snow already! I'm off to find a suitably cute cat for the barnstar...Bali ultimate (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2010

• Wembwandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Swedish general election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a second request for administrative assistance regarding personal attacks. I quote from the archive:

Editor Wembwandt has repeatedly attacked other editors, explicitly charging editors with promoting the Sweden Democrats (SD), a controversial political party in Sweden.

• (1) Wembwandt's attacks occured in the following editing summaries:

"POV pushing by the SD", "fascist sympathisers", "the neo-nazis only want to talk about themselves", and "undoing POV version added by SD apologist - this article is . . . NOT a platform for your nasty right-wing politics!".

• (2) Wembwandt's attacks have occured also on the article's talk page: "This article seems to have been hijacked by right-wing extremists." . . . . "Trouble is, if you try to tone it down or change it, the Gestapo quickly pop-up and change it back."

• (3) On Wembwandt's Talk page, Wembwandt attacked editor Lihaas, writing "you still won't get to see the Swedish Democrats in power - if such is your desire - or their anti-immigration stance gain any acceptance." . Wembwandt made a general attack on many editors of the election page: "some editors are clearly using it POV push the Swedish Democrats"

My previous posting raised other issues that did elicit helpful comments --- about the neutrality & balance of the article, about Wikipedia policy, and about the Wikiquette of myself, Bishonen, Lihaas, and Hydrox. However, nobody on this page addressed the Wikiquette problem of Wembwandt's behavior. I quote for convenience from the Wikipedia policy No Personal Attacks; these guidelines imply that Wemwandt's attacks have two "types of comments [that] are never acceptable":

• "political . . . or other epithets . . . directed against another contributor."
• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"."

The NPA section describes the consquences of personal attacks:

Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks . . . may face serious consequences through arbitration, such as being subjected to a community ban. [ . . . ] In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. [ . . . ] Recurring attacks are . . . more likely to be considered "disruption". [ . . . ] A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Veriss1

Veriss1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple violations of templating regulars regarding the same edit. After I added a category he didn’t care for on John Boehner, he added a test warning, then a Welcome and a mentorship offer, even though I have over 5,000 edits. When I called him on that, he accused me of making childish edits [20] and again here, even though I clearly explain my reasons for the edit here, here and here. Meanwhile, he hasn't offered me any good reason that the category shouldn't be there. This is just unacceptable. Purplebackpack89 04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Veriss (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You realize that's it's wrong, right? You're going to stop calling me names and starting offering reasons why that category shouldn't be added on the talk page? Purplebackpack89 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did template that editor before I was aware that he/she might actually be an experienced and knowledgeable editor. I did exactly as the other editor alleges but I ask those who may be interested in dredging through this childish bullshit to please examine the edit histories of three places. User talk:Purplebackpack89, User talk:Veriss1 and of course John Boehner. Just because a person may have many thousands of edits, does not grant them the ability to disregard the rules of fairness and disregard ethical conduct, especially concerning a BLP.

My accuser did NOT act like a mature adult nor an experienced editor and I templated her because of her behavior. I do not regret it and I do not apologize for doing so. Charles Veriss (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How long do I need to wait for this poor child to muster some sort of offense? Cheers, Veriss (talk)

Hey, did you find the cite with the year for the Boehner article? Are you coming back to comment at the etiquette place you drug me to? Are you going to delete this post again because you don't like it? Veriss (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been here for over two hours, I would like to know which guidelines I have violated. Veriss (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Multiple violations of templating regulars regarding the same edit." When did this become a violation, please cite the exact policy I have allegedly violated. Veriss (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"After I added a category he didn’t care for on John Boehner, he added a test warning, then a Welcome and a mentorship offer, even though I have over 5,000 edits."

I templated her before I was aware of her high and mighty edit history. I did offer to mentor someone I thought was an inexperienced user and seriously doubt I should be penalized for that. Please cite the exact policy I may have allegedly violated while correcting her. Veriss (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

When I called him on that, he accused me of making childish edits [20] and again here, even though I clearly explain my reasons for the edit here, here and here. Meanwhile, he hasn't offered me any good reason that the category shouldn't be there. This is just unacceptable. Purplebackpack89 12:48 am, Today (UTC−4)

In a nutshell, the other editor, would like to add the "bartender" category to the Majority Leader of the House's profile but is not able to cite the years that he served as a bartender because her sources do not support it. If even the year cannot even be alledged after being asked for it repeatedly, why permit her to grab a category? This article is a BLP, put it in writing or walk.

I stood in her way and am now standing here before this group. I do not shy away from what I did. I do not strive for attention but under the same circumstances I will do it again unless someone can demonstrate how I was wrong. I don't care how many thousands of edits she has, show us your sources or walk. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I can find no evidence anywhere that I need the actual years he was a bartender, merely a source that says he was a bartender at some point. I have found such a source. Secondly, you've templated the regulars, assumed bad faith, and since this request started, you've violated numerous other policies relating to considerate conduct, sometimes border on harassment (You've also done some things that have required ArbCom and Oversight attention). To the admins, examine Veriss' deleted edits, please Purplebackpack89 07:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Is the subject of the article currently a bartender? Has this person been a bartender in the past 30 years? Is this person currently known as a bartender? If not, then why on earth do you want to put him in the bartender category unless you have some political agenda?

2. I have templated exactly one person and that is you. Anyone can go back 2,000 edits and you are the only veteran I've templated, I even welcome vandals. That should tell you something. It was in good faith because I had not idea that such an experienced editor as you claim to be could go so far afoul of WP:BLP.

3. Please enumerate the policies or guidelines concerning conduct that you claim I have violated.

4. I call false. I have never once been called before ArbCom or Oversight and demand you produce a single whisper that I may have been even considered for such a review.

5. I only have 2,000 edits and may be a newbie but I will not under any circumstances be intimidated by anyone, especially when I know I have done no wrong.

6. I stand here, ready and open to any and all review and will not be bullied. Veriss (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This bull crap is harassment, where do I appeal from here? Veriss (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP or other issue with him being grouped with bartenders, if he is in fact "proud of" his tenure as a bartender. The catch is that unless there's a citation that establishes that (1) he was a bartender for some significant period; and (2) remains proud of it, then the category doesn't belong. I mean, if he delivered pizzas when he was in college, would he be added to Category:Pizza delivery? I don't think so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar reply left on the article's talk page. I've found some sources, but I didn't hear his victory speech, so I wouldn't know if he was "proud" about it. I agree with Baseball Bugs on the category issue. It seems that the bartender category is more fit for people that are actual bartenders now, or have been a bartender for a significant amount of time. If someone feels the need to mention his employment history, the history section would be best. Regarding the appeal, I don't feel it's needed at this time. Let's discuss it and see if we can come to an agreement. Netalarm^talk 07:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may...

@ PurpleBackPack: Let's be reasonable here, please - we're not going to categorize Boehner as a bartender. it's not something that he currently does, nor is it something that's a significant search term for people trying to find information about him. Simply finding a source that says something is not sufficient grounds for including it. Please see wp:UNDUE.

@ Veriss: I am not averse to using strong language to describe the behavior of other editors when I feel it's necessary. However, if you're going to do that yourself (which I do not recommend: I'm very skilled at it and I get in hot water over it frequently; if you lack my skill set you can expect to get yourself reamed on a regular basis) you should be sure of three things:

• Make sure that you are describing the behavior (and the editorial problems it creates) accurately and specifically. Best to stay away from words like 'childish' altogether, because they are too personal to be truly objective.
• Do not allow yourself to stray into attacking the other editor directly (there's a world of difference between saying 'an edit was ill-considered' and 'an editor makes ill-considered edits')
• Always give the other editor the opportunity to move back toa reasonable discussion. needling people just amplifies the problem.

I haven't looked through the encounter all that carefully, but from the descriptions the two of you gave above, as well your comments, I dare say you're not really working from a calm, mature perspective yourself. Save templates for vandals and newbs; if you have a problem with a regular editor, talk it out. If you can't talk it out, take it to a noticeboard and ask for help. --Ludwigs2 07:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You might be like Mark Twain, who, when his wife would use colorful metaphors, he would say, "My dear, you know all the words, but you don't have the rhythm!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more like the old fishwife, who knew how to be a wife, and knew how to beat a fish, and knew when to do each. --Ludwigs2 06:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bugs and Netalarm and Ludwigs2,

First I want to apologize to each of you for my course language.

I appreciate your comments whole heartedly and accept your criticisms. I could have handled this unprofessional situation much better and I would like to point out that I was personally shocked to find out that our tiff was drug over here and I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

As soon as I learned that our disagreement had been brought here I felt that a more experienced editor was trying to intimidate me. I may be new and I may make mistakes quite often but I do not intimidate easily. I know I was right in both spirit and by the letter and I will not be bullied.

I feel I have been harassed and even though I did not bring this matter to this forum myself, I would like to know the next step as I truly believe that Purplebackpack89 has attempted to intimidate me and that his move should not go unanswered.

I have been accused here of the following patently false actions

1. "you've templated the regulars, assumed bad faith,": I call them as as I see them. You act like a kid, you get flagged like a kid. If I made a mistake, I strongly apologize. Even so, please enumerate the policy I allegedly violated.

2. "since this request started, you've violated numerous other policies relating to considerate conduct, sometimes border on harassment". I have asked several times for any information at all pertaining to this allegation. I have not received it. I believe that this allegation is false and is nothing more then a straw man. I again, sincerely request that the complainant fulfill the request and enlighten us all as to the policies I have allegedly violated.

3. "You've also done some things that have required ArbCom and Oversight attention)" BULLSHIT!! When, where, quotes? This is patently untrue and the accuser should be sanctioned for knowingly making such slanderous allegations in such a public area. This slander shall not go unanswered.

4. "To the admins, examine Veriss' deleted edits, please" Bring it on, examine every edit, all 2,000 plus and see that every contribution and edit has been made in good faith while the complainant has deleted my posts to his talk page. This is also slanderous and will not go unchallenged.

I have been grossly slandered here and my name has been drug through the mud. I did not start this step but want to know the next step. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is much to do about nothing, just as your empty accusations that I had "done some things that have required ArbCom and Oversight attention" was empty bull crap. Please do the right thing and clear my good name by retracting your accusations. Please do the right thing and clear my name, only you can do it. Please clear my name. Please clear my good name of what you know is untrue. Veriss (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to, #3, I had to e-mail ArbCon and Oversight because you were putting information about me that didn't belong on Wikipedia. MULTIPLE TIMES. You even did it above before you saw the error in your. That is why two of your edits last night are in gray and crossed out. Those are the edits I would like administrators to look at. The next step would be an ANI if you so choose Purplebackpack89 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Veriss1 really needs to back away from the term "slander" here: especially when using it to describe another editor's removal of his comments from their talk page (see: WP:BLANKING). "...while the complainant has deleted my posts to his talk page. This is also slanderous and will not go unchallenged." No, it's not slanderous, and Yes, it will go unchallenged. Even if "Veriss1" were your real legal name, he (not she, as his talk page reveals) is not slandering you, so please stop it. The "mentorship" offer is both insincere and ill-advised: an actual mentor doesn't call someone he wishes to help "childish" and tell them he has "no use" for them. Mentoring is usually not for a less experienced editor (which you say you are) to offer to a more experienced editor, and sarcastically offering it just looks bad. Purplebackpack89 is not required to "clear your good name", as you plead several times for. I agree that this appears to be over something that Veriss1 is actually quite right about, and would win in the court of public opinion: John Boehner should not be categorized as a bartender. But PBP89 is not going to be sanctioned here for "bullying", and AN/I is the place for that if that is the route chosen. WQA is sort of like the "kiddy-pool", and the "deep-end" at AN/I can be... intimidating. Hopefully Boehner will remain uncategorized a bartender, and this was all just a bad dream... Doc talk 16:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User Cybermud

I report user Cybermud for continued extreme insults. Some examples would be:

Here [21] and here [22] he calls me “SonicSpoof.”

Here [23] and here [24] he calls me a troll and a vandal. (He also writes something really weird about how I should tell him to “stop whining and be a man that my mother won't be ashamed of” and all this in response to my very calm comment here [25])

Here he removed one of my comments from the Andrea Dworkin talk page and wrote in the edit summary “vandalism.” [26] Another editor had to restore it and explain to Cybermud that it wasn't vandalism.

Here [27] he calls me a his “wikihounding sockpuppet” and attacks user Cailil. Here [28] he calls me his “sockpuppeting wikihound” and attacks user Slp1.

Everything started with this [29][30][31] series of comments by Cybermud on the Andrea Dworkin talk page where Cybermud describes Dworkin as a “hideous looking Jabba the Hutt type woman” and states that “her nastiness certainly does qualify as a valid reason to doubt she was raped.” He continues to write something about “politically motivated rapes,” and “all men are rapists” and “blatant misandry” and things like that. I told Cybermud that I thought talk pages aren’t supposed to be used for such diatribes [32][33][34] and since then he has been insulting me.

I’m sure that Cybermud will call me all the screw ups under the sun and say that I’m a vandal and a sockpuppet and a wikihounder and a troll and “SonicSpoof” and that I’m misrepresenting his edits. Please check my editing history and see for yourselves that there is no vandalism or any of the other accusations.

I was hoping that Cybermud would follow this [35] advice of an administrator and take back some of his insults. But it’s obvious that he doesn’t intend to do it and that he will continue to insult me and besmirch me whenever he addresses me. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am now more convinced than ever that you are a sockpuppet. Anyone evaluating the assertions made by Sonicyouth should look at his/her diffs in context. He's absolutely right that I will say he's misrepresenting my edits, as well as the "advice" of an administrator and everything and anyone else. I could go and create a long list of diffs where Sonicyouth attacks me too, but if you just read Sonicyouth's own diffs in context (as suggested above) you will find them yourselves. Either way I'm not investing any more time into dealing with this editor.--Cybermud (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You just can't address me without using insults or trying to besmirch my reputation.

Please look at my diffs in context and tell me if you find anything that mitigates Cybermud calling me "SonicSpoof," a vandal, a troll, a wikihounder, a sockpuppet, a non-editor and what not.

The reason Cybermud can't provide diffs is because unlike him I don't feel like calling him (or anyone) names just because they disagree with me. He's been engaged in the most elaborate character assassination of me and everyone who tells him that people have a right to disagree with him without being accused of being a "spoof," a vandal, a troll, a wikihounder, a sockpuppet. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

More hyperbole and nonsense that I'm tired of endlessly responding to. Since you and I are not editing any similar articles at the moment how about we agree to disagree and bury the hatchet (and not into anyone)? The SPI investigation was closed without any action against you so just let it go and I promise not to call a spade a spade or even mention you again. I'd be more than happy to forget you even exist if you'd stop your own attacks.--Cybermud (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly called me "SonicSpoof," vandal, troll, wikihound, sockpuppet, and non-editor. And you don't show any inclination to admit that you've repeatedly crossed the line or to change your behavior. You basically say that you'll continue with your personal attacks unless I refrain from editing similar or the same articles (which I intend to do as soon as I have more time to really commit myself to them). You leave me no other choice but to report you here and hope that you'll stop calling me names. I'd LOVE to "let it go" but I can't because you continue to insult me.

I don't need to "bury the hatchet" into you or anyone because I never picked up that hatchet. The personal attacks were completely one-sided because I never insulted you back. Other editors have pointed out that you seem to have a problem with civility and assuming good faith, like here [36].

From what I've seen, your way of communicating with other editors is very problematic. I'm just the newest target of your smear campaign. If other editors review my complaint here and don't find anything wrong with your behavior then, okay, I'll accept it and move on. I'll do it gladly. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you invite these "other editors" you've found to come speak for themselves about my "very problematic smear campaign," "activism," "extreme attacks," etc, etc, etc? I'm sure you can find at least one other account that can come and opine here in support of you...--Cybermud (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think both of you should stop posting, and wait for others to look at the evidence and opine. There is nothing more likely to put off others from giving their opinion than two editors who continue a dispute on this page. However, since I am here and since Cybermud asks, yes, indeed other editors and administrators have pointed out that comments and actions that are problematic, including Cailil [37][38] and BWilkins [39]. For full disclosure, I have myself been in dispute with CM; however though my name is mentioned above, I do not consider Cybermud's interactions concerning me to have been particularly problematic. In contrast, the names Cybermud has called a relatively new editor, SonicYouth are inappropriate, as was deleting his/her comments as vandalism. As I think Cybermud understands, the trip to Sock Puppet Investigations was inappropriate, given that there was no real evidence offered. Personally, I find the Jabba the Hut/rape comments Cybermud made about Andrea Dworkin [40][41][42] highly objectionable; these are outside the scope of this particular page, but are likely talkpage violations. Obviously, it will be helpful if other, uninvolved, editors can comment; the point of this page is not to be a battleground, but to look forward, and to get some useful feedback to prevent similar hurt feelings and upset in the future. --Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is it? SonicYouth has repeatedly characterized me as "attacking you" yet you say "I do not consider Cybermud's interactions concerning me to have been particularly problematic"? Since you've made it germane to this issue by characterizing me as namecalling a new editor, it bears mentioning, and you're well aware, I don't view him as a new editor. You should also clarify that the comments you link to from Cailil and Bwilkins were primarily in relation to Nick Levinson and not SonicYouth because it's as clear as mud in yours and SY's edits.--Cybermud (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's patently clear that you don't think SonicYouth is a new editor. The problem is that repeatedly making claims that somebody is a sockpuppet (including calling them Sonicspoof, for example) without any evidence is considered a personal attack. You might want to read this essay about the matter. Baldly calling edits vandalism when they are not, that editors are trolls etc are also very problematic.

This discussion is not about SonicYouth. It's about your interactions and communication with other users and in particular SonicYouth. I personally don't feel you've crossed the line with me, but the diffs I provide show both Cailil and Bwilkins telling you that your interactions on the SPI page are over the line, with no evidence that they were "primarily in relation to Levinson". [43][44] But frankly, if they were, it just shows that the problematic edits have affected multiple editors, making the issue worse, not better.

Cybermud, you are a relatively new user too. There is a lot to learn here about WP ways of editing and interacting. I have made plenty of mistakes in my time and no doubt will continue to do so. It is totally understandable that there is a learning curve in getting to know all the ins and outs and the best ways to go about things here. For example, I noticed your confusion about sockpuppet checks; yes, it is easy and fast to do a checkuser on a editor, but for privacy reasons this is never done without solid evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, and never as a "fishing" trip (ie I think X is a sockpuppet, please check it out"). Now you know. It's the same with learning about how best to interact with other editors. It's easy to see this place as a battleground, but that isn't the vision; in fact being combative and uncivil does not work to one's favour in the long term. As I said, it's fine to have some initial problems in this regard, but as several other editors have pointed out, you do need to change your approach. It will actually serve you better, here as in real life. --Slp1 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To further respond to your remark on the "trip to Sock Puppet Investigations" I do feel it was inappropriate, but not for the reasons you would both like to imply. As I clarified there a number of times, though SY, and apparently you also, would like to obfuscate it, I do believe that SY is a sockpuppet and this Wikiquette alert only reinforces that belief. I regret misunderstanding the way the process worked, what the level of behavioral evidence apparently is, and feeling the need to put forth a putative puppetmaster for SonicYouth (which needlessly and regrettably pulled Nick Levinson into it,) but none of that changes the fact that I opened the SPI because I believed that SonicYouth was a SP and SPA. The clarity of this is largely lost now because SY has since gone editing a number of new pages and asking for help "as a new editor."--Cybermud (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only does Cybermud continue to call me names but he ridicules me in the most vile manner. I posted a comment on his talk page telling him that I had no other choice but report him here and he posted this: [45] In my opinion, this is harassment. His incessant insults and taunts are very offensive and I beg you to please comment on his behavior and tell him to just STOP. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

At some point perhaps someone will address the theatrics of SonicYouth in all this... His various claims, assertions and statements like "ridicules me in the most vile manner," "very offensive," "extreme insults," "men's rights activist... w/ an axe to grind," "father's rights activist," "attacks s1p1," "attacks everyone." We can continue to beat a dead horse in regards to my dragging Nick Levinson into a SPI investigation, which I have already apologized for and even Nick has said he believes I did in good faith, or we can take a look at the way SonicYouth has tried to blame Shakehandsman for the SPI and characterize him as working in concert with me for all the above baseless assertions. An action that no one, least of all Shakeshandman, will call acting in good faith. SonicYouth is grossly mischaracterizing my edits and the edits of many other users. He has been warned about as much at least several times, by Shakeshandman [[46]] [[47]] and then by Bwilkins [[48]]--Cybermud (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

talk page problems at Talk:Transistor–transistor logic

• User:Circuit dreamer
• Talk:Transistor–transistor logic

I've already directed this user to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines but the talk page continues to fill with chest-thumping instead of productive discussion of article improvements. Edit summaries such as this [49] are troublesome as well. The talk page entries are longer than the article they are nominally "discussing". Could we get a tutorial on proper use of talk pages? --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This behavior article has extended to Flip-flop (electronics)‎ and in particular this edit summary which describes an effort at a technical clean-up by User:Zen-in as vandalism. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "clean-up" or as you have diplomatically said - "technical clean-up", is simply reverting without any comment (see also Schmitt trigger). Edit summaries used by Zen-in are misleading and bluffing; he uses them to disguise his unworthy behavior exactly like Wikipedia vandals. If you scrutinize his contributions, you will find that most of them (maybe, more than 99%) are removing of my edits; less than 1% are something creative; the rest are common phrases and wrong assertions. He regularly inspects my contributions; then visits and "cleans-up" the pages where I have inserted some text. It sounds paradoxically and incredibly but it turns out the Zen-in's existence in Wikipedia is on purpose only to destroy my creations?!?! Of course, you know excellently these facts but you and others (some of them are administrators) maintain a stubborn silence (instead to join the discussions to solve the problems) thus encouraging his vandal behavior. I don't know the reason of your sympathy; I can only guess... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 16:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Other editors have asked me to try to discuss my edits with him. He doesn't seem interested in accepting other editor's advice and continues to push his pov. In one instance I was slandered by circuit-dreamer. [[50]]. In August he received a final warning for this same behavior- User_talk:Circuit_dreamer#refactoring talk pages. Since then his behavior has gotten worse. His outburst at Wtshymanski is unacceptable. Zen-in (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Baker III

• Carolyn Baker III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is showing acts of incivility by using the F word which can be seen here, here, here, and here. On one occasion the editor was asked to stop. I had taken this to the ANI, and was deferred to here. Sarujo (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The only possible problematic one on its own is this one since it appears to be related to specific editors. However, as a pattern, the editor comes across as a 12 year old who think it's cool to swear when mom and dad are not around. A little bit of invective can be useful in the right place, but in the long run, this is an encyclopedia, and not a whorehouse. Have you personally tried to deal with it on their userpage? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't think it would do any good seeing as in the episode on the editor Mathewignash's talk page as seen here, the editor Black Kite jumping in shortly after here, Mathewignash removing the comments, in responce Baker states "That's how I am", Mathewignash asking the Baker not to swear, Baker admitting to using the F word several times but claims they haven't been swearing. Then there was not too long ago today another editor pointing out their use of profanity on that project page. So I don't see how me calling out the editor on their incivility will be more than a drop in the bucket when the editor has failed to take other fellow editors' advice. Sarujo (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the time Sarujo reported Divebomb, this one might actually deserve some action taken. NotARealWord (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)