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

A Link to the Past

Work in progress; comments welcome

I run into this user quite frequently. It's difficult for me to list him, as he's obviously not a vandal and it appears he has the Wiki's best interests in mind. However, he is known for being stubborn, and sometimes downright abusive when he disagrees with another user.

As one example, he's taken a one-man crusade to remove "Zero Suit Samus" from the Super Smash Bros. (series) page, despite the consensus leaning to her staying on the list. He mas made many edits over the past three days to remove this information, but is careful not to remove it three times in the same day (every time he does, it's reverted quickly, and usually by a different user than before.) He claims that to remove it is in line the "no original research" rule, but the primary argument for inclusion is categorization on the game's official site.

He has also been known to yell at users, make sarcastic comments, claim other users are lying, and attempt to oust the decisions of administators when consensus doesn't appear to be going his way.

Thank you for your time, HeroicJay 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to this, he has now started harassing me (to note, I never advocated what he claimed I did in that edit.) --HeroicJay 00:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this. I see the patterns in the diffs you mentioned, and it does appear that User:A Link to the Past has been rather uncivil at times. I'd suggest leaving a note in his Talk page asking for discussion on the matter, and if he agrees, please participate in a civil discussion with suggestions on how to improve the atmosphere in those articles. If this ends up only causing more trouble, we can attempt to intervene for mediation, or we can refer you to other steps in the dispute resolution process, such as informal or formal mediation.

Just as a note, I don't believe that LTTP was attempting to harass you when he posted to your Talk page recently. His approach did seem very direct, but I didn't see anything in it that seemed to indicate a desire to harass you. Having exchanged with him myself, I believe he was honestly interested in discussing the matter, and that your response to him might have been a little hostile (though I don't think you violated any policies either). Not sure what I can suggest to change that situation at this point, though.

If we can be of any more help, let us know. Thanks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock's disruptive editing pattern

Note: This issue was archived without any attempt at resolution. I have restored it back here with hope that someone will try to come to a consensus on this issue. Thanks, Caknuck 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite pleas from several editors, User:Soxrock persists using a highly disruptive method of editing articles that, while technically not against any specific policy, is disruptive and detrimental to the database as a whole. Specifically, the editor in question has been making rather minor changes to articles (typically dealing with sports statistics) as a series of several dozen tiny edits instead of one or two large edits. Several editors, including myself, have urged Soxrock to stop this primarily through the use of the "Show preview" button. We have explained that his editing style has major negative impacts on the project's servers: the server load and bandwidth required to update the pages for every single edit he submits, the clogging up of edit summaries and the wasted extra storage space required for the thousands of intermediate pages he leaves in his wake. None of this has dissuaded him from this pattern.

For specific examples of this behavior, please see the following diffs:

1. [1] — List of managers for the Cincinnati Reds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 218 consecutive edits over the course of 27 1/2 hours.
2. [2] — 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 47 consecutive edits over the course of 14 hours.
3. [3] — 1961 American Football League Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 250 edits (plus 5 edits from another editor who was trying to demonstrate how to accomplish the same amount of work with only a handful of edits) over the course of two days.

These are only the most egregious examples from the past week.

When confronted about this disruptive behavior, Soxrock has been alternatingly duplicitous — by saying he will change his ways (see here and here)— and indignant (as with here).

For some reason, this only seems to be problem that has surfaced in the last two months. Per my comments here, I think that Soxrock has a bad case of editcountitis. (See here for Soxrock's edit count and edit summary usage.) What we need to impress upon him is that in the long run, he is doing more harm than good as far as the project goes.

Thanks, Caknuck 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(←)I think the reason no-one responded when you posted this previously is that it does not seem to be an issue of civility or editing disputes. Now all the information is almost a month old, so it does not seem like a situation needing immediate attention. Considering that Wikipedia has millions of articles and something like 75,000 editors, plus high-speed editing bots doing maintenance and cleanup, I don't think his edit count is significantly burdening the servers.

What is it that's bothering you about this? Is he violating WP:CIVIL and causing trouble to you personally, or to another editor in particular? Is he inserting material in the articles that does not conform to WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS, or WP:NPOV? If any of that is happening, please provide some specific examples so we can take a look.

But if he's just editing fast, why is that bad? Think about how many edits bots make every day, where they add things like tag dates and other minor corrections to templatges. Those must create many times more pages than the editor you are reporting. If you think I'm wrong about that, you could post a request at the Village Pump (Technical) and I'm sure you'd get a quick reply to the tech question. If his edits are vandalism, that's different and would be an important issue. If so, we can refer you to where to report that.

Also, I reviewed his talk page and he seems to have productive and civil editing relationships. Please clarify what you're looking for here. I don't mean to make light of your report, I just don't understand why you see this as a problem. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour by User:KSmrq

Resolved

In Talk:Integral, KSmrq is repeatedly engaging in uncivil comments, personal attacks and lying to portray my edits in an unfavourble light. This is not really a big issue for me, but just for the record I'm notifying the community, in case the editor has prior history of disruptive behaviour or may behave in such a manner in the future. Loom91 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I took a look through the Talk page, and I do see some cases where this editor seems to be responding to others in a confrontational manner. Since the discussion is over such complex material (most of which I can't pretend to understand without doing a lot more research into it myself), I'm not in a position to assess whether KSmrq's statements of value judgement are justified or not. To my eye, though, it appears that he's contributed a significant portion of the technical content to the article, and thus is a bit protective of that content. He does seem to be a bit quick to judge others on their "usefulness", making statements about their grasp of the subject and the English language, etc. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to the "Request for comment" discussion on the article's Talk page, giving procedural advice and specifically advising KSmrq to abide by WP:CIVIL (specifically WP:SKILL). I've advised both editors to step back from editing the article - both involved editors are dangerously close to (if not already in violation of) WP:3RR. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to stop participating in civility discussions on Talk:Integral. I'll be happy to continue helping out here, but otherwise will no longer contribute there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank KieferSkunk for his work towards resolving the dispute. His presence helped to calm the situation and resulted in improvement. There are still some issues to be resolved, and discussion continues elsewhere. Please do not add further comments here. If the situation becomes more stressful again, add a new subsection below the archived portion of this alert; please make comments specific and short and include links or diffs. Please do not debate the details here, we will address any new events that are reported here on the page where the situation is happening. Thank you. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I marked this issue as Resolved - civility issues seem to have calmed down, but the dispute itself continues, centered pretty much entirely around procedures and content. I've advised all parties as best as I can on the procedures and on working toward consensus. There is nothing more I personally can do, but at least I believe the hostility has passed for the time being. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My thanks (again) to KieferSkunk for being willing to step in, regardless of outcome.

I thought it might be of interest to note for the record where things stand today. As this thread shows, the mathematics community continues to share my concern about Loom91's misbehavior, which has flared up again. If not for the procedural hassles, I believe we would proceed directly to having him banned from editing integral.

I do apologize here (as I did at Talk:Integral) for being perturbed enough to use an expletive, however accurate (again, as detailed at Talk:Integral). In my experience, calling someone clueless, say, does not magically give them a clue, and is counterproductive.

A good night's sleep after a long day editing helped restore some of my equanimity (not the intervention; sorry, KieferSkunk), but Loom91's ongoing disruption has driven away at least two valued contributors, which troubles me deeply. The mathematics community includes many admins and two ArbCom members, so I remain guardedly optimistic that we can deal with him ourselves.

Regardless, there is probably little more that readers of this forum can do. Perhaps a further caution to Loom91 about his own civility (as mentioned repeatedly here and at WT:WPM) would be justified, along the lines of "people in glass houses…"; but would it be productive, or merely provoke defenses? Formally, of course, Wikipedia has dispute resolution procedures; but they are not intended as a way of life. In the long run, I believe that Loom91 would do well to learn a better way to participate, and I'm not sure how that's going to happen.

Sorry to trouble the readers here, and thanks again for your interest. --KSmrq^T 10:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, KSmrq. I left a comment for Loom as to the fact that it seems he is unlikely to sway consensus at this time without going through other forms of peer review. Hopefully that will help things. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination)

Resolved

User:Nathaniel B. Heraniaos has made repeated personal attacks on other users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination), a nomination he made simply because he did not like the page's subject. He's trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, in hopes that Conservapedia will disappear from the net since he doesn't like its contents. Even after I've warned him, he insists that he's not disrupting Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a clear violation of WP:CIVIL to me. This should probably be referred to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm not familiar enough with this process to help further, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)The AfD has already been closed as a "Speedy Keep". So the article will not be deleted. The disruptive user has already pretty much reported himself by his over the top comments at the debate, in other words his comments are visible in the archived debate. For now, don't worry about it. There is no reason to do anything else unless he bothers you or others in the future, in a new situation. If that happens, let us know and we'll help you figure out what to do. --Parzival418 _Hello 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - but only vadalism

Although this might not affect many users - Harrypottersux has 5 contributions. But, he also vandalised 5 times. He has vandalised German Swiss International School 4 times in the course of a month, and then vandalised my userpage after I reverted his vandalism. I do not believe he is contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner, as per wikipedia policy.

-Arthuralee 11:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you report this to WP:AIV. Usually, reporting there requires that the vandalizing user has already received four warnings. But since he has already vandalized your userpage, I doubt you'd get anything but trouble from him if you try to place the warnings yourself. Make sure to be clear about this when you file the report, ie, as to why you are reporting him before placing warnings. The reports on that page need to be very concise. Also, you might mention a concern about his username when you file the report, it seems uncivil at first look. Another option would be to report the username here: WP:UFA. --Parzival418 _Hello 11:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor (PaulBurns) refusing to act civilly

Last year I tagged an article for copyvio on the basis that the page was copied from a webpage. I left a standard warning with User:PaulBurns, a new editor, shortly after tagging it and received no response. The article was duly deleted as per normal procedures, and the editor made some further edits some months later. Now after a year, he has finally realized what happened to the article and has claimed that he did write both the article and the copyvio source (which corresponds between the copyright name and the user name). So it would appear that I made a mistake in copyvio'ing it. I've admitted as much.

The problem is that the editor is refusing to act with any degree of civility regarding the matter and is beginning to make personal threats. Even though I've tried to direct him to appropriate wiki policy and explain what happened and why, this does nothing. It's really a shame, since I think that with some perspective and more Wikipedia experience, he'd probably be an excellent contributor. I was wondering if a neutral third-party would be able to set him back on the right path, because it's clear that I am not. (Most discussion has been on each of our user talk pages.) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

left a msg on User talk:PaulBurns. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:MonstretM in Talk:Food irradiation

Stuck

Several of MonstretM's contributions on the talk page of food irradiation are exessively ad hominem, directed personal attacks, against those of a differing opinion. In that sense I feel some of the users content is in violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SKILL. Victims include User:Arved Deecke, User:GermanPina, User:DieterE and myself. User:DieterE and myself have both raised concerns how User:MonstretM argues personalities over facts and how he has been oafish in doing so. I would appreciate help that allows us to return to a civil discourse centered around WP:Wikiquette and focused on reaching agreement. RayosMcQueen 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the page is already protected due to the edit warring, I don't think we can do much here. You already have a respected administrator helping you on the talk page. If you have concerns about civility issues, you could bring it up there and receive some help. If you do, make sure to provide very specific links to the comments you find are problems, and make your statements concise so you can get the attention you want.

If it turns out that there are continuing civility problems, and you don't find help elsewhere, you are welcome to re-open this report, but if you do, please provide diffs for specific comments that you feel are problems. There's way too much on the pages you listed for us to sort through and try to find what's happening without specific examples.

Aside from all that, it may be best to just try and ignore the "oafish" behavior and with extra politeness, continue returning the discussion to the topic. It's hard not to react to provacative comments, but if you can let them just slide by, you may find that you get better results. Also, by making your responses extra-civil, even beyond what would normally be needed, later if you do need to point out examples of the bad behavior, it will be obvious who is the source of the problem. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Czimborbryan in Yantic River and lots of other CT articles

Stuck

An anonymous editor came in and started adding links to a number of Connecticut-recreation-related articles. When I looked at the links and saw that they seemed to be for the purpose of getting Google ad revenue, I started reverting them and warning the anon about linkspam. After 4 warnings, he was blocked. A while later, Czimborbryan came in and started re-adding the links. Elipongo, after welcoming him, engaged him, and explained why he seemed to be acting against policy. He defended himself in several private emails, which Elipongo responded to on his talk page. He claims that even though he controls the site he's linking to, he's not violating WP:NOR. He proceeded to eventually post a long defense of his actions on the talk page of every article he had added the link to, and he also posted to the WP:Village pump (policy)#Define External Links Spam, where several users attempted to explain why what he was doing might have issues. Haemo also jumped in after a request by Elipongo, to no avail.

At some point, I went through all the articles where he had added his link under References and changed them to External links, as the content he was posting did not seem to actually be backed up by the links. He started complaining that I was violating copyright law, with such phrases as "Please revert all of the External Links edits that you had made to my articles using Connecticut Explorer's Guide as References. These links are references citing copyrighted material and you do not have my permission to remove these sources as references." and "Even though the GNU gives permission to edit the content mercilessly, it does not give permission to remove cited sources under References. This is a copyright matter and protected by law. Otherwise, it would be assumed that the information posted is original to the author." (which I found highly amusing, considering that he was citing his own page, and that I was not removing links, but just changing how they were labeled). I pretty much give up on trying to explain things to him -- can somebody else take a swing at it?--SarekOfVulcan 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read your discussions. You've been very patient and explained the policies clearly, multiple times. User:Czimborbryan has not shown any interest in learning about how Wikipedia works or even responded in any significant way to anything you've told him. I don't think there's anything further you can do, and I don't think he will be interested in hearing from anyone else either.

I recommend you edit the articles as you have been, remove or correct the links as needed, and pretty much ignore his comments unless he starts to make sense. As long as he doesn't engage in edit warring or incivil comments, just let it go, or reply by letting him know that you're willing to discuss, but only if he's willing to learn. If he seems to become receptive, then you could give him some guidline links to read, but if he is not interested in what you have to offer, then don't waste your time.

If his legal threats continue - even though they're sort of confused - I suggest reporting that at WP:AN, because there's no way for you to know how seriously he takes what he is saying. It might be best to let someone with experience on that kind of thing make the decision about it. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Parzival. Over the past day, he proposed one link on a talk page. After I reviewed it and saw that it appeared to show the entire subject of the article, and nothing else, I added it myself: I figured that doing things the right way should be encouraged. --SarekOfVulcan 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute situation with User:Tenebrae in John_Buscema - should I agree to mediation?

My problem is that the disputant is willing to go to mediation but presents the request in a way that leaves me wary -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema (see last entry)

There's seems to be such an accusational, prosecutional, and uncivil tone that I hesitate to agree to mediation when such an attitude is displayed.

There are also two situations involving the user, which would seem to indicate a regular occurance of controversial behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tenebrae2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Request_for_comment/Asgardian (see June 16 entry)

Any ideas on how to proceed would be much appreciated.

--Skyelarke 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to think of a reason to turn down mediation. If mediation works, it will give a way forward. If it doesn't work, you and the other editors should be no worse off than before. It seems there is a long-running dispute, and the RfC didn't work. So try something else. EdJohnston 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I agreed to mediation, it was accepted and a mediator has taken on the case. --Skyelarke 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New user (NobutoraTakeda) is uncivil

Resolved

new user User:NobutoraTakeda need some guidance on being civil, etc. Based on his talk page, several people have been having problems with him. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this user is extremely aggressive with regards to various AfD discussions, to the point of badgering people both on the discussion and on their talk pages. I'm not sure what course of action would be best with this user but he certainly doesn't seem interested in the well-intentioned advise offered by multiple users on his talk page. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If the user isn't responding to advice and warnings from other editors, it may be time to take the matter to the admin noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this user has been blocked - apparently was deemed a sockpuppet. Probably no more that needs to be done or said on this matter. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil Personal Attack on Talk Page (Shashwat pandey)

User Shashwat pandey has posted an inappropriate attack banner on his talk page (when he found out we were filing an Rfc for him). This banner violates WP:CIVIL and WP:ICA. I've read the Civility sections and it seems I have the right to remove this since it is my name and my link? Advice would be appreciated. Renee Renee 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(I edited your post above with Wikilinks) Hi Renee. I'd hold off on removing the banner, and let the RfC take place before any decisions are made. I'd say that removing the banner from his Talk page is only likely to inflame the situation further - if any admins get involved in the RfC (likely), they'll decide what the appropriate course of action will be. Feel free to refer to this WQA for reference if need be. :) I hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks KeiferSkunk -- appreciate the advice and will follow. Just for my own knowledge, is something like this considered inappropriate or not? Renee Renee 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe so - it certainly isn't in the spirit of dispute resolution. I would hesitate to call it open harassment, but I've left a friendly suggestion that he remove his banner and participate openly in the RfC and dispute resolution process. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still learning how to use Wiki, it's policies, etc. Appreciate your kindness. Renee --Renee 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil comments after editing Politico-media complex

User:Dsmith1usa and I are in a little dispute over at Politico-media complex and the user has become rather aggressive and rude with these two comments [9], [10] after I removed some of his additions which I feel are unsubstantiated in the sources provided, suffer from weasel words and border on original research and afford undue weight to one commentator. Appreciate some sort of input to keep the discussion focussed on the content. Steve block Talk 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a response in the article Talk requesting that the "The Editor known as Block" section be removed, as it's a clear violation of WP:NPA. I invited both of you to continue any discussion about your personal dispute here, and we'll attempt to mediate as best as possible, but I also advised that the personal dispute should be taken off of the article Talk and either to here or to one of your User Talk pages. Hope this helps. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It either will or it won't. It looks like it is still meandering along a diatribe path, but thanks for the input. I'm pretty much just treading through the processes, to be honest. Steve block Talk 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the discussion again, and it appears Dsmith is still making this a very personal argument there. I noted that your side of the argument has remained civil - good job! Dsmith, on the other hand, appears to be treading on thin ice with respect to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:POINT, and he seems to feel that he's entitled to warn the rest of the community about your "hypocrisy", despite what policies he might be violating by doing so. If he continues after further advice, I'll refer you both to mediation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, it's appreciated. Steve block Talk 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by user Fyslee

Please help. Fyslee keeps inserting personal attacks on me in article discussion pages. I have placed a series of NPA warning templates and he has either ignored or removed the templates and replaced them with more personal attacks.

• My removal - Here I am removing a post where he is demonstrating a personal grudge he has against me because I didn't take his side on his ArbCom.
• Here he makes more comments, some of which are fine, but most of which are personal attacks on me. I removed the personal attacks here and here.
• Fyslee restored the comments here and then I re-removed them [11]
• Please note that all along, I have been placing warning templates on Fyslee's take page - [12], [13], and [14].
• Fyslee ignored these templates by continuing to post and restore personal attacks on me. He also removed these warning templates and replaced them with more personal attacks.
• As I am typing this, Fyslee placed another attack on my talk page. Well, this one seems a little more congenial - as if he is offering me advice - but I think it is clear that his intention here is to enflame. Please review the result of Fyslee's RfA and note that he has a history of personal attacks.

I am not going to presume to suggest a remedy, but please note that Fyslee has been warned many times about this kind of behavior both prior to and after his RfA. I would like to see this behavior end as I feel he adds a level of combativeness to already tense talk pages which makes it impossible to resolve any content disputes. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Levine. After reviewing your diffs and the RfA, I believe that this situation is probably being inflamed from both sides. I haven't done an in-depth review of the article in question, so I can't make any judgements or comments on whose edits are POV or what not. But to my eye (and without knowing a large amount of the history here), I'd say that you both have some valid points and are both kind of at each other's throats in this matter. So I have a little advice for you, and I will attempt to give some advice to him as well:

• • First, regardless of WP:NPA, it is generally not a good idea to remove or edit other users' comments on Talk pages when a dispute arises. This only tends to aggravate the situation, and from Fyslee's point of view, you are likely partially invalidating his points. I'm not endorsing his statements directed at you, but I believe a more appropriate way to respond to them is to address the content only, and to politely ask the other editor to remove the personal statements from his comments and leave them out of the discussion in the future.
  • Second, remember that when editors address one another directly on each other's talk pages, some are much more direct and blunt than others. I personally feel that Fyslee's recent comment to you on your Talk page is borderline on WP:CIVIL - he has some decent points in his message, but he also appears to be rejecting your attempts to notify him of his behavior. I don't think there's much more you can do in that particular situation other than to respond politely to him.
  • Third, if a content dispute continues over whether his or your version of the Stephen Barrett article should stay (and which one violates WP:NPOV), I would refer to the results of any previous arbitration (and request enforcement if applicable and appropriate), or go through the Article RfC process, formal mediation, or arbitration as a last resort.

It is all too easy for editors to confuse criticism of one another's content with personal attacks on the editor's character or the validity of his comments. I'd advise both of you to remember that you each have different points of view on this matter, and while you may not agree with each other, both of your POVs are valid. That does not mean that they are both necessarily correct or in compliance with policies and guidelines, but they are worth considering and discussing, and it is up to the broader community to come to consensus as to what should be in the article, as well as to ensure that policies are being obeyed. I will advise Fyslee that his statements toward you have been, in my opinion, unnecessarily harsh and personal, and that your point of view is no less valid than his. I hope that will help to settle things. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It should go without saying (to those who are familiar with Levine2112's tactics) that he is having these same problems with other editors as well (they react to his provocations and baiting) and his feigned innocense and feigned civility is an old pattern which those who edit alongside him see through. His contentiousness and continual revert warring and (unpunished) 4rr violations are tiring and we aren't superhuman. His tactics have obviously irritated some of us and instead of accepting our advice and the opportunity to "see himself as others see him," he starts bombing us with warning templates, which is itself an attack which only inflames the situation. I too am tired of the situation.

As a strong supporter of a banned user, he was earlier exposed during an RfArb as a poor researcher who tried to mislead the ArbComs with false and carelessly researched linkspamming charges against me. His charges were totally picked apart (but he didn't get punished for it), yet he still tries to attack me and bait me. Now, instead of trying to defuse the situation by talking calmly to us, he misuses our talk pages and this board. If he considers himself man enough to dish it out, then he should be able to take care of things himself. I only discovered his provocative warnings on my user page at a late date, so to speak, and found them quite disrespectful, yet I didn't bomb his talk page with disrespectful attacks in the form of warning templates, which should be reserved for newbies and not used on other experienced editors. Such actions are his way of baiting and inflaming others and he's done it before. I prefer to tell him to his face and I have left a message explaining how I feel about his actions. It is an explanation, but of course he will interpret it as an attack. Adults should be able to talk together honestly.

He apparently has no idea how strongly his treatment of others affects them. Because we know him after a couple years, we can see straight through his seemingly civil way of twisting and wording things, but we aren't fooled. Others may be, but we know him too well.

I have not restored his last deletions. If he will be more careful and respectful in how he treats me and refers to me I will certainly be more careful in how I respond to him. I didn't start this and have no intention of finishing it either. I only responded after repeated provocations and this is not my best hour. I shouldn't have taken the bait and will be more careful in the future. After a couple years of this, it's hard to really know what he means sometimes, since the pattern og baiting and false politeness has been established for so long. If he is changing tactics and would like to start assuming good faith for once, I'd like to do the same.

I have just read KieferSkunk comments above and find them very useful and wise. I will try to do my best to improve my interactions with Levine2112. Thanks. -- Fyslee/talk 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your words and wisdom here. KieferSkunk. Thanks. I sincerely this helps improve all of our experiences here a Wikipedia. (I regret however that Fyslee's comments above are patently untrue and continue to enflame the situation.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, accusations and defenses are probably not going to help the matter any more. I'm not going to be able to review each of your histories to validate each other's claims, but I'd advise you both to step back and take some time off from the articles in which you both are participating. Go back in with a cool head after a couple of days or so, discuss the issues neutrally, and see what comes of the discussions then. Again, also consider using Article RFC if you're still unable to work it out or if you have trouble getting other editors involved to discuss the matter. Thanks, and good luck. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I regret that Levine2112 fails to assume good faith and accept that I have expressed things as I see them and that's my POV. I am not attempting to mislead anyone. That's just the way I see things and he needs to accept that his actions and long-standing pattern of editing and way of referring to myself and other users with opposing POV has caused feelings in other persons that he may not have intended, and apparently does not understand. That indicates he needs to be more sensitive, and..... so do I! I am not perfect nor any saint.

I accept the advice above and will try to defuse the situation as best I can. -- Fyslee/talk 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It does need to be noted that Levine is a bit tag happy and, seemingly, rather than resolving any issues, would rather take offense at almost any comment. But rather than actually being offended, he seems more interested in generating enough warnings to then come here as a victim. It should be noted that he has (on his talk page) expressed a liking to this sort of behaviour, of which I find very disappointing as it only suggests that he is editing to be disruptive (trolling), which leads to other editors (myself included) being frustrated, commenting, and having Levine slap a NPA tag on our talk pages. This is happening with a group of editors, and it does need to be asked, why does a group of editors have problems with a single editor that he feels he needs to continually ask "NPA". I would suggest that his behaviour needs to be examined. Shot info 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Has a Checkuser request User RFC (use this before going to Checkuser) been filed for this situation? If not, you may want to consider doing so. That would be a good way to deal with the situation if the consensus among the article editors is that Levine's behavior is out of line. Flame-baiting is definitely not acceptable behavior, but WQA is not really the place to assess if this is what he or anyone else is doing. All we can do here is to help resolve disputes, but it seems that this situation may be beyond the scope of WQA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, there has been some discussion about the formal process, but I (for one) do not prefer this path after being dragged into the ArbCom described by Fyslee above (and I wasn't even involved). So I am cautious about the formal processes. Nevertheless, a RfC has been discussed and I think you might be correct in recommended this. Thanks for your time. Shot info 23:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Shot info has also been personally attacking in conjunction with Fyslee. In fact I was almost going to report him here with Fyslee, but I thought Shot info had ceased this behavior. Apparently I was wrong. Please see here for the warning templates I have placed on Shot info's talk page and fromt here you can see what remarks of his I was responding too. Again, I am not presuming to propose a remedy here. I just wish this kind of incivility would stop. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Even just before Shot info posted here, you can see how he even uses edit summaries in an attempt to enflame me. [15] This needs to stop. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sighhh, it just never stops... Shot info 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Levine, it doesn't look to me like Shot's comment (which you posted a diff for) or the edit summary was a personal attack against you at all. This is starting to look like a many-to-one situation here, in which other editors believe you are flame-baiting and trolling, getting them to respond in an uncivil manner, and then reporting them for policy violations. I'm seeing more evidence of that now that I look back in the histories. Nobody here is blameless, but I think you should step back (as I mentioned earlier) and consider a change in your tactics.

NPA templates in user talk pages should be used with care. Please do not overuse them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary of recent actions: I followed up on Shot Info's Talk page and provided some guidance on the apparently overused NPA templates there. Brief argument ensued there in which both Shot Info and I asked Levine2112 to disengage. No further discussion occurred there. I also have not seen any new arguments between Levine and Fyslee. I have not been following the original article(s) where the arguments started, but last I saw, it appeared that all parties had disengaged from arguing with one another. Perhaps we're back to where we should be now. I'll give this a couple more days before marking as Resolved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from DreamGuy

Repeated incvility toward multiple other users from DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). A quick look at his edit summary should show a number of them. Here are some examples: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]

Reported by IPSOS (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For whatever my opinion's worth, both of you could use a dose of WP:AGF. The two of you have clearly had a number of policy disagreements, but I think the real problem here is that both of you are convinced - without evidence that I have seen - that the other is acting in bad faith. If the two of you intend to continue editing the same articles, I'd suggest making use of WP:RFC in order to have some further light shed on the policy disagreements themselves. As for WP:CIVIL, I don't think most of the edit summaries to which you link violate the policy, although the wording is often slightly more belligerent than necessary (a by-product, in my view, of the lack of assumption of good faith that seems to pervade your wiki-relationship).

Good luck! Sarcasticidealist 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also took a look at these diffs, and I'm not convinced that this was the right response. Sarcasticidealist seems to assume that all the diffs came from encounters with the reporting user: they did not, but show a broad pattern of aggressiveness with multiple users. Here's a sampling of edit comments on user talk pages demonstrating the larger problem here:

# 18:12, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:70.53.254.98 (←Created page with '==Spam== Do not bother trying to sneak spam links into the body of articles or into templates, as those edits will just be reverted on site. Before editing here yo...')  (top)
# 18:02, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Calling somebody a liar is a personal attack - not if it's true... who are all these nobodies showing up planting false warnings? geez, it's like they got together and planned it) (top)
# 02:30, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (response to person trying to not take credit for the edits he/she clearly made which were inaccurate)
# 01:02, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (untrue.... it's been well established that editors are free to remove harassing comments and to warn people to ; certain editors -- yourself included -- have firmly demonstrated ill will)
# 00:56, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Please assume good faith -you're banned from this talk page, and you are purposefully leaving comments you know to be harassing and false warnings, go away or you will be blocked)
# 00:48, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→WP:LAYOUT - false warning from harasser... LAYOUT supported my edits until some peoplpe took it upon themselves to edit that page to be wrong)
# 23:42, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (removing whole section, as it's been nothing but an excuse for editors with harassment on their mind to complain and whine and try to work me up... go read policy and comma rules, save everyone's time)
# 23:19, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Comma in Adobe Photoshop - response to attacks by harassing editor)
# 22:48, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Comma in Adobe Photoshop - explaning... and would the banned editor stop causing edit conflicts... nobody asked you, and you know you are banned, so go away)
# 18:28, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→FYI - yet another lie from the harassing problem editor who was told never to post here again)
# 00:41, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them)
# 20:57, 25 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dicklyon (False warnings, and harassment, AGAIN)
# 20:52, 25 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Final vandalism warning - removing false vandalism warning... read the freaking vandalism policy already, and stop putting nonsense here solely to try to bully me) 

GlassFET 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from Austinavenger

I'm not sure if it belongs here or somewhere else. User has brand new account, seems to be created only for Ellen McNamara afd. Has stated deletion [27] "would seem like a hate crime to many", and in the afd [28] deletion "smacks of a certain prejudice like homophobia". There's no mention anywhere in the article of subject being gay, which makes it odder.

This was followed up with a somewhat harrassing post on Charlene.fic user talk page[29]Horrorshowj 08:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you are over-reacting a bit. The new user is not being incivil; all the contributions are unexceptional and free of personal attack. The post on the talk page was not harrassing, though it would have been better asked in the delete discussion. Relax, work on the assumption that they are trying to help; it looks like a good assumption in this case. Cheers -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A declaration of intent to attack Immanuel Velikovsky page

Stuck

 – Reported at WP:AN/3RR - result: User:Icebear1946 blocked for 24 hours

New user Icebear1946 (talk · contribs) has declared an intent to maintain a WP:POV attack on the Immanuel Velikovsky page. The declaration is in the talk page: this section: "I and others will continue reinserting the thermal balance article until hell freezes over if need be". Reasons why the cited article was removed are given at the linked section of the talk page. Two different editors so far have made removals. The page is one that attracts trolls. There has been an attempt to explain Wikipedia conventions, to no avail. The rule WP:3RR was described; it is not yet violated. I am ceasing attempts to discuss further myself, as they don't help. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 12:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear me, Alert one of the math or physics admins to watch the page, trolling is one of the most difficult problems to deal with 'round here and it helps to have an admin with you from the beginning.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, User:Icebear1946 seems to be a single-purpose account. I recommend avoiding extended discussions, refer the editor to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, and watch for 3RR. Stay extra polite so it doesn't become a charged situation. As long as the editors of the article have consensus, the reversions should not be a problem.I noticed there is already one 3RR warning on the user's talk page. If it continues, another warning would be appropriate before reporting to WP:AN/3RR , but perhaps also post a welcome message with the basic WP policies.

I noticed is that someone made the comment that they believe this new editor is the same person who wrote one of the references. Unless a user reveals their identity themselves, no other user should reveal it, except in specific unusual situations. I believe there is a policy about this, but I can't find it right now. In any case, it's best to avoid this. Instead of using an editor's identity as a basis for reverting a reference, refer to the policies to determine whether a reference is reliable or not. --Parzival418 _Hello 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Parzival418. I was the one who placed the warning. I agree I spent too much time trying to discuss how to edit wikipedia constructively; I should have placed that on the user's talk page and confined myself to the article on the article talk page. I'll try that next time I find myself in this kind of position. I accept the reproof about privacy. Again, next time I will word myself more carefully. Thanks very much for the suggestions! -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the identity issue, you're right, it seems he has revealed it himself previously. And now in his new edit he has specifically revealed his own identity by re-editing the PDF on his website to add the author's name and then re-posting it again to the article page, and stating it is his essay. He also now claims that it is properly attributed - still not a reliable source though. Further, in his comments on the talk page, he has violated WP:CIVIL several times, accusing good faith editors of vandalism, and make a variety of other insulting comments.

He's pretty clearly violated the WP:3RR rule today with these 5 reverts:  : [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. So if you want to take action, it would be appropriate to report him at WP:AN/3RR. It might be a good idea also to mention there that User:Icebear1946 so far is a single purpose account, has not edited any other articles, and has a conflict of interest in the posting of that unsupported reference. I am not making the 3RR report myself because this is not my dispute. But in light of the uncivil conduct of this user, I recommend that you consider making the report so he knows he can't continue to behave that way.

If you do, make sure to show the diff for the 3RR warning you placed on his talk page, include the examples of the reversions, and add their time stamps so it's convenient for the administrators to read your report. Look at some other reports on the noticeboard so you can see how they are done, and follow the instructions step-by-step. It's not complicated but needs to be done according to proper form.

Also, the reference is clearly not WP:V, and does not have consensus to be included, so it does not belong there. In my opinion, there would be nothing wrong with another editor removing it again, as long as it is someone who has not already removed it more than once today. That's just my opinion though, the decision about removing it or not is up to each individual editor according to their reading of the policy. --Parzival418 _Hello 05:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)Now that you've filed the report at WP:AN/3RR, we'll consider this alert to be closed. Depending on the results of the 3RR report, if User:Icebear1946 causes trouble again and this alert has not yet been archived, please feel free to add further notes. If this has been archived, then open a new alert if needed. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious bigotry from User:Ultrabias

Resolved

User:Dina and I have expressed concern that the edit summaries of the above-named editor are insulting towards Muslims and often unrelated to the edit they summarize. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. When I approached him with my concerns here, he responded in part by calling Muhammed "The King of All Cons". When I advised him of my intention to bring the problem to this page if the problems continued, he responded "Begin it. Because I have continued to make edit summaries as I see most fit, sternly disregarding your expressed viewpoint and any political correctness campaign that you are pushing in regard to it." See also his user page, which appears to me to be deliberately inflammatory and racist.

This is especially frustrating because this editor does some useful work in making many articles adhere to MOSISLAM, but in my view his expressed anti-Muslim bigotry invites discrediting of even this useful work. Sarcasticidealist 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think maintaining neutrality in edit comments is excellent advice. It is in line with standard guidelines, and more importantly it avoids undermining what should be a basic principle: there is no disrespect involved when an encyclopedia omits or removes the terms such as "sawas", etc. I have left a cordial statement of my opinion at the user's talk page. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears he's been exposed as a sock and is now just wreaking as much havoc as he can before the status is confirmed. I'm not going to waste any more thought on him, so I'm marking this resolved. Sarcasticidealist 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible ownership violation by User:ColdFusion650

Resolved

The above-mentioned user seems to have a very proprietary feeling toward the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article. I attempted to make some grammatical corrections, additions and clarifications to the plot summary portion of the article, and he reverted my changes in their entirety immediately, with no valid explanation. He's been doing the same for other users on that article.

I absolutely do NOT want to get in a p***ing war with him or anybody on this matter, especially since I'm just a wikipedia dabbler, but I'm hoping the volunteers who monitor these kinds of infractions will take a look at the recent history of that page and come to a more educated decision regarding that member's behavior.

I'd like to make some beneficial changes to that article and I feel like I've been repeatedly thwarted by someone who seems to have a very ownership-oriented view of it.

I gather you are User:Middlenamefrank. Please sign your posts in the future. User:ColdFusion650 did provide an edit summary for his reversion of your changes, and his concern seems to be surrounding your use of the T-101, which apparently may not be the correct model (I'm quoting him, here - I've never seen the movie and know nothing about it). As your edit incorporated extensive use of the T-101, which he felt was inappropriate to the article, he reverted it.

At this point, if you felt that your use of T-101 was appropriate, against his objections, I would have suggested that you make a note of that on the article's talk page in an effort to find consensus on this question. Instead, you reverted his reversion, he reverted your reversion to his reversion, and so forth. I'm in no position to say whose version is preferable, but there's no question that he explained why he was reverting your material.

If you have an interest in continuing to edit this article, I strongly recommend that you start a discussion on the talk page about whether the use of the T-101 model is appropriate. It's much more productive than revert-warring. Sarcasticidealist 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now read the relevant portions of your talk pages. Here are my thoughts:

1. I think his explanation of why he reverted your change is reasonable, given that your edit of fewer than a hundred words introduced the use of the T-101 model four times. If inclusion of T-101 in the article was inappropriate, then I think reverting your edit was reasonable.

2. I find it discouraging that after he explained his reasons for reverting your edit, you did not either change your revision to eliminate the T-101 or attempt to debate his assertion that T-101 was inappropriate. Instead, you just reintroduced your change. This is the stuff of which revert wars are made.

3. Your response, accusing him of thinking he owned the article, was in my estimation a violation of WP:AGF.

4. When he said that he was "protective" of pages he created, I think he was well-within the attitudes allowed by WP:OWN. I am protective of pages I create, too, which manifests itself by the fact that they're on my watch list and that I review every change that is made to them.

5. However, when he suggested that he objected to people editing articles "without permission", he was seriously out of line...if he was serious. The paragraph that included this statement concluded with "(small joke)", which might mean the bit about permission was also a joke. Unfortunately, that wasn't clear, and the onus is on him to make it clear.

6. Your "get a life" retort was a violation of WP:CIVIL.

Overall, I think that you may have allowed what was effectively a minor content dispute to be ballooned out of proportion by failing to assume that User:ColdFusion650 was acting in good faith. Your post to the article's talk page is a good start to resolving the dispute you're having. Unfortunately, I note that it hasn't received any responses. A good start might be posting on User:ColdFusion650's start page - civilly, of course - inviting him to provide his explanation for why he doesn't like the change. Hopefully, that turns into a useful, consensus-building discussion. Sarcasticidealist 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, you're right, I did take it personally and blow up a bit when I saw my original edit reverted out of hand. I shouldn't have done that, nor should I have been (a bit) uncivil in my response. However, I still don't believe my reference to 'T-101' justified reverting the entire change...why couldn't he have simply change those references? I believe the overall change was beneficial to the article and should have been retained.

Additionally, you may notice that I later re-submitted my edits using the phrase "Model 101" (which is already used elsewhere in the article, and which Schwarzenegger himself uses in the movie) instead of "T-101". He has a valid point and I'm complying with his request on that point. He once again reverted the changes I made, and his only comment was "same as before".

Furthermore, I fully understand the tendency to want to claim ownership of an article you've been a major contributor to. Look at the history on the Soldering article, you'll see a huge number of edits that I made to it...I really do feel that I'm in large part responsible for the high quality of that article, and I do feel quite a bit of ownership of it. However, when someone makes a change to that article, I never simply revert it out of hand. If I disagree with the change, I explain myself on the talk page, maybe strike up a little dialog with the person, and come to an agreement about how we should incorporate EVERYBODY's ideas.

I'm not trying to say I'm blameless in this incident. I got mad and blew off some steam, and I feel bad about it. I admit my behavior was less than perfect. But I do think he's got to loosen the leash on that article. Again, look at the recent history on that article and you'll find that I'm not the only person who's been summarily reverted by him.

And sorry for forgetting to sign my entry. :-) Middlenamefrank 23:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I certainly did fail to notice the distinction between Model 101 and T-101 (these subtleties escape a guy whose taste in movies runs more towards the screwball comedy). If User:ColdFusion650 did notice the distinction, then he should have at least addressed that in the edit summary, you're right. From a WP:AGF perspective, I'm tempted to believe that he just took a glance at your edit and concluded that it was the same one as before. I don't think the onus was necessarily on you to do this, but for that sort of thing it couldn't hurt to mention it in your edit summary ("same as previous edit, but with Model 101 instead of T-101"). But that's the kind of thing that's easy to say in hindsight, like that User:ColdFusion650 should have been clearer that he was only kidding about requiring permission to edit.

On the article itself, I have a hard time saying whether User:ColdFusion650's various reversions were justified or the sign of an editor violating WP:OWN because I don't understand the article's subject very well. I also think the talk page has been a little underused, which has the effect of robbing a disinterested observer such as myself of context that could help me make that determination. As I said before, I think your decision to start discussing these issues on the talk page was a good one; hopefully you can hash out your differences on the Model/T-101 issue, the stylistic issue, and whatever other issues may come up. And if you find yourselves hamstrung by content disputes, as opposed to Wikiquette disputes, you can always give WP:RFC a try.

In any event, thanks for responding maturely to constructive criticism. Sarcasticidealist 00:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(Is that six colons?)Thanks, I believe it's all about being mature. I'm not going to continue pursuing any more changes on that article because I just don't really care all that much. If it stays a "B" grade article, with lots of grammatical errors and typos, it's really no skin off my nose. More substantive articles, like "my" Soldering article, are far more important to me. I'd go into more detail about why I didn't use the talk page, etc. but it's already consumed WAY too much of my life. But I do think someone needs to rein him in just a tad...again, look over the rest of the recent history of that article and check out his overall behavior, not just toward me. Middlenamefrank 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(Seven!) Well, what's done is done; not a lot of point in worrying about justifications for past actions as long as everybody's ready to move forward in good faith. I just think that, for future reference, talk pages in articles exist largely for incidents like these. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, with regards to your question about why he couldn't just correct your use of T-101 instead of reverting your entire edit, the answer is of course that he could have. But there has to be a spectrum on this: if you'd provided four paragraphs of good new content and used T-101 once in there, reverting the whole thing on the basis of the one mention of T-101 would have been out of line. On the other hand, there's no obligation on editors to refrain from reverting a (hypothetical) edit that's 90% bad in order to salvage the good 10%. As I said, your edit was a minor one that User:ColdFusion650 found to be overall objectionable, so he reverted. If the conversation on the talk page gets anywhere, you should hopefully be able to quickly figure out which parts of your edit were non-contentious and work them in immediately, even as you continue seeking consensus on the rest. Sarcasticidealist 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:jebbrady (and puppet?) versus WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, etc.

Even without a specific example for each charge, this list of particulars is unfortunately long. However, this is at least the third attempt an editor has made to get an effective intervention in this situation before getting tired and moving on. A comprehensive intervention seems to be the only way the Herbert W. Armstrong biography will ever be permitted to contain basic biographical data for more than fifteen minutes. These are the problems with Jebbrady at Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong and the article's history page:

• He may be in violation of WP:SOCK, as apparently one individual uses two identities, user:jebbrady and an anonymous identity located at 69.115.162.235. (This is being reported to Wiki's sockpuppet investigators).
• He has apparently been blocked for misbehavior regarding this article before, see User_talk:Jebbrady, but still has not conformed with Wikiquette in any of the discussions on the article's talk page. The Armstrong talk page also shows that someone sought the third-party opinion option, which has had no impact on him at all.
• He has violated WP:OWN by demonstrating vigorous ownership of Herbert W. Armstrong and related articles on Armstrong's associates and splinter churches. See the article's history page and then see the edit/contrib histories for both identities in the links given in the sockpuppet bullet above. He also asserts the right to control what sources editors are permitted to use: "As a history grad, I know how citations can and are abused. I'm not accepting the use of web sources--I'm sorry".
• He violates WP:NPOV when he repeatedly deletes even innocuous material (e.g., that HWA was married twice and had four children, cited to a mainstream source; that the divorce was a difficult one, cited to four sources, including TIME magazine). See the most recent example. He permits no material at all from sources of which he disapproves, ranging from mainstream news outlets to webpages or books critical of the subject of this biographical article. He refuses to allow even an internal wikilink to a fuller explanation of one of Armstrong's key beliefs, Anglo-Israelism, see diff. His determined censorship over a period of months deprives Wiki users of the most basic, routine family info about the biographical subject, much less the significant controversies and schisms in which Armstrong was involved.
• He violates WP:VERIFY by deleting sourced material without explanation, while failing to replace, augment, or contrast it with sourced material to the contrary.
• His violations of WP:NPA are too numerous to recite; please see anywhere on Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong. Aside from imputing dire motives to everyone he's interacted with on the talk page, there's another problem. According to the NPA policy, "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored." His statement "If any Wikipedia editor cares to debate here the appropriatenes of relying on Time magazine when it comes to American religious groups (read "Christians"), the Bible, or social issues, they'll get their clock cleaned." in his response to Wiki admin Andre is almost certainly not meant as an actual physical threat. However, it demonstrates the level of perspective and maturity he brings to the discussion. The legal threats he makes re a church group suing for libel are apparently directed at Wikipedia itself rather than at individual editors, but are meant to silence and intimidate. See, e.g., here and here.
• More than once, he has violated WP:SKILL by asserting that other editors are incompetent, unscholarly (search the talk page for "sholarly" and "sholarship"), and unprofessional (search the talk page for "unprofessinal"), etc., because he disagrees with their choice of sources or their attempt to include any POV from any source not entirely congruent with his own. He repeatedly cites his undergraduate degree in history as the reason he knows best, and as the reason he has the expertise to overrule all other contributors.
• He routinely violates WP:EQ. He often fails to sign his Talk page comments, does not bother with the indentation protocols, and more than once, has put his entire lengthy comments in bold to dominate the discussion. He does not provide edit summaries on any of his edits.
• His violations of WP:GF are demonstrated by his attacks on every person who has responded to anything he has said on the Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong page. Please note his declaration that courtesy is proof of bad faith. He made a similar accusation on that page in December of 2006 against User:RelHistBuff.
• He violates WP:CIVIL by being sarcastic, denigrating, overwhelmingly prolix and tangential, and sometimes perverse, as in his accusations that courtesy is a sly ruse. He responded this week to an admin's one-sentence affirmation of TIME Magazine as a mainstream source with a with a nine-line diatribe concluding with a threat.

I don't know how to resolve conflicts with someone with a multiple-incident record of conflict resolution failures and an abiding belief that the use of courtesy is a nefarious bad-faith strategy. Help. Lisasmall 13:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for completeness, the previous block that you can see a discussion of on User_talk:Jebbrady can be seen in the block log of a different IP account, 67.80.157.45 (talk · contribs · logs). There are also some warnings still visible in the Talk page of that IP. This account is in addition to the IP mentioned above, 69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs · logs). EdJohnston 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of barnstar without discussion

I don't want to turn this into a big deal but I would appreciate a steer on the Wikiquette. User:Matt57 removed a barnstar from my talk page, saying that the editor who placed it there was probably a sockpuppet of a banned user (User:His Exellency). I don't have any evidence for that. As far as I can see the editor who placed the barnstar is not blocked, although his editing was confined to one short burst. I've reverted the removal and left a not-too-rude comment on Matt57's talk page. Is this the appropriate level of response? Itsmejudith 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your response was fine. :) Whether a sockpuppet was involved or not, altering another user's talk page by removing content without consulting the user first is generally a bad idea, and I think you handled it very well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Such is more than a bad idea, most consider un-warrented modification of other's comments to be a form of vandalism. I'm going to warn this user as well. Hopefully this time will be the first and last.The Kensington Blonde _Talk 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The other guys have said everything - you've handled everything well ~ Anthøny (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

KensingtonBlonde: I don't think going to a full-blown warning with Matt57 was appropriate here either. Matt57 apparently meant that edit in good faith - it was obviously not intended to be vandalism. A simple note requesting that he not do that would have sufficed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats the big deal here? Judith you're getting all hyped up for nothing. It was an obvious sock puppet who placed the barnstar (username similiar in format to recent socks of banned user His excellency) and I had mentioned that if you wanted to put it back in, you can and you did. The matter is closed. Really, some people, raising an issue for nothing. Sock puppet edits are usually reverted and I did it here too. Focus on more important issues please. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned to KensingtonBlonde, I don't think his warning against you was really appropriate - a simple note requesting that you not do that again would have sufficed. As for Judith's original WQA, she was asking us if her response to your edit was appropriate, which several of us believe it was. She remained civil and polite in the matter, she did not attack you, and she went the extra step to get an outside opinion on her own behavior. I think that's rather commendable of her, personally. In any case, I don't think anyone's getting "hyped up" over it, though obviously the discussion has taken a different turn further below. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discussion on KensingtonBlonde

KensingtonBlonde is also likely a sock puppet of Kirbytime. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say that KensingtonBlonde is a sock puppet? I don't see any correlation between the two. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats because you havent seen Kirbytime in action before. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I don't know the whole history here. Enlighten me. All I see on your end right now is "He's KirbyTime! Take my word for it!" I want to know HOW you know - from my point of view, you could point to anyone, even myself, and accuse them of being a sockpuppet. I don't buy that, so I'd like to know what specific info you have that would convince me to believe you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets wait for the Checkuser result and then I'll tell you all about it. Like I said, the biggest thing is that this new user registered and went right on the Meta to complain against the CheckUser. Who else would do that except a sock puppet? Right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not registered on Meta (as you can see there if you take a look at the discussion). If I registered an account there specifically to complain about the CheckUser policy, would you automatically assume that I was a sockpuppet as well? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

K.blonde has an account here too. Please investigate the stuff yourself a little bit too. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point: Not all users whose first edits are to question policies are automatically sockpuppets of other banned users. This person could just as easily have been lurking or editing anonymously up until that time, and may have registered an account so that there was some credibility behind the question. (Policy makers would be much less likely to pay attention to such a questioning of policy were it coming from an IP address.) There are other ways to tell that a person is sockpuppeting, but so far I see no evidence that KensingtonBlonde has done anything that matches the behavior of previous KirbyTime sockpuppets. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I am not automatically saying you're wrong, nor am I flatly defending KensingtonBlonde. I am simply calling into question your apparent "take my word for it" stance on this issue.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wont comment further until the Checkuser results are out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) FYI: I've disengaged from this particular discussion. I don't have the full history here, and it's apparent that several other users believe the Checkuser is justified. I am not in a position to continue this discussion, so it's best that I stay out of it at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments, especially KieferSkunk and Anthony for responding to my query in the spirit in which it was meant. At least the exchange has further confirmed for me the value of civility in WP! Itsmejudith 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias and censorship by editor Heresthecasey

I've been trying to add to the article about Fallujah, specifically the use of white phosphorous munitions as anti-personnel weapons by U.S. troops during their attack on the city. Heresthecasey keeps deleting my documented additions (The Independent, The BBC) and accuses me of vandalism. I'd like someone to check out the history of the dispute and see what's going on - it looks like political censorship to me.124.99.205.23 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You both seem to be in violation of the three revert rule, which can mean a 24 hour block for you both, just to help calm the matter down a bit. But more importantly, the first thing you need to do is take your question to the article talk page. Assume from the start that Heresthecasey is working in good faith to make the article better, as are you. Be civil, and try to find out what the problem is by talking about it. No matter what you think deep down; engage in the discussion page with the presumption that Heresthecasey is trying to help and see if you can help him help you better. You'll either end up pleasantly surprised to discover that actually is the case; or you'll end up having a basis for asking other editors to sort it out... in which case you need to have shown yourself willing to work actively for consensus already. Good luck with it! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added my appeal to the discussion page under "The White Phosphorous Debate". Thanks!124.99.205.23 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Activity by W. Kehler from 84.158.*.* in physics pages

Mr Kehler is from a German astronomy club. He is currently editing Anti-gravity, and resisting any request to discuss his changes on the talk page. There is a possible revert war brewing. The problems are exacerbated by his poor English and by his use of unreliable sources of dubious relevance for support of extremely unconventional views of physics.

One major difficultly for keeping track of what is happening is that Mr Kehler uses anonymous IP addresses, and uses a dynamic cluster, so there is a different address every session. All edits are from 84.158.*.* Help requested. You can see my comments in the talk page at Talk:Anti-gravity#Proposed changes by wfck (84.158.*.*). —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated POV accusations, general incivility, accusations of deleting references, etc by editor MarkThomas

Over the past several months editor MarkThomas has repeatedly accused me of POV editing, engaging in uncivil comments, personal attacks and lying to portray my edits in an unfavourble light. He has also combined accusations of POV editing with deletion of solid references, references which supported facts that he subsequently described as being something "no-one denies" (or simiar). He has also deleted my requests from his talk page.

This has been happenning on the Cromwell page and (further ago) on the British Isles page. Here are a few examples;

Cromwell

[35] (saying refs are POV) <correction to first entry> [36] (deleting refs) [37] (deleting the same ref a second time) [38] (deleting a ref from an 1900 text as being POV)

During this time I added many references from serious sources (e.g. volumes from Oxford and Cambridge University Press), which seemed to make things quieter. However, after a gap, we again have an attempt to characterise the references given as being "Irish" (a typical MarkThomas accusation is that someone is using "Republican POV"), despite the fact that the refs are from several countries, primarily British.

[39]

At the same time, on the Cromwell talk page, there were repeated accusations of POV and the beginnings of creating history that never happened (I'm unaware that one of my references was "discredited" in Cromwell, but it's not the first or only time that MarkThomas says things like this on talk pages)

[40] [41] (accusations of POV) [42] (more POV, plus accusations of snowjobbing references, which is interesting since he'd previous been deleting references.)

[43] (an interesting diff, since here he says that "nobody contests" a point where he had deleted several supporting refs as being POV)

[44] (mild, but attempting to portray a ref as unsourced, despite the fact that he knows the source and had used it himself)

[45] (description of references as "Republican")

[46] (characterisation of the references as "Republican folklore")

Then, after a mostly good debate between greycap, sony-youth, koncorde and others, MarkThomas comes back with

[47] (which accuses me of deleting references) [48] (now i'm an obsessive reference destroyer) [49] (now he accuses me again of deleting references, apparently of gathering support outside the page by posting on "Irish noticeboards" - whatever they are) [50] (repeated accusation of deleting references and making false accusations)

Meantime, on the British Isles page, we have everything from basic POV accusations

[51]

to deletion of key references during a protracted discussion on how to write about the references in the text

[52] (deleting some) [53](coming back to delete more of the refs) [54] (and again deleting, once more asserting that the citations are somehow POV)

and [55] (accusations of POV editing, as usual) [56] (and again)

Meantime, in all of this, and despite the fact that he says he will provide references ([57]) MarkThomas almost never actually provides any references to support his own point of view (note, i don't call it POV, since we all have a point of view). However, he very frequently asserts that others are POV too., e.g.

[58] Other editors (whom i don't know and haven't followed their edits) have also apparently had a problem [59] [60] [61] [62]

(Note, these other editors have had their own disputes and couldn't been seen as a group)

Then we have some more examples of characterising my edits or talk page contributions as being something other than I'd said; [63] (i never said the view was universal) [64] (assertion that i'd been warned by an admin for apparently putting something on his talk page..which is a mystery to me)

Then there was also accusation of collusion [65] (also rejected by the other editor [66])

Assertions that I was blocked for 3rr (i wasn't) [67]

And then we also have another example of changing the argument to confuse the issue [68] (read back through the page to see how often MarkThomas had opposed using the word "often", whereas now suddenly he proposes it.)

And also accusations of bullying and agression [69]

And accusations of deliberate misquoting of references [70] (i never made the edits MarkThomas says i made and can't comment on their accuracy)

In all, I guess my question was well expressed already several months ago in this diff [71] .

Dealing with MarkThomas is just highly unpleasant. This has been a pattern now for months and it's tiresome. I've tried to ask him to stop and to apologise and he'll deny that he makes accusations, apologises for one thing then repeats it, deletes requests on talk pages, responds to them with "threats" that he'll get me blocked and banned, etc.

I've tried to stick to citation as much as possible but MarkThomas doesn't care and doesn't provide any refs to support his accusations of POV, just repeats them and edits the pages apparently using his own personal knowledge as the ultimate reference. _{<update with better format a couple of hours after initial post>}.Hughsheehy 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Note, I also asked an admin (SirFozzie) for support/guidance in dealing with MarkThomas. MarkThomas made some remarks there which bear repeating here.

This relates to the genocide debate and Hughsheehy's repeated edits surrounding the question of Cromwell being a genocidalist, which is a minority view in academic history, but one that Hughsheehy obviously has very strong views about himself - he resents this rather obvious point being publicly stated, which is the heart of the grave offence I commit in his eyes.

I've just read through the Wikiquette material and the accusations there profoundly conceal and misrepresent the facts. Hughsheehy is not in general someone who likes to engage in collaborative editing. When I first went to the Oliver Cromwell article, there were a number of exceptionally POV statements that were unreferenced or badly referenced about him in the intro which I corrected. I was then met with what amounted to a barrage of accusation and harassment from Hughsheehy. When I resisted this, he added numerous references to revised (and slightly less POV) versions of the contested sentences. When the validity of some of these new "references" which were to say the least academically weak (one for example was a quote from a childrens tutorial on the BBC website) were challenged by me, I got further accusations and blanket reverts. Now many other editors have come to the article and systematically critiqued Hughsheehy's references and the statements themselves. I made several more minor edits to the contested sentences, one of which has stuck. It is my opinion that Hughsheehy resents this and is hoping to paint me as the offending party. Note the recent threat of libel against WP:LEGAL he made on my talk page. MarkThomas 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied on SirFozzie's userpage, but this is relevant here too.

Interesting that MarkThomas picks that specific reference [72] (which he deleted) as an example. It's from the UK National Archives website and is teaching material for English A Level History. Also, it was never a citation for anything about genocide, as it doesn't mention it. It mentions that Cromwell is hated in Ireland. MarkThomas deleted this ref and one from a 1900 biography of Cromwell as being POV, before later arguing that there were too many references on that point because "nobody contests it". As for the "several more minor edits" on the genocide topic, these included him describing a series of references as being from "Irish historians" (and thus probably irredeemably POV), despite the fact that the citations include Polish historians of genocide and British University lecturers/professors and (i think) one Irish historian...and yes, I reverted that edit. Hughsheehy 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a typical exchange with MarkThomas. Dealing with this level of POV accusation and reference deletion or mischaracterisation is highly tiresome. Hughsheehy 09:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Passing editors should note that there is already an Arbcom on this issue, and that two of the editors comments Hughsheehy calls in support for his case above are Sarah777, who was regarded as so systematically incivil to other editors that there was an RFC on it supported by dozens of editors and Domer48 who is currently blocked for, well, incivility. This is essentially a content dispute on Oliver Cromwell - Hughsheehy is of the view that Cromwell was a genocidalist in Ireland and bitterly resents any attempt to refute, alter or moderate his particular version of that. Attempts to do so are met with systematic agresssion in the form of accusations on talk pages, etc. Hughsheehy's version of events must be seen in this light. MarkThomas 10:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Passing editors should note that there is NO ARBCOM WHATSOEVER on anything I'm involved in, and certainly not on this. Saying there's an ARBCOM is misdirection/misleading from MarkThomas. As for me using "systematic aggression" on talk pages, MarkThomas doesn't produce diffs to support this either - just repeats more untrue accusations even as I try to ask him to stop making untrue accusations against me. I've put lots of requests on MarkThomas' userpage asking him to be civil (and IIRC I once tried to warn him he was close to breaching 3rr), but to no avail, which is what forces me to finally come here and also to ask admins for support.

As for Sarah777 or Domer48 or anyone else listed above, they're only there as examples of MarkThomas' behaviour with other editors. Hughsheehy 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Since I put up this entry I've been advised by SirFozzie (an admin) that I could/should create an RFC and also put up an entry on an ArbCom case (which originated on a page where I have never edited and have had no involvement) where MarkThomas is one of the main - ehm - "participants". The Arbcom case is here [73]. I still don't know quite what I've got to do with it, but there you go. Hughsheehy 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

---

User:Tezza1 disruptive editing pattern

User:Tezza1 persists using disruptive editing Railpage Australia. The user is strongly anti the subject of the article, has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in an AfD. The AfD decision having been keep, the user engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedic content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedic content. Further actions include repeatedly adding and restoring unencyclopedic content, demands not to remove unencyclopedic content, accusations of COI for anybody adding new information to the article, threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added, unilateral reverts of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version, agenda pushing, WP:POINT and listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected. The Null Device 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Null. I am looking over the edit history and am responding to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1. I see clear evidence of numerous policy violations by this user, as well as possible sockpuppetry. I believe that, for the most part, you and the other editors in that article have remained civil and have kept the discussion on topic, and for that you should be commended. I did leave a note in the Talk page against one set of comments that stepped over the line with respect to WP:NPA, but otherwise, I agree with your assertion about Tezza1's disruptive patterns.

If the RFC/U against Tezza1 fails to resolve the conflict, your next step may be to take this to Arbitration. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it sounds like you all have taken reasonable steps to resolve this issue already, and they haven't worked thus far.

Good luck, and let me know if I may be of any further assistance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article ownership and personal attacks - User:Chrisjnelson

User has failed to respect the desire to discuss. He has engaged in personal attacks here and on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive. He has also aserted WP:OWN on throughout the Infobox talk page. Repeated requests for polite discussion have been ignored even with fair warning that the behavior is doing nothing but aggrivating me. The majority of the content is at the infobox talk page. Most of it is in sequential order. Both user's talk pages (that is mine and his) show signs of this as well. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I probably did make some things that would be considered personal attacks a few days back (where the profanity is). I was pretty pissed. If I have to be reprimanded for that, I'll completely understand. As for this business about ownership, I've done nothing of the kind. Given those kind of unsubstantiated claims, as well as the fact that Jmfangio was told he violated WP:3RR by an admin and still claims he did not, I question his knowledge of Wikipedia policy. And when it comes to "refusal to discuss", that's simply not true. Without dragging you into the specifics, which you can see for yourself on the infobox's talk page if you're interested, I'll tell you that Jmfangio is simply mistaken on one subject. I have proven myself and my related edits to be factually correct, and have since said I will not discuss the issue further because of this. I have done all the discussing on the issue that is necessary, and it's not my fault if he has failed to grasp it.

Like I said earlier, I'll definitely understand if I'm reprimanded for any personal attacks a few days back. I shouldn't have said some of those things and let the emotions get the best of me. That stuff is pretty much over and won't happen again, but if you want me to take some time off I can do that.►Chris Nelson 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither editor has bathed himself in glory on this matter. I have tried to provide perspective as a WP:3O and have witnessed enough intransigence to suggest that at minimum both individuals need to take a break as they have dug in their respective heels and hardened their positions. In no particular order, there have been violations relating to incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, and article ownership. The editors have effectively trammeled over informal 3rd party efforts to assist and a recent RFM was not accepted by one of the parties. Jddphd 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV article ownership, warning removal, and incivility

VitasV started an article (Doctor Who story chronology) which I felt had no potential to be anything other than an exceedingly long list that was already adequately covered elsewhere (it would include *all* the episodes and books)), so I prodded it. He replied somewhat less than politely on my talk page and also seems unclear on the concept of article ownership; when I went back to his talk page I found that my prodwarning had been removed, and a check in the history showed that he's removed other warnings and comments from other users. Not sure what to do in this case. Thanks! --Jamoche 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. After looking over the situation, it is somewhat apparent to me that the actions of this user is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Assuming good faith, I think the only reason this user removed the template was because he was convinced that his new article's existence was justified. I'm not going to comment either way on that, because such is not this section's place. As for the comments seen in your talk page, they qualify (possibly) as borderline incivility, almost not even worth noting. I'm going to warn this user nonetheless. If uncivil comments persist, please let me know. Again, the matter of the template removal alone is not something that can be solved here. Re-instate the template, and if this activity persists, contact the Administrator Noticeboard.The Kensington Blonde _Talk 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur in general with The Kensington Blonde's comments above, but I'd like to add a technical comment on article deletion procedure. According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts, if a {{PROD}} tag is removed even by the original author, then the PROD is considered to be contested and the next procedure would be to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but not to restore the PROD tag.

Another point to consider is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who has an ongoing discussion about this and other Doctor Who articles, including this one by User:VitasV. In that discussion, he's shown some additional incivility, but the editors there are teaching him about that and it looks like he'll get the idea. He's quite young according to his user page, and it seems he just needs to learn how to communicate better. He does not seem disruptive or tendentious, just inexperienced. I'm going to post a welcome message on his page and direct him to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User.

If you want to list the article for deletion, it might be good to discuss it at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Doctor Who first to see if the project editors support your idea since they are already familiar with the page. Just a suggestion. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Parzival, and sorry I reccommended going to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm still not very familiar with deletion policy, mainly because I don't have much interest in being involved in it.The Kensington Blonde _Talk 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gregbard incivility and ownership

I am an outsider to the ongoing debate among some philosophy-oriented users. As a frequenter of AfD, I found myself distressed at the language used by Gregbard at here under his 'keep' vote. It appears that this user has made some very valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but I wanted to voice my concerns about etiquette over this page under his 'keep' vote that I would prefer not to repeat. The edit summary for this edit is also hostile and expresses ownership. I understand that this user is angry, and feels attacked and ganged up upon, so it may be a two way street. Edits such as this one suggest sarcasm and superiority, and must hurt the morale of other well-meaning contributors. Surely this type of talk should be discouraged, so I was hoping to get comments and suggestions here. (Postscript: Is this a slight in philosophical circles? I'm assuming that since it was reverted, there's a chance it is, and would then be modest scale vandalism of a userpage.) Thanks for your input, peace and wikilove, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)