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

User 90.201.13.142

Resolved

 – for now. Anon informed/reminded of relevant policies and guidelines. 08:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I noticed that user User_talk:90.201.13.142 is making a number of changes without making edit summaries. I mentioned this issue to the user on their talk page, but they don't appear to be very open to suggestions. Tweisbach (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Argh... user is making constructive contribs and doing very tedious work that I sure wouldn't want to do... but not only are they not using edit summaries (and making it clear that anybody who has advice for them should piss off), but with this edit, he or she violated WP:SIG and WP:CIV. Grumble... Normally, I would issue a warning or two and move on. But I have a feeling issuing warnings to this user is going to result in a lot of drama... Hrm. I'll probably do it anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave them a welcome template, a notice about edit summaries, a notice about signing posts, and a custom notice about civility. Fingers crossed... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is edit summary compulsory? I often omit, for a variety of reasons, eg

• running out of time
• I can't see any way of summarizing in less space than the edit itself, & a longer one wouldn't be a summary

Peter jackson (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not compulsory, but it's a good idea if you are doing something like removing redundant categories (as the IP in question is doing). If somebody just sees the edit with no summary, it looks like you are just blanking content. But if you put an edit summary that says "rmv redundant cat" or something, you are a lot less likely to get caught in confusion.

I was more concerned with the fact that when Tweisbach nicely suggested to the user that they use an edit summary, the user replied with "GET A LIFE." heh... ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo Jaysweet's comments here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Directed to appropriate noticeboards. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent the last six hours or so attempting to undo damage done by user:rollosmokes to various pages related to the 2009 DTV transition for US full-power television stations.

There are currently 1800 or so full-power US TV broadcasters using the 1953-era NTSC analog television system. Almost all are now simulcasting existing programming and additional digital subchannels using ATSC digital television in preparation for the federally-mandated shutdown of analogue full-power TV on February 17, 2009. Most will shut down the analogue transmitter and leave the digital facilities on their current frequency and power assignments; there are four or five hundred exceptions to this pattern. Digital stations on VHF band I will want to move to higher frequencies due to insanely-low power limits on low-VHF DTV. Stations above channel 51 will be forced to move to lower frequencies as the 700MHz band has been auctioned for other purposes, such as mobile phone operation and Qualcomm's channel 55 MediaFLO service. A few channels will be reassigned for emergency two-way radios.

This leaves WP:WikiProject Television Stations with the potentially-huge task of determining where these stations will move (many are returning to the original analogue channels, but there are exceptions) and finding a means to have the correct info appear in the infoboxes for these stations once all of this is over. Tracking down and updating five hundred local television broadcasters on February 2009 is not an option; the task is a large and time-consuming one, requiring that affected broadcasts be identified and FCC records be searched to extract the info from the relevant construction permits for each station.

There is about eight months left before the transition is over, so time to track down and update the infoboxes is limited. The changes are far-reaching, as categories (Channel XX television stations in the United States) and information on subchannels (one digital TV station can be carrying anywhere from two to five different programmes from different networks at the same time on the same carrier) are all affected in some manner by the transition.

The {{Infobox Broadcast}} is used to generate the infobox on most of the articles in question; it lists, among other things, the analogue and digital channel assignments for each station along with power, antenna height, network affiliations, ownership and various other vital statistics. An approach of listing the current channel assignments (digital_temporary) alongside the final ones (digital) was tried and various changes were made to this initial draft in response to comments from others on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. These efforts are being hindered by this user's constant revert wars in which he repeatedly overwrites the templates with an outdated version. He also has repeatedly [1][2] been removing information from large numbers of individual articles regarding final channel assignments and re-inserting incorrect information on subchannels (Annex B to the ATSC65/C spec on psip.org is clear that a channel with "13 analogue, 61 UHF digital" must number its digital subchannels 13.1, 13.2... and not "13.1/61.1 PBS", for instance.)

There have been complaints before, including one dispute (see User talk:TV9) where this user carried on a lengthy revert war over capitalisation of brands such as "The CW" and another in which a long series of consecutive reversions were made with inflammatory edit summaries such as "(Undid revision 209145341 by A Man In Black THIS IS A PROTEST REVERTION)" [3]. He has also been spamming user and user talk pages with WP:SOCK allegations, typically directed against anyone who attempts to undo the damage he's been doing and with no evidence provided to back up any of the accusations. If the affected users attempt to revert this nonsense, he starts another revert war.

In one particularly egregious case, he made four consecutive reversions to WP:RFPP [4] [5] [6] [7] removing a response to his demands for {{Infobox Broadcast}} to be locked at a revision that would list the final DTV allocation for many stations in place of the current one. WP:RFPP itself was briefly protected sysop-only to stop his disruptions there. While he has attempted to plead ignorance on templates on at least one occasion, he has been an active WP editor since January 2006 and should know better.

As he does have some legitimate contributions, administrators so far have issued warnings but no blocks. If he were to participate constructively instead of undoing large amounts of work done to deal with the upcoming DTV transition and launch into pointless edit wars and accusations in which anyone who crosses him is WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL or worse, he would be capable of making a legit and valuable contribution to the TV station wikiproject. He's been here for a while and, whatever his claims to the contrary, does know his way around here.

However, his removals of information on digital television deployment in his country need to stop. No one is going to make the effort to dig out final DTV assignments and station information on four to five hundred terrestrial broadcasters and get the info into the encyclopædia in time for February 17, 2009 analog shutoff if he continues to disrupt the process by deleting info from pages and breaking the infoboxes. I estimate that, were one person to attempt to get the missing info into the pages before transition, the time required would be at least one week of full-time effort, maybe more. It's no small task.

Meanwhile, the information needs to be there, and there is a de-facto eight month federally-imposed deadline. We're not going to get there unless the disruptions cease, and even then there's some risk that the cleanup of the mess that is US DTV transition will be a lengthy and labour-intensive process. --carlb (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is not an issue for WQA. This is a place for impolite/incivil communications. For vandalism, go to WP:AIV. For suspected sockpuppetry, go to WP:SSP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Generalmesse

Resolved

 – User warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse (talk · contribs) has posted identical abusive comments directed against me at [8] and [9] after I removed links to WW2 Axis propaganda he'd added to the external links sections of these articles. Could an uninvolved editor please warn him about this incivility? Thanks, Nick Dowling (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mareklug

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Users directed to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been incivil toward me despite my requests to stop. He also refuses to WP:AGF and questions my motives without justification. See these diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4. I would appreciate administrator intervention. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More diffs for an administrator to look at: 1, 2, 3. Tennis expert (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tenis expert is waging a campaign of replicating an individual move, amounting to a mass move, on certain biography pages, which will introduce a corrupted rendition of the biographed persons' names (all of them living, therefore subject to specially vigilant protection of their human dignity). It has been noted by more users than just me, that willfully distorting a person's name harms their dignity. Furthermore, his manner of conducting this article renaming is a low-level but broad replication of a formulaic reason for making the move, so discussing this on individual pages is pointless, as doing so effectively hides the issue from the broad Wikipedia community, instead of introducing it in a central forum, where consensus-building should be attempted instead. These actions are uncivil in and of themselves, and harm the project, as they circumvent making consensual decisions by us all on merit, not just by people editing tennis articles, of whom I am one, although I edit in many areas. Tenis expert has been unwilling to address what arguments have been given against his proposed moves in the three particular cases where I challenged them, and has chosen to continue to perform this proposition to alter the status quo in a swarm-like way. Instead of reasoning, he restates the reasons given against his proposed move, and asks if he understands correctly, often distorting what was actually put in writing. These actions do not promote confidence in his good faith, as the reasons against are plain, self-evident and true, as he is simply wearing down the opposition, and proposing to move pages without input from the most knowledgable Wikipedians, who perchance don't happen to edit tennis biographies, or watch their talk pages. Tennis players are hardly the only subpopulation of Wikipedia-biographed persons to whom the rationale for such article moves could be made, and in fact, similar campaign was waged some time ago in the professsional hockey player biographies. Most importantly, a notable person who plays tennis professionally may well be more than just that, and may have earned notability as a writer or a model or a coach or a teacher or a politician. Their identity should be respected, regardless of any attention they may have attracted by some English-language niche institutions, such as data bases and rankings or tournaments. Now Tennis player wishes to outright silence the opposition or remove it from editing Wikipedia altogether, by administrative intervention. --Mareklug ^talk 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are no issues here. For requests for administrative intervention, please go to WP:AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Alientraveller

Resolved

 – Editor given warning about unnecessarily snarky edit summary

As I see it, there was no need for user Alientraveller (talk · contribs) to use sarcasm in his removal of my RFC on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers_2:_Revenge_of_the_Fallen&action=history.

I am an inexperienced editor who did not know what an Edit Conflict is and still does not, because no explanation was given. Nevertheless, I was not impolite in my creation of the RFC (which I still think is valid and not appropriate for a single editor to remove - comments welcome) and do not think the use of sarcasm was justified.

I would appreciate any thoughts and apologise if this is not the correct thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.32.31 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT:

Another editor restored (diff) the RfC section. — Athaenara ✉ 10:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that's what the editor was making the comment about - fact is, Alientraveller should not be sarcasticly removing posts - his conduct is at stake.

OH! And, he's now resorted to calling another Editor "silly" on the same page - is this appropriate behaviour??? What can be done to stop him??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the editor of this discussion and advised him that, while not a gross civility violation, this edit summary was probably not a good idea. As far as the "silly" comment, I don't feel like it crossed the line.

If you have future complaints about this editor's behavior, please provide diffs of the comments in question (diffs are described at the top of this page) to make it easier to see what is being discussed.

And no worries, you came to the right place :) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a gross civility so didn't require too much 'pressure'. But I'm thankful for you contacting the editor in question. I consider the matter closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.32.31 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User 67.68.33.180 (Personal Attack in AfD Discussion)

Resolved

 – Personal attack redacted by an uninvolved editor. — Athaenara ✉ 10:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In the AfD for Koboi labs, and anon IP (67.68.33.180) posted a most distasteful comment, which is a clear ad-hominem attack that I feel clearly constitutes bigotry and is clearly unacceptable under the personal attacks policy as it as an epithet against a person with a history of disabilities. The actual diff is here. I strongly suspect (without proof) this is the article's creator unhappy about the AfD. I am not asking for action to be taken against the user, as I have already issued a level two warning against the IP, and I am aware this would be a silly request for checkuser. I am simply requesting the community's approval to remove the text added in that diff from the AfD discussion. I am loathe to modify the comments of another in an AfD, no matter how invective or bigoted, and am doubly so since they were directed against me. I find WP:RPA of no guidance here, and feel that Process is important. I am therefore not comfortable unilaterally removing the invective from an active AfD discussion. Thus, before I just go and remove the comment, I am asking the community's leave to do so here. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

done. Dlohcierekim 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface

I believe User:Pixelface's current behavior (starting approximately on June 6) on the RFC for determining whether the current version of Notability (fiction) has global consensus is out of line for civility for behavior expected of editors, particularly in an area of heated concern.

I will admin the topic is a very sore one, as it hits right at the center of the emotional inclusionists/deletionists issue. I am fully aware of Pixelface's views and respect those views for what they are, and I can understand the frustration behind seeing what you strongly believe in be overwhelmed by others.

However, the method by which Pixelface is approach this debate seems like it's trying to seem who can shout the loudest to make their point overly clear. There's no specific diff that exemplifies this behavior, though telling people "they're wrong", bringing up a point that doesn't apply to the specific section of the discussion while pulling from the user's history to try to prove them wrong, assuming bad faith, repeating the same points over and over and even trying to shut down the consensus process before it can begin. There's at least 30 other editors at that page and over 200 edits since the 6th, and no one else seems to be taking the same aggressive defensive stance that Pixelface is, and the atmosphere the comments generate is not healthy to good discussion.

If this is not considered uncivil behavior, then I apologize to Pixelface for the inconvenience and will drop this matter. --MASEM 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That editor *was* wrong. That editor said the notability guidelines can only be more strict than WP:N but not less strict. Clearly a false statement. The question about games *did* apply to that thread. Saying you ignored all the discussion on WT:NOT between my first removal of PLOT and my second removal of PLOT is not assuming bad faith; your claim that discussion had not taken place between those removals, however, was. And your refusal to address specific articles is why I keep bringing them up. And I didn't try to shut down anything. Are you saying you started the RFC because earlier I mentioned the {{rejected}} tag? I'm not the only person who has mentioned the {{rejected}} tag. Speaking of aggressive stances, how many people in the Oppose section[10] have you been arguing with? Let's see, you're the first responder to the first 6 opposers, you eventually made a comment under the 7th opposer (me), you were the first responder to opposers 9,10,11,and 12; and you replied to opposer 13, 16, and 20. So you may want to look at your own behavior regarding "shouting the loudest" and aggressive stances.

And if you're so concerned about the civility of the discussion, where are your Wikiquette alerts for TTN and David Fuchs? Where is your Wikiquette alert for the editor who said "gutter trash"[11]? Here[12] TTN says "I do find it funny that the opposers think that their whole "everything it notable" ideal still has any chance in hell." And here[13] David Fuchs says "Congrats. You infuriate me to no living end. I can parrot quotes from people all day long too. That doesn't help jack-shit. Disk space is not the issue here, stop pulling a straw-man." and "If I had a nickel for every time someone invoked WP:IAR... oh wait, since I can ignore rules, I'll delete your userpage, talk page, block you indefinitely, and trash every article you've ever worked on. Will that make you happy?" Considering that nearly every opposer is getting a wall of people arguing with them, and there is practically no space between supporters, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal aims to wipe out millions of hours of volunteer work and has the support of an editor currently under editing restrictions regarding wiping out that work, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal has the suppport of multiple users whose names have shown up in the past at WQA, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal has the support of multiple people who have referred to other editor's good faith edits as "vandalism", I think I've been pretty civil. As far as I know, nobody but you has made a comment at WT:FICT saying they think I've been uncivil, but I have seen several other editors told to watch their civility. I'll be happy to stop commenting at WT:FICT if you think my absence will improve the atmosphere. From the looks of it, your proposal doesn't need opposition from me anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the fact you or I are replying to every message - it's the tone, as pretty much your comment shows, is where the problem is. It is confrontational and almost requires an equally confrontational response, which if progresses leads to edit wars, blocks, or worse. I am not asking you to leave the FICT, NOT, or any other discussion, nor expecting that as a result from here, but I am asking you to participate in resolving the issue, not inflaming it. Yes, there are others that have made a single reply or two in the FICT discussion that is heated, but not in nearly every reply they've made has been bordering on this same level of confrontational and accusational language that you have made; if any other editor on that page made as many such confrontational statement, I would have included them here too. --MASEM 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Masem, you replying to nearly every person who opposes your proposal looks confrontational. To me, it appears like you felt threatened when I mentioned the {{rejected}} tag, and you reacted by starting an RFC on FICT — which you seem to have focused more time on than any other editor. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Do you think the RFC has done anything to resolve the issue? It looks to me like the same old division. I can think of a possible way that might help resolve the issue. Ask people a simple question. Ask them to fill in the blank:

• A fictional literary character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional television character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional comic book/graphic novel character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional film character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional videogame character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional vehicle can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional item can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional location can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional concept can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fictional _____ can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction television episode can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction film can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A fiction book can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A videogame with a a significant plot can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A comic book/manga title can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A comic strip can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A webcomic can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A toy with a significant backstory can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A storyline can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• A _____ can generally be considered to be notable if _____
• Fictional topics that should probably not have separate articles include _____
• Fictional topics that are generally suited better to lists and not separate articles include _____
• When someone searches for a fictional topic, the search term should generally be a redirect when _____
• Fictional topics that should generally never have separate articles include _____

And don't just ask involved parties of E&C1 and E&C2. I'm sure there are millions of editors that aren't even aware the discussion at WT:FICT is taking place. You're trying to decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of articles from one talk page, so don't expect smooth sailing. As far as I know, nobody else but you has said at WT:FICT I have being uncivil, so you may want to consider that when you think about my tone. I don't think I've inflamed the situation at WT:FICT. But if you think so, I'll go ahead and not comment at FICT for a week and you can see if the atmosphere improves. I would even be happy to not comment there anymore until the RFC ends in July. I think you'll find that maybe I'm not the problem. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface's editing behavior is bordering on Tendentious editing (or has already crossed this line), and while not necessarily uncivil in the usual sense, it is extremely tiring in a plonk-worthy sense. S/he has also started disputetagging WP:NOT in the last few days again (with prompt reverts), which had caused much drama at WP:NOT and ANI in the last two months before. I endorse Masem's summary that "the atmosphere the comments generate is not healthy to good discussion." Just to make clear, this note here is not intended to single out Pixelface as the only culprit, but very few editors have had what I perceive as similar bad track records for heating already heated discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs of this supposed "tendentious editing"? This board is for civility. And are you saying that WP:NOT#PLOT is *not* currently under discussion, which is what the {{disputedtag}} says, the small text in WP:NOT#PLOT itself says, as well as what the {{fiction notice}} says, which is transcluded on WT:FICT, Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries, and several other places. If you think my comments at WT:FICT are creating an atmosphere that's not healthy to good discussion, I'll be happy to leave and you can see if the atmosphere improves. Would you like me to do that? --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip the diffs and just point to your recent history with WP:NOT again. To cite WP:TEND, "the term [tendentious editing] also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors" and (example) "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Maybe Wikipedia:Disruptive editing would have been more fitting (although it refers to article editing), which says "Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Wikipedia:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by [...] exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity." Are you grossly incivil? - No. Do I perceive your edititing behavior harmful for productive discussion? - Yes. Is WP:WIKIQUETTE the right place to bring this up? - Possibly. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How about the recent history of you and Masem at WP:NOT? If me and Hobit remove PLOT from NOT [14] [15] [16] and you and Masem insert PLOT back into NOT [17] [18] [19], does that not indicate that section of policy is disputed? If several people have said on WT:NOT (in Archive 17, 18, 19 and the current talk page) that PLOT should be removed, does that not indicate that section of policy is disputed? If discussion about PLOT has been going on for three months, does that not indicate that section of policy is under discussion? If Masem states in their edit summary that discussion had not taken place at WT:NOT from March 10 to March 29, when WT:NOT looked like this, who's being tendentious? If I get reverted by an E&C2 party who reports me for "vandalism" for removing PLOT from NOT and I get blocked for vandalism and I leave Wikipedia for a week and that E&C2 party then tells another E&C2 party it was good news I left and several uninvolved editors state my edit was *not* vandalism, who's being tendentious? If the editor who originally added PLOT to NOT removes PLOT from NOT and he's reverted by an E&C2 party, who's being tendentious? If there's an edit war at WP:NOT and I'm not involved and WP:NOT is protected by an E&C2 party who's not uninvolved in the dispute over PLOT, who's being tendentious?

I've been discussing PLOT at WT:NOT since January. It boggles my mind that Gavin.collins, Eusebeus, and Seraphim Whipp think PLOT is not disputed. I know Gavin.collins knows it's disputed, because he's commented multiple times at WT:NOT. I also know Eusebeus knows it's disputed, since he commented in the RFC on PLOT. And having been in an argument with Seraphim Whipp in the past since I dared ask her friend if he had read the vandalism policy since he reported me as a vandal for removing PLOT from NOT, she should be also be aware that PLOT is disputed. Any one of them could click on the history tab for WT:NOT and see which section of that policy has been under discussion for the past three months. While I have repeated some of the same arguments at WT:NOT, I *have* persuaded other people. I've repeated myself at WT:FICT and I *have* persuaded other people. Of the people who have commented at WT:FICT, who has "repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles"? I appear to face opposition from a small group of E&C1 and E&C2 parties, who are biased against a group of articles.

And what are the articles I've disrupted? As someone who's never created a plot-only article and as someone who routinely adds reception information to articles, what are the articles I've disrupted? Do you know many articles some people in the Support section have disrupted? It's funny you ignore all the other incivility at WT:FICT and all the disruption by supporters of Masem's proposal and single me out. It's funny that multiple people in the Support section have been referring to other editors' good faith edits as "vandalism", and you and Masem single me out.

So, seeing as you've opposed my edits to WP:NOT, you have the opposite opinion of the FICT proposal that I do, you decided to summarize the arguments by the opposers but did not also summarize the arguments by the supporters, you said the opposers need something "actionable", you were an involved party of E&C1, and you were contacted by an editor under an editing restriction to perform edits they are not allowed to perform — is this your "neutral third opinion" here on my civility? I haven't even begun to say what I really think at WT:FICT. I've bitten my tongue and I think I've been pretty civil. Of the people who've commented at WT:FICT, I could easily point out who I think are the productive editors and the disruptive ones. I won't be commenting at WT:FICT for a week so you can see for yourself if the discussion becomes productive with my absence. Thanks. I think we can mark this thread as resolved. --Pixelface (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to read such huge blocks of text (as I said elsewhere, my time is limited). But, as you even demonstrate in this thread, your replies tend to be (much) longer than what you are replying to, and you raise new (or the same) points over and over again and request answers until the editors are tired of replying to you (as I am right now), in which case you claim consensus. This is (I guess) exactly what Masem meant with "shout the loudest to make their point overly clear". And this in turn is what I meant with Tendentious editing. (There is no need to reply to this, as I am neither asking you a question, nor am I going to read another huge block of text. I know your position already.) – sgeureka ^t•c 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your time is limited, but you can read this huge block of text at WT:FICT and summarize of all of it? And I haven't been claiming consensus. I've been saying there is no consensus. And it's funny you link to WP:TE at WQA, since TE was created by an admin infamous for their rampant incivility. I won't be replying here anymore. --Pixelface (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't read that huge block of text and never claimed I did; I skipped the replies of soapboxing people and was still perfectly able to get the gist of it. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you guys actually want a 3rd-party opinion on this issue, I suggest you take WP:TLDR into account. I for one don't have the time to sort through all of this mess ;p :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe my initial paragraph summarized the issue to the TLDR degree. --MASEM 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree with that. I looked at the diffs, and I don't see anything egregious -- it just kind of sounds like a heated policy discussion. The only diff I'm not sure I care for is "bringing up a point that doesn't apply to the specific section of the discussion while pulling from the user's history to try to prove them wrong".

As far as repeating the same arguments over and over, this is why I have given up participating in any discussions regarding a change in policy. I frankly can't even stand to read them.  :) If further action needs to be taken beyond observing that, yes, that has been a very frustrating discussion with tensions rising and the occasional ad hominem attack, somebody else needs to do it, because I just can't bring myself to read that debate. Every time I try, my eyes glaze over and I start to get a headache :D Pixelface is not helping, but there must be a dozen other editors making equally unhelpful comments. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will point out WP:TLDR to Pixelface on his Talk page. That much I feel is definitely an appropriate action ;) If we need to go past that, like I say, somebody else will have to do it. Large blocks of text with no paragraph breaks make my head go POP! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is another case of what I certainly believe to be tenatious and uncivil editing. On WT:NOT, Pixelface has posted the same basic arguments with the same links to AFDs to support the point in a matter of 3 hours (not accounting for the fact that Pixelface has used the same points repeated in the same discussion thread or elsewhere on NOT): first time, second time, third. It's one thing to stick to your guns for something you believe in, but this type of discussion is not helpful to reaching a conclusion. --MASEM 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to AFDs where PLOT is ignored is not uncivil, Masem. It actually shows that PLOT does not reflect consensus. Would you like me to show you what real incivility looks like? There are several people at WT:FICT I can cite. --Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To Pixelface: I still don't think this is really a civility issue, but Masem has a point about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of reiterating the same links multiple times. You might consider creating a sub-page off of your user page which summarizes this point, and then you can just very briefly link to that when it is relevant to your argument, e.g. "Many articles that start as plot summaries go on to become FAs, see User:Pixelface/My chosen AfDs". This could help cut down on the verbosity of the discussion, and give your argument more impact.

Masem, what action do you want taken here? I don't see any egregious civility issues, and while Pixelface is being sorta tedious, the discussion itself is inherently tedious and I don't see how that can be avoided. Such is the nature of (or IMO, failure of) the consensus-based decision-making process when you have far too many participants. :/ (which, again, is why I refuse to participate in policy discussions on Wikipedia anymore under any circumstances) I have suggested that Pixelface take a different tack... But if he wants to write way too much text in a discussion that already has way too much text, there's not much that can be done to stop him, I don't think. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Frank Anchor

Resolved

 – Compromise reached independently -- major kudos to davidwr for brokering the compromise

Keeps adding a SPA tag to all of my edits. Only because he disagrees with my opinions here. My first post was tagged and that's fine, but every post does not need to be tagged just because my opinion differs with his. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See discussions here as well. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not doing so because we have differing opinions, I am doing so because when you make such a major contribution to an AfD (as you found several possible precedents to the article - I would consider that a major contrib.), it should be noted that you have made very few outside edits to Wikipedia Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute seems to be resolved, see: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Naruto134

Resolved

 – For now... User warned by Ludwigs2 (thanks) and so far has not resumed the behavior. Will re-open if necessary.

This user is very uncivil toward new contributors, and has also been warned several times before. He ignores any and all comments posted on his talk page, and is also uncivil in edit comments, calling users "idiots" and "preschoolers". I left a civil comment on his userpage explaining why I felt something should have been included in an article, however, he ignored it and posted a rather harsh comment on my talkpage and threatened to report me. Proof may be found on his talk page here, also here, his comment on my talk page, and here as well. Thank you. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the "preschooler" diff that SWJS mentions. I don't care for this one either. FWIW, it seems like Naruto is acting in good faith. The uncivil edit summaries are a problem, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that's a little unpleasant. I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Geogre

Resolved

 – hopefully. 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been subject to regular insults, impugning of character, and refusal to avoid direct questions asked directly regarding the content of an article William Melmoth on that articles talk page and archived talk page, and the editor's talk page, by the editor above named. I wish him to receive formal warning from another party that such behavior is not acceptable. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out this archived ANI thread that is substantively the same controversy. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

John, cut it out. You've been asked to step away from this situation over the course of several days now, by multiple admins, but you have persisted. Threatening people when they question a wikiproject assessment is inappropriate; you were encouraged to engage in discussion originally, but at this point it is best for all that you simply step back. I understand that you are angry that an editor has objected to the assessment made by a member of your wikiproject. Anger rarely improves articles or leads to fruitful conversation, and your anger has led you to make several incorrect statements and less than optimal decisions. If you feel that this matter between the wikiproject and Geogre simply must be straightened out, I suggest that you ask another member of the project, perhaps one who has not insulted Geogre by saying he lied about being an administrator, to continue the discussion. Right now, the two of you are oil and water. Risker (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And I asked several relevant questions which were not answered with anything but aspersions on my character. That is unacceptable. I would welcome having reasonable discussion with Geogre, but he seems either unwilling to engage in such, or incapable of it. Why should such, well, stonewalling, not be told to cease? John Carter (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Risker's advice is very good. Geogre may be "stonewalling" because he has realized he is incapable of continuing the discussion rationally, so it is better to say nothing than to continue to proceed in anger. I have to do the same thing sometimes, and believe me, it drives my wife crazy! ha ha ha... In any case, it is often valuable to just step away until you are not so pissed off. I think that is what Geogre is doing at this point, and I think it would benefit you to do the same. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, presumably, his insulting others rather than directly answering questions directly asked is an indication that he is being reasonable? John Carter (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair question. I suggested to him on his Talk page that if he wants to back away, he needs to do so silently. ;)

I must admit, I feel a little awkward trying to mediate between two admins :o --Jaysweet (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good time to review what Wikipedia is not. Perhaps this would be a good time to reflect on what your objectives were when this discussion started, and whether or not this current course of action will bring the fulfillment of both your own objectives and those of the project. Perhaps this would be a good time to go to the pub and have a bitter. You very much give the impression that what you're doing right now is making you very unhappy, and it isn't leading to the harmonious editing and collaboration that characterises Wikipedia at its best. Geogre can only irritate you if you let him irritate you; if you leave him alone, he will find something else to do. Please step back. Risker (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This and this and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I already mentioned this to Geogre on his talk page.

John Carter appears to have moved on (has made several edits today and said nothing to Geogre). Geogre has not been active, but hopefully when he comes back he will also move on. Thanks for the input, but I don't think we really need to see more "evidence" at this point... I just want to put this in the past. It's sad to see two administrators and extraordinarily valuable contributors feuding in such an acrimonious fashion. :( --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Agree. I don't approve of the edit-warring by the subject or the incivility by either party. I'll assess the article in question according to each WikiProject's quality scale (as they differ from project to project) and hopefully that matter is resolved too. I'm marking this WQA as resolved for now, assuming any further edit-warring and incivility ceases. I am hoping topic bans will not be necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AvantVenger and his IP account User:71.114.30.158 -- Gross incivility.

Resolved

 – User blocked 24 hrs; if incivility resumes, will report to ANI

A simple editing dispute at Self-replicating machine was escalated to a revert war - then the user went 'off the deep end' on the talk page of that article (See the end of Talk:Self-replicating_machine#Photo and text additions). I made an attempt to calm him down and explain 'why his statements were deeply offensive (although they were clearly aimed at me very carefully by reading my User: page). But his most recent remark (at time of writing) was:

Don't scrape your stealing finger at me you useless piece of trash. You made the first attack on the honorable Charles Michael Collins with your stealing foreigner affirmative action open source speak with the rest of you stinking putrid stealing demagoging, lobbying invaders. Do we come and lobby Adrian's country? NO! I could care less if the communist Wikipedia "blocks" me. Go home. I'm also a musician and saw what Napster's "open sourcing" did to the entire world music business. If you steal and try to bust patents we don't want you here. OPEN SOURCE PIG. AvantVenger (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I should explain that Charles Micheal Collins appears to own a patent which I suggested was invalid due to prior art. I don't see how this constitutes an "attack".

This user edits about 50% of the time using User:71.114.30.158 - so if a block is to be considered, both that account and User:AvantVenger would need to be included.

I trust we can take speedy action - because this just went beyond reasonable limits.

Thanks in advance.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only are you stupid and do not know one iota about what you are talking about on patents BUT YOU STARTED IT BY ATTACKING CHARLES MICHAEL COLLINS. I don't expect the rabble to be much smarter, particularly throngs of bleeding heart trash open source pigs who steal music, books, movies and inventions. All of you can go right to HELL! AvantVenger (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• AvantVenger blocked for 24 hours for persistent incivility and soapboxing. EyeSerene^talk 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am quite put off by how the user responded to the block, but I am marking this as Resolved for now. If the user comes back from the block and resumes incivility at the previous level, I think it's more of an admin issue than a simple Wikiquette issue. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I should add that it wasn't my intention to make an end-run around the Wikiquette mediation process - I blocked them before I read this thread (per a separate report at WP:AIV) based on their escalating and on-going loss of control on the article talk page. EyeSerene^talk 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I now believe that AvantVenger is the real-world person Charles Collins (stripping out email address - Risker) - who appears to be the indefinitely-banned User:Fraberj. My evidence is here User_talk:AvantVenger#Is_AvantVenger_really_Charles_Collins.3F. I trust we have an admin here who knows what to do next! SteveBaker (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

alternative medicine

Resolved

 – The only person showing civility problems in links provided by Ludwigs2 is him/herself, and he/she has already been warned for it

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

I have a pair of editors - user:OrangeMarlin and user:ScienceApologist - who are defending what seems to me to be a particularly biased version of the page. they refuse to respond to questions, and have used insults and personal attacks to back up their reverts of my edits see this link and this. they do not seem to be willing to discuss any compromise. this behavior also spills over into other pages.

I admit that my edits are broad, but I also think they are justified.

I have a separate RfC out for comments on the page to deal with the edit difference, but I would like an independent discussion of their behavior as well, because they are both tremendously biased and heartily rude.

thanks! --Ludwigs2 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't really help; first came to this page myself to complain about Orangemarlin and the only effect was for him to throw more insults at me. He seems to have a group of friends who back him up on everything here.Restepc (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludvigs2 has been edit warring and has already violated 3RR. He has also deleted warnings from his talk page and has now been warned. Let's hope that calms him down. This is a spurious alert. See his talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually involve myself with these spurious attacks on me, but Restepc's odd remarks piqued my interest. But thanks Fyslee...watch out, you might be a part of my cabal, which will mean a lot of these things. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Woot, a cabal, sign me up! Shot info (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs and Restepc: Please remember that this page is for Wikiquette issues (civility, etc.), not for content disputes. Frankly, I am not touching the content dispute over alternative medicine, and I must say that I very much admire ScienceApologist and OrangeMarlin for the tireless work they do in this and other similar arenas. Frankly, if I did what they did for even a week, I would be driven to quit Wikipedia.

You mention insults, but I don't see them offhand and I am not going to read through Talk:Alternative medicine, dear god no. If there are specific remarks you are objecting to, please provide "diffs" (the instructions for doing so are outlined here) of the comments in question, and we can judge them in context to see if OM or SA have crossed the line. (While I said I admire those guys, I have no prejudice either way about whether they may have behaved in an incivil manner at some point. Happens to the best of us, and if they have, they will be warned to stop.)

Unless there are specific insults that you can point to, I am inclined to label this a "content dispute" and suggest that the RfC you already filed is the best way to proceed. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I skimmed the links that Ludwigs2 sent, and while I see a lot of borderline personal attacks and incivility from him, SA and OM appear calm and rationale throughout. The only time SA even comes close to a personal attack is when he accuses Ludwigs2 of "hawking alternative medicine" IRL and therefore having a conflict of interest in regards to the Alternative medicine article -- however, I have reason to believe SA only made this allegation after long discussion and careful examination of the evidence. Therefore, while he did comment on the editor rather than the edits, I think that identification of a potential conflict of interest is one area in which it is acceptable to do so.

Since Ludwigs2 has already been warned, I am marking this as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

well, since someone has marked this as resolved, then I guess I'll let it slide, even though I don't consider that correct. anyway, after a good night's sleep and a few moments' reflection, I'm reasonably confident I can handle this situation on my own anyway, so no worries. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

People have the attention span of fleas. Next time give diffs, and further, quote the worst part of the diff so people won't actually have to click on it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

that's good advice, thank you.  :-) --Ludwigs2 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A recent Arbcom ruling that occurred shortly after the above comments has prohibited Martinphi from participating in any discussion surrounding ScienceApologist with which he was not originally involved, so I am closing this discussion. There is nothing more to add, please do not comment further. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Redux

User has been bullying other users at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis for days on end now, while burying other people's arguments under many repeats of the same long-winded rhetorics, against the prevailing consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You may as well add me to the complaint as well, since I'm the first one who broke the assumption of good faith. I'd sum up the ongoing argument as WP:TRUTH v. WP:WIKILAWYERING. Somedumbyankee (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, I stared at that discussion for like 5 minutes, and while I understand what is being debated, I still don't have the slightest clue what each side's arguments are. It's a total mess.

I don't think Redux is violating the civility guidelines or anything (although, with that ridiculous mess of a discussion, who knows? If there is something I missed, feel free to provide a specific diff of the offending behavior), but he/she, along with a number of other editors, are unintentionally muddying the waters to the point where it is impossible to discern any sort of consensus or logic from that discussion.

I have left a note on the page in question suggesting a better way to proceed. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think this will generate results. We just basically have aggressive behaviour by one person who seems to feel the need to voluminously reply to anything said in opposition to him (which represents most people on the page) and perpetually raises straw man arguments and misquotes/twists policy to sound like it agrees with him. There is a bullying attitude, but I wouldn't say it's actually extended to actual bullying at this stage. However there is a clear resistance to developing any consensus which digresses from his own predetermined opinions, and somewhat deliberate attempts to stop it from developing. Orderinchaos 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Redux is not "bullying" or "burying" anyone against the "prevailing consensus." This alert is absurd, ridiculous, and unwarranted (notice the lack of diffs by the original poster) and is yet another effort to short-circuit the debate by those who disagree with the elimination of diacritics in the names of tennis biographies on English Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Completely absurd alert from this user (who btw has followed the discussion during retirement :) ) When is it bullying to state one's opinions? Moreover, sometimes one has to state them again, as some refuse to listen. --HJensen, talk 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

HJensen's own contributions on this topic both now and in previous iterations of the debate elsewhere have been fairly incivil on a fairly consistent basis. Less verbose than Redux, but a hell of a lot more personal. Orderinchaos 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to help out, without going too much into the exact theme of that discussion. Jaysweet, don't feel bad ;), that discussion is at a state now that makes it very, very difficult to catch up. The general theme is actually very similar to this discussion, currently ongoing at the talk page of WP:BLP. That is, what is the extent of community discretion to discredit common usage, once verified, on the basis of unverifiable assertions by users. Particularly, if we are seeing common usage in English-language sources, which would define the title of our article, is it valid for us to claim that all the sources are "wrong" and decide that Wikipedia will right that wrong? My answer to that has been no, because that would be original research and point of view. On the tennis discussion, people are now claiming that they have consensus to retain status quo. We had consensus in a previous discussion to move, but then this consensus was considered "insufficient". I didn't mind. Then, of course, canvassing started to take place. I have also explained that, unless it can be established that shuning verified common usage on whichever ground that is based on user assertion is not original research and point of view, it will mean that we cannot have localized consensus to authorize that, because we have a more significant consensus, established in WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, that says that those are non-negotiable in writing the encyclopedia — so far, people have actually admitted that the sources will indeed show common usage without diacritics, but that that's meaningless for [whatever reason] -- that's not negating OR and POV, that's continuing to give unverifiable reasons why we should ignore the sources, that is, OR and POV..
Now, I have indeed been posting more vehemently, but the purpose of this, and it has been clearly stated, is not to "bury" anyone, but rather to cause discussion. Otherwise, what we have is people coming over and saying "oppose because removing diacritics proves only that no author had a properly configured keyboad". That's not the only claim made, of course, but it is actually one of them. Was that ideal? No more than the alternative would have been: have people "vote" and then claim that, by headcount, there is consensus to maintain [what is essentially] original research and POV. They can, of course, attempt to establish that it is not. That is why we need discussion, not voting. But people only wanted to vote, as it was done in other occasions when diacritics and spellings were discussed. In the discussion that I have been able to provoke, some people have been personally offended for being told that they are wrong, which is all I have done; they have also been refusing to get the point and then insisting that there is no point in discussing it further, calling my counter-argumentation "bulying". Redux (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your argumentative style (not your argument itself) is borderline bullying. You just repeat the same (false) arguments in 500 word essays over and over and over again as if this actually helps debate. The word I was looking for was filibuster. The only reason it is "difficult to catch up" is that any poor sod who wants to figure out what is going on has to read pages of padding from one contributor who seeks to contest every opposing editor/rationale in exactly the same way. This is not discussion, it is a poorly concealed form of social engineering to create a "last man standing" scenario so your arguments, which not only represent a minority viewpoint in the discussion but need greater justification given that they're a change from the previous consensus (demonstrated by no significant changes over a two-year period) will trump others simply because they've been worn into the ground. Moreover you have shown an arrogance and dismissiveness towards other contributors (especially indisputably good faith ones such as Kotniski and Evlekis, from whose contributions to the debate I have found stuff I didn't know) which is entirely unacceptable. These things have stood for a very long time with basically noone challenging them, now we have three or four editors from one project working to try and overturn that. No demonstrable cause has been given for this action, nor has it been put in the context of any actual policy, other than a chronically poorly-worded guideline which seems to trip all over itself and several policies which don't relate to the situation at hand, given that the players' correct names are verifiable in reliable sources with diacritics and no original research needs to be entertained to establish what they are. Orderinchaos 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much point in rehashing the argument here. The point is basically that the two sides are talking past each other and WP:IDHT is the reason why civility has left the conversation. There is a guideline, and one side of the debate rejects that guideline. It's a valid question for the guideline, and WT:UE is probably the place the discussion should happen, though there's a separate proposed policy at WP:UD. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Totophi

User repeatedly uses personal attacks against editor nrswanson on Talk:C (musical note)#C4 etc. page simply because the editor disagrees with his viewpoint. For example, user insinuates intellectual inferiority of nrswanson based solely on that editor's religious background. When asked to stop personal attacks, user still persists. It is also possible this editor may be using sock puppets and a separate report has been filed for that violation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi. Nrswanson (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a rather long comment on the content dispute (for once, this is in an area where I have some experience and knowledge), and IMO the evidence falls in your favor, Nrswanson. But the problem, as you stated, is that personal attacks are now going both directions - more so from Totophi and the anonymous IP toward you than the other way, but I see evidence that you're both getting heated up about this. So I recommend you all step back and cool down a bit. Remember, attack the content, not the editor.

If this continues past the latest parts of the discussion (including my comments there), let me know and I'll take a closer look and/or issue warnings as appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments such as this are completely unacceptable:

• Totophi wrote at 10:17 on 12 June: "My respect for you and your accomplishments has come to an end. Do you realize how deluded your own statement is? The issue of contention does NOT concern finer points of music theory! In addition, you pompously accuse me of insults where I have stated none. You, on the other hand, are revealing more and more the fine talent of talking a lot while saying little. Do you still claim to uphold the values on which Wikipedia is based? Give it up, you miserable hypocrite. Oh, and that's not an insult, by the way." Et cetera.

That should earn him a block for incivility. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)