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:Romaioi

Continued from archive page:

Thanks for your support Jaysweet. I have made those modifications as per your suggestion. I am not afraid of appearing bitter as long as the truth has been highlighted. I don't look favourably on the kind of flippant behaviour that Noclador demonstrated, regardless of whether it was directed at me or anyone else.

However, I do not know why this page has been archived as I do not consider it to be resolved - I have made several requests as per Ncmvocalist' comments and have not receieved his reply. I have made concessions and recieved none regarding the anti-User:Romaioi negative comments.

Romaioi (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Will see if I can take a look later this week. Sorry about the delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems, I'm in no rush. I know I wrote a lot. Thank you, by the way. Romaioi (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:86.158.239.106 / User:86.158.177.226 Attacks on other editors

The above user is presently labeling any editor that undoes his unhelpful edits anti-islamic, islamophobic, anti-pakistan, pro-india. His comments can be located here, here, here, here, here and here. There are several others but I do not wish to overload the page with his viewpoints. Assistance with this as it is unacceptable to be falsely labeled by anon editors. Knowledgeum (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry nobody got back to you on this sooner. Is this still ongoing? I don't see any contribs from either of those IP addresses in the past three days, but I don't know if maybe he or she has moved on to another IP. Since it's a broad range of IP addresses, it is tough to stop this kind of abuse, but if it's ongoing we'll see what we can do... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sofar there have been none of the same edits on the main article that sparked this, however the protection on the article expires this evening so its possable that as soon as its unprotected anon users will make the same edits, get reverted and continue thier abuse. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If I am around I will keep an eye, but I may not be around. If the behavior resumes and you can't find anybody else, here is what I recommend:

1. Continue to revert any unconstructive changes to articles.
2. If the IP makes a personal attack such as those above on your talk page, feel free to remove the comment (see WP:DRC).
3. If the IP makes a personal attack such as those above on anyone's talk page, try your best to explain to him/her about personal attacks and WP:NPOV.
4. If your explanation is not effective, issue warnings of escalating urgency, making sure you use the phrase "final warning" in the 3rd or 4th.
5. After the final warning, if the behavior continues report to WP:ANI.

The problem here is that since it's an IP address, and apparently a user that can access a very wide range, long-term blocks or sanctions are not really feasible. You can try to reason with him/her, and if that fails we can try short blocks. Hopefully the user just gets bored first, though, y'know?

Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Sourced WP:NPOV Archaeological Conclusions from the Bible

I'd like to avoid an edit war about this, so I've posted this alert. One user, Blanchardb, who has already been warned about "willy nilly" deletions before by admin Shirahadasha, is repeatedly deleting sourced WP:NPOV archaeological conclusions based upon a WP:CONSENSUS discussion from the Bible article. See here for details. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I rest my case. -- Blanchardb  -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecrasez, I am sooooo sick of your red-text bolded version of the NPOV guidelines, quoted out of context and often not relevant to the discussion at hand. Do you have diffs of the problematic behavior? I am not talking about a link to a section, I want to see specific diffs. Those section are a bit long to read through, and they all are spammed with your red-text out-of-context quote from WP:NPOV -- if I see the latter one more time, my head is going to explode. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

131.191.80.124

Resolved

 – User advised. 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I tried to make Wikipedia a better place by reverting a personal attack [1] and I get chewed out by some loser [2] who just HAS to defend his right to the death to be a jerk on someone else's talk page.

You can do whatever you want with this... I am DONE with Wikipedia. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 08:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at this. The IP's comments were indeed rather out of line, and I left him/her a template on his/her page. But I don't see any need to further fan the flames. Rainbow, I suggest that this is just part of the rough that sometimes comes with the smooth. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now he has sent me a threatening email via my website which is linked in my profile. To where should I forward this email, headers intact? RainbowOfLight ^Talk 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is out of line. Don't reply to the email. (But don't delete it, either.) If nobody else comes by, I'm happy to follow up tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Best to send it to a member of WP:ARBCOM. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have placed myself on Wikibreak because I've seen a lot of stupidity and rudeness around here lately (people getting irate because I revert their vandalism) and I need a timeout. I will be here to respond to this issue, though. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 09:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about the harassing email. As angry as I was with RainbowOfLight last night, no one deserves that. Just believe me when I say that I didn't send the email - I don't even know her email address! The timing is unfortunate, I admit, but honestly - I've never threatened anyone, and certainly not her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.124 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 July 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:Mathsci

Resolved

 – Everybody has been given the feedback they need. This noticeboard is not a venue for content disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

---

 Note: The user who started this thread has been blocked indefinitely for meat puppetry, and disruption. These accusations should be viewed in light of that fact. Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

In the course of a dispute at the talk page on Michael Atiyah, User:Mathsci has repeatedly attacked me and other editors personally.

For example, he stated: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". The dispute in question has nothing to do with nationality; I have never indicated my nationality and neither, to my knowledge, have other editors involved in the dispute. In my opinion, this extraneous mention of my presumed ethnic origin is tantamount to a racial slur. (What adds notability to this dispute is that just prior to this, User:Mathsci felt the use of the phrase `Eurocentric history' by another user was very inappropriate.)

A second disruptive tactic that User:Mathsci has used is to repeatedly accuse me of being a sockpuppet for another editor User:Bharatveer. Although, there is no evidence for this, User:Mathsci has repeated this allegation here and here.

Nevertheless, I feel that the second transgression is minor compared to the first one. I am new to Wikipedia, but I hope that it is not considered `civil' to introduce and insult someone's ethnic origin especially when it is completely irrelevant to the topic. - Perusnarpk (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no User:MathSci. Please could an administrator warn or block the above recently arrived SPA who, unable to insert libellous unsourced material into the BLP of Michael Atiyah (see the postings on WT:WPM, on WP:RSN and on WP:BLP/N), is going on a forum shopping spree across wikipedia. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He has now been given advice on WP:BLP policy by two administrators, User:Slrubenstein and User:Nishkid64. Hopefully the problem should now be resolved. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci appears to have been targeted for harassment by a variety of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts. No action is required here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, User: Jehochman's post above is not neutral. It is easy to verify that my statements above are correct. If User:Jehochman feels that it was appropriate under the circumstances for User:Mathsci to use the ethnic epithet "Indian extremist", please state so. Otherwise, I feel this is a violation of Wikipedia policies of no personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusnarpk (talk • contribs)

POV pushing is not welcome on Wikipedia, whether polite or impolite. A review of your contributions shows that your account is a single-purpose, disruption-only account at this stage. You can change that by peacefully editing a variety of articles. Please stop campaigning against other editors and show that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked to prevent further disruptions. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I would happily accept your resolved tag above if you, even briefly, addressed the issue. Are you stating that different guidelines apply to new editors and old editors: that old editors are allowed to launch personal attacks on new editors that include ethnic slurs? Or are you stating that the usage above was justified? If you are stating either of these things, please state that clearly here and I will not remove the resolved tag. If not, please allow other neutral editors to weigh in. thanks,

P.S: I resent your use of the word disruptive and in my opinion, it shows bias. As a new editor, I have participated in a controversial discussion but I have not edited the page itself as a quick review will show. What is `disruptive' about participating in a discussion, and why does it constitute POV pushing? Please show me the appropriate guidelines. thanks Perusnarpk (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are most certainly a disruptive influence, and you should stop. You have been advocating a position that is counter to Wikipedia policies. When told that you are wrong, by several experience users, you continue to push and attack. That is not the way things are done around here. I implore you to stop. Jehochman ^Talk 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "ethnic slur"?? "Indian extremist" isn't insulting a person's ethnicity; it is insulting their political position. Surely it is okay to say a white power group is Aryan extremists, and doing so does not mean I am picking on their race??? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from experience, I know some people liken the term extremists to terrorists so it's possible to be viewed as incivil, rather than as one side in a content dispute. Even if one were to use a label in a content dispute to describe a 'side' of the dispute, I think a person can come up with a label that is not so bad.

There's obviously a lot of issues going on in this dispute, but overall, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the subject of the WQA (Mathsci) to refrain from throwing that label around in the future. If there are sockpuppetry accusations, they belong to WP:SSP. Any concerns on users should be voiced in the appropriate forum, such as through WP:DR - not an article talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it isn't necessarily uncivil to call someone an "extremist", I'm just saying that it's clearly not an "ethnic slur", and Perusnarpk's continued insistence that an ethnic slur occurred sort of undermines his credibility... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. We should endeavor to use the least inflammatory language possible while maintaining accuracy. Calling somebody an "extremist" is generally not too helpful, but it is not worthy of a block. The editor who came here with the complaint has been exceptionally polite, but their effect on the discussion has been most unhelpful. This thread is really just an extension of the content dispute. The matter should return to the article talk page, and then dispute resolution if that fails. Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, if the labelling and sockpuppet accusations has stopped, then what's within the scope of WQA is indeed resolved here - the rest of the issues should be dealt with as you've stated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, given some of the comments above, in my opinion, this was not a comment on my political beliefs since the entire discussion never broached the political beliefs of any of the editors involved. (In fact, my own views are quite the opposite of `Indian extremists'(used in a political sense) and if the expression was used in that sense, I would find it even more offensive.) As far as I can understand, the phrase `Indian extremists' meant precisely that: "a bunch of extremists from India". However, I will not belabor this point now, given the repeated requests of User:Jehochman and the fact that cognizance has been taken of User:Mathsci's lack of civility. For now, unless this repeats, I consider the discussion closed. Perusnarpk (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All I can recall is that Abhimars used the terms "eurocentric" and "exposing Western idols". I have never seen these terms used in the international world of mathematics. I do know Sir Michael personally as well as many of his students, including Graeme Segal, a good friend of mine. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have looked more thoroughly at the talk page of Michael Atiyah.

• [3] Abhimars tells F&f that he is "angry with Raju for exposing eurocentric history and exposing western idols".
• [4] I tell Abhimars:"Please refrain from making personal attacks on Fowler & fowler and other editors, Please avoid using phrases like "eurocentric history" and "exposing western idols". This extremist language suggests you have another agenda..." and end with "Otherwise, why not try editing another WP article some time?"
• [5] An anon IP 67.169.0.250 calls this language "completely natural".
• [6] Perusnarpk agrees with the Abhimars and 67.169.0.250
• [7] I tell Perusnarkp "You and your friends are quite likely to be blocked from editing this encyclopedia if you continue making disruptive edits of this kind. In the meantime please go and look at Atiyah's entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica to get some idea of what a biography in an encylopedia should look like."
• [8] I ask Perusnarkp how he knows about the precise nature of ArbCom restrictions on User:Bharatveer as a newly arrived editor. Perusnarpk does not reply for a few days.

If Perusnarpk had distanced himself from these extremist sentiments, there might have been some point to this wikiquette posting. Otherwise he has completely misrepresented what happened. Any reasonable and experienced WP editor would I think have drawn the same conclusions that I drew from this interchange. However, here and elsewhere, Perusnarpk has gone out of his way to misrepresent those opposing him (notably most mathematical editors) and in particular the first two editors who had the courage to engage with him. It is disgraceful that even now he is allowed to continue his disruption across the wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 29 July 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:91.122.87.1

Stuck

 – Per Jaysweet below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure where to report this, but this anonymous IP who has no edit history randomly showed up and started reverting my changes in two different articles, twice without explanation. I'm pretty sure this is just a sockpuppet of User:Colchicum since the anonymous ip is continuing his revert warring. Krawndawg (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Colchicum says on his userpage that he is from St.Petersburg, and the anonymous IP is also from that region. Krawndawg (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's something. Please reprimand Mr(s?). Krawndawg for the personal attack. This accusation of sockpuppetry and edit-warring is extremely frivolous. St. Petersburg is not a small village, it is the second largest Russian city with slightly less than 5 million inhabitants. Moreover, I was born and grew up in Saint Petersburg (well, Leningrad, to be precise), but I don't reside there. Furthermore, Krawndawg's blatant chauvinistic edits were reverted by three different registered users (me, User:Biophys and User:AlexiusHoratius). A convincing case of sockpuppetry, eh? And who is edit-warring here? I have only made two fully explained reverts: [9], [10]. I am a long-standing user, who has never violated a rule here. Krawndawg (talk · contribs) has recently made dozens of reverts (having marked most of them as minor edits, by the way, which is very disruptive), including three reverts of that very edit in the article Russia, and has already got a record of blocks for edit-warring, albeit probably still not impressive enough to get the message across that edit-warring is not acceptable. He is obviously trying to game the system to promote his POV. Colchicum (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're only making yourself sound more suspicious. That anonymous IP is obviously another user since his first ever edit was a revert, making use of the edit summary box. Furthermore, it was a revert identical to yours which preceded it by only a few minutes. There may be 4 million people living in St.Petersburg, but there certainly aren't 4 million with internet access who can speak English, who additionally edit on English wikipedia with your same point of view on a specific article at the exact same time. Quite a coincidence I must say. Krawndawg (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about your suspicions and can't help you here. Neither do other Wikipedians AFAIK. But if you persist you will be blocked. Edit-warring is not acceptable. "My" point of view was immediately supported by Biophys, 91.122.xx.xx and AlexiusHoratius (or rather it was me who supported Biophys' viewpoint). Let's face the reality, this point of view is far more popular than you want it to be. And I assure you that a lot of people in Russia speak English, are aware of the existence of English Wikipedia and are naturally interested in what is written about their country in the article Russia. Where are you from, by the way? Colchicum (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes, (s)he is certainly not new to Wikipedia. According to you, 91.122.94.39 (talk · contribs) should probably be the same person (from the same ip range, interested in the same articles at the same time. Apologies are in order, Krawndawg. But the modest intellectual level of your accusations satisfies me best. Colchicum (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously come here to personally attack me and beg for apologies? You haven't proven or dis-proven anything and my suspicions are only greater now that you're trying so hard. I'm almost temped to report that IP to the sockpuppet board to get this figured out, since it is obviously a sockpuppet of someone. Lets just hope it doesn't interfere in anymore of my editing so I don't have to do that. Krawndawg (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Colchicum (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets should be reported to WP:Suspected sock puppets. If you would like folks to look at edit-warring, personal attacks, or other behavioral issues, please provide diffs of the behavior in question. At this point, all I see in this thread is a bunch of random sniping. WQA is not an no-holds-barred arena for you to criticize each other. The above conversation is totally unproductive. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 29 July 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:S. Dean Jameson

Stuck

 – Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

After politely asking for User:Blechnic (here) to redact his personal attack ("The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately."), User:S. Dean Jameson entered into an incivil and rude discourse against my person. First, he tried to rationalize the personal attack here by claiming that it is "true", even though the comments are directed at a person's ability to read, which is a clear violation WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA which states that you can only comment on actions, not on people.

Then, S. Dean Jameson insists on the "factual" nature of the comments, here. However, it is obvious that if someone is a complete idiot, WP:CIVIL requires that this cannot be used in conversation, as such are used in attacking other individuals, which is not acceptable. Then, the user tries to bend the NPA policy around here to justify making an attack upon others, which is clearly contradictory to the letter and spirit of NPA.

Then the user tries to claim that I am being incivil by asking for the personal attack to be redacted. You can find instances of that here, here, here, etc. That last one claims that not only does attacking attributes of an individual not constitute as NPA, but that such an idea would be "non-existent" all together, even though the quote above clearly has a person and claims an aspect of their nature.

Something needs to be done about this user. They insist on the right to belittle others because they believe it is "true", and this is dangerous to the community as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• This needs to stop. This user has been called on his/her accusations of "personal attacks." I have at no time been uncivil toward him/her, and would request that this user be reminded that making such accusations in the face of much evidence to the contrary is itself uncivil. This has to stop now. S. Dean Jameson 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update - S. Dean Jameson now calls me a liar here and claims that "You are NOT allowed to bring up personal attributes of individuals" is wrong, even though NPA reads: "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• You're making things up AGAIN. I never said you were a liar, I said you were making things up. You are. WP:NPA doesn't say what you think it says. S. Dean Jameson 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note - User S. Dean Jameson is a brand new user (2 months) and probably doesn't understand the proper decorum. This does not need to go to blocks, or any such things. But there does need to be a clear statement for the user to understand that you do not have the right to bring up people's personal attributes in a discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused - you bring up what you believe to b a personal attack by User:Blechnic, which he refutes. SDJ defends Blechnic's position, but makes no personal attack himself, yet you've brought him and not Blechnic, who is meant to have made the personal attack, to this board. What's going on? Fritzpoll (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

S Dean Jameson's actions are argumentative, inflamatory, contributory to the original incivil action: he claims that the personal attack is factual, then resorted to claiming that I was rule breaking, then claiming that I am a liar who doesn't understand the policies. These are personal attacks upon my person, and acts of incivility. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I must point out, Fritzpoll was previously involved (here). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've been here long enough to recognize frivolous, time-wasting accusations of incivility when I see it. That's what this is. Nothing more, nothing less. No one agreed with you about your accusations against Blechnic. I tried to explain to you why. Now you're accusing me of incivility. I must say, you have the problem here, not me. This is my last post to you. Any further communication by you with regards to this matter will be summarily ignored, as is my right. Good bye. S. Dean Jameson 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This all seems to have blown way out of control. Just leave each other alone, and go and have a nice cup of tea - both of you are continually escalating your comments in response to each other, when clearly you just don't agree. Let it drop, and move on. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The only person who escalated this was OR. S/he has made baseless accusations against (now) two different editors. As for me, I've already indicated that I will be ignoring any further communications from OR along this line, so I guess I'll have to decline that cup o' tea! ;) S. Dean Jameson 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the collapsed discussion from ANI from yesterday where OR said that I had violated WP:CIVIL because I said that another editor, who had just told a bald-faced lie, had told a "bald-faced lie". I suppose this makes me an involved party, so I will not attempt to mediate. However, I would like to point out that saying someone has done something wrong is uncivil regardless of the veracity of the assertion, then Ottava Rima is now in violation of WP:CIVIL for accusing myself and SDJ of incivility. Oh crap! I just did it again! By saying that OR was being incivil for accusing me of incivility, I have myself been incivil! Noooooooooo....... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If I concur with you, Jay, does that make me in violation of section 1.a.2.0.2z of code 29-D? ;) S. Dean Jameson 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don’t see anything in the diffs provided by Ottava Rima that looks like a personal attack to me. Apparently, Ottava Rima is interpreting WP:NPA in the narrowest sense imaginable. In my opinion, this matter should be dropped and closed. —Travis^talk 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis, please point out where I said that the user actually made a personal attack against me. Since there is no claim to that, but a claim to S Dean Jameson acting incivil and tenditious, your comments should be struck appropriately. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misunderstood my comment. In no way did I say that you had been attacked and I stand by my opinion. —Travis^talk 02:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima is attempting to game the system by bringing this frivolous and obviously baseless accusation of incivility. May I remind User:Ottava Rima that making such a patently false accusation is itself a gross breach of incivility and as such a form of personal attack. In this instance, given the concurrent thread at AN/I, it is exceedingly difficult to conclude that the user has acted in good faith. This should be closed and the editor warned against further WP:NPA and WP:POINT violations. Eusebeus (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Eusebus, please show where in WP:CIVIL that accusing someone of lying is appropriate. It is clear by this that he does the above. Thus, your claim that I am making "patently false accusations" is patently false. Please strike appropriately. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• You've been hurling accusations hither and yon with no supporting evidence for the better part of two days now. Yuo need to stop or be stopped. You can not be allowed to continue to make claims that aren't true. S. Dean Jameson 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:S. Dean Jameson is now Wikipedia:Canvassing here. Also, the user is criticizing those who supported my intervention and my asking of people to tone down the personal attacks on AN/I here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing for what? WQA is an informal venue. No binding decisions will be made here. In fact, I suggest this thread be closed, and if you feel you need to move to the next step of dispute resolution, then so be it. –xeno (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to look into the diffs Rima provides. This "evidence" of "incivility" would be good for a chuckle if s/he weren't so serious about it. And the only reason I posted to Keep's page is because it's getting supremely annoying dealing with these accusations. As Xeno said, you can't canvass for a discussion like this. And even if you could, why would I? No one here has agreed with Rima so far. I just want Rima to either stop making these accusations or be stopped from making them. S. Dean Jameson 02:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing for what? Well, he goes to another user's page, lists a series of users, and asks for help. What is the help? I don't know. I am merely pointing it out. I filed this report because Jameson was acting difficult and continues to follow after me and bothering other users. As you can see from my contribution logs, I tried to moved on. He did not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I find that the claims made here are meritless, so I'm of the opinion that it be dismissed. As the filing party has so far not agreed at all with the similar opinions expressed here, I'm closing this as stuck. Per xeno, if any party feels the need to move to the next step of dispute resolution, then so be it - we can't do anything about it here. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:47, 31 July 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.

Wikiquette of a particular user

Stuck

User:Randomran directed me here. I believe this to itself be a provocation. SharkD (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with SharkD. He has initiated several RFCs on articles I have worked on, especially recently. In some of those RFCs about article content, SharkD mentioned behavioral issues to some degree. And while I believe them to be based on misconceptions and misinterpretations of my actions, maybe even failures to WP:assume good faith, this right here is the appropriate forum for behavioral issues. So if we want to talk about behavioral issues, we can start with this "provocation" that SharkD thinks I've engaged in. I don't think I've done anything wrong, although I should qualify that. SharkD and I had an edit war or two towards the cusp of 2007/2008. We probably both mishandled it, and that's ancient history as far as I'm concerned. Starting in March/April, I became much more active around wikipedia, and 90+% of my edits have probably taken place since then. Since Spring of 2008, my understanding of policy has been stronger, and even my worst disputes have at least been civil. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the premise... Perhaps one or both of you could provide diffs of the behavioral issues or "provocation"? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Jaysweet - one of both of you need to provide diffs so uninvolved users can take a look. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Randomran has demonstrated consistent demeaning behavior. He has made consistently bold edits and when confronted on them he denigrates the persons doing so. He cites WP:BOLD in an insolent manner. Whenever he is criticized for his edits he inserts the topic of "other edits" or previous confrontations. He has started personal attacks against me in the past, and continues to do so whenever we are in confrontation. Since Randomran has suggested I bring the issue here, I have done so.

Here are the diffs:

1. Being confronted for bold edits: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
2. Being insolent when citing WP:BOLD: [20][21][22]
3. Inserting the topic of "other edits": [23][24][25]
4. Personal attacks Randomran has started in the past: [26][27][28][29][30][31]

SharkD (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• So, I read the provided diffs. To be honest, it's hard to lay fault at the feet of a particular editor. In this case, I think it is helpful to remember that our communication is via text and is capable of being misinterpreted. It appears that you disagree about details in different articles, specifically on interpretation of varying genres. I can tell that both of you intend to ameliorate the articles on which you work, are passionate, and are not intentionally trying to cause problems with one another. Would it be possible that you both take a step back, not continue to search for blame, and give each other the benefit of a clean slate? Let's not make this an issue and instead move forward without prejudice to one another. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher, I'd like to be cooperative, but I don't see any fault. I haven't "demeaned" or "denigrated" anybody. These are disagreements over content that just happen to involve the same parties, and SharkD has interpreted this as a behavioral problem on my part.

• Re: Personal attacks: I can't do anything about comments I made in December 2007 re: Artillery Duel, and I probably failed to assume good faith. But I have made literally thousands of edits since then, probably 99% of my edits, and I have been quite WP:CIVIL.
• Re: being insolent when citing WP:BOLD: I don't understand what makes SharkD assume that I was being insolent. I was trying to offer a legitimate response to SharkD's assertion that my "conduct" and "practices" were "questionable". At an RFC on Sandbox (video games), SharkD stated that "The purposes of this effort is to direct attention toward what I believe are questionable practices of a user. WP:DR says that, "Turn to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for disputes about user conduct" (emphasis added), and that is what I'm doing. First of all, Randomran didn't actually merge the information as he claims..." Besides suggesting that I was somehow lying or being misleading, SharkD incorrectly stated that I deleted an article without an AFD. This is after administrators had already told him this was a merge and not a deletion -- a discussion that started and ended without it even coming to my attention. SharkD raised two issues in the RFC: my behavior and the content of the edit. So I explained the content with logic and research, and I explained my behavior by explaining my good faith reason for the revision and backing it with policy: WP:BOLD. I might not have said please and thank you, but I see that as being cooperative, not insolent.
• Re: "Being Confronted for Bold Edits": I'm not sure what the value is of bringing up my first few AFDs from November/December 2007 -- literally my first edits on Wikipedia, when I did not fully grasp policy and guidelines. It's ancient history, and I would be inclined to say that I did nothing wrong anyway. The whole point of an AFD is that one person thinks an article shouldn't be here, but we consult the rest of the community. Aside from those AFDs, I see a few discussions involving SharkD, but no confrontation. That's just a part of how we build WP:CONSENSUS. People edit an article to improve it, and silence implies consent. Revert what you disagree with. If people can't agree on a revision, discuss and find a new consensus. You'll have to ask SharkD why he thought he was "confronting" me, rather than discussing the article. Okay, I've made an edit you disagree with. Does that make me a bad person in need of confrontation?

I'm trying to be as cooperative as possible here, and I'm not trying to be evasive. But I still don't see any fault on my part, and see this RFC as without merit. Myself and others have tried to make it clear that I had not been abusive in my process[32] [33] or behavior,[34] and that these were merely content disagreements over good faith revisions. The fact that SharkD ignored those explanations and continued pressing this as a behavioral issue suggests that this RFC is itself a failure to assume that I'm trying to improve Wikipedia in good faith. Let's chalk everything up until now down to a failure to WP:AGF, and move on. Randomran (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to give an example of the problem I'm encountering... I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this. Really, I'd like to get back to editing and constructive discussion. But how do you see me moving a conversation like that forward, without some kind of help or intervening event? Randomran (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Randomran here. How is he supposed to respond when told to stop interacting with fellow Wikipedians? And--as the specious "case" brought against me above shows--focusing on minor offenses at the expense of working toward solutions is not a productive way to edit this project. This is pretty much a straightforward content dispute, per my reading of the diffs, in which one party (SharkD) is focusing on perceived slights instead of on improving the project. S. Dean Jameson 13:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Reply Well, my reading of the situation was that the actions taken by both seemed relatively minor and that these issues had been blown out of proportion by perceived wrongs. My suggestion was that they both take a step back, assume good faith on the other's part, and in the future, make a conscious effort to work together -- ignoring who was at fault in the first place. I've been in similar situations and it has worked to my benefit. You both are reasonably civil with one another (believe me, I've seen far worse) and I don't see the situation warranting any "formal" sanctions (and I would be unable to give them, I am not an administrator). So, my hope is that the two of you can continue to seek out avenues of resolution, attempt cooperation, and avoid this becoming a more serious issue. Also, as far as content disputes between two parties are concerned, a good starting place is WP:30 where a third opinion can be procured. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Another note For example, here the two of you reach consensus, together. You both are civil and find an agreement. This is the sort of thing I would like to see continue. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I've been trying to do. I'll keep trying. Randomran (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. And if you have a content dispute, just toss it up to WP:3O and go from there. You guys do generally treat one another with respect, so let's close this issue and get back to editing. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Another issue I would like to raise is the fact that I have already sought other means of conflict resolution but keep getting directed here or to WP:DR[35][36]. How am I supposed to resolve an issue if I keep getting led around to different places? Also, I have engaged in several civil disputes with Randomran in the past, but find it difficult to reach a conclusion or consensus due to his not backing up statements with research[37][38][39][40][41][42]. SharkD (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that you bring behavioral problems here, if there are any. Otherwise content disagreements should always start at the article discussion page. If after good faith efforts to resolve the dispute there is no resolution, you get a third opinion, or consult the wikiproject. If that doesn't work, there's RFCs and RFMs.
And for the record, I always back up my claims with research. Ancient disagreements from December 2007 aside (I don't understand why SharkD insists on dwelling on literally my first 100 edits in Wikipedia, which were at worst incomplete research rather than WP:OR), in every one of those disagreements I kept turning back to the research I found, and in many cases kept finding more research.[43] Randomran (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well the issue is mainly content-based, here. Concerning Wikiquette, aside from a few select instances, you both are reasonably civil to one another. My concern is that we not blow this out of proportion. You have content disputes with one another, and the route to take is via the talk page, WP:3O, and WP:RFC (first steps). SharkdD, sometimes consensus is very difficult and takes a long time to reach -- that's OK. Keep discussing and performing research. What's important is that you continue to work together and eventually reach that consensus. I've seen you do this in the past, and I hope that you will continue to work in this manner in the future. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're distorting things a bit. The research you do provide isn't necessarily on the topic that's being discussed. SharkD (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not dwelling on your last 100 edits. Only one of the links in the paragraph you're responding to dates back to December 2007. SharkD (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, SharkD. Take it to the talk page, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. This is no longer the appropriate forum. S. Dean Jameson 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'd like to engage in civil disputes with Randomran, his tendancy to distort the matters of discussion and lead discussions to other topics is a bit distressful and leaves me hesitant to participate further in discussions. SharkD (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• You've presented no evidence that he's "distorting" anything. And even if he were, that's a content dispute. Please take it to the above-linked places. S. Dean Jameson 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• SharkD, this is a content dispute. He may present opposing viewpoints, and you may interpret these as distortions. However, as Wikipedians we are called to rise above these personality conflicts and stay focused on the issue at hand: achieving consensus. Because someone disagrees with our feeling or presentation of fact does not mean that s/he is at fault for anything. Again, it may take some time for you to reach consensus, but if you continue to present evidence I am confident that you and Randomran will be able to come to an agreement. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely just want to get back to editing. But if he thinks I have a "tendency to distort" matters, maybe this is the only venue to really address it. Either it's true and I need someone to show me why I "tend" to be acting inappropriately and how to correct it, or it's false and it's a failure to WP:AGF and a WP:ATTACK. I'd like the accusations of "distortion" to stop altogether. Randomran (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree. If SharkD keeps accusing Randomran of "tending to distort", that will verge on incivility in itself. S. Dean Jameson 18:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if he distorts matters that pertain to the subject of the article, then this is a matter of content dispute and does not belong here. However, Randomran is distorting matters pertaining to the discussion and the editing process in general. This can make content disputes frustrating. There's a danger when readers take claims at face value without checking to confirm their veracity, quickly leading to discussions straying from a successful conclusion and central points, thereby undermining the whole 3O process. This is an issue in the latest dispute, as well as disputes in the past, and will inevitably be an issue in future disputes. Better to cut the head off now than let the problem grow and become a bigger issue later.

Since noone seems to have actually checked the diffs I provided (which I would think would be a duty of everyone involved in mediation), I will provide a case-by-case breakdown of discussions which I believe to have been distorted:

1. Beginning with the discussion found here, Randomran says, "And for the record, I always back up my claims with research." and, later, "...which were at worst incomplete research..." How does "incomplete research" equate to "always backing up claims", and how does it constitute a valid counter-claim to my own?
2. In this discussion Randomran says, "...you're right that only a few of the sources from the previous sandbox article actually supported the statements, and those are the kinds of unsourced statements that I left out of the merge." He says this on authority of having checked whether the sources are valid both when he was editing the article, as well as when responding to the comment. These sources were later proved valid, rendering his statement false.
3. There are a couple of issues regarding this discussion. The first thing is that Randomran says, in response to my criticisms regarding the validity of the renaming of the article, that, "The article and category were recently renamed based on reliable research and consensus." User:Ham Pastrami then points out that the rename discussion hardly constitutes a consensus. In one of the ancilliary discussions discussing the renaming, Randomran says, "There were zero references describing economic simulations and their gameplay, but far more references describing business simulations." Upon examination of the article itself, however, I find that, despite Randomran's claim, the articles do in fact cite "economic simulation" several times. Later in the discussion, he says, "...the references that describe the actual game mechanics in more detail refer to these as 'business simulations'". He claims there are several references (note the use of plural), yet can only muster a single reference when asked. He also claims that, "...when this article was called 'economic simulation', nearly any game with an economy was included in the list: city-building games, RTSs, wargames... even RPGs." However, when looking through the history of economic simulation I could find no RPGs, RTSs, wargames or city-building games other than The Settlers, which places heavy emphasis on ecomomics. The list persisted from February 2006 to April 2008 and didn't contain many questionable titles.
4. In the old discussion of Space combat and trading simulator Randomran makes a number of ridiculous statements. He says, "I think the research you've found establishes that there IS a genre here. However, the research is VERY inconsistent on what it's called." If you look at the long list of links there you'll see that I listed 23 sources that call the games "space combat and trade simulator" with minor variations in word order, tense and puctuation. When I state the number of articles that call these games "simulations", he says "Only 3 out of 33 call it a simulation" without bothering to actually doing the word count himself. SharkD (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply ShardD, these are not Wikiquette -- or even civility-- issues. From what I can tell and even based on your analysis, Randomran has done nothing wrong. We are not here to evaluate, compare, or test Randomran's comments. This is not a trial. He was merely having a discussion on a point with which he does not agree. This is commonplace on Wikipedia. If you want someone to mediate a content issue, then WP:3O is the correct venue. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not really an etiquette issue. However, I was referred here. People don't want to deal with it elsewhere. The template at the top of WP:RFC says, "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." The editor who participated in the RfC said this is not the case and I should go here. SharkD (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you agree, then this should be closed, and you should go to WP:3O. This is not the place for content disputes. And you really should stop accusing him of "distortion." Your diffs don't support that accusation, and such baseless accusations could land you here, if you're not careful. S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case the diffs from SharkD don't completely show that this is a non-issue, I'd like to respond to each issue to ensure that there is no misunderstanding about my behavior. There is no behavioral problem.

1. When I said my research was "at worst incomplete", I was talking about those ancient AFDs[44] from literally my first 1% of edits on wikipedia. In those AFDs, I didn't engage in OR. SharkD found research that I didn't find on my watch. Assume good faith. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I left *unsourced statements* out. This is after a third party checked those statements and agreed with me: the research didn't actually support the statements. So I did check the sources, and I was totally reasonable in my justification for leaving out unsourced statements. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I stand by all of those edits. The research supported the move. And SharkD should assume good faith rather than immediately assuming I'm being misleading: here is an example of an RTS that was misnamed business simulation because of the vagueness of the old article. And if need be, there are more examples. I wish he'd have asked me for clarification on that point, because I'm more than happy to oblige. I don't understand why SharkD had to turn it into an attack on my person. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Once again, SharkD resorts to literally my first 100 edits on wikipedia. Don't WP:BITE newcomers for an honest mistake. And it was a small mistake: I didn't sufficiently check for resources, and I misused the "overcategorization" policy.[45]. And even if I had recommended that article for AFD *after* my 3000 edits with the exact same rationale, this still wouldn't be a problem if SharkD just assumed a little bit of good faith, and engaged me about my honest mistake. To add to my frustration, 3000+ edits later SharkD now agrees with me that the name of the article focuses too narrowly on "simulation", and yet he continues to push the idea that I was being deliberately misleading in bad faith. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I want to be cooperative and address any problems with my conduct, but I just don't see any. I'd like SharkD to stop pushing the idea that my conduct is bad. Maybe an apology is too much to ask, but I'd at least like SharkD to stop accusing me of distortion for anything I've done in the past, and to start assuming good faith. And I'd like that before we close this RFC once and for all. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. If you say you "always do XXX" when in fact you mean "almost always do XXX" or "always do XXX, except when YYY", then this is a distortion and you are using it to artificially augment your position.

• I can always back up my assertions with research. Even in that old AFD, I didn't engage in WP:OR. There's no distortion. Stop accusing me of that. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think positing a truth without providing references is OR. SharkD (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Firstly, the contributer partially reverts his claim ("I agree the Freelancer interview refers to a sandbox."), though he has not returned since I clarified the text of the other reference. Just because User:AndyJones says something doesn't mean it's true.

• And if you notice a past revision of the page, that statement was included. Once again, I included the sourced statements, and left out the unsourced ones. The issue is that you're accusing me of trying to circumvent the AFD policy, of making false claims on purpose, being insolent, being sneaky and now "distortions". I'd like you to stop. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry if you don't feel your statements were distortions. But I feel they were, and User:Ham Pastrami pointed out at least one of them.
2. I don't feel I was WP:BITE-ing. I was just concerned when a user was sending a string of articles to AfD unnecessarily, and was informing people of it. This can be disruptive, especially from a new user. SharkD (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• You weren't biting then, but you are now to some extent. You're trying to use the honest mistake of a new user to illustrate a non-existent pattern of non-existent abuse. Accusing me of abuse is false. It's just slightly more silly that you had to bring in my first few edits to try to prove that I'm a bad guy *now*, after tons of editing experience. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, some might *still* put you in the new user group. You've only been active for 8 months, and I don't think it's unreasonable not to have to know the precise date and time that you became "elevated" in status. In fact, I believe that to be an example of silly and immature behavior. SharkD (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this alert about my conduct turned out to be a non-issue, but there has to be some closure here. In other RFCs, SharkD has stated there is a problem with my conduct and that these aren't mere disagreements over content. He has been told that if there's a problem with my conduct, this is the place for it. I can handle disagreements over content. But there has to be some closure about the accusations of "distortion", that I tried to circumvent the AFD policy, or anything else of the like. Before we go back to discussing article content, I want to know that SharkD will assume good faith and stop WP:ATTACKs and accusations. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my earlier statements, I don't think this is an issue of civility. I don't think Randomran is trying to be mean, he is just passionate about the subject. SharkD (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So are you retracting the comment that I've been "demeaning" and "denigrating" other users, and engaging in "personal attacks"? Randomran (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still think you were demeaning in your treatment of editors. I don't think you were trying to be mean, and therefore not a violation of WP:ASG. You were just trying to do what in your mind you thought was "right". SharkD (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well I'm not sure how I've treated editors in a demeaning way, and I still don't see how I've been distorting or deliberately making false claims. All you can show is a series of editing discussions where I grounded my statements in research and logic, and you had a different interpretation. You say there's a problem with my conduct and my behavior, but you haven't shown it. If anything, you've only showed several recent instances where you've failed to assume good faith and mischaracterized my actions. I don't even care if you apologize. I just want you to stop accusing me of misconduct, starting now. Randomran (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, declarations of intent to use sock puppets, blatant NPOV and OR violations

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – See below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've become involved in an edit war in the article Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty surrounding these edits pushed by Ivantheterrible1234. NPguy and I believe they are clear violations of NPOV and OR. We have repeatedly expressed our willingness to work with Ivan if he has something constructive to add, but he has in return engaged in reversion, personal attacks, and threats of sock puppetry. I considered tagging the page for an RfC but based on Ivan's responses to my objections to his edits, I don't believe additional people weighing in against him will help. I would appreciate any help available. AzureFury (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm afraid we can only do so much here. WP:ANI would be a good place to ask, particularly about the threats of sock-puppetry. But it's imperative you try Article RFC and/or mediation for content issues. You might need to make an RFC on user conduct additionally for the conduct issues. The links to these 3 forms of dispute resolution can be found at WP:DR. Good luck~ Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfC for conduct was my first thought, but I'm the only one to say anything on his talk page, and the RfC for conduct description says at least two people have to warn the person. I don't know if this is professional or not but I just asked someone else to give him a warning on his talk page so we qualify for RfC on conduct... AzureFury (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's critical to get more editors involved first through Article RFC. (You might need to inform administrators (at ANI) about the sockpuppetry threats) If the new editors who get involved also encounter similar (if not the same) issues, then you can advance straight to RFC for conduct. You generally need to be somewhat involved in the dispute - even if someone here was to give a warning, it wouldn't be sufficient for them to certify the basis of the dispute because of the lack of involvement, including in how the content issues are tackled. If there's no evidence of doing so, the conduct RFC is usually deleted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put up an RfC right now, thanks for your advice. AzureFury (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hoxharian propagandist"

Resolved

 – Was handled awhile ago --Jaysweet (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Gennarous has accused User:Cberlet of being a "Hoxharian propagandist" (it's at Talk:Fascism#Chip_Berlet.27s_intentional_holding_back_of_article_progress; it was quite a while back so I'm not inclined to go look for the original edit unless he denies saying it.) Unless I am seriously misunderstanding, that's a pretty nasty accusation (the reference is presumably to Enver Hoxha, former dictator of Communist Albania). As far as I can tell, it is not based on anything factual: I've read a lot of Berlet's writing and can't recall him ever having anything nice to say about Hoxha, so it appears to be a generic attack, like calling someone a Nazi propagandist or a Stalinist propagandist. Seems to me to be beyond the realm of civility. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now that User:Cberlet has closed his account, and I don't know the circumstances of that, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. If (and I have no idea whether this is the case) this amounted to part of harassing someone out of Wikipedia, then I would think it would remain quite relevant.- Jmabel | Talk 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the dates, I was blocked for that incident for a week. I said it in the heat of the moment, when said user was IMO going out of his way to irritate me. In case you're curious as to the choice of words there is this article from FrontPage Magazine.[46] Thanks.

PS - Berlet has left Wikipedia in a huff after he was blocked for making a personal attack against someone on the Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche article (don't know who). I was not involved in that since it was during my block. He may have attacked Carol Moore I think?[47] After further looking at the edit summaries, Berlet may have been blocked for calling Jimbo Wales a "spineless coward".[48] - Gennarous (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't follow the whole Cberlet thing in depth, but as I understand it, it was not just a single incident that led to the block, but rather the culmination of a bunch of things. The single incident might have been the catalyst.

In any case, Gennarous correctly points out that this incident occurred two weeks ago, and that he as blocked for a week as a result. That is a stronger message than we could possibly send at WQA! ;D I am marking as resolved, since this has already been taken care of. Although, now I can add "Hoxharian propagandist" to my list of obscure-yet-scathing insults. ("Yo mama so fascist, she's a Hoxharian propagandist!") --Jaysweet (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued harassment

User: Your Radio Enemy has placed further messages on my talk page using harsh language. His nature appears unhealthy and obsessive. He has declared his intention to focus directly on me. His recent edits show that he is editing pages he has found in my own edit history. Libro0 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good, at least he is stopping his unhealthy and obsessive lies against me now. Starting sockpuppet proceedings because I disagree with him and replaced the images he stole from another website. Retaining information in articles that he and only he thinks should not be there. If it was there in the first place someone other than you thought it was important to include. He seems to play the system and drive people off Wikipeida. He is a bully and you have to stand up to bullies. He is the one who is guilty of continued harassment. Just look at [49], [50], and [51]. Uncivil harassment all from the innocent as the driven snow Libro0. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)