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:HarryAlffa

HarryAlffa has been acting uncivilly in Talk:Solar System for some time, but his behaviour has been tolerated by other users because he has to date skirted the boundary of outright personal attacks. But his most recent post has crossed the line, and I think he needs to be disciplined. Serendi^podous 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that he does not need to keep asking whether other editors on the page are "drunk," but it's not enough for him to be "disciplined." It seems to be mostly tongue-in-cheek to me. IronDuke 22:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The "drunk" comment posted by User:HarryAlffa is just one indication of what the regular editors at Solar System have been subjected to over the past few weeks. HarryAlffa has not managed to gain any support for his proposed changes there, and has since resorted to a series of disruptive actions. The most recent of these include the "drunk" comment, accusations of dishonesty, and most recently an utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and "checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous, and myself. To be perfectly honest, if not for my past involvement with the article in question, I would have blocked HarryAlffa for disruptive behaviour quite some time ago. He is certainly causing a great deal of problems for other editors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago, I compiled some of the user's actions, not sure whether it's really enough to ask for outside opinions about. Individually, HarryAlffa's actions are perhaps just questionable (although the latest "drunk" comment is over-the-top), but taken together, all these things are, I think, a problematic pattern that makes Harry very difficult to work with (in addition to his disregard for consensus).

He has been involved in an edit conflict at Solar System since 2008 July 30 (first edit diff). His edits are clearly based in good faith, primarily focusing on trying to make the wording of the lead clearer for novice readers. However, a number of other editors (including myself, User:Serendipodous, and User:Ckatz) have voiced opposition to many of his edits. He has explained his reasoning at the Talk:Solar System, but is not terribly respectful of other editors' differing opinions. For example, he has asserted that: "My original solution to a problem only I spotted is easier to maintain as it enumerates the dwarfs once, and I think wiki convention allows my version precedence when it comes to matters of taste." (diff)

Further borderline insults and otherwise uncivil behavior: He created Category:May contain nuts, and added the Solar System article to the category. He may have been making a legitimate criticism (see the corresponding essay, User:HarryAlffa/May contain nuts), but the title seemed to me like it may be calling the page's editors "nuts". Lately, he has accused editors of lying in edit summaries. He has also taken to calling User:Serendipodous "sod" and said that I "show a lack of cognitive ability".

I would very much welcome suggestions as to how to move forward with a mutually respectful, constructive collaboration. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The "drunk" comment didn't bother me. In fact I didn't even notice it. What bothered me was this comment:

if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one.

C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!

Serendi^podous 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to plead ignorance of wikipedia community activities, having not taken part in any.

I think it was Ashill who mentioned sockpuppets at one point, and having scanned the article I thought the three users fitted. Please do read "the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous," and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions.

Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and "acting" required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say. -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

HarryAlffa's Incivility

Serendipodous said I had "been acting uncivilly in Talk:Solar System for some time ... skirted the boundary of outright personal attacks". I will show this cannot be unsubstantiated.

All of these neutral comments were made by me in the process of discussion. You won't want to read them all, but scan them for "emotional" content.

• 22:44, 30 July 2008: Ok. Good point. I've changed it above using the language from the first paragraph.
• 21:42, 31 July 2008: Can we combine both a category list & a named object list? I would propose to replace the current list with this; ... I offered this combined list in the spirit of compromise and cooperation. I thank you for your previous objections because I think this new list is better than my original or the current list.
• 15:13, 1 August 2008: Alex, you said lists where rarely inappropriate, then your suggested replacement text contained 2 lists! You've proven that you cannot write about the Solar System without a list of planets!
• 16:57, 1 August 2008: Apologies for the "inappropriate" typo.
• 17:43, 3 August 2008: You cannot say that my version was verbose! Are you confusing the amount of screen-space it occupied with verbosity? It contained the same or a lesser amount of text! Almost all of the current second paragraph was subsumed into the new list and in a great deal less text.
• 18:46, 3 August 2008: perturbed objects, like comets, can't be said to populate the other regions they are passing through; asteroids only populate the Asteroid belt.
• 22:32, 30 July 2008: The Oort Cloud is still theoretical, but the theory includes objects.
• 13:59, 31 July 2008: I don't believe your assertion that "a few billion solar particles" are objects, is a useful one in the context of describing the Solar System.
• 19:59, 31 July 2008: So we agree that the Heliopause is a region? Yes, these object cross the Heliopause. I agree. The Heliopause does not contain them. Comets cross the inner region of the Solar System, but you would not say that it contains comets. You said the the Heliopause is unlike the Asteroid or Kuiper belts. Yes. I agree. The Asteroid and Kuiper belts contain objects. However, I would amend my proposal to ...
• 21:06, 31 July 2008: If people do not know the difference between apples and machine guns then a line explaining that difference would be useful. I expect a number of people will not have heard of the Heliopause ... so pointing out that the Heliopause is named for reasons other than for a population of objects seems pertinent and contrasting. Such contrast creates interest. So that explains why it is necessary. Cumbersome. No, it contains the data, reasons and interesting contrast.
• 18:27, 3 August 2008: "The readers assumption", thing I could have put better. The article leads the reader to believe that the Heliopause is another collection of objects. Surely you can see this is obvious {explanation} ... Can't you see that the very points you make arguing against including these points logically support putting them in?
• 21:12, 3 August 2008: It misleads the novice into thinking that the Heliosphere ...
• 13:13, 4 August 2008: I had resolved all of these problems by my previous (see my talk page) bold edit, which is what wikipedia encourages, but my changes were reverted
• 15:48, 5 August 2008: Again, my version of the lead solves all the problems I've raised ... It seems to me that no one else is empathising with the novice astronomer. Who else is likely to be seeking knowledge from the lead of this article?
• 10:13, 6 August 2008: the two bullet lists make it seem as if ALL the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune, (how many times have I said that?!)

From the 10th of August my patience starts to wear thin.

I think I've shown that I haven't been uncivil, so far!

The next comment shows some annoyance, but it gives a reason.

• 20:35, 10 August 2008: I did NOT say that Wikipedia was a dictionary, this is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, implying in your reply that I asserted something by nay-saying something I did not actually say, or imply. | ... | I was suggesting exactly what you said ... If something about ALL the planets doesn't fit in the Solar System, where else do ALL the planets fit?

My next comments show I don't suffer fools gladly. It's my only character flaw. :). But you couldn't describe it as uncivil.

• 18:04, 10 August 2008: it sounds like, from your use of the word Saga, that you are levelling some criticism at me for raising any questions? |...| solar wind fluctuates, therefore "steady flow" is simply incorrect ... get a dictionary, if your not sure about the application of a word, don't try to use the fact of your ignorance as an argument. Incessant can be applied this way. You have said both that "the solar wind is NOT constant in intensity/velocity", AND that it is "steady! Do you actually read what you write? ... I was trying to capture the dynamism (look it up) and the high speed of the solar wind, "steady flow" might describe pus seeping from a wound, but it is far to tame ... Sod, you're territorial. {his own suggestion} Your "first" sentence is actually a rewrite of my "original" sentence ... was met with resistance from you, but no logic.
• 19:40, 10 August 2008: Your frustration showed in your use of the word Saga ... I don't mind editors opinions coming closer to what I've been trying to tell them, but rewriting something just because of who the author is is irksome ...
• 20:19, 10 August 2008: Can you see that the reasons you have given for restoring the description of ... must also result in restoring the "ice" section. Even Sod edited this section to improve it. There are numerous references to "ice", such a common word MUST be explicitly explained. There is just no escaping this logic no matter what your emotional response is.
• 22:15, 13 August 2008: That's a good sentence, but the article itself says ... I would still like something a bit more exciting than "flow of charged particles" ... I would suggest the rewrite: ...

You still couldn't describe anything I've said as uncivil, nor have I come close to a personal attack. Later I will show that it was Sorendipodus who was uncivil.

Then at 20:55, 14 August 2008, came my expression of amazement at the stupidity of Ashill's comments on my suggested re-write. From his claim to be an ISM Scientist and my analysis of this and many of his other comments I concluded that his analytical skills would make him a poor scientist of any sort, I then took a wild guess that he was a computer technician - nothing wrong with that, I was one for many years. -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorendipodus's Incivility

I wouldn't actually describe Sorendipodus's comments as uncivil, but you can see the unprovoked, irrational emotion they show.

• 10:08, 31 July 2008: And it does contain objects. Quite a few billion solar particles, in fact.
• 14:52, 31 July 2008: And what? Are you going to argue that an interaction would contain objects? By definition it wouldn't. There's no point in bringing it up, any more then there is in saying, "The atmosphere contains no continents."
• 19:16, 31 July 2008: You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and machine guns.
• 20:03, 31 July 2008: Why? It's cumbersome and unnecessary. The article already explains what the heliopause is. Why add a line essentially saying that an apple is not a machine gun?

You will notice that all of the above were on 31 July, compare them to my neutral comments on the same day.

He then made two neutral comments on other editors, then his next comment to me issues a challenge, and the claims to a "first version" are not true.

• 13:47, 9 August 2008: Well I wrote the first version, so I think it reads better. And I reverted it back. Call me territorial.

He made some silly edits to my prose replacement for a bullet list, then later "remembers" that edit was his original! Add this to the unintelligent aspect of his other comments, then in much the same way as I dismiss President George W Gump as an idiot, from that point forward I considered Sorendipodus incapable of useful cogitation. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Borderline insult by creating User:HarryAlffa/May_contain_nuts

On this Wikiquette alert Ashill said of this, "the title seemed to me like it may be calling the page's editors 'nuts' " - I hadn't thought of that before, but neither had Ashill, otherwise he would have said something of the like before. The page I created was all about how boring the ingredients list for a sandwich was, apart from the famous phrase. It in no way could be thought to be saying that editors were nuts, being nuts would at least be interesting, not boring. Is Ashill being a little dishonest here, or is he just showing a lack of cognitive ability? -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

accusations of dishonesty in edit summaries

My comments in chronological order;

• Ckatz mislead about consensus opposition.
• Ckatz lied about consensus opposition. Both Serendipodous and ASHill made edits to Ice paragraph, therefore implicit aproval for keeping.

Myself and Serendipodous were actively editing this paragraph, as was Ashil, then he removed it.

So two active editors, then Ashill and Ckatz remove it. Can that be said to be concensus for removal? -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, Harry, I hope you don't mind me butting in, but in the section above titled "Sorendipodus's Incivility", the diffs you provided really do not look incivil; on the contrary, you refer to his editing as "silly" and his comments as "unintelligent". You seem to have shot yourself in the foot rather, and you might like to strike that section. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you butting in at all! That's what this section is all about! All buttinskis welcome!

I'm sure you missed out some of my crucial text above, because I put so much up. I tried to prevent this with the bold headings, but alas have clearly failed here!

I completely agree with you. Sorendipodus's comments where not uncivil. I had two headings for my own and his incivility. I said I didn't think I was being uncivil, nor Sore. In fact I did actually explicitly say this in the first line after Sorendipodus's Incivility- "I wouldn't actually describe Sorendipodus's comments as uncivil". I stick to what I said in that same line, "but you can see the unprovoked, irrational emotion they show." I do believe that I showed considerable patience in the face of this before describing his comments as either silly or unintelligent. I thank you for taking the time to comment :) -HarryAlffa (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:dfgarcia by User:Goodone121

Resolved

 – Both parties advised - dispute became stale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I was the 3rd party in a previous alert, and he repeatedly attacked me ,as you can see here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly forgot to sign. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As no-one responded in quite some time, I am tagging as "stale".Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am reopening, as dfg just was rude on my talk page(2nd item under "Mediation Cabal template"). I have warned him.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot, for part of an edit summary on my talk page dfg posted, "pbbbbt".Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a very trivial matter and there are no personal attacks here whatsoever. Filing a WQA as a first resort is not helpful, and failing to notify (or make a request to notify) the user who is subject to this complaint is a Wikiquette issue in itself - please take care in the future. The initial basis of this WQA is meritless, and politely discussing your differences with the other user may have had a more positive outcome.

That said, dfg, I am disappointed in your conduct after this WQA was filed. If you feel that the filing party's claims are meritless, and that they violated Wikiquette, stating so (with your reasons) would have been sufficient - this sort of edit summary and commentary is unprofessional and provocative, and engaging in that conduct is considered unseemly (please refrain from doing so in the future).

As such, there's nothing else to see here as this matter resolved itself as the dispute became stale. No action is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 25 August 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.

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield

• Template talk:Sexual orientation (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk · contribs)
• Alynna Kasmira (talk · contribs)
• Benjiboi (talk · contribs)
• Luna Santin (talk · contribs)

A recent dispute on Template talk:Sexual orientation has been getting a bit nasty, recently. In particular, when responding to this comment from Alynna Kasmira, another user named Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield said "you are just like a child with a semi-automatic pistol" and made a further allusion to (I think) what they called Alynna's "poor education." Benjiboi said that he found Nigel's comment offensive, to which Nigel replied that "offense is part of learning" and that he has an absolute right to offend. See Benjiboi's next reply and Nigel's following retort. When I reminded Nigel of his obligation to maintain civil dialogue, I was told to "suck the lemon" (I'm not sure if I should be offended or not?).

I would love to see a return to calm conversation, but doubt I can achieve that acting alone, at this point. A little help? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that Nigel does not actually seem to want to edit wikipedia (by his own admission) but only enters into disputes on talk pages. this would not normally be a problem, mind you - more inout is always better - except for his tendency to be offensive rather than productive. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr... Is this him?Is this about him? I only add these items because I started searching for the credentials of a Dr ... even I can call myself a Doctor on the Internet. However, when one asserts a level of knowledge on a subject, and decides they are "right" because they are a Doctor, one must determine veracity. There cannot be a large number of people with this EXACT name who are doctors. BMW(drive) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the links you gave, but I'm not sure this kind of 'identity outing' is within policy. I really don't know, but it makes me uneasy, so I thought I'd raise the issue. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has created a username that appears to be a complete, proper name including title. The name is easily Google-able. The user is either named that (and thus outed themself), made up a name (in which case, it might be a bad choice), is a "fan" of the person (which might be in bad taste), or used that name just to stir up controversy (which would be against policy). Any single user in Wikipedia, or even the general public can do the exact same search and find the exact same results. As such, no policy has been violated by me. I merely wanted to point out that the editor's focus on specific topics may indeed be related to a person who happens to go by the exact same name as the username chosen. BMW(drive) 23:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

that makes sense to me. apologies for the unnecessary tangent. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Concerns over policy vio = good editor :) BMW(drive) 00:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is me on YT, albeit interpreted by haters :) That is my full name, they are my academic credentials and have never been attributed to, in the topics under discussion. What area they are in need not concern anyone here, at this time. Now, what is the problem, other than hypersensitivity and the inability of some to see inverted commas? Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I did fancy adding a reference to an article, today :) Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a horrible feeling that the problem, as far as User:Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield is concerned, is everybody else. This isn't the first academic I've seen who has no time for unfamiliar community practices - and in this case Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks spring to mind. Unfortunately, those are the behavioural norms here and it is accepted practice to ban or block editors who commit repeated or serious breaches of them. Therefore I urge User:Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield to review both pages and to make an effort to play nicely with the other kids. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

hey! no academic bashing! Some of us are well-adjusted, you know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

SS: Then you have not read my comments and, obviously, know little about me (how could you?). 'Kids' is appropriate, in many cases, in an intellectual sense ... you are correct. Thank you for playing. Yours, Nigel, Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nigel, it's exactly comments like you just made that will eventually result in you being blocked on Wikipedia. This is a collective - a commune if you will - which you signed on to, and of which you agreed to the policies and goals by applying for a user account. In Wikipedia, all are equal, and all have equal say. One of the policies you agree to is to be civil to other editors. I left the "Welcome" template on your user page so that you would take a few moments to avail yourself of your roles, rights, and responsibilities. They are not optional. The reason this discussion appears here in Wikiquette alerts is because you took the first step: incivility towards other editors. The attempt now is to help you fix this before the next step, which would require administrative warnings and blocks. If you truly feel you have valid input into Wikipedia, stick around and use the rules you agreed to. Unlike society, where you are required to inherit the laws of where you live or visit, on Wikipedia you have made a conscious decision to accept a series of rules by your own personal choice. If you did not like the rules and conditions of use, then you had the opportunity to not join. BMW(drive) 11:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, all are equal, and all have equal say Apparently not, and the odd thing is, my funny little fellow, I am being civil. Perhaps not to your USA/Canadian sensibilities, but that is not my concern. Vandalise my talkpage, if you want, block me, if you will, ban me, if you must ... that will merely confirm my propositions. I think you overestimate the importance of this wiki. Do you think there is anything you can say to me, within this sphere, that is news? Again, I recommend you read my posts, with greater care, before you make any further, rash accusations. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, how would you feel if a new student joined one of your classes, and proceeded to disrupt the discussion by treating everyone with an air of insufferable superiority, because they were (let's say) an outstanding football player? How would you go about explaining that achievements in one field, no matter how impressive, are utterly irrelevant to how one should conduct oneself in other fields? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your false analogy is noted. It would depend on whether he knew more about the topic I was teaching and/or he was more skilled in conveying it and/or he had an evidenced, successful history of intellectual pursuit. If he qualified, on these points, heck, I would welcome him, with open arms, and maybe let him run the show ;) No more scenarios to aggravate the situation, please. Yours. Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You behave as if you are ignorant of how to behave on Wikipedia, yet you dismiss any concerns that your behaviour is improper, and you continue to needle and insult editors who are trying to help, based apparently on your opinion of your achievements outside of Wikipedia. In short, you behave like the student who thinks he knows more than the teacher. What makes you think the analogy is false? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tip ... stop 'helping' ... perhaps it will heal itself. I am sorry that the subtleties of my modification were not clear (although, from your response, I believe they were - crystal). You need not concern yourself with it. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to think that assistance will always be given to editors in good standing who post here asking for it. Having said that, I shall now watch and wait. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I should like to think ..." ........ Just joshing you :) :) :) ... "White riot, I wanna riot, white riot ..." Yours Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• As one of those slighted by Nigel's unique takes on expressing themselves by disparaging others I commend the effort to help introduce them to the civility and npa guidelines in place. Sadly, I sense that this user has little interest in following community protocols and they seem to want to assert their own platform as the truth for the rest of us to catch up to. This is welcome but only when done civilly which has been absent as of yet. We work with one another not as the most degreed or learned rules. Perhaps your opinions are correct but condescending and disparaging comments are counter-intuitive to constructive progress on all fronts. Banjeboi 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

At this moment the editor has had Wikipedia's requirements for civility explained clearly. He has been advised as to what portions of his editing were considered unacceptable. Wikipedia's policies exist as part of a welcome template on his talk page. He is also now completely aware that people do, indeed, monitor. This forum for Wikiquette is indeed the place for this discussion, and early on in an editors "career" is as good of a time as any. Civility has no "Canadian/American" interpretation - those who have the power to block come from around the globe, and jurisprudence has helped define what civility means inside this collective. Attempts to rationalize uncivil behaviour will likely be met with a simple "oh, phsaw!" Bans and blocks will not "confirm your propositions" [emphasis added] but merely confirm that you did not wish to behave according to a well-founded policy framework. All that being said, the editor has been warned more than once - additional incivility should not require more warnings, and an escalating series of blocks should be the immediate response to additional incivility by this editor should it occur. We should not have to hammer this point home so firmly, but as an educated invidual, I would expect that the editor understands now. As far as I'm concerned, this specific entry is closed. BMW(drive) 11:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BB: No, because 'you' have learned a few new things, so it has been valuable. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BMW: You truly have no appreciation of cultural differences. No matter. The remainder of your corporate diatribe, once again, confirms my propositions. Now, stomp your feet and block me, if you will ... if it is permanent - seeya, wouldn't wanna be yer ... if not, catch you on the flipside. The best way for this entry to be closed, is for 'you' to stop posting and move on to something that really matters. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"You truly have no appreciation of cultural differences" Now THAT should receive nomination for "Joke of the Day" somewhere. You make me laugh, Patch Adams, you really do. BMW(drive) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly you do not. It is also apparent, that you have never participated in formal, international, intellectual debate, because, if you had, you would understand your deficiency (or, more correctly, you would not have it). You are on a Wikihigh. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Stop biting the hands that try and help you, Doc. Closing this discussion lets you get on with your editing. Knowing policy helps prevent you from getting blocked. Take the help that's given to you, or leave it. BMW(drive) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not replying to any one post or person in particular, but we needn't set the hounds on the guy, just yet; I wasn't exactly asking for people to google up dirt on the fellow and toss out ominous threats of imminent banning or all of that. It's no small surprise someone might get their back up in response to a confrontational approach, like that (I confess I may have gotten us off to a bad start, which was why I posted here to begin with). Not trying to chide anyone with this, but please do bear in mind that text carries no tone of voice and no body language, and that it's all too easy to infer negative intentions when someone is perceived to be an "adversary" -- I find that reminding myself of that can be quite helpful, sometimes. I do sincerely appreciate the effort to assist, but I think we need to bear in mind that civility, as a concept, means more than just using pretty words or citing policies: in my mind, it's the practice of respecting or accommodating others and trying to negotiate win-win outcomes when possible, without pushing people out unless we have to. The last thing I'm trying to do with this comment is start an argument or put others down, but for Nigel's sake in particular it seems best if I'm not completely silent on this point. I think he caught the drift, so I'll happily see how it goes from here on out. Once again, a sincere thanks to all who responded, I do appreciate it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Aradic-es

This user has recently made some post which I considered incivil, but I could not be completely sure. Any accusation always appeared to be hidden. I think, however, that with this post:

• Diff

the user has crossed the line for civil behavior. I have tried reponding to his/her previous posts as best I could, but I have never called the user an "amateur" and/or declared myself a "universal expert". I don't think I deserve to be labeled "member of anti-diacritics squad" or part of some "hidden illegal attempt". There is a user called User:Aradic-en which has shown similar behavior, but I don't know if it is the same person.--HJensen, talk 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing an issue, based on the diff's provided. The user seems to feel his or her edits/opinions are not being heard. On top of that, is it possible that someone has been reverting their edits when they are related to accents on people's names (aka diacritical marks)? For example, we anglos tend not to type "Nenad Zimonjić", and instead use "Zimonjic". His real name includes the diacritical mark above the "c". If you go to Nenad Zimonjić you will see the diacritical mark is there on his main article page. BMW(drive) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I may just be too sensitive. I just think the tone and all the unreferenced accusations and namecalling were incivil. And the whole idea of presenting my "rhetorics" in such a grossly misleading and insulting way stroke me as being in poor taste.--HJensen, talk 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I have mentioned:I just use the same rhetorics as other poeple do. Take a look at the following discussion [1] [2] [3] and at talk pages about Novak Đoković, Franjo Tuđman, Goran Ivanišević and so on... --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I won't try the diacritics (except for in French, because I know those :) ). Policy is here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(standard_letters_with_diacritics). Have a look for example at this NHL player's page: Dick_Tarnstrom Oh look, diacritics throughout! Oh look, a redirect from the English spelling to the Swedish spelling. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and if I read the naming conventions properly, I think that his name should have only included the diacritics in the title, and not in the rest of the article. The issue overall may involve specific uses inside articles that mention a player whose name includes a diacritic, things might become...interesting. Do we follow the standard policy for Wikilinks says that you only include a Wikilink the FIRST time you use the term, and thus would only include diacritics the first time the person's name is mentioned in the article? I would expect not, again, this is the English Wikipedia and the English eye more commonly sees the anglicized version of the name. The player's article should include diacritics, and a redirect created using the anglicized version. Anywhere else, you use the English spelling. I can completely understand the frustration when you try and use diacritics and others revert your changes. I do not believe it is "anti-diacritics", it is more "using policy". It may seem confusing to those whose first language uses diacritics, but if the rest of us edited in say ... the French Wikipedia, we would be expected to use accents! BMW(drive) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let me add the short version: reverting someone's edits is unfortunate. I don't blame the editor for becoming a bit cheesed for having accents reverted. Quoting Wikiscripture can help, but make sure we quote the right ones. If we politely explain/point to policy and do not belittle someone's original language, it's a smoother process. Wikiquette is a 2 way street. Hopefully, by understanding where diacriticals fit now will make it easy for everyone. BMW(drive) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add an even shorter version: This was about incivil behavior of an editor. Not an issue of diacritics. I have not reverted accents except for the page on Djokovic whenever I thought it was consensus. Not anywhere else! So where is my side of this so-called "two way" street of Wikiquette? I am not the one adressing others with unreferenced accusations, name`calling, misleading presentations of my behavior and other insults --HJensen, talk 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

HJensen is absolutely correct. This is not about diacritics. This is about the incivil behavior of Aradic-es. Tennis expert (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Same rhetorics again. "My behaviour is correct and others' are uncivil". --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In order to understand the behaviour you have to acknowledge and admit to the source. From the posts I've seen, there were a whole whack of incivilities in both directions, whether intentional or not. The user is rightly saying so above. Personally, I hope that if the biggest issue was ABOUT diacritics, which then caused ire in both directions, the explanation way up above addresses that issue. It's now up to Aradic-es to say "thank you, that was the cause" or "no, it was not", and for both sides to admit they went a bit out of control on this one. Hinting that someone is less intelligent, or less qualified to edit because their first language is not English will cheese them off. The more that the all parties refuse to acknowledge they participated in this conflagration, the longer it will take to solve. BMW(drive) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, please show where I said or hinted that anyone was less intelligent, less qualified. You seem to be saying that because a lot of people are engaged in a heated debate, then it is permissable that I should be personally attacked at length as shown by the posted diff? Am I correct?--HJensen, talk 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What I said was this: if you look back at your comments, or even the comments of your group, do you see anything that might have pissed off this editor, causing him to get angry? None of his comments were crude towards you, it was obviously an angry expression of frustration at what appeared to be a group of people who were taking action against him, some of whom were being in appropriate towards him. BMW(drive) 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

a) I don't belong to any group (not that I know of) b) His comments in the diff above are grossly incivil and directed at my personally; i.e., crude towards me.--HJensen, talk 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Have you read the diff that you first provided? Take a look at it as an outsider. It's very clear to me that he uses the word "you" as a plural, and he responds exactly to the question you asked him. He identifies HOW he's being treated, and by WHOM. He very obviously sees that a group of editors (unfortunately including yourself) are taking his contributions lightly. I see no direct attack at the singular "you" except "our dear Norse PhD HJensen", if you call that an attack. He links to a discussion about diacritics that you apparantly sided against the use of them, so you are a member of the "anti-diacritics squad" ... is that an uncivil attack? Um, no ... you are a one of a group of editors that spoke out against using diacritics. BMW(drive) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never, ever, spoken against diacritics. So member of "anti-diacritics squad" (a very nasty term, imo); absolutely not! (And I do not read the "you" as in plural; if it is meant as plural, it is of course a different matter.)--HJensen, talk 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Samuel_Webster

As someone who works hard to resolve and mediate issues on Wikipedia, I do realize that this leaves me open for attack. However, a strange dispute with User:Samuel_Webster has escalated to a point that I actually asked for page protection on my Talk page. I am loathe to submit this, as I hate to admit that I was unable to solve what seems to be such a minor issue. In fact, I waited until this morning, hoping the other editor would have "slept on it" and reconsidered their position.

I first encountered the user during an AN/I related to the spelling of Chinese Olympic venues. The editor was accused of reverting "Centre" (the IOC standard) to "Center" (the American English version) on almost all articles. It was a contentious issue. I attempted to assist, and supported the editor by pointing out that the English version of the official Beijing games website had to be used as the official English title. I used the word "sadly" in my description, because as a Canadian journalist, we generally use British English.

Not long after, the editor posted a question on my talk page, asking why I was "sad". I replied, using the phrase "Bastardization of the English Language" in quotations (showing it was not original thought). I replied advised the user in that same post that although I would be happy to help in future issues, I would not discuss additional lingustic issues. It should be noted that our sister project, Wiktionary defines bastardization as "A degradation of a language caused by the passage of time or geographical remoteness".

Three days later, I recieved a new edit full of personal attacks. I immediately reverted this change as vandalism, as I believe that being called prejudiced and racist on my own personal talk page. Although this is an issue of no personal attacks, I wanted the to flag the edit to my talk page loudly to advise the editor that they were crossing the line. They also posted the exact same post on their talk page.

Of course, I will not remove such filth from someone else's page, but I put an angry reply to being called a racist on the user's Talk page. Yes, calling someone a racist and prejudiced in writing on a public forum is a major personal attack. The user reverted that post as vandalism, however left the offensive racism commentary on their talk page, thus leaving their "attack" visible, but my "defence" was removed.

I re-added my defence, and added additional information, responding to their original accusations, asking the user to leave me alone permanently, which the editor again reverted thereby STILL leaving his personal attacks visible, but removing any chance of me defending myself.

I used Template:uw-npa1 as the editor still did not seem to understand his incivility, which was promptly reverted, and the editor decided to reciprocate, using the same template, but stating that "Please do not make refer to dialects or other aspects of culture that differ from your own as "bastardizations". This goes against WP:CIVIL".

As this specific template and the reasoning used was not valid as per WP:CIVIL, I reverted it. I then asked for 1-day page protection on my Talk page, and re-emphasized my request for the editor to leave me alone.

At this point, an editor (User:FisherQueen) with whom I have a positive relationship from past dealings intervened, and the discussion unfortunately spilled over onto their talk page. This diff on their page, followed by this one by FisherQueen on the editor's page are, I believe, key replies.

The bottom line is this: A personal attack is defined as one directed at a specific editor. Calling someone "prejudiced" and "racist", are personal attacks. Using a term that our own sister project defines as simply "a degradation of a language" is not a personal nor "cultural" attack. Continuing to have such racist comments appear on a Talk page, plus the removal of attempts to "defend" myself from such comments is merely a continuation of those personal attacks. I have asked the editor to a) remove the offensive comments against me, b) understand WP:CIVIL (and therefore understand the use of warning templates) to no avail. FisherQueen has asked the editor to remove the offensive comments, to which the editor replied a very loud no.

This incident is very close to being an RfC, and indeed, although ideally I would like to have the accusations of racism completely struck permanently from Wikipedia, I'm not going there yet.

In short, can someone please help this user understand policy and their actions. BMW(drive) 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidemo

This user "acrchives" or deletes anything they don't like. If you check the Barack Obama article and the Family of Barack Obama article you'll see that they have archived discussion that hadn't been ended. This user is not an administrator, but acts like one. You'll also notice that they have archived many other things they don't like, and several users have asked wikidemo to stop deleting things on wikidemos talk page. This user is disruping discussion and has been warned not to. They need to be blocked. This is also very POV ... look at the explanations given for archiving, mostly because wikidemo decides the conversation is pointless, not because other editors think so. ChingyThingy (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs ... I see MizaBot doing archiving every 5 days automatically. Thanks. BMW(drive) 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a bad faith report from a sock. ChingyThingy (talk · contribs) has been editing for less than a day, yet this canvassing for deletion of an article [4] and posting a Wikiquette alert shows considerable knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Last 100 edits do not show any edits to that discussion page by any anonymous users, so the user is not likely a IP-cum-NewUser. Odd that the user has not edited any Obama pages themself. Interesting also the contribution to an editors (the canvas) page immediately after creating personal pages. BMW(drive) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

She reverted an unsigned comment on a talk page (which, incidentally, disagreed with her position) while that talk page was the grounds of a dispute. When I told her not to, she made it a point to ignore me, even bringing up my posting history as evidence that I was less knowledgeable. --Raijinili (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this unsigned comment? The one where she is called stupid, a rabble rousing extremist and dumb dumb dumb. What is your point? As far as I can see, she had every right to revert it. Skipper 360 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I made the comment, but Sarah thought it was an IP. I wrote two paragraphs - the second was so different it confused her into thinking the first was an unsigned attack! If she knew it was me she'd have given as good as she got. It was all over in a flash - but Raijinili has bizarrely been stalking me - that's how he got to Sarah.

He wants me to take him here myself, and nobody would believe me if I told them the reason why! He encountered me in 'Redirects for discussion' and, in passing, suggested I was lying when I said in that I was confused by Bardcom's "ad hominem" spelling mistakes! I told him to retract it, and he called me a liar again, more directly. I threatened some kind of 'resolution' and he won't let it go! I haven't had the time to open anything yet, but he keeps asking me to do it! He wants to prove I was lying in here - how, I have no idea. I was simply telling the truth. I think he is desperate to try this place out.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Having looked through the past discussion between both of you, I think you have a point. I was puzzled when he brought this up, there was no reason for it. Just a thought, could it be he was trying to get at you, knowing you made the comment to Sarah? Or am I just suspicious by nature?Skipper 360 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah noticed he has only 200 edits over something like 3 years - I think that was her only reply to him. When I looked I noticed a lot of 'battle gaming' and things like that (some kind of hybrid video type I think). I wondered if he may see a challenge in me regarding the AGF issue? He says he has evidence of me lying that goes beyond his need for AGF - perhaps he wants to test that out? All I can say is that he'd do well to have a gander at my own edit history if he thinks I'm a pushover. I don't go out to challenge people but I wouldn't say I was exactly quick to lie down! Whatever is making him tick, he certainly found Sarah though me, no question about that. But I've honestly no idea what his motives are. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis

User Matt Lewis made a suggestion on Talk:Republic of Ireland [5]. After a long and largely fruitles debate I decided to post a detailed response, numbered as his suggestion had been[6]. To try to keep my post intact I added a comment, <!-- Please do not split this post. Reply below -->, between each numbered point. Matt's response was a vitriolic outburst, accusing me of arrogance and what-not - not for what I said, but for the comment line[7]. I replied, annoyed but not abusive, suggesting ways that he could respond without disrupting my post[8]. His answer was to break up my post, exactly as I had asked him not to[9][10][11]. A friendly post to his talk page, suggesting a way around this[12] was met with this response[13]. Of course, I am now up to three reverts so I have run out of options. I have been told that I "can't dicate how people reply to my post", which is undoubtedly true, but it's a matter of wikiquette. Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Scolaire (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to protect my 'package' proposal from breaking down. Basically, I'd like to apologise for any offense caused. I can argue like a really cold and ruthless type of person at times, but I am nothing like that at all. It's partly about editing time for me - I give far too much to this place, but I know I can and have helped it in many ways. For my sins.

My very serious 'package' proposal at Republic of Ireland ('proposal' as it came to be) is too important to me to let someone make a mid-poll 'point-system' appraisal unchecked - to make the 'rule' (or strong appeal) that I cannot personally deal with it point by point. I simply had to. I think I've made a good job of avoiding the mess I am certain the page would fallen into had a number of people tried to answer it in the way I think was intended(?) These things have to be managed at times - I feel that is all I have done here.

The discussion in the poll was in my eyes very productive, and is even going on as we speak. Everything is sorted now, IMO re Soclaire's 'appraisal.. Please understand the person who wrote the 'proposal' (myself) must be cut a little slack when it comes to replying to things. The 'un-clinical' way it was written (a bit too much a continuation of our dispute in my talk page, IMO), would have made it very unfair if I just left it as its own as a self-supporting thing. I actually saw no call for it - but it's there - and I've answered it, and have spent the last hour or two keeping the poll (I hope) in order. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, you're very lucky you weren't blocked yet because your conduct on this matter has been absolutely unacceptable. Users are entitled to make their views known in a manner that keeps their posts in tact, particularly if they make that request - the mere fact you made the proposal does not give you ownership of Wikipedia, package deal or not. I am going to restore Scolaire's post as it was desired - if you continue to refactor these comments, you will be blocked. You are welcome to reply like every other user (i.e. below the person's post). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

After all the work I've put into it today keeping it on track? I certainly won't revert it (who wants to be blocked?) But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me - and in point form. I told him as soon as he wrote it (and waited a while for a reply) that if he took away the points I'd reply underneath it - but if he kept the points then I wish to reply under each point. I made MY perfectly fair desire here as clear as I could - but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged.

Why I am unlucky I'm not blocked? Scolaire didn;t have to at all revert my comments when I inserted them. His comments were not made any less readable at all. The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like. I put a lot of work in making his MID-POLL 6-point appraisal NOT bog-down the poll (and he wanted people to reply in point form - MID-POLL - why?) - all the neatness you saw was down to me. I hope you are an admin who appreciates people's work - but you say I am lucky I'm not already blocked? I don't get it. I can either help keep things like this together for Wikipedia, or I can watch them become a total mess. Which is best?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)