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

Wikiquette request on User:WeisheitSuchen

User:WeisheitSuchen has continued to accuse me of forum shopping over a span of a few months now. The legacy refers to a mistake I had committed at the very start of my usage of complaint forums when I had posted on multiple forums. On being pointed out by another user, I had corrected that and apologised. However, the accusations against me have continued by WeisheitSuchen.

• Here: [1] WeisheitSuchen says

• "Makrandjoshi's view isn't disruptive; you are the one who has done the forum shopping and is attempting to undo the previous decision on Careers360 because it didn't go your way" (For information, Makrandjoshi is another user who repeatedly harassed me and got warned here,[2] and here[3] by the administrators.)
• "I said it was the end of the discussion because you've been making the same arguments and forum shopping for months."
• "I'm sorry that you don't realize that the time difference between August and November constitutes "months." Forum shopping (here + RSN twice + Wikiquette etc.) isn't discussion; neither is continuing to argue for something long after productive alternative solutions have been suggested, repeatedly, by several different people."

• Here [[4]WeisheitSuchen says:

• "I'm referring to your penchant for forum shopping and bringing arguments up repeatedly."

• Here [5] Weisheitsuchen says

• "Forum shopping is the name of the specific behavior, as it is known in Wikipedia. How is referring to a behavioral guideline uncivil? If I called you stupid, that would clearly be uncivil (and untrue--I often disagree with you, but I don't think you're stupid). If you really think that referring to a specific behavioral guideline is uncivil, by all means take me to the Wikiquette board. I'm confident about what others would say about it, so I don't mind you getting an outside opinion."

In all the above links, I have told Weisheitsuchen politely yet firmly to stop making the accusations. He has not. My request is that WeisheitSuchen should stop making such accusations and stop using words like "forum shopping" again against me.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My question for others is this: is Wifione correct in stating that "The term 'forum shopping' is uncivil"? To me, it seems that doesn't meet the requirements of a personal attack. I'd like to hear some other opinions though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As another editor involved in the articles in question, I have seen that few things such reliability of news articles, have been brought up again and again by User:Wifione, despite several RSN discussions, inputs from other editors. Even though I am reluctant to use WP:FORUMSHOP, these repeated discussions over and over again can be best described by WP:FORUMSHOP. --TheMandarin (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it's true, I have a good faith belief that this behavior constitutes forum shopping (whether Wifione's behavior actually is forum shopping is a topic for another board, not this one). Assuming that I have that good faith belief, is it uncivil of me to discuss Wifione's behavior with him? I prefer in situations like this to talk through behavior expectations with the editor, as I have in this case. I could go to WP:ANI for every little infraction, but that would waste the time of many people. I do agree with calling a spade a spade: "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks." Does my use of the phrase "forum shopping" constitute name-calling or personal attacks? If so, what is the alternative process for dealing with inappropriate behavior? I'd like to hear from Wifione what he would like me to do instead of referring to a specific behavior guideline. Does he want me to take him to ANI immediately, without prior discussion, for any behavior I feel is outside the guidelines? I can do that if that's what he wants; it's not my preferred method of dispute resolution, but I'm willing to do so for this editor if that's requested of me. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think this matter needs discussing here in the first place For ex, see another unrelated RSN discussion, where repeated questions on the same topic is characterized as WP:FORUMSHOP. Pointing out Forum shopping does not constitute personal attacks. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the forum shopping stopped months ago, then bringing it up now would seem irrelevant and probably (depending on the context) uncivil. If it is still occurring, then mentioning it appropriately isn't uncivil, but the tricky bit there is 'appropriately'. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. (I asked Dougweller to take a look at this as an uninvolved admin.)

"Months ago" is November, plus he currently has two parallel discussions on two articles (as pointed out by another editor). When I cautioned Wifione against going to RSN with the intention of going elsewhere until he found people to agree with him, he replied that "Dispute resolution is a standard process on wikipedia. Slowly staking up the dispute on higher and higher boards is a standard process of wikipedia. You would be incorrect in requesting a fellow editor to not approach a higher board - I would be referring to the Mediation/Arbitration viewpoints, in case the situation demands so." If he has apologized for forum shopping, I don't recall seeing it; he doesn't seem to show any remorse for doing so, which is why I brought it up.

Generally, Wifione seems to believe that if you ask someone nicely to stop making an accusation that you should have no consequences for the behavior that prompted the warning in the first place. Wifione has done the same with others in response to COI questions and other issues. Wifione, what outcome would you like to see here? Asking editors to simply stop making accusations when they feel your behavior is inappropriate isn't a good solution. Do you want issues to always go to the appropriate noticeboard, as has now been done for the COI questions? Is that what you would consider a "civil" response, rather than talking things out with you as I and others have attempted? What do you envision as the appropriate way to bring up concerns, whether they are about forum shopping, COI, or other issues? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is often possible to approach a dispute in a way that the other party feels less attacked. In general, I try not to tell people that they're guilty of this or that offense, because that very naturally provokes defensiveness, and ultimately, the question isn't whether or not he's guilty of forum-shopping. Eventually, the question goes back to an actual edit, which is either a good one or a bad one.

If it seemed to me that someone was forum-shopping, I'd probably never use that phrase. It's not about honesty; it's about effectiveness. "Calling a spade a spade" is actually a counter-productive strategy, nine times out of ten. It very seldom leads to a speedy resolution, which is much more important than calling a spade anything.

In a forum-shopping situation, I'd probably just point out: "You asked this question in forum X on date Y, and this is what happened. You asked again in forum P on date Q, and the same thing happened. I don't see why things will be different now in forum J. Are you advancing any new arguments this time?" Something like that. It's much less likely to put the person on the defensive, and altogether less likely to result in a thread here at WQA.

Just my two bits... Please note that I'm not saying that you, WeisheitSuchen, have been uncivil or broken any rules. I just think that a slightly different approach to such situations can result in less static. It's something to think about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WeisheitSuchen, a good faith request again from me. In the future, if you really feel I've done something wrong, raise that up with me once - and beyond that do go to the appropriate boards/forums as I do believe that keeping on mentioning statements like "forum shopping" disrupt the talk page environment for a fellow editor. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will agree to mentioning things to you once per incident and then taking it to the appropriate notice board. However, the forum shopping you engaged in last November does not exclude you from warnings for that in the future if you engage in this behavior again. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blech! Why would you respond to a request that you stop making claims about "forum shopping" by making another accusation of forum shopping? Are you hoping to offend, because I can't think of any positive consequence of talking to someone that way. Blech!

WeisheitSuchen, find a way to talk about the behavior of others without pushing buttons and provoking them. Wifione, please let me know if this provocation continues. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Comment struck as intemperate and unhelpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Simanos and personal attacks

Work in progress; comments welcome

Simanos has continuously attacked myself and other editors. Moreover, he believes that he still hasn't attacked anyone, and done nothing wrong. User talk:Simanos is full of personal attacks from him, as well as my page User talk:Warrior4321. Further attacks are even found on Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. warrior4321 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User Simanos protected a page from a vandal, a proven sock-puppet IP who was banned and blocked several times and kept evading his blocks by changing IP and using the same insults on various editors (not only me). All I did after reverting the vandalism several times was to provide info on the talk page about the IP-hopper's racial slurs and aggression and also logic behind the reverts (not that it was needed against such an obvious vandal, but I did provide it, along with others like Ministerforbadtimes and Nev1 and others). Then I told the evader to go away and that we editors of wikipedia would remain vigilant against his abuse and to get a life. Warrior4321 went on a crazy spree of warning various editors for inexistant crimes/aggression, not just me. And I called a spade a spade. That is all. He's embarrassing himself by continuing this charade really. Not to mention his past on that kind of pages either... Simanos (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that you repeatedly attacked other editors and myself. Fine, the IP editor is now a banned-sockpuppet, that doesn't explain why you constantly attacked me with insults. You were directed to Wikipedian guidelines such as (WP:NPA) several times, yet you never really understood it or just plainly ignored it. You still don't understand that you -are- attacking editors and you need to stop, that is why I am requesting support from the community, so that further events as such won't occur. So, no I'm not "embarrassing myself" just because I'm asking support from the community. Rather, you are embarrassing yourself when you don't know what being civil and personal attacks are after constant explanations.

Furthermore, please do not state what you do not know. I did not go on a "crazy spree" and give various editors warnings that they did not deserve. Every editor which received a warning deserved it. warrior4321 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Be the IP user a proven sock, it doesn't justify your inappropriate behavior, like attacking this User:Warrior4321 who at the beginning did nothing apart from placing a warning template on your talk page, believing you are overdoing it. You could do much better than calling him "crazy", IMHO. And you are still using words like "crazy spree" here. Seriously, That's not really very civil. Also, if you disliked the sock(neither do I), you could have reported him @ ANI earlier, instead of flaming at him. Others might not be very pleasant to see you two flamming on each other.Blodance (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not attack the sock-puppet, did you even read the talk-page? I did not call him any names or insults. Warrior4321 is the only one flaming and not leaving this to rest. He shouldn't even have started it. Simanos (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole first paragraph of this section is a joke. Warrior4321 says I continuously attacked him and other editors(plural) when it's only one other editor in this whole matter (the banned sock-puppets, all of them). Even if I had attacked them (which I didn't) he's just using here another impression tactic by using a vague plural "editors" weasel word. Then he goes on to link entire pages instead of specific examples to show off again, but there is no substance in his accusations. That is why other editors like Nev1, MFBT, etc actually supported me in all 3 pages he linked. Warrior4321 jumped the gun in warning me, he shouldn't have. And he's not being a man and admitting he was wrong so we can drop this. That is all. Simanos (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did read the talk page, and I think although that sock is a major dick indeed, calling him a "Iranian POV pusher" and telling him to "get a life" is still not very civil. His wrong does not make you right. As User:Warrior4321 did not seem to be involved in the argument between you and the IP sock, I don't think there's a ground to assume bad faith. So, to be honest, you really look more like the one who's flamming than him. Look, you already started to abf on me, and maintained that he is exclusively responsible for this. This is not very cool. Chill, dude. Blodance (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a POV pusher is common is Wikipedia and not a personal attack or insult, especially when there's ample evidence to prove it as is the case here (and when there's proven banned sock-puppet involved). I'm sorry but you're stretching your credibility. BTW Warrior4321 does have a past with me and with the article that you missed. You're not doing a good job so far mate. Warrior4321 jumped the gun in warning me and should apologise. He should also apologise for wasting our time and for creating this preposterous wiki alert here. I'm only calling a spade a spade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPADE Simanos (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blodance is saying that I am not involved in the discussion of personal attacks between you and the IP editor. This is true, I am not involved in that discussion, so he is "doing a good job so far" [in trying to solve this dispute]. He is not lying. Please read what he is writing carefully. warrior4321 17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Look, Simanos, calling someone a POV pusher is a personal attack, and is not highly looked upon. I would highly recommend that you back off here and either drop the issue or (even better) apologize to Warrior4321 for lashing out against him unnecessarily. NW (Talk) 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• You keep citing WP:SPADE, yet entirely ignoring WP:NOSPADE which is right there in the See Also section of the WP:SPADE page. And you don't even understand the spirit of WP:SPADE. "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks."/"there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other." you can point out his inappropriate behavior, but it doesn't automatically grant you the right to be uncivil and/or insult him personally. For example, "This is POV due to... yet you still keep promoting it despite the consensus, therefore you look like a POV pusher" is not an insult; "this Iranian POV pusher" is. And, please make one thing clear: I'm not a lawyer defending Warrior4321, nor an investigator trying to find out "which of you is guilty". I'm an uninvolved editor trying to resolve this dispute. The dispute emerges from the article talk and I've only checked the talk page and both your talkpages, I did not go all the way to check all your previous contribs. This is not that reasonable. If you two did have issues before, please explicitly state what it was. Being excessively aggressive does nothing helpful to make you right. Contrastly, I believe many would, after seeing all your comments here, think you are the wrong side.Blodance (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misusing the nospade page. It is an advice, it states "It can be tempting when dealing with such individuals to "call a spade a spade" However, doing so is not a necessary part of dealing effectively with them, and it can be a very bad idea." and also "At this point, many of us will be tempted to declare that our opponent is clearly a "POV pusher" or a "vandal" or "has a conflict of interest" or "is trolling". This public accusation is sometimes referred to as "calling a spade a spade", but such name-calling or labeling can be uncivil and can even cross the line into a personal attack.". Note the "can be" in every sentence. It means it isn't always. In my case as the SPADE page says "Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review.". This is sort of the case here. I made no personal attacks against the IP sock, I merely presented facts and the truth (with evidence). And Warrior4321 was the one who cited the erroneous policy. Simanos (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIN, dude... Anyway, I'm giving up mediating - User:Simanos seems to have a strong intention to "win the war between him and Warrior4321". I don't think Wikiquette alerts can resolve this dispute, therefore I recommend closing it as Stuck. Blodance (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't give up, think of the children :p Seriously though, I agree with you, this has been a complete waste of time for all involved and should be closed. Simanos (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As the guy who first wrote the NOSPADE page, here's my perspective. "Calling a spade a spade" is incredibly misguided, counterproductive behavior, no question. It doesn't make anything better. Doing things that don't make anything better is not an appropriate use of the Wiki. Personal frustration should be vented offline, and calling someone a vandal, troll, or whatever, never helps. Do things that help, and don't do things that don't help.

The rule to remember is "comment on the content, not the contributor". If you find yourself making any claims about another editor as a person, and what their nasty motives must be, then you're behaving inappropriately and should stop. Learn to deal with disputes at the content level, and not at the personal level. If you don't know how to do that, ask. Please let me know if any of this is unclear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But I didn't call anyone a banned sock-puppet POV pusher. I showed evidence that they were. There is a difference. I was merely informing the other editors of that page of facts that they may not be aware of, to put the argument in perspective and that I was not edit-warring, but reverting vandalism. Say "reverting vandalism" in the edit summary is not enough, I like to provide evidence. I also commented on the content of the IP editor and gave logical reasons why he was wrong. The facts about him being banned were added bonus ^.^ Simanos (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you called anyone anything. I tried to keep my remarks very general. If you're correcting POV edits, you can do that based on the edits, whether they're made by a banned POV-pusher or by Jimbo Wales. An edit summary of "reverting POV edits" is enough, especially if you explain on the talk page why the edits are bad. (Hint: it's not because of who made them.) If someone is evading a ban, go to someone who can do something about that - an admin. We'll block them if we can see they're a banned user. Talking to them is beyond pointless.

Also, it's really best to reserve the word "vandalism" for blatant cases such as inserting dirty words, page blanking, etc. If it could possibly look like a content dispute to any observer, then it's a content dispute. If you need help dealing with such a situation, I and many other admins are happy to take a look at it. Simply "informing editors" of another editor's identity or block record is not a very good strategy, in the sense that it tends not to do anything useful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, all I'm saying is that by this logic the "WP:WIN, dude..." that Blodance wrote above to me could also be considered a veiled personal attack. Think about it. You need to grow a thicker skin. That troll of a sock should not have been given the satisfaction of this waste of time of and Warrior4321 is the primary culprit. Simanos (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, maybe Warrior4321 has a past with you, but please explicitly state why would *I* have such a strong intention to "defeat" you and therefore must resort to personal attacks. I don't. Thanks. Blodance (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you had a strong intention to defeat me. I said that given this reasoning (for my warning) a similar warning could be issued for your statement which was a veiled personal attack of sorts (implying I'm an arrogant fluke who wants to win arguments on the internet). Please do not distort my words and vandalise what I say so clearly. I don't actually think you should be warned (nor me) Simanos (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The only past I had with Simanos was a small discussion on Talk:Battle of Thermopylae and his own talk page. I have never been once been uncivil to him, the same cannot be said for him. And when you say Look, all I'm saying is that by this logic the "WP:WIN, dude..." that Blodance wrote above to me could also be considered a veiled personal attack. you are incorrect. Directing editors to guidelines that they are simply advising you should read is not an attack. Did you ask the IP editor to read WP:NPOV? No, you chose to tell him to "get a life" and "get lost" and called him "our iranian IP POV pusher". Those are personal attacks. Furthermore, Warrior4321 is the primary culprit. Excuse me? I have only tried to let you understand what a personal attack is as well as trying to stop you from further insulting me. warrior4321

It seems that you had even insulted editors on Talk:Battle of Thermopylae. Hahaha that link you gave says: It is based on material from the Wikipedia article "Battle of Thermopylae"., good going dude, you made me laugh. Epic Fail on source finding. Evenyour own link though contradicts your claim of 15000 Persians. - Statements as such are personal attacks. warrior4321 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the same IP sock dude. Get better arguments and grow a thicker skin. We can't all be humourless pendants. Maybe it's you who should have gotten the WP:WIN veiled insult oops I mean fair direction to guidelines. Double standard much? Simanos (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

Resolved

 – Kintetsubuffalo was warned that edit comments need to be civil Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have edited Wikiepedia articles daily for more than seven years, accumulating nearly 140,000 edits, none of them involving bot-assistence, and I have a Ph.D. in statistics and have taught mathematics and statistics at five universities, one of those being MIT. User:Kintetsubuffalo is a far less experienced Wikipedian than I am. Therefore I think its fair to say that if I ask User:Kintetsubuffalo to explain the rationale behind his tagging of an statistics-related article as looking like a "personal reflection or essay", my inquiry is not simply that of a crackpot who came along to pick fights. His response was this, and so I continued to inquire, posting this and later this.

I have been consistently respectful to User:Kintetsubuffalo.

His response was this.

Putz means (according to one prominent online dictionary) an idiot or fool.

User:Kintetsubuffalo is very boastful, as will be seen by looking at both his user page and his talk page. In particular, he says "I work well with those actually working". Few can match my voluminous contributions to Wikipedia, yet he is unwilling to work with me. Doubtless it makes him feel good to say "I work well with those actually working", as opposed to actually getting along with those actually working.

User:Kintetsubuffalo has a problem with being engaged in respectful discussion by more experienced Wikipedians, and he deals with it by means of gratuitous disrespect. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've posted an AVI here regarding Michael Hardy's inappropriate behavior when reacting to an incident like this. ZooFari 07:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is inappropriate forum shopping. Pcap ping 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The AN/I has been closed as inappropriate and the matter is being left to this discussion here on WQA. Did Kintetsubuffalo do more of this marking as essays after being asked about it? Some people have problems answering questions about what they do if they originally thought it was okay but will at least stop doing it if people complain. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Putz" is a Yiddish term that is considered highly offensive. As per The Joys of Yiddish, it can mean fool, ass, jerk, simpleton, yokel, easy mark. The best English equivalent I can think of would be "dickhead". No admin should be using terms like that, especially against a regular contributor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you got that the wrong way round somewhere. Michael Hardy is an admin, Kintetsubuffalo is a regular user and used the term. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Pcap ping 11:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's me that's the putz, then. In any case, it's a highly insulting term, even though it kind of sounds cute in English. According to The Joys of Yiddish, it's considered worse than its somewhat-synonym, schmuck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Who volunteers for "boor and a coward" then? :P (See related thread above) Pcap ping 11:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And all of those insults were in the edit summaries. Nice touch. I especially like Michael's "You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me." I should add that to my list of quotes. Neither of those guys is particularly taking the high road here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, Lex Luthor to his henchmen in Superman (1978 film): "Doesn't it give you a shudder of electricity just to be in the same room with me?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reminded of a joke about tenured faculty, but it would be inappropriate here for several reasons. Pcap ping 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

K's not innocent in this but Michael's starting off by bragging about his time and edits on wiki and claiming we should be grateful to work with him is merely pompous arrogance. See my post in the above thread, which this thread is obviously related to. BB's stmt that neither of these two users is taking the high road is spot on. Both users need to learn from this experience and move on. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again: I did not start by "bragging" about my experience. I started by responding to Kintetsubuffalo's statements that all who complain about him are inexperienced users who should bow down to him because of his vast experience. Kintetsubuffalo starts his user page and his user talk page with such boasts. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into who started this. Drive-by tagging without engaging in discussion is seriously frowned upon by some editors here, in particular by some experienced math editors. There have been recent complaints at WT:WPM about mathematics articles getting tagged as essays (archived discussion). Pcap ping 13:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about who started the incident, rather just how MH started his opening post here. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How I started the opening post was a response to Kintetsubuffalo's user page and user talk page notices explaining that everyone who complains about his behavior is an inexperienced Wikipedian who refuses to bow to Kintetsubuffalo's superior record of Wikipedia edits. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't both of you just make up and go on about your business? If you need to just avoid each other, wiki is a big place. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points:

• Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page begins with boasts about his vast experience and an advance statement that if you ever complain about his behavior, it's because you're an inexperienced user who should be deferential to him. That is uncivil.
• If I had phrased my comment on his talk page in boilerplate wiki-lawyer language, complaining of his incivility in the edit summary, using that particular phrase rather than the word boor, which implies just the same thing, would some of the people above have responded differently? It seems quite respectable in this forum to state that a user is "uncivil", but calling a user a "boor" instead is considered offensive, even though it says the same thing. Kintetsu was uncivil; that's why this discussion is happening.

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't see any relevant discussion regarding Kinetsu's page headers. Please provide a diff that would tell me otherwise. Secondly, boor and coward are insults whereas "uncivil" is used to state an action during a specific period of time. You were uncivil when... - You are a coward... - which is more professional and which is an immature insult? ZooFari 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In this edit I have translated my comments on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page into the kind of language apparently considered legally acceptable.

Kintetsubuffalo's page headers

• say how vastly experienced he is at editing Wikipedia articles (far less than I am),
• say that we should therefore cut him some slack (but that doesn't apply to those more experienced than he is; those, he assures us, are "putzes"),
• denigrate in advance people who complain about his behavior.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There was uncalled for, and Kintetsubuffalo is of course entitled to just remove the whole lot and ignore it. Anyway for ZooFari here's the old version of the talk page with a message pointing to the maths project talk page. Here's a pointer to the archived talk on the maths project page. And here is an example edit Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if you would have used your translation, we wouldn't be wasting our breaths having this problem. @ Dmcq: I don't find those links related to my point, but if it contributes to the problem then that would be between Michael and Kintetsubuffalo. ZooFari 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for you to do that either, please desist. Could you explain what your point was please? I though you were asking for the discussion about the edits. Dmcq (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what? My concern here was that Michael as an admin responded back rudely to a non-admin. Admins should know better. I'm not here to argue about Michael's complaint about Kin's header; that's not my business. It's a new year, this dust pile is now my past. I'm unwatching this page so don't bother replying. --ZooFari 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You would make your point better if you tried to be less confrontational. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never before seen a Wikipedia user's talk page beginning by being disrespectful to people who at some future time will be angry at him. It's as if their being angry at him is the future is what he intends.

One point of his that I agree with: "Jerks need to be called out", and I'm glad I made as issue of this. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing reminds me once again that within Wikipedia, a rape victim who states that the rapist is a rapist is only violating Wikipedia's policy requiring civility. Maybe one is permitted to say that what happened was a rape, but one must not call the person who did it a rapist. Maybe figuring out that that's what the rule is, is exactly what it takes to stay out of trouble.

This also leaves me still mystified. My inquiry to Kintetsubuffalo was this: In what way, specifically, did a certain article appear to him to look like a "personal reflection or essay"? I would never have guessed that that question would be considered offensive, but it was what provoked the edit summary that said he was "clearing out the Putz edits". In the case of Kintetsubuffalo, it is perhaps not surprising that his behavior is weird, given the conspicuous notices on his user page and his user talk page saying that those who will be angry with him in the future are worthless and should cut him some slack because of his vast experience. But I am still mystified because I addressed the same question to another user (whom let us call "j") who, unlike Kintetsubuffalo, gave no conspicuous reasons to think he or she was not a perfectly respectable user, and that other user also responded by saying that particular question is offensive. I don't understand that and "j" is unwilling to explain it. So I will ask this page's public if they can think of any reason for that reaction. I asked "j" what it was in two particular articles that appeared to warrant the "personal reflection or essay" tag. "j" responded that the tag was warranted because the article looked like a personal reflection or essay. Of course that's only what the tag already said, and I couldn't see any resemblance to a personal reflection or essay, so I asked for some specificity. No reply was forthcoming for a few days, so I posed the question by email and said I couldn't see any resemblance to a personal reflection or essay and wondered specifically what looked that way. The response I got was very angry but said that one of the two articles used the word "we" several times, and that justified the tag. I don't understand the reason for the anger. I pointed out that the particular use of the pronoun was a standard figure of speech not meant literally, and the other article did not have that offensive pronoun, so I was still completely puzzled by that one. And I still am now.

As communications among Wikipedians go, I would say my inquiry about this could best be described as routine. Wikipedians don't respond with anger to my routine questions or comments about editing articles when my questions or comments are on other topics than the "personal reflection or essay" tag. Something about that topic offends some people. Should it? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read the stuff from that 'j' and where they dismissed complaints as 'ramblings'. You'll just get a heart attack if you worry about people like that. They think they're right if they quote some guideline without recognizing what 'guideline' means. All that matters is if they continue their actions. Dmcq (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway do you accept that advice as okay? I have posted advice on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page that they are entitled to ignore communications but they should not put in uncivil comments when doing so. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, Talk:Miraculous catch of fish#Sources supporting inclusion of a section interpreting the meaning of the 153 fish

• History2007 considers an issue-- 153 (number)#In the Bible-- WP:Fringe (it seems) because there is so not any scholarly agreement on the meaning of it (153 in John 21) and in fact any scholarly agreement seems to be that it is not symbolism-- or that any former symbolism of it is lost forever. It is also not discused at all by many or most writers on John 21.
• Viriditas thinks it is not WP:Fringe because it has been written about in print, and because there is no text that tells him "this is a fringe issue." He wants in inclued, with all the views, in Miraculous catch of fish (Miraculous catch of fish covers passages besides John 21 also) and that article aready links to 153 (number)#In the Bible, and could be linked to Bible Numerics. Viriditas is now uncivil, etc. He also began attacking and misinterpting User:7390r0g who has commented as an outside oppion.
• I basiclly agree with History2007 but feel that even if 153 in John 21 weren't "fringe" (and it is) it would still be more correctly covered in the other article(s). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a content dispute that belongs on the NPOV/RS board. The incivility actually began with disruptive behavior by Carlaude on the WikiProject Christianity project page and contines on Talk:Miraculous catch of fish, where Carlaude and History2007 have been working together to stonewall discussion. This all started when I made several mundane procedural cleanup requests at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Redirects_by_Clinkophonist. Carlaude decided to respond to my requests by changing the subject and disruptively blanking my request for help on the project page.[6] I later started a merge discussion (which turned into an RFC) on the article talk page, and Carlaude continued to make a bizarre series of edits, restoring old, deprecated discussions and non-working links and attempting to disrupt the RFC itself. History2007 disappeared for four days, then returned to unilaterally merge the disputed pages, while Carlaude unilaterally moved the article. Both of these changes were made during an active RFC discussion, yet History2007 and Carlaude ignored it and implemented the changes without contributing to the discussion about the changes. Repeated requests for clarification of their two positions results in continued off-topic discussion, changing the subject, and wikilawyering. Recently, History2007 has threatened to edit war and revert any edits I make[7] without even bothering to discuss them. Both Carlaude and History2007 are having trouble understanding the concept of proposing edits before making them, which is my entire purpose in trying to engage them in discussion. Neither editor is willing to look at the sources or the material that I have offered, instead dismissing it out of hand as "fringe". When asked for an explanation of how the biblical scholars who published in respected, peer-reviewed journals can be considered fringe, or when asked for the names of scholars who call this material fringe, I am met with silence. As for User:7390r0g, this account has been around for a while, causing serious problems on the Obama talk pages, and most recently Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, where the user followed me over to hound me on Talk:Miraculous catch of fish. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Viriditas still seems intent on beating his drum/ dead horse from now until Doomsday. If no one sees fit to comment, please consider recomending a different place to post this concern. Thank you. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIV by User:Saturday

See example edit and edit summaries, going back over the past 3 years (there are probably others): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=333487108&oldid=328907235, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=155661591&oldid=155587766, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=155490491&oldid=155481369, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ver%C3%B3nica_Castro&diff=115119280&oldid=115110786, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=140370155 . 82.152.195.64 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Not logged in because, well I don't fancy being on the receiving end of more personal attacks).

• I see no response to this so far - is the above out of remit? 91.85.140.162 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. Personally to see such long term abuse, with no apparent retribution sickens me. I advise that this is outside of the scope of WQA, I suggest that you take it to AN/I, or give Saturday a strictly worded warning, and then take the matter to AN/I if his behaviour continues. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Withdrawn - moved to ANI

Need some help here. Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) and I have been in a long-standing disagreement about the content of this page. For background, the article was at one point in time a discussion of the vacuity of dignity in political discourse. it had been tagged as an essay and nominated for deletion; the decision was to merge it with the then-extant article Human Dignity. I made that merge and did some revisions to get the (until recently) current form seen here. Pyrrhon8 was the major contributer to the previous version, and has periodically attempted to resurrect all or part of that version. this would not be a problem, normally, except that Pyrrhon refuses to communicate on the talk page, is abusive, and won't edit cooperatively at all. see this comment - his only recent talk page entry - and the edit summaries here and here. I even asked for a 3O, got a response back, but Pyrrhon simply ignored the procedure and went about trying to reinstate his preferred version.

I'm usually forgiving of tendentious editors since I can be a bit bull-headed myself, but there's not much to do with an editor who's trying to juggernaut the article. Can someone please get him to be a bit more communicative and cooperative so that we can resolve this? --Ludwigs2 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is a disruptive editor. He does not make constructive edits. He plays rhetorical games. He rearranges sentences. He moves paragraphs. He substitutes one synonym for another. Ludwigs2 has been blocked 5 times. Countless editors and administrators have told him at great length to behave himself, but he is unable to do so. He disrupts. He bickers and cavils until he is blocked.

I would like to have him blocked without all the drama. There is no point in talking to him. He does not learn. He wants his way, and that is the end of the story. There is no point in going down the path that he has been down 5 times already. He has no use for logic. He has nothing but contempt for the rules of Wikipedia. I would be pleased if an administrator would immediately do what needs to be done. Wikipedia will be a better place without Ludwigs2. PYRRHON  talk   21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon, would you mind substantiating any of these claims of disruptive editing with diffs that show what you mean? --Ludwigs2 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pyrrhon8, I'm not really interested in Ludwigs' past behaviour, unless that is in someway effecting the project now and you can provide diffs to show what you mean, and nor should you be interested in it, blocks are a mesure reserved for preventing disruption, not as a punitive force to punish users for past offences. When I complaint crops up against you the solution to the matter is to deal with the issues brought up in concern to you, not to try and justify your own actions based upon the behaviour of others. Although yes, you are perfectly within your right to bring up a complaint against Ludwigs, that does not excuse you of any wrongdoing.
So, regarding your own actions, I have this to say; It seems to me that you believe that Ludwigs should be blocked, and are expressing this in your interaction with them. This is the wrong thing to do. Calling another user an "asset" or telling them to go and "play on Conservapedia" are both nonconstructive whatever the surrounding circumstances are. Even is Ludwigs was being a liability to the development of an article (which I highly doubt), making judgemental comments directed at them is not helpful to the situation. What is helpful is to explain your difference of opinion in a polite and civil manner, focusing on content, and then discuss how to improve the article for the benefit of the project. Under no circumstances are the comments that you have been making acceptable.
Secondly, regarding your accusations against ludwigs; you may make a complaint against another user if you believe that their behaviour is disrupting or damaging Wikipedia in the present moment or that it will in the near future, and if you can prove this using diffs that user may get blocked.
What you may not do is to persistently call another user an asset or make similar comments about them, this is nonconstructive, and if you can't provide proof that they are being an "asset", then the accusation also becomes a personal attack.
I will be signing out until Monday morning now (it's sunday evening for me at the moment), but if you have any questions, I'll try and answer them then.
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

note: Pyrrhon has (once again) reverted to his preferred version without talk page discussion and with a rude edit summary. I'm hoping someone here can talk some sense in to him, because if this cycle goes through one more round I'll be forced to report him to ANI and ask for administrative help, and I'd really prefer not to do that. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie

I need some help with convincing Wildhartlivie that she needs to stop lobbing insults, unfounded claims that I have mental/emotional illness, and personal attacks in my general direction. I have brought this to her attention a few weeks ago - but nothing helped. I was personally convinced that she was using a sock to leave anti-gay and other comments on my talk page, so I filed a sock report. The sock investigator concluded that she was not the sock-user, but that another user was. During the sock investigation, Wildhartlivie kept badgering me and demanding that I answer "questions" she asked of me (that were also laced with insults and personal attacks). As it is suggested by the sock-puppet investigation filing instructions, I ignored her as much as possible to try and keep tempers cool. Wildhartlivie kept coming at me in a very aggressive manner. Since the sock investigation, her comments on the Ted Bundy talk page have been uncivil and somewhat aggressive toward me. That brings us to today and her comments on the same talk page here [8] and on another talk page here [9]. I've tried my best to just ignore her mean-spirited comments directed at me, but after the above from today, I felt that enough was enough and responded on her talk page with this [10]. Her response on my talk page was this [11]. IMO, her comments have now become harassing. I've had enough and would like someone to intervene. Thank you. -SkagitRiverQueen 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To start, I posted an objection to the use of a YouTube video as a reference because it is a copyright violation. SkagitRiverQueen stated clearly she didn't trust my judgment on the copyright issue [12] and then further cast doubt on it when User:Moonriddengirl stated she felt it was a link violation. This progressed to reverting changes I made on the page, wherein I filed a WP:3RR notice about it, which action was confirmed here by Equazcion (who was speciously added as a "possible" sock of mine to the sock case). Her comments became increasingly accusative and agressive in nature [13] and rude and condescending to an editor who has stated she has serious health problems and was apologetic about her question with the rude comment starting with "I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or what...IMO, this thing has become more about some people being right and proving me wrong than responsible editing (and I already know that those of you who have been working against me on this issue will deny that's the case, but...whatever)." As I commented on her talk page, if she doesn't expect a response, don't open the door. She's baiting commentary in order to elicit a response so that she can file cases against people. First of all, SkagitRiverQueen made unfounded assumptions about something I would say or do in the specious sock puppet case she filed against me on Christmas day, by the way, in which she clearly stated she would apologize if she were proven wrong [14] which she has failed to do. In that case, she accused me of posting aspersions about her sexuality and her religion, something I never do. Since that time, she does not fail to drop allusions to how people feel about her when she makes talk page postings. I have characterized such statements as paranoid in nature because she claims that people are working against her, it was not a psychological evaluation, but an observation that such statements appear paranoid and delusional. I even mentioned that people don't actually care that much about her to persecute her in the way she has represented in those posts. Examples include making accusations that an editor is hounding her, trying to get my opinion and that of Crohnie on her talk archive page WP:MfD disregarded in which she characterized her opinion of our comments with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive_1&diff=333712972&oldid=333711444 "Terrific. Another vote from the "Vendetta Crew". (I can't get that to properly display.) In that post, she alleged that our opinions should not count because we've had disagreements. The question therein that I kept asking was why, if she was retaining the posts for a future dispute resolution, was she retaining a copy and pasted version of the WP:3RR report I filed. It had nothing to do with her long-term on-going dispute with the user whose posts she was keeping. That she refused to answer the pertinent question was purposeful, and germane to what she purported her page was kept for. This report is like the sock case in following up her threats, retaliatory in nature after she's baited reponses. My last post to her was quite clear that when a person baits others to respond by dropping aggressive comments that invite response, she's the one who is starting an issue. It is not civil nor appropriate to call other editors "obtuse" and talk down to them and expect the incivility to be passed by without comment. No one "hates" her, although some are growing very tired of the aggressive stance she takes against them in her posts. Crohnie told her clearly on the WP:MfD that "I really don't appreciate the personal attacks. I think this should stop already. You keep attacking editors than accuse them of some kind of conspiracy theory." Take for instance the assaultive way her comment she dropped to User:Killiondude is worded after he deleted the talk page archive she kept (which others felt were inappropriately cherry picked statements: [15]. While I don't tend to make comments regarding the religion of others, there's precious little that can be found that is "Christian" in nature in her comments - especially for someone whose userboxes say she is a Christian minister. It's regrettable that she feels this harassment, but like I said, don't open a can of worms and complain if they squirm. Personally, I'm tired of her filing reports about me and still continuing her condescenion and rudeness to others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is much glossing-over, mischaracterization, and personal attack in the above. I'm going to leave it to those who do the deciding at this board to make their own decisions about what is in and comprimises a good portion of Wildhartlivie's statements above. If anyone has any questions regarding what Wildhartlivie wrote regarding me that (I could answer), feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the many diffs I provided. So observers could read what was said and make a decision. There are no personal attacks in what I wrote, however there are facts that can be checked. The diffs speak for themselves. Your filings and comments speak for themselves. However, in fact, she incorrectly claimed that I kept pressing her for an answer on the WP:SSI she filed, when it was on the WP:MfD. The protests by others regarding her comments speak for themselves. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the two of you disengage. I can see that you're each frustrated by the other's behavior, so I suggest walking away from it. SkagitRiverQueen, you're best off not interacting at all with Wildhartlivie if you can do that. Wildhartlivie, if you think someone is baiting you, or opening a door to commentary, the correct response is to refrain. Nobody's behavior can justify your insulting them, ever. That's just not how we interact here. If SkagitRiverQueen has insulted you for any reason, that's wrong, and if you insult her, that's just as wrong, no matter what the reason, nor how provoked you feel. Respond to rudeness with courtesy, and lead by example.

I strongly suggest that both of you refrain from making any further ad hominem remarks about the other. Stick to "comment on the content, not the contributor", and everything should be fine. If that's not possible, then please explain why. Is there an article or set of articles on which you work together, where you can't restrict your comments to content issues?

These remarks do not constitute a judgment against either of you. These are simply my recommendations if you want this conflict to end. Seeking some kind of satisfaction against the other is unlikely to be productive. It seldom is 'round here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All good advice ^^^^^^ As far as "disengaging", I already have. Last week. The comments I made, however, regarding my belief that the content dispute at the Ted Bundy article talk page has become more about others being right and me being wrong stands (if you wish, see the discussion here [16], in the section titled "Judge's words"). What's more, those comments I made were not directed at anyone in particular - IOW, there was no personal attack made, just a general observation given. I most certainly want this conflict to end - exactly why I brought it here. The only satisfaction I am looking for is being satisfied that Wildhartlivie's aspersions on my mental/emotional health and the personal attacks, digs, and aggressiveness stop. --SkagitRiverQueen 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. Wildhartlivie, are you comfortable with this solution, that both of you simply cease from making personally directed remarks about each other? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Butting in where I'm not wanted for a moment, I see that Skag's comment about this being "more about some people being right and proving me wrong than responsible editing" was personal enough, even if her comment didn't explicitly name a party. It was fairly clear that she was implicating her two adversaries in the exchange, and with that comment, she was the first to "engage". Wild just responded in kind; not that two wrongs make a right, and the suggestion for both to disengage is still sound. I only point that out because I have a feeling that won't be the end of this, as someone here has a hair trigger for "engaging" thusly. This is just the latest mini-dispute in a larger chain of events, some involving Wildhartlivie, and many not. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:33, 3 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Equazcion and thanks. I just want her to leave me alone, issue the sock puppet case apology she so clearly promised and to stop making demeaning and belittling comments such as the "purposely obtuse" comment to Cronhie, and to stop making baited comments about how people are against her. And in case it was missed, I want to reiterate that I am not making comments or psychological statements about her mental health, but observations about how the comments she makes carry a paranoid air. It is nearly impossible to have a discussion with her without such statements being dropped right and left. It's no wonder she has conflicts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, if you want this to end, stop making any kind of ad hominem remarks. That means that what you just said: "the comments she makes carry a paranoid air", should stop. Don't use the word "paranoid", because it clearly upsets the other person. Just actually drop it. All of it. If she doesn't drop it, just let me know, but you have to drop it too. Fully drop it, forever. No remarks about her. Can you do that? If you can, I will help ensure that SRQ does as well. If you make further remarks about your perception of the character of her statements, then you're asking for more. Get it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading my comment above, I just want to clarify why I felt the need to drudge up the "who did what" argument. The problem is that SRQ claims to have already "disengaged" a while ago, and sees nothing wrong with her comment that IMO started this particular dispute. That makes this agreement for both parties to "disengage" rather pointless. If SRQ's version of disengagement is comments like this, then this is just going to happen again. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:17, 3 Jan 2010 (UTC)

No. If they simply actually disengage, nothing more will happen. There are no "versions" of disengaging. I'm talking about actually never saying a word about the other. If both parties just do this, then it's over. If they're unable to do that, then perhaps we'll have to enforce their not talking about each other more firmly. There remains to excuse for "taking the bait", ever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"I just want her to leave me alone". I haven't said anything or addressed anything to you directly since before I filed the sock-puppet case - how much more "leaving [you] alone" can I do than that? "issue the sock puppet case apology" Please accept my apologies for accusing you of sock-puppetry. At the time, I felt I had good reason to do so - if I didn't, I wouldn't have accused you. No matter what you believed then or believe now, I did it because I thought it to be the case - not out of retaliation. And now that I think about it...I think you owe me an apology for insisting that my filing of the sock-puppet case was based on vengeance or spite. It had nothing to do with that whatsoever. I don't play games like that. "stop making demeaning and belittling comments such as the "purposely obtuse" comment to Cronhie" I didn't make demeaning comments to Chronie - I was trying to get her to tell me if she was being intentionally obtuse (people do that in online forums, you know) or was unintentionally obtuse. She still insists on bringing up the YouTube video as a source - which hasn't been the issue for a couple of weeks now - after I have explained to her time and again it's no longer the issue. Continuing to bring up the video made me wonder why she was doing so. My question was honestly asked of her because I didn't (and still don't) understand why she's beating a dead horse. But let's consider this: why can't Chronie speak for herself if what I said was such a problem for her and why does what I say to her bother you so much? Are we not all adults here? Unless you're the official spokesperson for Chronie, I don't see why she can't address an issue she has with me (if she does, indeed, have an issue with me) all by herself. "stop making baited comments about how people are against her." First of all, I don't make "baited comments" - I say what I think right out in the open. As I have explained to Equazcion last week, with me, what you see is what you get. You don't have to decode my words - they're plainly put and reading between the lines and making assumptions is not necessary. Secondly, in the Ted Bundy article, please be honest and admit that you, Chronie, and now Vidor, have been doing what you can to stick it to me since the thing with the documentary reference started. Also, please admit that you and Chronie (or at the very least) Chronie have been following me around Wikipedia since this thing with the reference began. for that matter, Equazcion is now doing the same. Everywhere I go when it comes to making reports or comments or any contributions, you all are watching. Why are you dogging me? "I want to reiterate that I am not making comments or psychological statements about her mental health, but observations about how the comments she makes carry a paranoid air". Sorry, but I have to say "baloney". When you continually comment on someone's alleged "paranoia" and "delusions", that's commenting on someone's mental and emotional health and you know it. You can go ahead and try to weasel your way out of what you've said all you like, but I'm not buying your excuses on this one. And no matter how you try to paint or excuse these types of comments, they are personal attacks, plain and simple. There's no call for them - and they need to stop.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that you are now all about me leaving you alone, however, I *have* done that - and you're still not satisfied. You're still making negative comments about me to others, you're still obsessing over the sock-puppet case, you're still calling my mental health into question, you're leaving uncivil comments on my talk page and making excuses for why your incivility is justified, and you and your personal friend Chronie are dogging me in Wikipedia. When is *all that* going to stop? --SkagitRiverQueen 17:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, just stop typing about this issue. Say nothing about Wildhartlivie, and if she talks about you in any way, just let me know, in 50 words or less. Don't say anything about Wildhartlivie except to let someone know - in 50 words or less - if she talks about you. You both need to find a way to walk away, for real. If this continues, it will become reasonable to block either or both of you for continuing disruption. Walk away. Bite your tongues, and walk away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no good reason to attack someone for defending an editor who has been demeaned or call them into question for it. Calling someone "purposely obtuse" is indefensible, no matter how you try to gussy it up after the fact. It would behoove everyone to remember that such comments are rarely made in good faith, but in shortness of patience and antipathy. I saw her asking if there was a video online besides the YouTube video, she didn't deserve the "obtuse" statement. And now you drag another name into this because Vidor disagrees with you. It's time someone accepts that others don't agree with her and stop asserting that there is a conspiracy and bad faith efforts against her. You have no basis to make such a claim, nor stating that people are stalking you. A copyright expert, Moonriddengirl, was brought in, who disagreed with you, perhaps she is part of the conspiracy too? If so, prove it. And for the record, I see paranoia in the statements that people are ganging up on you. If you see that as a personal attack, perhaps you should stop claiming that over and over. I agree, it is a characterization of the comments you make, not a personal asssessment of your mental health. If you can't see the difference, that, in essence, is your problem. The purpose for the miscellany for discussion was to delete a page you kept containing comments from persons you deem as enemies. It's time to grow up and stop seeing enemies behind every post that crosses your path. That's what led to the sock puppet case, the WP:MfD and that's what led to this. Try not creating enemies for a change. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, saying "for the record, I see paranoia in the statements that people are ganging up on you", and "it's time to grow up" is completely unhelpful, and likely to inflame rather than end a dispute. Do you not realize this? Do you wish to inflame a dispute? Please refrain from saying things like that "for the record". Let the record reflect good de-escalation skills instead, and that you led by example. Practice constant courtesy.

SkagitRiverQueen, for the sake of peace, please refrain from responding to the above remarks by LaVidaLoca. Our goal is to stop fighting, and work together. Let's say there's been enough nastiness, and just stop. Does that work? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The above from LaVida is rife with biased mischaracterization and out-and-out untruth. The abuse one is subjected to when bringing problems and complaints to a Wikipedia notification board has brought this to the point of ridiculous. Why should the person with the problem be allowed to be subjected to abuse from those posting their comments? Why is it that a notification board in Wikipedia is not about helping out those who have been wronged but about allowing those being reported (and their friends) to bully and intimidate the complaintant? A notification board should be a safe place to go - but in Wikipedia, it is not. This is wrong and it needs to be changed. IMO, bullies are now controlling Wikipedia - administrators included - and the above is a perfect example (not including you, GT - but I've seen administrators behave worse than non-admins in these types of compaints toward to complaintant). It really doesn't matter anymore how this turns out - because it won't make a bit of differance in how bullying editors like Livie, Vidor, and LaVida operate in Wikipedia. They'll just continue with the same behavior. And then, when some other dope like me comes along and says, "hey, wait a minute...", they will once again join forces and point the finger of blame back on the victim of their abuse and bad behavior - not once taking a good look at how they have contributed to the breakdown of communication and not once caring that they, and a host of editors just like them are part of the problem - not the solution to the problem - in Wikipedia. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blaming anyone for anything is a waste of time. What is not a waste of time is dropping this now. If you feel bullied, we can talk about that, but in this case, I see that you haven't tried step 1, which is to completely refrain from talking about those people in any way. Even when you feel bullied, simply describe the behavior to me. don't call anyone a bully. It's a poor, ineffective strategy; it doesn't make them stop.

You are not being "blamed" for anything; you simply have the opportunity to end this by rising above it. I will support you in that 100%. Would you like to take this opportunity? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I was posting the above before I read your request for me to not respond to LaVidaLoca. I didn't intentionally ignore your suggestion. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Now we've all joined the "conspiracy of bullies" being put forth here, including administrators. When someone files a complaint against someone else, expect the filer's conduct to be examined as well. It seems to me that GTBacchus is saying the filer here is as culpable in this as anyone else. And I object to being characterized as a bully. You have nothing except my support for User:LaVidaLoca, User:Crohnie and User:Vidor as evidence against me. You seem to have left out Equazcion, who also posted against you. Should he be notified as well? Also, since you posted that you want others entire username used in posts, show other editors the "courtesy" you demand. If it seems the entire Wikipedia world is against you, then perhaps self-examinination is in order. I have notified User:Vidor and User:Crohnie of this accusation that we are all bullies. As I said, prove it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone is "culpable". I don't find that designation interesting. I am saying that you, Wildhartlivie, have the opportunity to make this end now by dropping it. You don't seem to be taking that suggestion. Why? Is proving a case against this other person important to you? It certainly has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Drop it, really. Unless you're trying to start some kind of fight, drop it. Stop trying to prove anything. This is a very strong suggestion. If this escalates, you will not be pleased with the outcome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is this comes from and is mucking up discussion at Talk:Ted Bundy with similar accusations that we are working against her in some unnamed conspiracy. How does one build an encyclopedia article in the face of this? All the named "co-conspirators" included are from that page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now we're talking about a concrete article. Shall I watchlist that page? I agree that there is no need to introduce talk about conspiracies to any discussion here; we comment on edits, not on editors. What's the underlying edit in dispute there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The point under discussion is how a quote from the judge who sentenced Bundy (while praising his abilities legally) should be sourced. It has variously been sourced to a YouTube posting of a documentary, which was objectionable because the YouTube post is a copyright violation, then the video was combined with the statement written in a book by Ann Rule, which was objectionable as synthesis of two sources. Editors have posted their support for 1) using the Rule book only; 2) finding a legally obtained copy of the actual court transcript, and 3) Using the IMDB listing of the airing of the documentary (not on YouTube). Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we're talking content, so perhaps a change of venue is in order? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, don't panic I am not here to fight and too tired for much of anything but maybe some suggestions. How about this, GTBacchus, if you don't mind watching the Ted Bundy article and it's talk page that may help a lot. I have been trying to understand some things being said and maybe I am slow but I am not being obtuse or rude or hounding or anything else above. I am recovering slowly from neck surgery and lots of meds seem to slow my thinking down. Wildhartlivie is aware of my medical and helps me out esp. if I lose focus plus I don't do battles very well. I don't like arguing in RL and I come here for fun and to try to help where I can in writing articles. There is no reason for any of this. I've never even been to your talk page so I don't know how I am hounding but I will promise to not bother you or your talk page. I am sure I can get Wildhartlivie to promise the same. Which means ScagitRiverQueen you have to abide by this also. Maybe with a little time angers will calm down and we can all hopefully get past this but not right now. We are going to meet up though at the article. This appears to be of interest to all above so I guess a moderator for a brief period until we get past this damn judge's words which is ridiculous already would be nice. How aboout everyone? Peace now, everyone got it off their chests? Now let's write some articles or patrol or have a good laugh but sheesh not this serious so close to my bedtime! :) I just happened to pop in to check my mail and found I forgot to sign off. So, I'm done for today. If there is anything of importance please pop a note to me on my talk page. If no note in the morning I am going to assume that my suggestions above are agreeable to everyone. I think I covered everything in a fair and neutral way. Good night everyone and thanks Wildhartivie for helping me out. I still appreciate it from you and the others. Be well all,--CrohnieGal^Talk 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing as an IP resulting in bullying

See User_talk:JohnBlackburne#Accusations_of_vandalism. There is very little I can do or say in relation to this discussion that doesn't provoke comments suggesting that my actions are vandalism, or less important because they come from an IP address. Trying to join in with a conversation about the quality of material on Wikipedia feels like a lost cause when made by a casual Wikipedia reader like myself. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You being

• 90.217.104.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

and clearly also having used

• 90.215.124.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.215.124.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

to make a specific point on Centrifugal force, can you elaborate on the rationale behind the edit summary of this edit? DVdm (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging by timing, this IP may also be User:WeDon'tWantAny, the originator of this RFC. These IP addresses started editing when User:WeDon'tWantAny stopped, and their language looks similar. I'm not sure, and I don't know if a checkuser request is needed or not. Plvekamp (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As quickly noted in this I was wrong to call it vandalism in the edit summary, and have said so, but I still think I was right to revert, once, an inappropriate removal. I cannot see how that or anyone else's contribution on that page is bullying.--John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I had another puppetmaster in mind, one who is currently experiencing a year long ban on physics related articles, and who has been a disrupting contributor to Centrifugal force in the past. The link "they" are trying to remove is sort of orthogonal to this person's long time pov. DVdm (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He sounds great! 90.217.104.238 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example of vandalism from

• 94.2.152.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Care to comment? DVdm (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very much so! This demonstrates the problem I'm talking about. Am I supposed to be that IP also? Why? Because it is user a Sky Broadband user? I imagine that there are quite a few of those! Also, that IP address originates from the ISP's Hounslow-area pool, whereas mine is from the Ipswich area (over 100 miles away by road). And how did I hop back to this IP address again? You can check that Sky Broadband doesn't give you an allocation of IP addresses that you can choose from. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Am I supposed to be that IP also? Why?" ==> behaviour, context, improbable coincidence. You woudn't stand a chance in a formal checkuser investigation. Having been there before, you should know that. To your next question the answer is, maybe later. DVdm (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would happily undergo the checkuser process, as long as it doesn't involve me giving out personal information.

Even if it proved that I was that IP editor you have accused me of being (it won't), would that justify your additional sniping? I simply don't understand the reasoning behind you feeling the need to jump in here and make these accusations. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also ask you to consider very carefully what you are doing at this point. IP users are easily identifiable to their ISPs, with consequences that reflect on their real lives. They shouldn't have to feel like the accusations made by a vengeful editor will result in an abuse complaint being filed, despite their innocence. If IP editors have to suffer this sort of treatment because of disagreements over content then it is simply not safe for them to contribute to Wikipedia. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that, the solution is simple - register and use an account. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An offensive edit summary such as this is considered vandalism, however. Plvekamp (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you at least pretended not to be working as a team! Have you considered that different people in the same household might be involved in editing the same article, particularly when they may have discussed the articles offline? "Involved" is an optimistic way to describe it, as any edit I make is met with extreme passive-aggressive policy quoting and instant dismissal, even when the edits echo the sentiments of established users. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really have a legitimate complaint here, please provide some diffs so that we can see what you are talking about. Hyperbolic statements of how others have done you wrong do not help you case, especially when a cursory examination of your edit history raises questions about your own behaviour. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs so that we can see my apparently questionable edits? I posted direct links to the issues I was experiencing. This edit summary and the hunt-like behaviour of editors in this thread are further examples. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one making a complaint here, you are, it is up to you to provide diffs to support your claims. The issue that you linked to in the above comment has already been dealt with, you have already received an apology from the editor who made the vandalism comment in his edit summary. One inappropriate edit summary does not make a concerted campaign of action against you, which seems to be what you are complaining about. Once again I ask you provide diffs to support your complaint, so we can what it is you are complaining about. Oh, and BTW, accusing editors here of "working as a team" is not a good idea. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm complaining about their reactions. There are very few edits I have made that haven't resulted in accusations of vandalism, or an excessive number of people lining up to take a policy-quoting pot-shot at me, or accuse me of being every IP editor under the sun. IP users shouldn't be made to feel like criminals for every action they take. Their opinions shouldn't be dismissed and labelled as vandalism. I can't even complain about injustices, because yet more accusations are added on as a result of those complaints! See JohnBlackburne's talk page, Plvekamp's talk page and this thread where I am being accused of other IP edits with very little evidence.

"There are very few edits I have made that haven't resulted in accusations of vandalism, or an excessive number of people lining up to take a policy-quoting pot-shot at me, or accuse me of being every IP editor under the sun." Then it should be a simple matter for you to provide diffs to back up you claims. Your continued refusal to do this is not a good look. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will respond to each item below in turn. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[17] - (JohnBlackburne apologised for this one)

• Apology offered, I assume you accepted it, nothing more needs to be said here, then does it? - Nick Thorne ^talk

[18] Not vandalism but "very close to it"? What chance does an editor have? How can an editor contribute when he is being followed around by people like this making jibes towards him?

• This was not a jibe, it was a response to you accusing another editor of edit warring and a comment on your own questionable behaviour in deleting against consensus and after being reverted. The usual process is edit-revert-discuss, not edit-revert-revert-no discussion. Nick Thorne ^talk

[19] Why is WP:CIVIL quoted at me? I can see that he might be upset by my interpretation of his reasoning, but that's not incivility! At this point it feels very much that my unpopular viewpoint about xkcd links is being met with policy-quoting retaliation.

• This was a perfectly civil and reasonable request to take the dispute to an appropriate forum, in this case the talk page of the editor you were in dispute with. For your information your edit - to which this post was referring - was not civil, the entire tone was petulant and rude. Nick Thorne ^talk

[20] Perhaps I am wrong here, but I can't interpret this in any way other than somebody painting a negative picture of a troublesome IP editor to justify a double standard. There's no concession made here; I'm the only one going against consensus, and I'm apparently even quarreling alone!

• No double standard, you chose to continue the argument in the wrong place - the talk page of someone no longer involved in your dispute - ignoring the request to move the discussion to the appropruiate persons talk page, so he move the conversation there himself. I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to concession or quarreling alone, however you are right that you have been acting against consensus. Nick Thorne ^talk

[21] I'm a bad person for not continuing an argument on his talk page? I simply didn't want to continue with it at all! I made a note about my perceived misuse of WP:CIVIL and left it alone. Even that was used as ammunition against me!

• But you did continue the discussion, didn't you. That is what was uncivil, gioven that at that time it was clearly inappropriate to be having the discussion on that user's talk page, especially since you had been requested to move the discussion to the talk page of the person you were in dispute with. If you can't understand why that was uncivil, then I doubt that discussion here is ever going to help you. Nick Thorne ^talk

[22] Immediately I am smeared for having a dynamic IP address. I didn't claim not to be these IP addresses, it's not fair to immediately jump on me for that! What *is* fair about that message however is showing the negative edits made from this connection, which I will have to take responsibility for (although I will restate that some edits are a result of a less respectful housemate who I shouldn't have mentioned any of this to!). [23] is also just.

• So you admit that these IPs are yours? Also the editing style, subject matter and in many cases edit summaries are identical, and you expect us to believe that it was just co-incidence, and your evil house mate did it? BTW what does "[24] is also just." mean? Regardless of that, the edit summary "(Undid revision 335305538 by Plvekamp (talk) Fancruft. See talk page, grow a pair of balls, get cancer in them.)" is regarded as vandalism and is highly uncivil as stated in the linked post. Nick Thorne ^talk

[25] This is where it just starts turning into a sport. I am not responsible for all physics-related vandalism on Wikipedia. Why would this be brought up in this discussion other than to discredit me?

• So, are you denying that this person is you? Do you really want us to perform a checkuser? Also, no one accused you of all physics related vandalism on Wikipedia, just disrupting the Centrifugal Force article, evidence of which is manifest. Nick Thorne ^talk

[26] Utterly baseless and vengeful.

• Given that you admit to using these IPs and that their editing style, subject matter etc are identical, it is reasonable to lump them together and when that is done, the combined actions of those edits amount to vandalism. You may not be aware, but we do know that many ISPs assign new IP addresses when the user modem is re-booted. You may have been trying to fool us into thinking that there were several different users by this means, but you maintained an dentical editing pattern, not very smart. So the change was entirely well based and well found. If you don;t want to be identified as a vandal, dont edit like one. Nick Thorne ^talk

For the record, the purpose of my replacing the {{userlinks}} templates with {{ipvandal}} templates was to provide, for those who might want to make a quick check, easier access to WHOIS etc. DVdm (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[27] See above. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• The comment is completely appropriate. Nick Thorne ^talk

• So, what do we have? You have been called for your oown behaviour and you don't like it. You throw accusations of bullying and uncivility around and when we look into it we find that in fact others have been more than reasonable with you and it is really your own actions that are questionable. Please do not treat us as fools, we are quie able to look behind matters ourselves and we do not just rely on your version of the truth, we check it out. You have been given plenty of opportunity to withdraw from this gracefull but you chose instead to continue down this path. You need to be carefull, lest a passing admin looks in and takes into his or her head to check you out. If it turns out that you really are a sockpuppet for a blocked user then you can expect sever consequences. I hope that this will not prove necessary. What you should do now is appologise to those you have accused of uncivility and bullying and promise in future to follow policy when editing the Wikipedia. You might still have time. Nick Thorne ^talk 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really need to: I'm not a sockpuppet for a blocked user!

Here is the edit where I explicitly link myself to those IP addresses. The ridiculous thing is that your accusation of me pretending I wasn't those IPs is *a reply to that very post*. Do you know what *is* missing? A link to me claiming not to be those IP addresses! Let's just make it clear what you've done here: accused me of pretending not be those IPs when you've got no basis for that at all, even after I've linked myself to them directly in the very message you're supposed to have read, due to having replied to it and passed judgment. Does that seem like fair or acceptable behaviour? Sadly I feel that writing this at all is entirely futile; if the pattern repeats itself I'll suffer another baseless accusation and admonishment.

The only IP I've denied being is the one that I am clearly not (the only link is that it's the same MAJOR ISP; any geolocation service will show the locations being 100+ miles apart, rendering the "same ISP" connection completely invalid). You can recap on that here. With those edits clearly being made from another connection, can you see how it might be a little rich to state as fact-completely without being prompted-that I made those edits? Can you please try to connect that sort of prejudice with my original complaint? Anybody? 94.0.65.156 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Here we have Anon90 editing from 94.0.x.x, claiming there's no way he could edit from 94.2.x.x, which just happens to be in the same IP block he is (unknowingly, I presume) currently editing from. THAT's rich. Whether he is or isn't the 94.2.x.x vandal, the irony made me chuckle. Plvekamp (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have stated at least twice that we are both using the same ISP, and so it is very likely indeed that we are going to be allocated an IP address from the same block. I'm glad you're all having a lot of fun pointing fingers at the IP editor though. No need to hide that anymore, eh? You're amongst good company. Unbelievable. 90.213.61.219 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you stated (twice) that it's impossible you could be allocated an IP address from that block, since they're "100+ miles" from each other. Interesting change in memory, though. Plvekamp (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I said that it would be impossible (or perhaps just extremely unlikely) for me to have edited as 90.217.104.238, vandalised as 94.2.152.167 and then gone back to editing as 90.217.104.238 again, due to these IP addresses being allocated outside of my control (this can be verified). You are confusing IP blocks with full, complete addresses. The only way I could have been that editor is by getting somebody from another household to make edits on my behalf; by that token I can be accused of being any IP vandal on Wikipedia.

The location element is relevant because any geolocation service will tell you that 94.2.152.167 is allocated from a range of addresses Sky uses in Hounslow, whereas my claimed addresses are all reported as being in the Ipswich/South Suffolk/North Essex area. It has nothing to do with being in the 94.2 block. It is plain, undeniable fact the IP address that I am unfairly accused of being is over 100 miles away from the ones I have been editing with over the past few days.

I feel that you owe an explanation as to why you are continually harrassing me at this point, particularly after I specified that I have no interest in extending these communications with you at all. You aren't discussing pertinent issues, instead you are piling on more scorn. This isn't constructive at all; nobody needs you to pop up and tell us what you think is ironic in a thinly-veiled attack. The only reason I will post at all is to defend against harmful accusations focused on my IP addresses, I have no interest in further debate with you. 90.213.61.219 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just informational (i.e. no judgment attached to the name of the templates):

• 90.217.104.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.215.124.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.215.124.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.2.152.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

(The ip who happened to subtly tease Speed of light)

• 94.0.65.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

So, are you now sort of confirming that these 5 IP's belong to you? DVdm (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Time and again I have told you that I am not 94.0.65.156. But hey, why not tag them all those addresses as ipvandal anyway, right?

Could you all leave me alone now? I get it, you can do what you like. Just lay off with the silly accusations and you don't need to hear from me again. 90.213.61.219 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But I did not address my question to

  90.213.61.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

and neither did Plvekamp address his comment above to this IP. We both addressed them to 94.0.65.156. Do you understand the root of our (yours included) confusion?

Furthermore, please note that this is not a debate. I think we are just trying to clear things up, the main question being "Who is who?". It would really help if you would create a username and stick with it. That would effectively hide your ISP-data for almost everyone. Don't you agree? DVdm (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One-sided and ridiculous. You clearly made your mind up as soon as you saw any of this (your tone pre-diff-posting makes this fairly obvious). It was a mistake for me to post diffs for you to actively interpret in the most negative way you could, or expect an impartial editor to read this. You made no attempt whatsoever to recognise any ill deeds of the registered editors. Particularly ridiculous are the accusations of me being a sock for a blocked user, or that IP editor who just happens to be on the same ISP when you have very little evidence. Also, the interpretation that I started/continued an argument on JohnBlackburne's talk page is incredible; you're either biased beyond shame or didn't follow the timeline correctly. I give up. It is utterly foolish to try and be involved with anything when faced with this sort of pack-mentality. Just re-read what you've written; you sound positively gleeful in presenting your negative description of my actions and perfectly comfortable knowing that you've got a number of editors to back you up. You can just act any way you like can't you? 90.217.104.238 (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, please bear in mind that a third opinion is not an opinion which is indifferent, but one from a person (in this case a user) who has entered the argument with a neutral opinion upon the dispute, and after reading through the entire dispute with an unbiased eye, they then present their opinion upon the matter, this opinion does not have to be equally in support of both sides, it should reflect the user's opinion upon the matter after reading it in an unbiased way.

You accuse users of pack-mentality, although you may have a point, you should also consider that when nearly every user in a situation disagrees with you they may have a point.

Finally, I know from my own experience with Nick that he is not the kind of user who gangs up on people simply because its the path of least resistance, nor will he or does he take "Glee" in criticising users, he does so because he's trying to help you to understand your own actions, you need to accept that help though, or else it becomes pointless. Remember that everyone at WQA is volunteering their own time in an attempt to help and provide third-party opinions. Responding to them in the way that you have responded to Nick shows a lack of regard for the service that they provide.

Kindest Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• It gives me no pleasure to list those actions of yours that have been questionable, in fact I had to put in a considerable amount of time and effort that I may well have used actually building the Encyclopedia. However, I feel that as a member of the community who is interested in its ongoing well being, it is a worthwhile exercise to participate in these discussions and offer what insights I may. It would not be reasonable of me to fail to show where your problems really lie if you are to become a more constructive member of the community, which is what we all try to achieve here. Only by understanding our mistakes can we hope to overcome them. The reason I asked you for diffs was that on my own I had only found the issues you raised in your list. Since it seemed that these were not cases where for the most part others were being uncivil towards you, I assuming good faith felt that there must have been something other than these going on that I had not found. Unfortunately you disappointed me by simply producing the list things I already knew about. Therefore it was obvious that you did not realise that you were the author of your own problems so, rather than simply giving an overall summary that you may have felt glossed over things, I reluctantly chose to itemise the issues with each example you raised so that you may gain some insight into how your actions appear to others. Please understand it is not my intention to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. Far from it, I would like nothing better than to learn that through the efforts of myself and other third party contributors here you learn some lessons about how to work collaboratively with others on the project and so go on to have a long and fruitful carreer as a Wikipedia editor. Please take some time to reflect on what I and the others here have been saying to you. In the end we can only offer our own perspectives and advice, we have no way of forcing you to accept any of it - that is entirely up to you - but you would be wise to consider that when everyone else is saying somethng different to what you think is the case, it might just be that everyone else ir right. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon90, people "working in the same household" working on the same mission are treated like one single set of single purpose sockpuppets, and de-facto as one person. As an experienced editor (judged from your editing style here), you probably know this already. Consider being careful. DVdm (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 90.213.61.219 wrote:

"Time and again I have told you that I am not 94.0.65.156. ..."

I presume this is a misprint for 94.2.152.167. This edit to this thread from IP 94.0.65.156 clearly purports to have been made by you, and appears to have been acknowledged as such by your subsequent posts made from IP 90.213.61.219.

In response to an objection from the IP 90.217.104.238 to this comment Nick Thorne wrote:

"The comment is completely appropriate."

This is one point in Nick Thorne's otherwise excellent response which I would take issue with. Only one edit—a blatant act of vandalism—has so far been made from the IP 94.2.152.167. The evidence connecting the person responsible for that edit with the complainant in this thread seems to me to be extraordinarily flimsy. Insinuating that these two persons might be the same is an unnecessary distraction which has done nothing but create an opening for the complainant to indulge in playing the victim and divert attention from the complete lack of substance in his original complaint.
The same goes for any supposed connection with either of the editors banned from editing physics-based articles in this arbitration case, one of whom I presume is the editor being referred to above as a possible "puppetmaster". Having followed that arbitration case and the behavlour of the two banned editors quite closely, I would lay long odds against either of them having anything to do with the complainant in this thread.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David for raising these points, upon reflection I see you are correct and I have struck the relevant comments. It makes little difference in the scheme of things, however. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

David, yes, my comments were based on no more than a (very) strong gut feeling, based on previous experience and, in this case, highly improbable coincidence. Clearly our takes on the odds wildly differ. I had decided to put it forward here, since it seemed the only way to somehow get in contact with an IP-shifting contributor. I agree that I should have either taken this directly to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, or just let it pass for the time being. This was most probably not the place for this. My apologies. DVdm (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Spyro02

Hi, User:Spyro02 wrote this in Germany. I reverted it and put a uw-vandalism3 template on his talk page as the user has been warned before (see [28] or [29]). He responded with this: [30]. Quote: "Correction: oh, yes, you are a Nazi if your first language is German...". To me this is a clear violation of WP:PA. I don't think that a discussion with this user makes any sense at all if such abuse is his way of talking to me. So can please anyone remind him to be civil? --Jaellee (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaellee - his contribution is unsourced and a bit odd, but it probably wasn't a good idea to jump straight to the 'level 4' and 'last warning' templates. it's almost always better to work your way up through the numbers - that way, if and when it reaches ANI, you will have covered all your bases and the admins will have a clear pattern of problematic behavior to look at.

Spyro. please don't call people offensive names - it goes against wp:civility policy and generally makes people feel bad. The opinion on Germany that you are trying to enter into the article is actually an oldish (if minor) line of thought that started back at the end of WWI - it's one of the reasons why Germany was broken up into separate states after WWII - so I know that there are at least a few reliable sources that discuss the issue. If you want to add this to the article, please find those sources to substantiate your additions and cooperate with other editors. simply trying to force the text into the article will make people angry, get your efforts reverted, and ultimately get you blocked from editing for a while. --Ludwigs2 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, if you look at his talk page history, you will see that he has been given multiple escalating warnings in the past, all of which he has blanked. For example, he was already given a final warning in July, for a previous nonsense edit to Germany. It appears that, with the exception of 5 edits related to a particular Gynasium in Germany, all of his edits have been disruption, vandalism, edit warring, POV pushing, or ethnic insults. Were it up to me, I'd block for a week for this latest completely unacceptable behavior, to be followed by an indef block if the behavior continues. I don't think we should be coddling people who say, outright, that all Germans are Nazis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, did you read Spyro02's contribution until the end? For example: "... and current politics by Angela Merkel are similiar to those of Adolf Hitler in his first years of chancelorship." If you have sources for this, I would be really interested. From my point of view Spyro02 was vandalising the article. I did also not jump straight to level 4, it was level 3 (as I said above) which was justified after a look at his talk page history (I also provided diff links for above). A more than superficial inspection of this case would have been nice. --Jaellee (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The warning levels aren't "per lifetime". While editors should use their best judgment, it's often a good idea for each new problem to start at the beginning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really amazed that except for Floquenbeam nobody seems to raise an eyebrow about Spyro02. Unprovoked name-calling obviously seems to be an acceptable behavior, despite WP:PA. Thanks for making that clear to me. --Jaellee (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable, and I've got an eye on this editor now. Calling people nazis is not on; there's no reason for us to call each other anything other than "fellow-editor". I never use those warning templates with registered accounts, because their effectiveness is very low. However, there's no excuse for spouting racist trash, and I thank you for bringing this issue to the community's attention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like everyone is in agreement that this editor shouldn't have said what he said. Jaellee response, that he should have used this template or that template seems like a minor and small side issue.

It is indisputable User:Spyro02 made some really fantastic unsourced, biased claims, was reverted, then he called another editor a Nazi. Ikip 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing it that way, this gives me the feeling that my opinion about this incident is not exclusive my own. --Jaellee (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Alainr345 personal attack

[31]. Enjoy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please could you kindly clarify, had you had any previous interaction with Alainr before he made this comment? I have also notified Alainr of this discussion. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, I've had no prior interactions with him. I believe what prompted the personal attack was my removal of File:Java logo.svg from Java (software platform) (incompliance with WP:NFCC #10c, routine work), an article he would have an interest in (though has not edited before) as a member of Wikiproject Java. Just an unprovoked attack. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alainr; this kind of attack is uncalled for, if you disagree with something that some one has done, the solution is not to call them names, but to politely discuss your concerns in a constructive and civil way. Name calling is non-constructive, and it breeds disjunction between editors and the community as a whole.

I respectfully suggest, but do not demand, that you apologize to Hammersoft, and then resolve any issues that you have with their work in a mannerly and affable way, should you wish to.

Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at User:Hammersoft, you'll see that the guy calls himself exactly that, so I have no glory in calling him the same thing... As for the issue itself, I don't understand at all why a bit of content that is LEGAL in a Wikipedia article should not be LEGAL on a portal, as a portal is just that: Wikipedia content, content, content. You won't convince me otherwise and Jimbo should have the courage to stand for it instead of doing 'accomodations' with lawyers. For me there's the law, and then the interpretation of the law, and then things you do or not, with subtlety. Bye now,
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you have issues with our non-free content policy, you can take it up at WT:NFC. This isn't the place for it, as any discussion here would not result in change there. As to calling me a certified idiot, I have a dizzying array of insults on my userpage. Calling me those insults doesn't make them any less of an insult just because I have them on my userpage, just as me saying "Ya, Canadian that's what you are indeed" is highly inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Simply because Hammersoft calls (him/her)self an idiot does not make it acceptable for you to call them such. As for your concerns about the copyright, I suggest you look up the copyright laws concerning this, Jimbo Wales has no power to change these laws. However, the real concern is not the issue its self, but the way in which addressed it, which was by insulting Hammersoft, that kind of behaviour is non-constructive. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I thought this was getting better, as User:Alainr345 modified his comment on my talk page [32] to direct his insult at the policy, rather than me personally. Then he uploaded File:Dukesource125.gif, which was missing evidence of permission. I tagged it with {{npd}} and notified him [33]. The result was an insult to the effect that I apparently can not read see edit summary. I've thoroughly checked the Sun website and can find no verbiage to the effect that the image has been released under CC 3.0. I have found verbiage directly in contradiction to that free license, specifically "This license is revocable at any time at Sun's sole discretion" [34]. I've notified Alainr345 but would appreciate someone stepping in on the continued personal insults. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Alainr345's allowed the image to be re-tagged without further insult. I hope it stays that way. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Activist personal attacks

I tried to discuss this [35] with User:Activist on her/his talk page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozitt (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:QueenofBattle

Queen has decided to move on to greener pastures and decided to leave with a few personal attacks. Since Queen followed me to my talk page, I figured I'd just post the offending comments here and have them resolved. See [[36]] and [[37]] are glaring examples. Since Queen is retiring, I see no reason to put up with him anymore. RTRimmel (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen making unfounded accusations

I have had to deal with this person continually since before Christmas. Someone posted questionable content to her talk page, whereupon she intitiated an unfounded sock case against me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive. Then she filed a report here about me. Next she popped up at Black Dahlia, an article upon which she had never previously edited, to revert something I removed and has maintained a overly long, ridiculously drawn out discussion with editors there. At one point, Crohnie admonished her for treating her like "an idiot or something". Next she popped up at Charles Manson, also an article upon which she had not previously edited, to throw herself into an issue I was involved in and making unsupported statements, which she has proceeded to edit war over. She then joined WP:CRIME, a project in which I'm active. It is quote obvious she is stalking my edits. Finally tonight, another editor came to Talk:Black Dahlia to enter a content vote, and SkagitRiverQueen made an outright accusation against me of canvassing votes, where she clearly and unequivocably said "It's obvious that some editors have been canvassed specifically to sway the vote (and am I making an accusation here? yes, indeed, I am)." I asked her to withdraw her comment and her response was "And, frankly, regardless of whether or not I can prove it, I don't believe that you *haven't* canvassed for input here." She was clearly challenged on this by LaVidaLoca here and Pinkadelica here. I want this editor to stop following me around, picking tenditious arguments and making specious and unfounded accusations against me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse these comments by Wildhartlivie. I object to the specious claim that my opinion was canvassed in anyway and believe SkagitRiverQueen's intent is tenditious and assaultive in nature. For the record, she has reverted the Manson article 3 times, even after she was asked not to edit war over it. It appears to me that she is wikihounding Wildhartlivie and would take exception to anything she says or does. This is an untenable situation that needs to stop. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As the editor who instigated the preliminary consensus vote (and as such a possible cohort in the WP:CANVASS), I must agree that this claim against Wildhartlivie is specious and unwarranted. I have attempted to instruct SkagitRiverQueen on the proper way to engage in disputes (mainly not attacking other editors based on perceived editing style). This has not worked as of yet. I do see a pattern of "wikihounding" here on SkagitRiverQueen's part, as do many other editors, and this has persisted for some time. This feud must end... Doc9871 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this is purely retaliation by Wildhartlivie for the sock-puppet investigation (exactly why it's the first thing she mentioned in the complaint even though the issue has been over and done for nearly a couple of weeks, now). Not only is she reverting practically everything I have edited recently, she is now reverting entire sections of large articles I have edited[38]. On top of that, she continues to call me by an inflammatory name ("Skag" - I have noted on my User Page it is *not* an acceptible contraction of my user name; she even mentioned earlier today that she has read that admonition on my user page[39] that is a known slang term for women who have less than savory reputations[40]). Now, in addition to everything else, she has placed an "edit war" warning on my talk page *after* she filed this report.[41] I am not in an edit war - and am actually trying to reason with the editor of that article who has been reverting my recent edits.[42] Wildhartlivie has publically called my mental and emotional health into question here in Wikipedia on more than one occasion. Additionally, she has a questionable history that includes abuse of her rollback privileges (see User talk:Wildhartlivie for the warning she recently received and User talk:GTBacchus for her responses to the warning), continued incivility to anyone who edits articles she watches, and canvassing her Wikipedia friends to back her up whenever her edits or actions are called into question (above content from LaVidaLoca is proof of this). And yes, I do believe she canvassed editors by email regarding the issue we have been discussing at Talk:Black Dahlia. Concerning this complaint, you will likely also hear from User:Doc9871, User:Pinkadelica, User:Crohnie, User:Rossrs, User:Vidor, and User:Equazcion - all editors she has canvassed in the past when she feels she needs support in one of her efforts to prove me wrong. Evidence of this can be found at [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. In those instances, she out-and-out lied that I mentioned four of those editors in any fashion - yet, her message to them gave them the impression I had. Until yesterday, Wildhartlivie's reverts have usually been improperly used rollbacks without any reason given to the editors who made the edits that were reverted. On the internet (outside of Wikipedia) she has a reputation for being controlling over Wikipedia articles (to the point of discouraging new editors from contributing) and is seen as someone who feels she owns articles. On the website, Vox, she referred to herself on September 9, 2009 as "Wildhartlivie a wikipedia celebrity special interests agent". In describing herself at that website she stated, "Yes I <real name removed for privacy> control all the celebrity content on Wikipedia." She has a harassing, heavy-handed attitude in editing and reverting edits and, IMO, is - simply put - a bully and the kind of Wikipedia editor who makes Wikipedia an unfriendly place to be. -- SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, you've just named seven (7) editors that agree with Wildhartlivie on this particular issue. If you believe were are just automatons, bound to Livie's "canvassing", no matter what the issue... you are both giving too much credit to Wildhartlivie, and insulting (at least) seven other editors. This has possibly passed beyond the realm of "wikihounding"... Doc9871 (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. This is not retaliatory for the sock accusation, please spare us the injured party act. This is a complaint about an overt and unabashed accusation of WP:CANVASS. I inadvertently typed her name without "itRiverQueen". That wasn't intentional, but then again why would someone use a username "that is a known slang term for women who have less than savory reputations"? The 3RR warning was absolutely correct, she did revert 3 times. The editor on that talk page said to her "You are now arguing — and editing — in bad faith." She clearly has a vendetta against me and is exercising it at every turn. I do not have a questionable history on Wikipedia, but now that SkagitRiverQueen brings it up, I wonder how User:GTBacchus got wind of the reversions of inappropriate removal of country of birth and death, which I maintain bordered on vandalism? That she knows about it indicates she was the catalyst for it. Do you deny it, SkagitRiverQueen? That is where she got her mention of inappropriate use of rollback, and after the discussion of which GTBacchus decided to not act on it. I would mention that SkagitRiverQueen had her own rollback removed recently when she successfully blamed her cellphone for two separate rollback comments on User:Crohnie's talk page, almost 2 hours apart. And for all that, why is this editor so familiar with how I edit and where that is?? Like I said for her accusations of canvass, prove it when you claim I have a pattern of incivility. I don't know where she scared up her "outside of Wikipedia" comments but I do not belong to Vox and those comments were not made by me. Whoever opened that account doesn't even spell my username correctly all the time. I will disclose to any interested administrators where I suspect that content came from (an editor who kept posting on celebrity talk pages about their salaries and who hacked a twitter account called Wildhartlivie2, and posted an annotated copy of my contributions history which is referenced on that page and which twitter would not remove). All of that crap is contained on that page and I have contacted that website to request its removal as harassment. It's preposterous to think that I would post such nonsense and specious and vindictive to conclude it is me. And even if I did, what does anything off of Wikipedia matter here anyway? I am not interested in SkagitRiverQueen's personal opinion of me, but I do want her to stop stalking my edits and causing problems with me. This is a specious and unwarranted attack upon me which qualifies as violating all behavioral guidelines on Wikipedia. Please look at her recent editing history for confirmation. I'm quite sure the editors she mentioned would object to her claim that they do what I ask and are mindlessly under my control. Perhaps they just happen to more often than not agree with me. Please make SkagitRiverQueen back off and leave me alone and stop stalking me here. And as I stated here before, my comments were characterizations regarding her accusations, not an opinion or diagnosis about her mental health. Methinks thou doth protest too much. And for the record, I did not lie and tell editors they were under discussion, when you blatantly named people who were bullies in your complaint further up the page here. Meanwhile, you're already involving yourself in dispute with another editor at Talk:Charles Manson. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for the pronouncement about my endorsement of the complaint against you, SkagitRiverQueen: "above content from LaVidaLoca is proof of this". For your information I can read perfectly well and I am perfectly able to draw my own conclusions. Please stop attacking editors who agree with Wildhartlivie as being mindless puppets who cannot make up their own minds. You're stalking Wildhartlivie around Wikipedia and that is quite obvious to observers. Please stop denigrating my ability to think for myself. Did it ever occur to you that a group of editors who work together congenially may agree on many things? Not from the record of disputes I've seen you in. LaVidaLoca (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) You're damn skippy I'm gonna comment - my name is mentioned! First of all SkagitRiverQueen, please tell me how Wildhartlivie canvassed me to do anything when I've never commented on any article or any other issue involving the two of you outside of The Black Dahlia (which I had watchlisted after making some minor edits to it on December 30)? That diff you provided from my talk page just shows she left me a message expressing her frustration with dealing with your accusations. She has that right. Can you provide a diff where I responded or even commented on the WP:WQA thread she cited? If not, that's not canvassing at all. Second, her internet reputation? Seriously? What is that and where can I find out about my internet rep? Is there some kind of internet bathroom wall that one can find this information on? Off-Wiki behavior (or internet rep if you will) has no bearing on-Wiki unless it involves meatpuppetry or some other violation of policy. Your examples do not cite meatpuppetry or anything of that nature. Wildhartlivie can claim she's the queen of Sheba who rules Wikipedia with an iron fist off-Wiki and it won't amount to a hill of beans here. The fact that SkagitRiverQueen hasn't provided any off-site diffs to these horrible comments along with evidence that Wildhartlivie is driving new contributors away is telling but again, they don't matter here anyway. To be honest, I've no idea what the hell happened between SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie, but it's quite obvious SkagitRiverQueen's overall attitude towards Wildhartlive (and anyone who is on decent terms with her) could do with a huge improvement. My limited dealings with SkagitRiverQueen has not been what you would call positive or collegial either but I suppose that's more collateral damage than anything else. My advise to SkagitRiverQueen is to leave Wildhartlivie alone once and for all. You've accused her of sockpuppetry and I don't know what else and none of that has panned out. Enough already. We all encounter editors we don't like - avoid them. If you can't bear to tear yourself away from certain articles that Wildhartlivie also edits because you "care about the project" so much, consider an enforced Wikibreak. That will put everything into perspective which is something that is sorely needed here. There's no dispute or slight worth following an editor to various article and kicking up trouble in an effort to bait them and get them banned. That rarely works out the way you intended it to and, to put it plainly, it's psycho behavior. Pinkadelica^♣

My advice is this, all of you apologize to each other for misunderstandings and hurt feelings, and then you go and do some article work, and resolve to avoid future conflicts. Seriously, all of you appear to have complaint, and all of you seem to have been mistreated, the win/lose mentality that seems to be prevalent here (the idea that one has to show that the others are wrong or have behaved worse than you), is non-constructive. Try and look at your own actions rather than the actions of others. To be honest with you I'm not interested in trawling through this debate just so that I can say who is wrong or right (and no doubt all of you are a bit of each). The most constructive way forward from this would be to apologize and attempt to avoid future conflict, if its necessary to avoid each other as a means of avoiding future conflict then so be it. This is only my advice/opinion, and others may think differently. Kindest regards to each of you, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Very.. non-committal! Thanks for the "piercing" insight into the heart of the debate, without the bother of "trawling" through it. Seriously, it's good to get outside opinions here, though... Doc9871 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I remind you that everyone here volunteers their own time in an effort to improve the project, try to be more appreciative of that. The reason that I was non-committal is because I realise that the world isn't black-and-white, its not always necessary to be on a side. If you were interested in resolving this debate via reconciliation and co-operation then you would simply have apologized. However, since you seem to want to have it resolved by either wining or losing I will now trawl through this pig-sty of a "debate" and form an opinion upon it, which I will share with you in due course. Since this thread is so littered with unfounded accusations it may take me some time to try and find evidence, please be patient. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Schweet! I just love a party... Doc9871 (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

you know, I am inspired to create a 'tea party' template, which reminds everyone that sometimes you just need to sit down, sip some tea, and talk about sophisticated things (the works of Baudelaire, the philosophy of Kant, the current chances of the Knicks). A good cup of tea puts everything into perspective, and makes all the tawdry little conflicts of life seem like distant clouds on the horizon. life without tea would be dreary indeed...

So, you're all grumpy as hell, everyone is feeling hurt, and everyone is trying to make sure that everyone else feels just as hurt as they do (if not more). If it weren't so funny it would be sad; or maybe that's the other way around. either way, stop it. everyone already feels like crap, and trying to squeeze a little bit more crap out of each other isn't going to produce much in the way of results. You've all lost the argument, because even if you get a little thrill out of putting down one of the others it's not going to help you get what you all really want, which is a bit of respect and a bit of consideration. So get over it, and get back to working on content, and don't think you're impressing the rest of us with this display, because you're not.

I recommend Darjeeling, though (of course) that is a matter of personal taste. --Ludwigs2 09:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I could use a Earl Grey right now, Ludwigs.

Personally I believe that your above comment contains two-fold the amount of wisdom than all of my rambling below, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A-freakin'-men. The winner will be the first person to drop this, and everyone else who drops it also wins. You guys clearly don't like each other; stop talking about each other. Start ignoring accusations - nobody's going to actually be injured by them. You've all got mud on you now; break it up, go home, do laundry.

I've seen lots of people try to seek "justice" on Wikipedia: 99% of them end up very sad and upset as a result. Please let it go; the current trajectory leads nowhere pretty. Please let it go, SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie. You're on a path that leads nowhere good. Please come off that path, please. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm going to do is provide a "piercing" piece of advice for each of you, although you are welcome to read my comments on everyone, I ask that you focus more on my comments on you. My comments regarding you will probably be rather harsh, but I ask that they are accepting in the spirit in which they are made; in an attempt to help you to improve your editing. As I have said above in my "piercing insight into the heart of the debate" its important to focus on your own behaviour rather than that of others, as is often said here; "do not look at the speck in your brother/sister's eye, but instead consider the plank in your own eye" (hypocritical of me to say that straight before rushing in to tell you all where and how to improve, but hey! )
SkagitRiverQueen: The main concern against you is that you are wiki-stalking Wildhartlivie. I am aware of the fact that its very easy to stumble across editors that we know simply by coincidence, especially since the editors that we know are most often those who work in similar area's to us, for instance, if I patrol the new pages regularly, then it is likely that I come across other users who do the same, and these are not always users who I agree with or get along with. I can thoroughly appreciate the need to correct their edits, however, its important to ask yourself before doing so: "is it actually going to be constructive for me to get involved here?" A lot of the time the answer to this will be no, if becoming involved in the issue is going to make the situation even worse then simply walk away. If you really feel that its necessary to become involved in the matter then make sure you do so in a polite and constructive way. For instance, at Charles Manson you appear to have made your edits without discussing them first, although its unfair to expect you to discuss every edit before you make it, you continued to attempt to introduce your edits without proper discus in an attempt to form consensus. My advice to you is to attempt to stay away from editing articles that users who you have had previous disagreements with are involved in, if you really feel it necessary then attempt to communicate with them in a polite and civil way (not to say that you haven't been civil in the past) and discuss the changes.
Wildhartlivie: Although you don't appear to have been wiki-stalking SkagitRiverQueen, your conduct in discussions with them is of more concern, I can perfectly understand that its difficult to maintain a civil demeanour towards all editors, especially if you feel that your edits are being stalked. However, its important to be polite well mannered at all times. For this reason you should not have persisted in calling SkagitRiverQueen "Skag", particular as you did so after she had asked you to stop. You are not excused from this simply because the word "Skag" is located in SkagitRiverQueen's user name, technically I can do the following with your username: wildhartlivie, however, that does not make it acceptable for me to call you a "willie", nor would I. Furthermore to this, simply because someone else does something does not make it acceptable for you to do it. In short; try and maintain a civil demeanour at all times, even if others do not.
Pinkadelica: calling other user's behavior "psycho" is rude and in-civil, please don't do it.
Doc9871, Pinkadelica and LaVidaLoca (on the subject of canvassing): you should be aware that SkagitRiverQueen's accusation of canvassing against Wildhartlivie is in no way a personal attack against you, nor should you interpret it as such. It was an accusation against Wildhartlivie, and she didn't refer to you as mindless puppets or automatons.
Further comments about canvassing @ SkagitRiverQueen: SkagitRiverQueen, its a bad idea to accuse editors of things which cannot be proven, its against the principal of assuming good faith and it generally encourages a mistrustful and tense editing space.
To all of you: now seriously, please apologize to each other, leave this behind you, and attempt to avoid future conflict. That's the best was to resolve a conflict like this. (Well, outside of a cup of tea anyway, as noted by Ludwigs above)
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say something but there is something that is seriously concerning to me and that is SkagitRiverQueen bothering to even look for Wildhartlivie on the net. She accused me of WP:Hounding and other things that I ignored and deleted from my talk page. I warned Wildhartlivie to back off because I was worried that SRQ would look her up and look, she's done just that. But I guess this is now closed and we are all supposed to apologize. Well I may have missed this report but I think this needs attentions of an administrator. We can't have editors looking for people on the net that they feel hurt by or angry with. Sorry I couldn't have said my piece about this since I am the one being accused of being a meatpuppet. Thanks anyways for trying User:Spitfire and User:Ludwigs2 (hi there, hope you are well. :)) --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

well enough for 4am, thank you very much. And I hope the same for you. no worries, no one in their right mind would mistake you for a meatpuppet. --Ludwigs2 11:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal abuse from IP

Over the past month, this user

• 68.230.158.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• previously using the IP 68.109.117.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log))

has made over 20 attempts to delete a piece of sourced information at Phil Lynott, while leaving a number of abusive comments on the article [48], also on my talk page [49] and now his own [50] [51] after the article was semi-protected yesterday. A discussion was originally attempted at his first IP's talk page User talk:68.109.117.51 but he didn't respond at all, just continuing to vandalise. The vandalism is solved by the semi-protection, but I'm pretty weary of being ranted at and sworn at, to be honest. Can anything be done? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to list them at WP:AIV, nothing else to be done with someone who's making personal attacks like this. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 making unfounded accusations and disrupting other editors to illistrate a point

On the 3rd January 2010 User:Purplebackpack89 started a discussion about whether WikiProjects (except for WikiProject:Disambiguation]] should be able to tag Disambiguation pages. The discussion was on Talk:Lincoln and focussed mainly on WikiProject:Lincolnshire, who rated it a Dab/High. An extremely lenghthly discussion followed and in the end a concensus was reached and User:Xeno mediated and concluded that WikiProjects may tag articles. The following day, Purplebackpack89 began a discussion on the same topic at the WikiProject Council.

He began accussing the editor, User:BSTemple, of tagging it as a high to attract readers so that his point would be void. Dispite clearly losing again, he was and still is persistant, one editor is considering applying WP:Snow. He is now being disruptive and his increasingly anti-wikipedian attitude is leading to belive that he is trolling. I have left a kind message on his talk page asking him to move but he just ignored it. I would like someone to intervene. 95jb14 (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

On top of this, User:xeno added this note to Purplebackpacks talk page on the 04/01/10, which User:Purplebackpack subsequently deleted: this. 95jb14 (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

A few points

1. I've edited for over a year and have a clean block record
2. Discussion was made at WikiProject Council because a disproportionate number of English and Lincolnshire editors
3. Just because something might be leaning SNOW isn't a reason to stop talking
4. 95jb14 has edited quite a few articles in said Lincolnshire project

Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you aren't accepting defeat in this case, you are becoming increasingly disruptive to other editors and this can tarnish your reputation. You have been editing for awhile so I'm not questioning your knowlege of Wikipedia but I do have one question: Why do you persistantly continue? Regardless of the instance, part of life and wikipedia is accepting defeat and now I feel it is time to move on away from this matter. The main reason I reported you hear is because you aren't doing that. 95jb14 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Request

Could someone assess the civility and good faith at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Proposal? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)