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

Simanos and personal attacks

Stale

 – seems to have run it's course as far as discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

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)

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.[1] 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[2] 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)

I think you're in the wrong place. If this dispute is still active, and you want someone to help you figure out whether the concept is fringe-y or not according to Wikipedia's definition of that term, then try Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. To figure out whether the idea is important enough to mention in the article, try Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Please be prepared to describe any sources that mention the idea (or the steps you've taken to search for high-quality sources, if you haven't been able to find any.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 11 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)

[3] - (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

[4] 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

[5] 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

[6] 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

[7] 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

[8] 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!). [9] 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 "[10] 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

[11] 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

[12] 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)

[13] 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)

User:Activist personal attacks

I tried to discuss this [14] with User:Activist on her/his talk page as well. Kozitt (talk) 13:44, 11 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 [[15]] and [[16]] 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)

• If they are actually leaving, then you won't have any more problems with them. Just remove those remarks from your talk page and forget it is my advice. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

QueenofBattle is still editing and has restored personal attacks on their user page [[17]] Gerardw (talk) 10:50, 11 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[18]. 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[19] that is a known slang term for women who have less than savory reputations[20]). Now, in addition to everything else, she has placed an "edit war" warning on my talk page *after* she filed this report.[21] 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.[22] 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 [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. 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)

Crohnie, you're right that trying to discover and reveal the identity of another editor is a problem. SkagitRiverQueen, if you're reading here, you probably will want to know that attempted "outing" is considered a rather severe violation of community standards. If you disagree with someone's edits, it's because of their edits, and not because of who they are. If you just focus on the edits, and leave off with all personal remarks, you'll find the drama dissipating like the morning mist. Just find a way to remove comments about other editors from your vocabulary entirely. No decision on this site is based on personal matters; we only care about edits.

If you can manage to only talk about edits, the road will rise up to meet you. If you keep talking about other editors, it's gonna get ugly. That's a guarantee, because I've seen it happen so many times. Please, just leave off all possible personal remarks, and restrict your comments to edits. Please, don't make this boil over and get messy, please. Rise above it all, like a dove on the wind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize some might say I don't have much credibility here amongst other long term editors, but I wanted to add that SRQ seems to act in a manner that she owns wikipedia and the rest of us are visiting. This is based on the sockpuppet deal she began where she accused up to 4-5 people all being socks of one another. In the end, it was proven not to be true. Additionally, this editor will complain to admins over the smallest, nit-picky issues you can imagine as opposed to simply communicating with other editors. When you do make changes she doesn't like, she will promptly label you a vandal in an attempt to discredit you. Or more recently, a sockpuppet. She also seems to edit against others in a vindictive manner. MisterSoup (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, MisterSoup. Your credibility is weakened (at least with me) not because of your new status, but because of your proven vandalism to SRQ's page. We know you don't like SRQ, but vandalizing a user's page is so not the way to go about it demonstrating your dislike. Happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse my tardiness. I've been out of town all week. Per WP:TLDR, I haven't read through this extensively, but I have some general things to say. SRQ in my opinion does tend to make unfounded accusations. It's her default response to most disagreements, in lieu of having to heed any degree of criticism. I realize some people (GTBacchus, namely) see this as a "trouts all around" situation, as I probably also would if I came in at this point, but that's not what this is; and as CrohnieGal suggested once, those who doubt this should pay attention to the pages (especially the discussion pages) that SRQ frequents, to see for yourself. All I can say is that I entered this situation as an onlooker myself. I had no dogs in the fight and only sought to mediate. I defended SRQ on several occasions when I felt she was right, or at least worthy of leniency. I never had any reason to bully her or conspire with others against her. But when I started disagreeing with her, she started flinging accusations, and yes I did get pissed off. That doesn't mean, however, that everyone here is an equal contributor to this dispute. SRQ's demeanor is a problem. I've got a list of diffs and explanation (meant originally to be a response to another exchange, but saved for later if it becomes necessary), but I don't think it would be very useful here. WQA is a place where all you can really hope for is for everyone to acquiesce, and I believe from experience that SRQ will never admit that her behavior was ever a problem. So we'll have to wait until this becomes more of a direct policy violation issue (I see that has already begun somewhat) before anything can really be done about it. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:43, 9 Jan 2010 (UTC)

""But I can't and won't say that I know I was edit-warring and that I think this block is just because (a) I know I wasn't edit warring, I was just plain editing, and (b) I won't compromise my integrity by saying I did something I know I didn't do. I really wish you would look into the other editor(s) involved here..". From the horse's mouth on the second denied "unblock" request, as I posted on the "hounded" editors talk page. "...I believe from experience that SRQ will never admit that her behavior was ever a problem." I fully agree: see above... Doc9871 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've communicated with SkagitRiverQueen by email, and I'm going to repeat (or paraphrase) here what I've written off-wiki. From SkagitRiverQueen's perspective, pursuing this as a behavior issue is unlikely to go well. I am more than willing to join the participants in any article editing situation and work in context. I don't like treating behavior issues in the abstract, because Wikipedia is not Night Court. If there's not a specific edit to talk about, then we're misusing the wiki to be talking about anything at all.

I am confident that we can get through whatever issues exist here by leaving this board, moving to some article, and working together on it. I would like if someone here would pick a particular about which there is disagreement, and we can start there. If Equazcion is right, that will become apparent. If SRQ is right, that will become apparent. If Wildhartlivie is right, that will become apparent. If I'm wrong, that will become apparent. Right now, all I'm getting is "he said, she said, they did, I might...." I have no reason to believe or disbelieve any of it until I see it happening, in real-time.

SRQ's block expires soon. Which article shall we reconvene at, to work this out? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, give it a go at Black Dahlia. I think we would appreciate you there. See you there! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:12, 10 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 [28], also on my talk page [29] and now his own [30] [31] 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

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposed_change_to_tagging_Disambiguation_pages_for_projects

Gerardw (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Think you forgot to finish the second bullet point? Gerardw (talk) 17:13, 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).

Not seeing a Wikiquette issue here. As the discussion is well underway at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposed_change_to_tagging_Disambiguation_pages_for_projects discussion should probably just continue there. Gerardw (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – It seems there has already been an WP:ANI thread on the subject, if there are still problems you should pursue stronger forms of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Abusive and racist remarks made against User:Mister Flash by User:Þjóðólfr

Please see this diff - [32], the two immediately preceding it, and my original comment above these remarks. Mister Flash (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely uncool. Gerardw (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to new section?

Resolved

 – although a cup of coffee might be in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just yesterday I posted a new section requesting advice regarding an uncivil user. It seems to have disappeared, with no trace left in the history. Could anyone enlighten me as to what happened? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You're misremembering the page you posted on; it was WP:EAR#Dealing with uncivil editor (Infinity0). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. I hadn't realized just how deeply I had burrowed in. Yes, a cup of coffee helps, and heavy on the sugar. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777 and invalid warnings

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – continue on article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see [33]. Phoenix7777's threat to block Bendono and a vandalism3 warning to me (also, his diff shows I did indeed provide an edit summary) seem to be a bullying tactic. I acknowledge I was a bit blunt in my response. Can other editors have a word with him? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I request NeilN to be warned of a false accusation to me. NeilN said "Do not threaten editors with blocks as you are not an admin". So I explained the warning of block is not limited to admin saying "Is this template for admin only?" with vandalism3 template. Then NeilN accused me of "a vandalism3 warning to me". And NeilN accused me "you are the one repeatedly removing sourced content". However I reverted only once his/her edit. Although NeilN is an involved person who reverted the edit, he/she never participated in the discussion and abruptly came to warn me of civility and brought this case here. His/her "sourced content" was proved to be inappropriate to be placed in the article. Please see Talk:Onigiri#Kimchi ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Y'all need to take this here instead. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 09:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a wikiquette issue here, I think. Phoenix7777 came to my attention by deleting a sentence in which I had just repaired an ambiguous link, because it lacked a source. This editor's contribution history shows a pattern of similar deletions of content. Evidently, as NeilN complains, Phoenix7777 routinely deals in this way with content that seems doubtful to Phoenix7777. Of course, this behavior by Phoenix7777 antagonizes other contributors.

NeilN, editors may warn one another about blocks. Sometimes the warnings are appropriate, sometimes not. Inexperienced editors are prone to make mistakes.

Phoenix7777, as I explained on your talk page, the courteous way of dealing with such content is to tag it {{fact}} or {{dubious}} or similar, and explain your concern on the talk page. Even better, because it is far more efficient and constructive, would be for you to learn to search for a reliable source and, if you find one, properly format it and add it to the article. If you do not find one, then tag the content. That you did not find a source suggests but does not prove the content is wrong. Only when you are absolutely sure that the content is wrong should you delete it. Build Wikipedia yourself, rather than tear down others' efforts to build it. I do understand the appeal of only deleting content; it is so much easier. But it is the lazy, discourteous way.

All of you, please try to be gracious and forgiving of others' mistakes. Behave toward others as you may wish others to behave toward you, when you make mistakes.

That said, there is a content dispute between Phoenix7777 and other editors concerning Onigiri. That content dispute belongs elsewhere, not here, but I expect that after all these editors calm down a little, they will be able to resolve the dispute themselves on Onigiri rather than a noticeboard.

Best wishes. --Una Smith (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page warnings are not a Wikiquette violation or bullying. Per WP:BOLD I see nothing wrong with the initial Phoenix7777 revert -- I've seen way too many pages with months olds {{fact}} tags -- but after that it was time to stop and hash out on article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about the content dispute; I care about Phoenix7777's behaviour. Bendono and I are experienced editors so we know Phoenix7777's (also an experienced editor) warnings can be taken with a large grain of salt. But imagine if you are a new editor. You add back a piece of sourced info. It is removed and you are sternly warned that if you add it again you will be blocked. I think that's bullying. Furthermore, it was not clear at all that Phoenix7777 was using the uw-vandalism3 as an example. I was going by my past interaction with him on User_talk:NeilN#Onigiri where he doesn't exactly come clean about "resolution" and "consensus". Basically, if Phoenix7777 wants to use Wikipedia guidelines and policies to defend his reversion then he should accurately interpret them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, it can be a bullying tactic. Overall I would say I support your views in this matter. Simanos (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of Phoenix7777 posting a warning on a new user's page? Gerardw (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I proposed a hypothetical situation. It seems the general feeling is that Phoenix7777's behaviour does not need to be modified so I will drop the matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, there is a very wide WP:Gray Area. As noted above, I provided my opinion Phoenix7777 went too far in making multiple reversions. Una Smith also suggested an alternative option for future behavior. As of yet Phoenix7777 has not had the opportunity to respond to these suggestions, so let's wait and see what they have to say. Please don't consider a lack of demand for sanctions at this point as a lack of support. Gerardw (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Una, I responded to you on my talk page. I sometimes remove a dubious content after posting to talk page, and sometimes without posting to talk page when I am confident about it with an edit summary "Please restore with a reliable source" and usually it is never restored. Anyway this is not the subject of this discussion.

As for this case, I am not sure what is the point of the accusation. I showed vandalism3 template to explain that warning of block is not limited to admin tool, I have no intension to warn NeilN with it at all. Isn't it a very intuitive example? You can never find the policy "a warning of block is not limited to admin" from Wikipedia policy. I wonder why NeilN abruptly came to the discussion and warned me. Is my warning to Bendono "If you revert it again, it will become edit warring and you will be blocked from editing" to be blamed so harshly? Is NeilN's abrupt comment "Do not threaten editors with blocks as you are not an admin" appropriate in this situation? He/she never participated in the discussion at all at this point. I think his/her intruding warning in this situation is much more to be blamed against civility. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, your edit patterns and statements here and on my talk page reflect a habit of gatekeeping, a behavior that may be appropriate for handling vandalism. Applied to good faith edits, this behavior tends to offend other contributors. You do spend some time handling vandalism and I would say you are having difficulty with the transition from reverting vandalism to collaborative editing. --Una Smith (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Given your past questionable assertions, it was not intuitive at all nor was it an appropriate example. This is a content dispute not a case of vandalism. Content disputes lead to 3RR warnings which may lead to blocks (check the careful wording of the message). Your example involved vandalism which will lead to blocks. Bendono made his first edit to the article since last September, you reverted, and told Bendono he would be blocked if he reverted again without more sources than the two already provided (two more than any other filling has). Frankly, this is lame content dispute and could have been handled better by a neutrally worded comment to remember 3RR (if necessary) rather than threats. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, you brought this here and thus may be presumed to have an interest in learning how to deal gracefully with others. I would say the most constructive thing you can do is try to ignore the bad manners and poor judgment of other editors, and focus on the content dispute itself. In a situation where one editor refuses to accept multiple references as sufficient, you may find it helpful to submit a request for comment on the content dispute. Not on the other user's behavior, unless it is seriously disruptive behavior. Like you, I find Phoenix7777's habit of deleting content to be disruptive, but only slightly disruptive. It is tedious to engage in content disputes with Phoenix7777, but Phoenix7777 is far from the worst editor in this regard. It is my impression that editors who resort to gatekeeping in this fashion generally lack research skills and thus are unable to find out for themselves if the content is accurate. Try to tolerate them, provide sources, and help others develop research skills by noting on the article talk page how and where you found your sources. --Una Smith (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... he's calling your edits vandalism now [34]. Ignore or try to educate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. On Talk:Onigiri (here) Phoenix7777 addresses me with Una, your revert[35] is quite inappropriate because you never participate in the ongoing discussion. It is considered as vandalism. Moreover you are misunderstanding above discussion. I am inclined to ignore it. However, others reading this may feel differently. --Una Smith (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit naughty

This foul-language outburst was unnecessary whatever the problem, not my talk page but I think the editor should be warned at the least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Bro5990 has been alerted to the existence of this report. See this diff. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rehman

Resolved

 – per statements below that everything has been hashed out on the talk page. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A difficult situation arose at List of onshore wind farms when Rehman "Reconstructed the entire article" without any prior discussion, see [36]. I reverted him and gave three good reasons for doing so, see [37]. I have done my best to AGF and have consistently worked to move things forward in a positive way with the article, compromise where possible, and discuss things on the Talk page as I went, see [38]. However, Rehman has launched into a 12-line personal attack about my behaviour, see [39]. Johnfos (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

One may need to read the entire conversation (Talk:List of onshore wind farms#Restructuring) to be sure who need to be submitting Wikiquette alerts. As you may find, the difficult situation is already solved. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like issue has been successfully hashed out on talk page and don't see anything over the top. I'd encourage everyone to move on. Gerardw (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. As a matter of fact, this notice was placed here by Johnfos (talk · contribs) after the conflict ended (i backed out). Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that this dicussion has been hashed in great detail on the subject talk page, and that the best thing to do is to move on. Both editors in the dispute are good contributors to Wikipedia, and both editors have done a bit of personal (about-the-editor, rather than about-the-article, behavior) in dealing with the article issues. I do not believe that it will be useful to conduct an inquest on who engaged in such behavior first. In short, I don't think it will serve any useful purpose to go back into it now after the article issues have been resolved. N2e (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I have previously commented on that talk page).

I agree 100% with N2e's comments. (I too have commented on that talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive contributions by IP 71.230.67.178

After being warned here the user

• 71.230.67.178 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)),

Has continued to abuse other editors here and here. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And again --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This one [40] is a bit of an eye-opener, for which he got the warning. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the whole "don't be a dick" thing is probably just a misunderstanding of the meaning of WP:DICK. It's not a blunt object to be used to shut down any person you disagree with, and as is noted on that page, calling someone else a dick is kind of dick-move in and of itself, and is something that should only be done in cases of pure dickery, not just a run-of-the-mill AFD discussion. Telling everyone to "piss off" is a bit harder to blink past, as that shows a battleground mentality. I advise the IP not to take things so personally, and to focus on commenting on content, and not calling other users dicks and telling them to piss off. It does not advance your cause, and does much to harm it if you cannot interact in a civil, adult manner with other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA by User:Andy Dingley, User:Foetusized

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Rapido_reported_by_User:Foetusized_.28Result:_.29 Gerardw (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Regarding User:Andy Dingley, edit summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trellick_Tower&diff=prev&oldid=336818298 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_Invicta_(London_Pirate_Station)&diff=prev&oldid=336818093 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric%27s_Club&diff=prev&oldid=336817799 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ozark_Mountain_Daredevils&diff=prev&oldid=336817698 - this is despite a recent previous request for them not to WP:AOBF. Regarding User:Foetusized, edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_Invicta_(London_Pirate_Station)&diff=prev&oldid=336908096 - I protested the insult I received, but it was totally ignored on their subsequent reply. Rapido (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks. The other users have pointed out that you are engaged in POV-pushing and edit warring. Please discuss your concerns about article content on the article talk pages. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the other users have expressed their opinion (however incorrect it may be), but they have done so in a way that is not civil, and in any case is irrevelent to the article in question. Andy Dingley accuses me of bulk stealthy deletions, attempting to delete and trying to push an agenda - none of which is true. Simply I deleted text that is either unsourced or fails WP:SPS. These are personal attacks as per WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, along with WP:AOBF. Foetusized decided to call me a jerk. Now that's the sort of language I don't expect from someone I completely don't know. Again this meets WP:NPA as Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack. I have no idea how you consider all the above to be "not personal attacks" Rapido (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido, the edit summaries on the diffs for Andy Dingley you gave above are not personal attacks. They do fail to assume good faith. I missed the "jerk" on the last diff. Calling you a jerk (no need to be a jerk) is a personal attack. --Una Smith (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True, those are not personal attacks, and they do reflect valid concerns. However, Rapido does not call them personal attacks. Rapido calls them insults, meaning he is insulted (offended) by them. Remarks addressing any person do not belong in the edit summary, and probably do not belong on the article talk page either. Andy Dingley and Foetusized would cause less offense if they refrained from such remarks in edit summaries. --Una Smith (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Rapido did refer to WP:NPA; what other policy or guideline should Rapido have referred to instead? There is the help page Wikipedia:Edit summary. --Una Smith (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido, you are correct that these other editors' remarks are personal and insulting to you. Both editors need to stop addressing the person (you) and instead address the content dispute without imputing motives to you. However, your behavior is a problem also. Your deleting content is making these editors angry. To see the same dynamic played out between others, look on this noticeboard at User:Phoenix7777 and invalid warnings. Instead of deleting paragraphs, add {{fact}} tags and on the talk page say exactly what content needs to be sourced. --Una Smith (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - last time I used citation needed, I received abuse, and the tags were removed! As regards the talk page, I don't see why I should be forced to communicate with such people who use offensive language towards other editors; and I have just seen that the same person continues to assume bad faith about me in the talk pages. Rapido (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Response: I am sorry for calling Rapido a jerk. To be honest, I originally had a much stronger term in that edit summary but dialed it back before submitting it. It seems that he took diff as a demand for an apology, and I regret not responding to his concerns. I was much more focused on inviting him to a discussion on the edit war that he is engaged in. I still find this edit, where he added the "Citation needed" template after every sentence in an article, to be a poorly-thought-out knee-jerk thing, and I have no regrets in calling him on it, but I should not have made it personal -- Foetusized (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of venue: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rapido reported by User:Foetusized (Result: ). --Una Smith (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment - are personal attacks outside the remit of the Wikiquette section? If so, could you please point out the section that I should have posted to. Many thanks in advance. Rapido (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the venue for them would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (AN). But this was an isolated remark, and Foetusized has apologized to you. I don't get why Foetusized also filed on you at AN. I do get that Foetusized was very annoyed by your heavy use of {{cn}}. When every sentence in a paragraph needs a source (as often is the case), I find it more constructive to put just one tag on the paragraph and add a note that it applies to the paragraph as a whole. You may get on better with other editors if you would take the time to find some of the needed sources. That way, instead of copious tagging readers will see copious sources, and all parties are satisfied. Yes, the burden of providing a source is on the editor who contributes the content, but I think it is good form to share the burden. --Una Smith (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

personal attack

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – unfortunately this has escalated and moved on to another noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Please, consider this: "Mladifilozof" are just here to contribute to the expantion of hateriot towards Serbia and Serbs.

I have respond by removal of text, but User:FkpCascais undid it, with explanation: This nis not a personal attack. Don´t be so sensitive.

I found it offensive, so please, help to solve this out.--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

personal attacks and treats continues: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Serbia&action=historysubmit&diff=337081444&oldid=337080578 "Naćiću te ja" on serbian language means "I will find you."--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "I will find you" threat is obviously not acceptable. Repetition of that kind of behavior will lead to a block. All articles related to Eastern Europe are covered by this ArbCom case, but I don't think we're quite at the point of needing to block anyone yet if we can get them to discuss the matter here. What I don't understand is if they truly belive the article should not exist, why not simply take it to WP:AFD? If there are genuine POV problems, then list it at WP:NPOVN. Edit warring and making accusations only make things worse, not better. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While going to one of the editor's in questions talk page to urge them to comment here I found this [41]. Guys, this is getting ugly, and you may find you are mistaken in the end about just who is going to get blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for letting me know about this debate. I´ve already asked for protections of the page (kingdom of Serbia) and other user (if he didn´t, I would) already asked to block User:Mladifilozof. About my words, they mean just that I will be "finding" him whereever he edits disruptivly as he does. Nothing else, he´s constantly victimizing, as I´m gonna kill him, or something... He did get the message. FkpCascais (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All i can say is here:([42])

User:Mladifilozof was warned numerous times in a past few days that his edits are not NPOV. Also, i dont know why are people attacking each other on wikipedia, it is a bit pointless. We are all here to contribute, are we? I will talk to User:FkpCascais regarding his "I will find you" edit, and with User:Mladifilozof regarding his editing stile. --Tadija (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, what I meant in User:tadija talk page was that we should end the edit war and try something more serious, like reporting him, and in case we succede in blocking him (wich I find should happend, because Mladifilozof disruptive, non NPOV edits are clear, he´ll suffer in the future, because it´s obvious he adores editing here. FkpCascais (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, pull the other one. "He'll suffer in the future" shows a clear battleground mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want this edit war to end. I wan´t understand if Mladifilozof is not blocked, since he doesn´t show any respect towards the warnings he receved (2), and continues (wright now) editing the article in the same way. The debate was opened in the talk page of the article, and he doesn´t respect that. His edits are very offensive, since he insist in changing facts using highly offensive words like ocupation, changing maps, please see by youselfs. Those are not "innocent" edits. I´ll stop all edits there and wait to see the outcome. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Those two users continually deleting all my work. Now they did it again. Just see history of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Serbia&action=history. --Mladifilozof (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of venue: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Una Smith (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Philcha

See this diff: [43]. Instead of being welcoming and helpful with a newcomer, he is being very hostile, not even explaining what the problem is, noting that they are deliberately not making it easier, setting an artificial deadline of three hours, and showing a clear misunderstanding of why we warn/block users by threatening "punishment" if whatever the un-named problem is is not fixed during the time frame he dictates. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Users informed of this thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox's actions do not the thoroughly or objectivity required of a WP admin. I notice that you said nothing about the user and conduct that led to this. While my approach to that user was severe, I could have raise the user's action at WP:AI directly - but instead left for the user an opportunity to clear up the problem (?)he had created. I will not response further until the incident has been investigated and document thoroughly. --Philcha (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you is behaving very civilly [44], and quite frankly neither of you are very good at communicating either. The way you two are interacting with each other is going to get both of you into a jam if you don't dial back the hostility and edit warring. If you are having a content dispute, pursue either a third opinion or a request for comment instead of insulting each other, creating fake deadlines, and edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have worked with Philcha in the past and while communication was somewhat difficult, Philcha was not an angry mastodon like today. Wondering could be wrong, I looked and found this. Philcha, a reason is no excuse. Please log out and go watch some television or something. --Una Smith (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth (if anything) the other user in the diff at the top has been involved in an edit war at Bartłomiej Macieja. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Philcha is among the best content contributors Wikipedia has, and in my interactions has always been civil and collegial. I believe this was an attempt in good faith to give an editor a last chance that is worded in a way that is jarring (i.e., "tough love"), and I suggest just going to AIV or ANI next time instead of fooling around. Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

After combing around a bit, this does seem an isolated incident as opposed to a pattern, and the other user has not exactly been civil himself, but I don't think such an inflammatory message could possibly have helped the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In general, Philcha is an exemplary editor. This is an isolated incided. —mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Trackinfo

Resolved

 – no big deal Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been threatened by this user with a demand to quit or face sanctions over my deletion of a stub article on a non-notable private school. This guy has been around the block enough to know what should and should not go into an article; there are no third-party references, no claim to notability, no history, nothing. I had blocked him for 48 hours for incivility and created a subpage with the original content, but instead I unblocked him (I might really have been misusing the admin privileges) and restored the article.

In all the years I've ever edited this site, I've only run into one other user with an attitude like this and I wanted to make it known here what had happened. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PMDrive, nobody here is asking you to meekly give into inappropriately high-handed demands for your resignation[45] over the deletion of a three-sentence stub. I'm sorry you lost your cool, because this really wasn't a big deal. You had an editor who knew so little about Wikipedia that he didn't know that AfD is not the sole method of dealing with undersourced articles about non-notable schools. Yes, he was rude, but this was presumably the result of ignorance about Wikipedia's WP:Deletion policy#Processes.

I'm glad that you reversed your actions and are now leaving the article to others. Please remember in the future, if a similar situation ever occurs, that none of your fellow admins or experienced editors are going to believe silly claims that a single, simple, and highly reversible error (if, in fact, deleting a stub about a very probably non-notable school is really an error) should be a 'capital offense' for an admin.

I've prod'd the article with an explanation of the need for independent sources; if the editor decides to contest it, then we'll take it to AfD. Is there anything else that you need here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks. I think this will be OK. If the other user continues to bring it up, I'll deal with it; in the meantime, I think that the problem is resolved to everyone's satisfaction less my handing in my mop and bucket. Thanks for the encouragement. NPP is often quite thankless.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No big deal. I found [[46]] amusingly over the top and silly. In general I think it's a good idea for admins to separate their edit and sysop functions just to avoid the appearance of COI but PMDrive self corrected the block. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Skywriter

This user has accused me of being a sockpuppet with no other reason other that I have reverted one of his edits. He has made this accusation both on my discussion page and in an article's talk page. He has also, intentionally apparently, misrepresented (lied about?) the extent of my user contributions in this edit. I have asked him to remove the accusation or at least explain why he thinks I am a sock. He stands mute. Can someone please offer some guidance on what I should do with this? I'm trying to assume good faith but from the very first this user appeared very belligerent. Thanks. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, good faith doesn't enter into it. People can be belligerent in good faith, silly as it may seem. Talking about whether he's acting in good faith doesn't lead anywhere good; trust me.

That said, he's clearly wrong about your contributions. Someone has pointed that out on his talk page, I note. You might or might not get an explanation out of him. It's not worth demanding one, because ultimately we don't have that kind of control over editors here.

There seems to be an underlying content dispute, and some reverting going on. I've commented at the talk page in question. If he keeps reverting you and insisting you're a sock, then he's out of line, but let's see what happens at The Professors... -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi 76.231.247.6. I see that you are annoyed, and why. That said, I think you are reading too much into Skywriter's remarks. I don't see where Skywriter accused you of being a sockpuppet. Skywriter asked if you are an established editor, and hinted that if you are and you don't say so, that might be construed as sockpuppetry. Some editors do use IPs when they are on travel or for other acceptable reasons. Or they don't realize their login has expired. Okay? When asked, they say "oh, yes I am so-and-so." Skywriter's comment about your edit history I think is a poorly worded reference to the fact that you have only two edits on Talk:The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

So, what should you do about Skywriter? I would now ignore Skywriter's questions and personal remarks to you, and get on with collaborating on the article. --Una Smith (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Una. Una the reason you don't see the sockpuppet accusation is that Skywriter later overlaid it. If interested you can find them here and here. Although I feel roughed up a bit I have decided for the time being to continued to collaborate on the talk page with the help of GTBacchus. But I'm going to ask you, Una, to consider for a moment the implications of this kind of belligerent behavior.

Someone, like myself, uses Wikipedia alot and decides to "give back" in a small way by correcting/improving it whenever he can. This goes along fine for a couple of months and then he is suddenly subject to a vicious attack by an established editor. He finds himself labelled as a sockpuppet for no reason. His motives, intelligence, character are called into question all because he happened to hit the wrong article and the wrong editor who guards it. Do you think this IP editor would ever come back? Especially when the offending editor has not owned up to his behavior, has made no apology or even offered up any explanation for his bad behavior? Instead he attacks again making baseless retaliatory edits like the one below. I will tell you from my own experience that this IP editor would not come back and that is a loss for the encyclopedia.

I would suggest to you that this kind of behavior should not be just ignored. Wikipedia has rules, laws if you will, to protect it's users from this kind of stuff. The Admins are a sort of police force. They need to be relied upon to make sure the offending editor has reason not to continue this kind of behavior. I don't know what that should be, a temporary block? I would leave that up to them. I'm not being vindictive. But this behavior needs to be countered with the strongest kind of discouragment.

Thanks for your feedback. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User at IP 76.231.247.6

User at IP 76.231.247.6 twice in two days cluttered my talk page with Bullshit warnings, having declined to address the underlying issues at the talk page The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. User at IP 76.231.247.6 insists, rejecting the existing discussion on that talk page, that one very long list of academics whom one book author called dangerous five years ago must be included in this article. I say it violates WP:BLP. Instead of addressing that issue, User at IP 76.231.247.6 pollutes my talk page with warnings which I perceive as personal attacks. User at IP 76.231.247.6 is unnecessarily aggressive against fellow editors and unresponsive to repeated requests to address content issues. User at IP 76.231.247.6 has reverted the same list twice in two days and slapped warnings on my talk page twice in two days. No other discussion other than to whine on this etiquette page about how User at IP 76.231.247.6 is feeling.

These were the two warnings, since reverted, that User at IP 76.231.247.6 aggressively placed on my talk page. 18:30, January 9, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (109,908 bytes) (+- ?Warning) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:05, January 11, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (111,088 bytes) (+- →2nd warning) (undo)

Whether or not User at IP 76.231.247.6 is a sockpuppet, no, I don't know. I can't know with certainty. What I do know is that there is absolutely no talk on User at IP 76.231.247.6's talk page until I created it and gave User at IP 76.231.247.6 back the warnings with which User at IP 76.231.247.6 aggressively slapped me. If User at IP 76.231.247.6 wants to be treated with respect, User at IP 76.231.247.6 should show respect instead of whining to others about how mistreated and sensitive User at IP 76.231.247.6 is feeling at the moment. That is where etiquette begins. User at IP 76.231.247.6 is aggressive and treats others aggressively. User at IP 76.231.247.6 is now getting as good as User at IP 76.231.247.6 gives. Skywriter (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're repeating phrases a lot. I find it a little off-putting. What's going on? I'm on your side, okay, Skywriter? However, if you think that two wrongs make a right, I'm going to find it very difficult to support you. The only appropriate response to bad behavior is to rise above it and lead by example. Are you doing that? I hope so. The idea of giving people bad treatment back is... terrible. Let's rise above it. Etiquette begins with each of us, including you, treating EVERYONE with respect, no matter what you've received from them. Otherwise, admins such as myself CAN'T help you. Think about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This entry is full of exaggeration and distortion not to mention ad hominem attacks. I would ask that some admin investigate it and then delete it if found to be baseless. Thanks. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, for the record, there's no BLP violation in stating (on X person's article) "X person has stated that they think Y person is an asshole". Well, as long as X person has actually stated that. It BECOMES a blp violation if the article states "Y person is an asshole". --King Öomie 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX

Resolved

 – to the extent that one user has agreed to disengage from the other... Beeblebrox (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Austrian School

• Speculatively accusing me of engaging in “original synthesis” without consulting previously provided links to reliable sources being used: [47], [48].
• Attacking another user as having “clearly” made a mistake, when other interpretations are possible: [49], [50]
• Telling me to “lay off of the caffeine” (and admitting “that might be an attack”) when told to stop such attacks: [51]

—SlamDiego_←T 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Everything but that last one seems like normal discussion in a content dispute, not a violation of WP:NPA. Perhaps you should consider pursuing a request for comment in order to resolve the content dispute, since it seems clear you two are not close to reaching any sort of agreement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If the prior discussion had plainly violated WP:NPA, then I wouldn't be trying this forum first. If the prior behavior truly were normal and nothing short of a personal attack were relevant to Wikiquette alerts, then Wikiquette alerts would be redundant.

While there may some content dispute later, right now there is no active content dispute, and I wouldn't be seeking resolution of one here. —SlamDiego_←T 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I missed something, if you guys aren't arguing about the article, then what exactly are you arguing about and why is it on that article's talk page? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Months ago, there were content disputes. At this stage, BigK HeX is arguing that Doubledork clearly doesn't understand utility functions, that I have engaged in “original synthesis”, and that I'm reäcting as if on drugs to these claims. Possibly BigK HeX may later revive the content dispute, based upon the claim of “original synthesis”; right now, it's just an aspersion about me. (The original claim by me and that by Doubledork were made when content disputes were active.) —SlamDiego_←T 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Months ago" .... you re-raised the point on the talk page two days ago (and used a discussion from 2 months ago as a platform). Anyways, I merely placed my response under the old discussion, in order to avoid further forking the same issue all over the place. BigK HeX (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The remarks that I made two days ago weren't during an active content dispute, nor an attempt to revive one. They simply didn't speak to whether the material that Doubledork had said should be removed should in fact be removed. And before you returned to level your charges against me, I had made explicit in an exchange with Lawrencekhoo that I felt the material in question should remain in the article (as it has since that content dispute faded). My remark in reply to you addressed your attack on Doubledork's competence, explaining why Caplan was wrong to think that the mainstream approach is purely ordinal, while at the same time trying to get partisans on the Austrian School side to see that much of what the mainstream said about utility could still be seen as useful.

There were, BTW, two content disputes in the past. That in which I was involved did not entail the question over whether Caplan would continue to be cited, and that in which Doubledork was involved was not about whether McCulloch should be cited. —SlamDiego_←T 00:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line on the placement of my responses: I addressed the Doubledork issue in his discussion thread, and moved my response to YOUR re-opening of the Caplan/McCulloch issue over to YOUR original discussion thread on the matter (instead of your latest one). The question of why we're even discussing the placement of my responses boggles my mind. BigK HeX (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not made an issue of the sections in which you've placed your responses (although you seem to have confuse two separate content disputes). I've made an issue of the facts

• that you claimed that one editor clearly didn't know what he was talking about, based upon a questionable inference,
• that you repeatedly charged me with “original research” without checking the material to which I'd previously provided links, and
• that you made a more blatant personal attack when told to stop such incivility. —SlamDiego_←T 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BigK Hex, could you strike out the comment about the caffeine and the whether you like it or not? That would resolve the incivility. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.

.....Though, I don't really feel that resolves the incivility issue. If anything, this only worsens the matter, from my perspective. I didn't feel the need to formally convey my civility complaint, but the not-so-subtle subtext in my caffeine remark is that I was rather perplexed at being accused of "attacking" anyone. Striking my response seems only to vindicate the actions taken by SlamDiego before my "caffeine" remark. In short, I doubt that many people consider my responses to him (before the caffeine remark) as any sort of personal attack, and I think he certainly could be more discerning. If any Wikipedia representative here agrees, it might be a small improvement to the community to state as much. BigK HeX (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right that it doesn't resolve the civility issue. You're quite wrong that it is within the bounds of civility to make the sorts of assertions about other editors that you've made without a much better basis for doing so. —SlamDiego_←T 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• As I stated above, I don't believe your earlier remarks were personal attacks, or incivil in other ways, and I think this report is a bit overblown and the best course of action is to forget it, especially since you've so graciously agreed to strike the one remark that could be construed as an attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Consider any issues I may have had, as being resolved!

My appreciation to all of you who volunteer your time to keep this huge project moving forward. BigK HeX (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of compromises in which lines are crosses and then half of the trespass is retracted. I certainly don't see grace in such behavior. —SlamDiego_←T 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Ignoring it and retracting the one questionable remark makes you come across as the more mature, reasonable editor and really removes any grounds for the discussion to continue. Encouraging one editor to be civil is not a vindication of someone else's Gray Area edits. Gerardw (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Slam, I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be the only user who sees any personal attacks in the statements before the "caffeine" remark. You may want to consider the possibility that the community does not support your interpretation of this matter. I agree with Gerardw that this discussion seems to have come to it's natural conclusion. If you still feel wronged and you think there is a pattern of unacceptable behavior here, you are free to pursue a user conduct RFC, but I think a much more productive use of your time would be to let this go and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It truly is belaboring the point, though, because (as I've noted) “[I]f the prior discussion had plainly violated WP:NPA, then I wouldn't be trying this forum first” and if incivility began at the point of personal attacks, then this forum would be irrelevant. We don't need a fork for the reporting of personal attacks; we could use a place where people worked to reduce incivility of other sorts. —SlamDiego_←T 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In case it has been overlooked, issues besides personal attacks have been covered here....

"As I stated above, I don't believe your earlier remarks were personal attacks, <BLINK!>or incivil in other ways</BLINK!>" --- Beeblebrox

More seriously, I am sorry that the editing process seems to be frustrating you. I'm confident that we'll hash things out with less argumentation ..... or I promise to just let the matter on that talk page rest for now, rather than upset you further. BigK HeX (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I replied to the comment that you suggest that I overlooked when it was made; as it was not reïterated, I didn't reïterate the reply.

The problem with what you are here calling “the” editing process is that it has involved criticisms of other editors (and not merely of propositions) based upon inferential leaps and speculation. Neither of those is part of a proper editing process. —SlamDiego_←T 06:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this difference in understanding is likely to incense SlamDiego, so, per my promise, and I've posted a notification that I've removed myself from the talk page discussion at this time. Ultimately, I hope that all concerned parties obtain some measure of satisfaction. BigK HeX (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tanthalas39‎ (talk · contribs) and curt attitude

Resolved

 – no incivility Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I recently noticed Tanthalas39, an admin, make this comment on an AN thread. I've seen him make similar comments before. I posted (perfectly civilly, as far as I'm aware) a suggestion on his talkpage that it might well be better if he were to inform the user himself in such cases, as it would save time and be helpful to other editors; this elicited an un-necessarily curt and unhelpful response.

I'm concerned not only about Tan's unwillingness to take a constructive approach in relation to the original request, but also about his attitude, which is not setting the example expected of those who have been trusted with the admin tools. I'd welcome outside input on this issue. Thanks for reading. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no comment to this, and certainly won't be watchlisting the page. Tan | 39 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The message right above seems to continue this concerning trend of incivility, as does the edit-summary and actual comment here – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While I suppose the comments on AN and his talkpage are a little 'curt', (Tan is, I take it, a man of few words...) it'd be a bit of a stretch to call them incivil - even more so to call the edit summary 'no comment' or the succinct post above problematic. Additionally, Tan does have a valid point that it's really better for the initial poster to post talkpage notices of AN/ANI threads than a third party, and as such he's well within his rights to decline your request that he post the notifications himself rather than trying to get AN threadstarters to do it. I'm not saying he's the friendliest guy on the project or anything, but a Wikiquette alert seems a bit much. -- Vary | (Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, just to clarify, my problem was primarily with this in response to a perfectly civil enquiry. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) Treasury, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, there is nothing in those remarks warranting a report here, being curt is not incivil, and those initiating an ANI thread are in fact required to inform all involved parties. Asking them to do it instead of doing it for them increases the chance that they will remember the next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, the "educational" point is a good one I hadn't thought about. I notice that you instinctively phrased your explanation politely, and clearly (as in, you didn't just say, "Of course he shouldn't have done it himself,"), and now I understand. What I don't understand is why Tan couldn't have done that. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox, I did not see anything in the supplied diffs that even remotely warrants a WQA report. I would have said that Tan's posts were brief, perhaps as Beeblebox puts it, curt, but that is all. The comments are not impolite, just to the point. Given the wall of words that some editors use, I would suggest that Tan's approach may not be so bad a thing! - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Many vandals and borderline users and few admins make a lot of work: Special:Contributions/Tanthalas39. Terse yes, ideal friendly, maybe not, incivil, no. Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, you seem to want Tan to spend time teaching you what (I assume) you are perfectly capable of learning by yourself. Are we done? --Una Smith (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to concur with Nick, Beeblebrox, and Van here. There's nothing here that requires a WQA report - WP:BOLD doesn't require that one clean up after someone else's mess (and as Beeblebrox says, there's reasons not to in this case). Given the pile-on, I'm marking this as done. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I concur also. Tan is not a problematic editor. And using few words can be seen as a plus. —mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs

I have an issue with the behavior and editing of one of the administrators (Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs). In the talk page for the article Star Trek (film series) there has been discussion as to whether or not reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and other sites should be included. Rather than engaging in rational discussion, this Admin has been needlessly and unapologetically confrontational and condecending of other editors opinions. One of the first places newbies are directed to is WP:CIVIL so that editors can discuss things rationally and with a minimum of bloodshed. Admins are not exempt from this, and if anything should be held more accountable. The statement "You have not brought up a single rebuttal to any point I have made; instead you complain as to my methods", is a perfect example, as it is not my policy to discuss particulars with people that are being uncivil. It rarely is constructive. Rapier1 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want any assistance, you're going to need a better example. Citing that one makes it look like you're going to view any disagreement with you as incivility. Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Calling an editor garbage is incivil, calling an content garbage is at best a less than optimal choice of words. Gerardw (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have never had any problem with debate and individuals that offer constructive arguments, and I'm always willing to be persuaded that I am mistaken in my opinion. My first edit states that I felt his comment about garbage was uncalled for (that calling good-faith edits "garbage" is inflammitory and needlessly confrontational), and then I explained my rationale for leaving the edit, which was not mine originally. His subsequent comment was essentially "I don't care if you think I'm being rude, I can be rude and by the way, whoop-de-doo with your opinion as well", and gave no evidence to back his opinion that the sourse was "useless", instead assuming de facto that the site had no value. My responses were courteous but rather than invite discussion it was assumed that this was the final word with no further need for consensus. When I am accused of incivility, and I am not intending to be uncivil, it is my practice to apologize to the person offended and attempt to reword my argument. Instead, this individual redoubled his efforts. In my opinion, that is not appropriate behavior for any editor, much less an admin. Perhaps this isn't the most aggregious example ever found on Wikipedia, but I wasn't under the impression that only the worst examples needed attention. I attempted to engage the other editor in a polite way, and was rudely rebuffed twice. If the consensus is that this is not uncivil behavior, then that is the will of the Project and I'll simply drop the issue and avoid the other editor. Rapier1 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not the best wording, I agree. However, perhaps you can focus on his argument (that Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist at the time), rather than his wording. He is being a bit abrupt but his argument is valid. Wikipedia requires a thick skin at times. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your first response begins by calling Fuchs out on forgetting to sign his post and accusing him of incivility. He stated pretty clearly why he thinks Rotten Tomatos isn't relevant. He didn't indicate no need for consensus, simply no need to repeat his explanation to you. Therefore I cannot agree with your characterization of the dialog. My opinion is that there is no evidence of any incivility on David Fuchs' part requiring any further action. Gerardw (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, the consensus has decided. Question. When someone is not signing their posts, what is a polite way to ask them to do so that is not "calling them out". I thought saying "please do" was the way to do so, but I am evidently mistaken. Second: When you feel a person is being impolite, what is the proper way of pointing it out to him? I again said "please don't" and pointed to the proper section of Wiki policy (remember, there was no user talk page to go to because he hadn't signed his comment). I'd appreciate any advice so that this process doesn't occur again. Rapier1 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You can sign for them. Or you can wait for a bot to come along and do it. Or you can ignore it. --Una Smith (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To see who it was, just check the edit history. For what it's worth, everyone forgets to sign now and then. --Una Smith (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapier1, without in any way suggesting you are in the wrong, I can see two things you could do to improve the situation.

• First is to post a thoughtful reply on the article talk page concerning whether or not to use that website as a source. You could argue that even though its rating is after the fact, and thus reflects the opinions of a skewed audience (Trekkies, video and DVD viewers), the rating might still be of some value in the article. You could agree with David Fuchs that this context would need to be explained, and no inappropriate comparisons drawn from it.
• Second is to post on David Fuchs' talk page an apology for personalizing the content dispute. You could also say that you took personally and got mad about his calling "garbage" certain content that you contributed, and that in future you will try not to take it personally. You could also ask David Fuchs to strike the "garbage" and replace it with a more neutral word.
  

--Una Smith (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to add just one comment. The fact that the editor is an admin is irrelevant to this case. He doesn't seem to have misuesd the admin tools. We forget that the only differance between most users and admins are tools that they use, not there ability to edit pages and join in discussions.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Piano non troppo's biasness and edit attacks

The issue started with the article "Paparazz". The above user had removed the External links section which had the official website of the artist. I had reverted it back stating that the official website is not a spam link. The user commented about this at WP:ELN and I understood that the link actually didnot have anything to do with the song. Fair enough, that dispute was resolved. After that when I nominated the article for GA, the user came and started reviewing it, although he was associated with its editing. Myself and other users, requested him to step down because before even starting the review he clearly stated that he is going to fail the article as it is a fancruft and a PR piece to promote the artist, which is counter-acted by others. He went on to add such comments as to contact the artist's management company to gain their consensus regarding the article, which is frankly absurd. Counteless requests have turned to deaf ears, with the user being extremely rude and attacking other's contributions, saying they are unprofessional and basically what we edit is "a horse piece of shit". Just now he commented about the article Madonna videography saying that

"The writing for which you pat yourself on the back (videos) is fair at best, and in the article in question is weak, and shows a superficial understanding of the topic that is gleaned from fan and public relation sources. When my many acquaintances in the academic community scorn Wikipedia content, rest assured, they are referring to unprofessional work such as yours which admits of no professional criticism."

I believe this is extremely rude and a joke of good faith. Not to sound WP:WAX, there are countless editors in Wikipedia who look up to the way I develop music related articles for GA and FAs and they would beg to differ. Under the veil of being professional, the user is directing such personal insults to others. I have requested comments from editors of teh artist's page, regarding do I really add crap to articles? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Legolas, you have worked very hard over these past few months to get the article up to the fantastic standard of which it is. If it were not for your contributions, I really doubt the quality would be anywhere near as good. Per WP:GAN, articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. From what I gather, if this particular user has contributed to the article, whilst also engaging in a content dispute, they are therefore not valid to compose a review. • вяαdcяochat 12:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As an unbiased, casual, "non-admin" editor watching this page, I must comment that I see absolutely no "joke of good faith" on User:Piano non troppo's part. He is editing WP, which is a dynamic process, and sometimes feelings get hurt as a result (awww...). Being "extremely rude" is open to interpretation; but violating WP policies is not, and I personally see no evidence of User:Piano non troppo doing that. I see no reason for this alert; a minor "squabble" at best... Doc9871 (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So according to you, calling others contribution as fancruft and unprofessional and promoter of an artist's PR is not a joke of good faith? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think so. Unprofessional is an irrelevant tautology -- this is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. Gerardw (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Legolas2186 has been hostile and uncooperative from the outset, beginning with a minor correction.

Legolas2186 himself is introducing the words "bias", "vandalism", and "piece of shit" into the discussion. These are nothing I intended. He's adopting hyperbole to put an emotional spin where there was none. I.e., he wants to treat this on an emotional level, rather than a factual one.

Calling something "fancruft" seems to be a relatively to-the-point description of "She pretended to play an enormous keytar to end the song while standing on a revolving platform that span round to reveal her buttocks to the crowd."

Understand the history, here. Legolas2186 pays little attention to constructive comments, and treats a variety of observations as personal attacks. If I understand, Legolas2186's perception of bias started at the moment I removed a single external link (!) Then I identified potential problems with other three external links.[52] I explained my reasoning, for example here [53]. He did not respond directly to some justifications for edits (that one external link was possibly a copyright violation, that another went to an empty page, or that the third did not mention the article topic), but chose to see this as "bias" and "vandalism". Looking at the edit history for Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song), notice I changed the article exactly twice — with two neutral comments — and then never touched it again — hardly an edit war.

Legolas2186 feels he's done a good job on Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song) and that it should be GA.[54] I don't feel that way. Rather than address the issues, Legolas2186 has chosen to see this as "bias". Rather than deal with problems with his edits, and a range of constructive suggestions on how to improve an article, he chooses to shoot the messenger. I would say calling my edits "vandalism" is incorrect, that seeing bias where there is none as nonconstructive, and this statement "you were associated in an edit content disagreement"[55] as a deliberate misrepresentation of two minor edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Because that is what you are actually implying by calling me a PR promoter for Lady Gaga and challenging my contributions to Wikipedia as unprofessional and not as standard. Pray which standard are you talking about? And what veil of professionalism do you intend to address my contributions and additions to? I have addressed your reviewing of the above article as biased viewpoint because your initial intention is to fail the article and with that in mind you have started the review. Having 2 or more contributions doesnot change teh fact that you were aware of the article's position and didnot probably like the way it was written from a previous point. But instead of chosing to discuss them you chose to randomly go and start the review. And frankly what improvements are you talking about? Absurd things like contacting the artist's management to gain their consensus for the article? A number of users and respected editors have mentioned and explained it to you time and again that if a song's recording process is not available, then it cannot simply be added. What do you actually suggest, add my own original thesis in it? you have repeatedly ignored other's requests to step down from the review and ignored consensus. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

None of which is a WQA issue. Gerardw (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The current exchange began with Legolas's statement Your above statements simply show that you are letting your biasness come in the way of your review which is a comment about the contributor, not content. The reply above is on Piano non troppo's talk page after the unnecessary repetition of an accusation of bias. I don't feel Piano non troppo's actions are sufficiently egregious to require any further action or discussion. Gerardw (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like Piano non troppo to actually provide the sources where there is a mention of the recording process, the audio editing process, the circumstances of shooting the video, the video equipment, the video editing. Almost nothing about the people involved in running the equipment. This is the same comment he put on the "Bad Romance" talk page, I really don't know how are someone expecting that we put this information when is not available, that would be original research, and like another user said before that does not compromise the comprehensive criteria of a GA article, the guidelines for a song suggest that we add critical reviews, chart performance and charts sections, which the user believes are to promote Lady Gaga. If the user have a problem with the guidelines he should suggest them at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, or perhaps nominate all of the featured articles songs for a removal. Frcm1988 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please continue dialog on the article page Talk:Paparazzi_(Lady_Gaga_song). Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Gerardw, I would like to ask you how would you feel if I call your contributions to Wikipedia as fancruft and trying to promote an artist? The discussion was raised in respect to both contributer's accusations and article's content, so I don't see any reason as to why the discussion should suddenly be closed. Surely that's what WQA is all about. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What WQA is about is user conduct, not content. WP:NPA makes it fairly clear that comments directed at content are not personal attacks, in fact, it even advises users to comment on content as opposed to commenting on users. Piano has (as far as I can see) only commented on content here. Therefore you need to resolve this at a content level and at a more appropriate forum/discussion page. Trying to bring it up to an emotional level is inappropriate. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK so calling other's contributions as fancruft and other user's as PR promoter is not WP:NPA? Wonderful. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the comment is directed at the content, no, it's not a personal attack. Gerardw (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can somebody look as to why the bottom of the page is being covered up? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That happens when the page is slow to load or render in your browser. --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The WQA issue lies in comments such as "unprofessional work such as yours", which address both the content and the contributor. User:Piano non troppo would do well to leave the contributor out of it, and address the content purely on its own merits. User:Legolas2186 would do well to give such ad hominem comments the attention they deserve: none. --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by 78.32.143.113

The user at IP address 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, mainly on automotive subjects. However, unfortunately, when other editors disagree with his opinions, he (I shall presume the masculine gender here for the sake of brevity) seems to prefer reverting other users' edits instead of engaging in constructive debate and consensus building. When an attempt is made to discuss objections to his edits, he doesn't always respond, is often antagonistic and dogmatic when he does, and sometimes won't consider other editors' opinions and advice until an Administrator gets involved (for instance, here or here).

Examples of this user's activity that myself and other editors have questioned include the following (I've tried to list the events in chronological order):

• In various articles, insisting that "Volkswagen Group" and "Volkswagen AG" are one and the same (actually, the former is a business group; the latter is the parent company of the former):

• Porsche: edit ("Volkswagen AG (known in English as Volkswagen Group)")
• Volkswagen Group: revert edit
• my attempt to engage in debate
• ETKA: revert

• MAN SE: Insisting that "MAN Group" and "MAN SE" are one and the same (again, the latter is the parent company of the former): edit revert - my attempt to engage in debate

• Insisting on referring to Volkswagen Group as "VWAG" in various WP articles (actually "VWAG" is rarely used, either by VW Group itself or by secondary sources, and leads to confusion between the group and the parent company, so using it improves neither the clarity or accuracy of the articles, IMHO). Examples include:

• List of Volkswagen Group petrol engines: revert - first attempt to engage in debate on user talk page
• List of Volkswagen Group factories: edit
• List of Volkswagen Group platforms: revert - user talk page discussion - edit
• List of Volkswagen engines: edit
• Volkswagen Group: revert revert - talk page discussion - revert

• Volkswagen Group and Christian Wulff: confusing the Landtag (legislative assembly) of Lower Saxony with the State of Lower Saxony, resulting in an edit war: revert revert revert edit - user talk page discussion - talk page discussion

• Unit Injector: Insisting that the "English translation" of the German phrase "Pumpe-Düse" is actually "Pumpe Düse" (sic): edit revert - user talk page discussion

• Using Template:TOC left and Template:TOC right in various articles (e.g. edit edit edit) where they where they are not necessary, contrary to advice in Help:Section and the template documentation, and despite warnings from other editors:

• first discussion on user talk page
• second discussion on user talk page
• ETKA: edit revert revert

• List of Volkswagen Group factories: insisting on inappropriate over-categorization to the extent of edit-warring: revert revert revert revert - my first attempt at debate - revert - my second attempt at debate - revert - third opinion sought at guideline talk page

In addition his edit summaries sometimes get a bit personal: [56] [57].

— Letdorf (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

Agreed. This IP seems utterly disinterested in the possibility of being incorrect on various points. Seems like a habit fit for breaking. --King Öomie 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with User:Andy Dingley

Regarding User:Andy Dingley, first diff. is from 28th December 2009: Merseyland Alternative Radio (2nd nomination), I protested the WP:AOBF and asked him not to assume (non existent) bad faith here: Merseyland Alternative Radio (2nd nomination)

Then a number of edit summaries were assuming the same on 9th January 2010: Trellick Tower, Radio Invicta (London Pirate Station), Eric's_Club and Ozark Mountain Daredevils - I did post a Wikiquette request above (and he was informed of this).

Finally a post on his talk page appeared to-day 13th January 2010: User talk:Andy Dingley

I have no problem with him disagreeing with my edits, but I am getting tired of his continuing to claim to everyone that I am making "bad faith" edits, especially when I already explained they were not, and asked him not to assume such things in future. Rapido (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with your edits, not with you. This has already been taken to 3RR, at least two other editors are involved, and your edits to yet another article (which I haven't even read, let alone edited) now appear likely to drag you off to WP:RFC as well. Stop playing the wounded martyr. When three different editors are telling you that your edits are WP:TENDENTIOUS, it's time to look at whether it's your behaviour that's the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that you conveniently wiped your talk page (and its catalogue of other editors questioning your judgement) immediately before posting this. You are of course entirely within wikilaw to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I admit that I broke the 3RR rule, that's fair enough - that's a completely unrelated matter. Not sure what you are talking about playing the wounded martyr and comments about my behaviour, and I take exception to that personal attack, and it seems you have a problem with me overall. All I can see is that you disagree with my edits because they interfere with your edits. However those edits have either been unsourced, and I cannot tell if some of the edits are in fact WP:OR, or the sources are mostly pirate radio fansites, and fail WP:RS, WP:SPS. Rather than badmouthing a fellow editor, why don't you find reliable and verifiable sources for your additions? Rapido (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have in the past added sources to these two pirate radio articles (once again, I agree with you that most of them aren't notable), including the relevant local newspaper the Liverpool Echo, a number of websites that are admittedly very fansitey, and there's also the conceptnews website that seems to be attempting to be a rather more comprehensive and robust history of UK pirate radio. I recently pointed you towards a couple of in-print books on pirate radio history. Yet the level of commentary from those seeking deletion has been to sneer at the webhosts used with "LOL" and "We should probably task a bot to remove all those links". Now who's failing to AGF? As these articles have been recreated (AFAIK independently) by three different editors, and you've AfDed each of them in turn, this is not an environment conducive to consensus or collaborative work to improve the articles (I for one have better things to do than to feed your scrap bin). I also note that you've still (AFAIK) failed to even notify the last article creator of your AfD (as per policy), despite being reminded.

At root here, we have a notability issue over two poor articles, on topics that are of niche interest (but still I would submit, worthy of coverage) from a fringe (and indeed illegal) activity that pre-dates the web. Such articles are perennially difficult for quality sources. I don't like or agree with your claim of non-notability, but if consensus AfDs the article, then I have always been happy to follow our larger community practice and let it lie (I'm not the one re-creating). If I should happen to find a new source that I think would convince you, then I might do so. Yet despite the non-controversial nature of these articles (WP:N arguments are far from major) you're now calling for the topics to be WP:SALTed, a thoroughly disproportionate response. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Firstly, it wasn't me who said "LOL" and "We should probably task a bot to remove all those links", that was someone else, and I for one disagree with whoever claims that using certain webhosts (I think it was Geocities) somehow reduces the credibility of the website. It's the content of the website that matters, not what server it's on. Secondly, User:Erwin85Bot automatically informs the relevant editors of articles about AFDs for those articles, altho' I am not aware of any obligation on myself to inform them. Regarding Radio Jackie North, it appears to have been deleted thrice before, and comes back more or less the same content each time, so I have no objections to a WP:SALT on the article name. Rapido (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So by SALTing, you admit that you refuse any GF on behalf of separate editors, independently seeing cause for an article on this station? To remind you from WP:SALT, repeatedly recreated by an editor. Not "multiple editors all agreeing it's a good idea", but the (sadly not unknown) case where one editor becomes a law unto themselves and refuses to accept a community consensus. This non-hostile situation is certainly not what SALT is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido, that statement is almost unreadable with the urls displayed; may I refactor it (fix it)? --Una Smith (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - please do so; I am not sure how to make them cute and small. Rapido (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, for the good of everyone's word-wrap. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido and Andy Dingley, I am pleased to see you discussing the content dispute. But could you please not discuss it here? This forum is for issues of user conduct, specifically incivility. Here is what I have to say about your conduct. Rapido, could you try some approaches other than tagging every sentence in a paragraph with {{cn}}, and deleting the paragraph? That might include now and then finding a reliable source or two for some of what you want sourced. Andy Dingley, rather than objecting to Rapido's reverts and tagging, could you try to find more and better sources? Both of you, spend less energy on being annoyed by each other and more on improving those articles. Finding good sources can be a chore but someone has to do it, or the articles will remain in their current state. --Una Smith (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)