Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:29, 7 February 2010

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.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Shortcut

WP:WQA

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

Toddst1

I've noticed that the administrator Toddst1 has been quite rude and aggressive on a number of occasions.

The latest, rather disturbing, comments I've noticed are:

WP:ANI

On an AN/I thread, he accused an editor who posted a problem with wikihounding of "tattling". [1]
On the same AN/I thread, when myself and Burpelson AFB expressed our concern at the comment, he wrote that we were "full of it", in both the edit summary and in the comment. [2]

User talk pages

To me:
- Overly aggressive comment when I unblocked a user
  - Starts with "unfuckingbelievable" [3]...
  - Then changes mind and changes to "Your action there seems rather more of a Kumbaya than that of a responsible admin." [4]
- Accusation of wheel warring, when no such thing occured [5]
- Later the edit summary of a new response reads "You're a newly recycled admin so I'd strongly recommend that you not overrule, revert or second guess other admins until you come back up to speed on stuff" in the edit summary. The comment he made was "I opened this conversation with a sarcastic, cynical comment about you perhaps having naively optimistic views of the world and human nature, so I won't go there again. You're a newly recycled admin so I'd strongly recommend that you not overrule, revert or second guess other admins until you come back up to speed on stuff. Cheers." [6]
Accused Jayjg of edit warring on JLS, when it was pointed out that Jay was actually deleting a repeatedly readded article One Shot (JLS song), he wrote "You should know that admins are not exempt from edit warring and some edit summaries would sure go a long way.", with the edit summary "t admins are not exempt from edit warring. Edit summary much?" [7]

Unblock requests

"Find somewhere else to harass others and blame them for your problem." [8]
"No fucking way" [9]

Accusations of sock-puppetry with no real evidence

"I'm not sure whose sock it is, but it's a sock of someone" [10]
"Wikipedian7878 (talk · contribs) fails the WP:Duck test. I'll beat you to your point that so far they haven't been disruptive." In this case, the editor he was comparing to a sock-puppet had 3 edits... [11]

I have made a polite note on his talk page after I received the aggressive comment on my userpage (see User talk:Toddst1#Incivility), but his only response was that "You made a bad unblock and I called you on it. Take it to ANI. I'm not gonna sugar coat it for another admin."

I am therefore filing an etiquette request, especially as this contributor is an admin, who I would have thought should be editing more harmoniously. Certainly the abusive comments I received on my talk page were both surprising and unwelcome. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Toddst1

Regarding the "No Fucking Way" response to an unblock request by Fuckingeveryone (talk · contribs): Yes, I used a bad word. I'm sure I didn't offend the delicate sensitivities of that vandalism-only account editor though. I think I had a pretty good discussion with the person I believe to be Fuckingeveryone's sockpuppet about that response right here: User_talk:Toddst1#....

Regarding my interaction with Tbsdy_lives on either his or my talk page, All of those diffs are obviously true. However, what isn't apparent is how many of them were immediately retracted and/or restated. If you look, many of them were. I'm not going to go through them 1 by 1. Frankly, I was pissed off that Tbsdy_lives had been following me around (WP:HOUND?) after we disagreed about whether it was appropriate to bring a complaint ("tattling") to ANI without first discussing the issue on the user's talk page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Ani#Unknown_Lupus. I could have chosen my words better.

Am I cynical? Often. Am I sarcastic? Sometimes. This isn't first grade and gosh, I've heard a few naughty words here and there on Wikipedia. I've even used a few myself.

Regarding the assumptions of bad faith regarding sockpuppetry: Sorry, we have the WP:Duck test for a reason and we have WP:SPI and WP:CU for reasons too. All are appropriate in context. If you disagree with the duck test, fine. I know there are those like Xeno (talk · contribs) who think it should never be used or at least that I misapply it. Is it bad faith to use the duck test? No.

Much of this seems to be a carryover from a discussion brought to Wikipedia:AN#Admin_decision_review after Hipocrite (talk · contribs) raised concerns about a number of administrative decisions made by Tbsdy_lives yesterday.

Whatever the course, I take responsibility for my actions. Toddst1 (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't first grade and I take responsibility for my actions don't actually go together. A person doesn't have to be a first grader to appreciate civility. Inappropriate language is an offense to the entire Wikipedia community, not just the person you're directing it. I'd appreciate Toddst1 would refrain from similar language in the future. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Toddst1 thinks I was following him around. That isn't the case, if he had bothered to ask me politely I would have told him this. Todd, I'm sorry you think this, but I didn't override your decision - I merely noticed that the editor had been blocked (can't recall why I saw it) and I thought that it would be assuming good faith to allow them to make their username change. Many others might disagree with me (and in fact they have), but they have all done this politely and courteously.

With regards to the tattling comment, I asked you a very polite question which you took badly. In no way was I stalking you, as your comment was made on WP:AN/I, which I now frequent often, as I am an administrator. I'm sorry if you took it personally, but that wasn't the intent. I was certainly not expecting to be told to "[t]ake it to ANI. I'm not gonna sugar coat it for another admin"! I was merely asking why you used this comment, especially against an editor who merely stated their concern that, ironically, they were being hounded. Something I note that you seemed to taken a dim view of because they didn't take it to the other user's talk page. Oh but that you would have done the same for me.

I would appreciate it if you assumed good faith, none of this has been taken here because of Hipocrite's concerns. I was merely a bit shocked that another admin would post such a rude and aggressive comment on my talk page. I've noticed your comments all over AN/I, and I have a genuine concern over your abrasive behaviour.

As for retracting or restating your comments, apart for the one that you replaced with an equally abusive "kumbayar" comment, I'm not certain which ones you are referring to. Could you give some diffs? Perhaps I didn't notice these - they would certainly go some way to reassure me that you are trying to deescalate situations and act in a courteous and respectful manner towards myself, which is what I would have expected from an administrator. Certainly the messages on my talk page haven't reflected this, which to my mind is somewhat unsettling. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by NJA

Whilst I hope it wasn't your intention, I believe that claiming (mere minutes after notification) that the admin who filed this report had violated WP:EW is slightly vindictive, and only exasperates the situation. I've commented on why I don't really agree with what you said, though in summary consistent removal of cited material and major changes to an article where the editor may have a conflict of interest is something most experienced editors would revert when talk page discussion isn't taking place.

Regardless, perhaps we can just admit some mistakes may have been made, and get on with things? NJA (t/c) 09:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness... I can't believe that Todd did that! I'm gobsmacked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree that I have indeed made mistakes, and will unfortunately probably continue to make more (which is a great pity). In particular, my AFD closure after a closure Jay made could have definitely been handled better. But the unblocking of the editor to allow them to request a username change was not something that I consider to be a mistake. On Wikipedia we try to give editors a chance to edit, and we do not act as badly as the trolls and vandals who frequent this site. I considered that they may have some IPs autoblocked and they may indeed want to edit constructively. A fond hope, probably to be dashed, but as I put some provisos into my unblock comments I don't feel that I was terribly unwise, as I gave them a very short leash. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NJA & Tbsdy's later comment posted at User_talk:Toddst1#Edit_warring.3F. Toddst1 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is now archived. Please make your comments here please, you have not addressed any of these concerns and you show no signs of changing the manner in which you interact with others. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion

My understanding is that Tbsdy has been an admin since 2007 but has been inactive until quite recently. I would like to suggest that coming back to an environment where procedures have changed to some degree, and immediately plunging into conflict with multiple other administrators, is a bad sign. Until he has a better sense of how things work he should avoid undoing the actions of other admins without consultation, and when conflicts arise he should assume that he is wrong. Otherwise these learning experiences will not produce any learning. There has already been talk of a recall, and there will be more if this pattern continues. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I've made a real mistake on so far is the AFD closure. There will be no recall, as I haven't put myself forward for this, however if my conduct is in question others should feel free to put forward an RFC. The only talk of a recall, incidentally, was by Hipocrite. I have been more active recently, however I have been using this account for about a year and a bit now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that this editor has not commented on Todd's behaviour. I would appreciate feedback on this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable response

I'm afraid that I don't believe that Todd's response is acceptable. I have asked for an apology on his user talk page, he is refusing. I don't think I'm out of line here, especially as he has accused me of edit warring, when this is not the case. He has also accused me of errors of judgment, but in each case (with the exception of the AFD) the discussion on the admin noticeboard has been archived with the general agreement that this is not the case.

In particular, I would now like him to apologise for accusing me of edit warring, which was patently not the case on the David Tweed article, and also for the extremely rude "kumbayar" comment on my user talk page. This is not the sort of behaviour I would have expected from an administrator. I am quite annoyed at the way I have been treated.

He has also made a number of assertions that I would like some clarification on. In particular he has said that he reverted or edited previous comments. Firstly, I don't see evidence of this. Secondly, I think that if this is the case then it shows poor judgment for making the comments in the first place. He has said he isn't going to go through each of the edits to clarify, but that is also not an acceptable response as I just don't believe that he has reverted or modified incivil comments. I am happy to be proven wrong. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from this edit that he has no intention of apologising. Given that I feel wronged, I'm not sure how I can seek further redress. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC user Wikipedia:RFC/USER would I think be the next step, if there is behavior that you think would not be excessive enough to be addressed there then disengaging is an option, sometimes the wiki is a place where two editors can agreeably fall out, it is possible to accept that and move on, remove the other editor from your watchlist and the places where you would meet, sometimes I have found personally this is a good option and down the line a natural resolution may well occur. Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to do this, however so far he has reported me to the oversite committee, and has accused me of edit and wheel warring. This directly effects my ability to edit. How do you suggest that I resolve this particular problem? Is a user RFC still the way to go here? I would just like to have an assurance that Todd will stop his incivilities towards other editors (myself in particular) and will not attempt to curtail my activities in an underhanded manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to find this when I went back to the AN/I thread (now archived) to see if the hounding complaint was ever dealt with. While I can see it was apparently resolved to the complaintants satisfaction, I must say I agree with Tbsdy that Toddst1 is exhibiting some pretty aggressive, uncivil, impatient and downright rude behavior. This is most unbecoming of an administrator. It seems that whenever someone questions or brings up his tendency torwards unhelpful snark and dismissiveness (as exhibited in the "tattling" comment), he responds by becoming even ruder as well as angry (as in his response to Tbsdy and myself, calling us "armchair quarterbacks" and whatever else). I would say that Toddst1 owes Tbsdy an apology and I do not think this incivility should be simply swept under the rug and ignored. Haughty, dismissive attitudes are not a positive quality in administrators. Burpelson AFB (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to resolve

This is getting on a bit now. All I would like to see here from Toddst1 is that he reign in his more inflammatory comments, and act with civility towards other editors. I should note, incidentally, that I know that Todd does a lot of excellent admin work on areas that aren't really very interesting to many of us - his work on admin backlog is invaluable. I suppose I should have noted this before.

I don't want any sanctions, and I don't want him to be forced into anything. I just want an apology for his rudeness to myself, and also an understanding that admins are really ambassadors to Wikipedia, and that abrasive behaviour towards other editors (even trolls) is not acceptable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you start by setting a good example and removing the photos from your talk page. Gerardw (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps better if you kept that to the alert below. It looks to me like that has been resolved now. I will not be discussing my alert within this one, as it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. And so now back to Toddst1. I repeat, I would like an apology and an assurance that he will modify his behaviour. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final resolution

Tbsdy lives and Toddst1 have communicated off-line and offer the following joint statement:

Both admit mistakes have been made on both sides and this denouement was unfortunate.
We both look forward to collaborating with each other in the future.
We would like to apologize to the greater community for this escalating the way it did.
We consider this issue closed.

Signed

Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sugar Bear, formerly known as User:Ibaranoff24

This user is consistently attacking me and getting rid of sourced content in articles. Statements like Denying this makes you come across as foolish, you look like a child. You are clearly not happy with the fact that I edit any article and want to revert any change I make based on your petty quibble and most recently and most likely the most offense so far want to dick me around. He has also used personal attacks against User:Blackmetalbaz noted with statements like: *The both of you look like fools for trying to back up claims, Stop pretending that this is an actual genre. Also he called User:WesleyDodds disruptive despite the fact that Wesley was just restoring sourced content which Ibaranoff was consistently removing on the heavy metal music page with these edits: [12] [13] [14] . He seems to be disposing of sourced material that mainly ivolves the term "nu metal" and in the process pushing POV: [15] [16]. Even when there are both sources and a consensus in favor of certain music styles he removes them because of this personal beliefs [17]. I can't take this harassment and vandalism anymore. RG (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like both of you are trying to edit cooperatively, but neither is willing to give way and consequently both are on the verge of losing your tempers. What you really need is a third opinion that you would both respect. Is there any possibility of finding one? Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated repeatedly, I'm not removing "nu metal" in which the sources substantiate its inclusion as a dominating genre of any album or band article I edit. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yet again Ibaranoff removes sourced material. And with Roots me and User:LUCPOL already had a consensus in favor of the nu metal label, so he has now gone against Wikipedia:Consensus. Also another example of him intentionally bashing me he claimed I should editing completely. This needs to stop is breaking Wikipedia policy and he is being very uncivil. He has a clear POV against the term nu metal, calling it a a useless catchphrase. It is clear Ibaranoff is pushing his own opinion and doesn't want artists he enjoys to be lumped with the style. He even wanted tried to put "this dog of an article to sleep" twice despite the fact that there is clear evidence it exists. RG (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to believe that one source dictates that you can add a genre based on your POV. Clearly you have an attitude towards me, and have certain opinions about certain artists that conflict with what is actually sourced. You are violating Wikiquette - as well as edit-warring. Cut loose. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you have a source it isn't POV(and I've have used multiple sources on Kid rock's page), removing sources that's POV and that's exactly what you have done. Might I add that I have still not received a simple apology from Ibaranoff for his hurtful remarks. Oh and to add on to that, now apparently my edits are a waste of time. RG (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute is irrelevant here, as are the sources. Ibaranoff, I'm inclined to say that your most recent comment on RG's talk crosses the line into incivility. You've been around the block enough to know that there are a multitude of ways to deal with an editor who has hearing problems. --King Öomie 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RG, I wasn't referring to your edits. I was referring to responding to me with this attitude and continuing to discuss me behind my back in the same attitude. If we were to refer to specific edits, let's refer specifically to some edits that clearly are a product of your own POV, since the claims of POV on my part are absolutely false. "Nu metal bands used rap. Sorry but deal with it" - this is not POV-pushing? Or "He wasn't really ever traditional metal, nu metal would be more appropiate because most of his '90s stuff was just that", where you are clearly stating an opinion, rather than referring to what is actually sourced? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I started a MedCab case in regards to RG's edit-warring. I am very unhappy to have to continue dealing with this - I had thought that this case, as with all of RG's previous edit-warring endeavors, had been resolved. The consensus, editing guidelines, and sources are there. He simply refuses to listen to reason or pay attention to any of the points made by other editors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Look right now at the history on Kid rock's page you will see that Ibaranoff reverted three times in one day, yet he removed the warning on his page and put the waring on my page despite the fact that I did nothing wrong. It is behavior like this that is not acceptable and I have still gotten no apology from his user. Also, I stated numerous sources on Rock's talk page as I have previously stated, so I have used no POV. This is incredibly offensive. Oh and let's not forget that I suck. So now we have uncivil actions, acting against WP:CON, and him completly denying that he did anything wrong. RG (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to remove warning from their talk page. They are allowed to put warnings on yours. If they're not applicable ignore or delete them. Gerardw (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent my statements. I clearly said that your attitude sucks. That was not a personal attack. It was a clear statement of your behavior. Secondly, I did not revert that article three times. Clearly, there is a difference in the edits that constitutes against a clear revert, which is what you have done, several times. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well you shouldn't be characterizing RG's attitude either. Remember, comment on content, not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, but users are not allowed to post warnings on other user's talk pages with another user's signature. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget that I put no effort into writing anything on this site. So I don't work hard, I suck, I'm a total d**k, I'm a child, a fool, even when I have legit sources they are all POV, is there anything that isn't wrong with me? And again, I still haven't even gotten the simplest, little apology. RG (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said any of these things. I'm not apologizing for what you perceive as a statement on your behalf, rather than a direct statement which I've never provided. I never called you a dick or said that you suck. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You have directly attacked me and I rightly deserve an apology. You have called me a fool, a child, a d**k, and that my attitude sucks, and you denying these claims when the edits show you have, just tells me that you refuse to be civil. RG (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely have not called you any of these things, and the edits clearly show that I have not. Anyone who would bother to read what I write would know this. I am being civil. Your repeated accusations and attacks against me are uncivil. Re-read my previous statements. Scrub. Rinse. Repeat. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Outside view by User:PeterbrownDancin: After spending some time reviewing the links and articles involved, I myself see no substantial breach of "Wikiquette." I'm sure you can understand how editing in the oft-contentious topics regarding Kid Rock can really make tempers flare. Let's face it, next to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kid Rock is probably one of the most controversial topics in the world today. So lets give both our valiant editors a warm reassuring pat on the back and thank them for having the fortitude to work in the trenches of a certainly intense field. Kudos! PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another outside view by User:Diannaa: Ibaranoff, when you are critising someone's edits or behavior please be careful not to use loaded words like "ridiculous" and "sucks". You hurt people's feelings. Rockgenre: I have been following this case since it first appeared on the Wiki. You came on the scene in August 09 and have made hundreds, possibly thousands, of edits that changed the genre of albums, bands, and songs. Most of these edits have gone unnoticed but occasionally you are changing an article where the genre decision has been reached by thoughtful discussion by a group of editors who have reached a compromise. If you come in afterwards and chage the genre to something else, you make people angry. At that point it doesn't even matter if you are right; you are overriding the edit reached by the consensus of folks who want to cooperate. Second point: I notice that nearly 30 % of your edits in the last two months have been "undos" of someone else's edits. That kind of percentage is very high! People don't like it when you act that way! There are better ways for you to contribute. You have created some nice articles. Maybe you should move away from the genre-changing project for a while and work on another aspect of the wiki. Just a suggestion. --Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me asking for an apology, uncivil? No someone repeatly attacking someone and pushing his POV, that's uncivil. "You came on the scene in August 09 and have made hundreds, possibly thousands, of edits that changed the genre of albums, bands, and songs" I admit that a lot of my early edits were unsourced, but I wasn't intending to stay here very long, I was only going to make a few simple, little edits. I even hate the name Rockgenre. "Maybe you should move away from the genre" there really isn't much else I think that I can do here that would be helpful. RG (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a series of helpful suggestions in regards to your behavior. Could you please try to work with other editors, not against them, as long as you are editing on Wikipedia? I don't care how long you intend to stay (and, for the record, you can change your username if you please). As long as you are editing here, the goal is to work with other editors, not to make changes based on your opinion or a dislike of other editors. There has been no attacks from any side, and you are the only editor pushing POV. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"There has been no attacks from any side, and you are the only editor pushing POV" You have got to be kidding me. As I have stated before this user is consistently offensive and removing sourced material, I want an apology. And also let's not forget that Mr. "Sugar Bear" has edited talk page archives even though the top of each archive page specifically says not to edit them. RG (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editing the archive accusation is disingenuous: Sugar Bear simply unarchived a discussion archived by a bot which RG subsequently contributed to. Gerardw (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear to me that if I have ever posted any attack, then certainly this counts as an attack as well. But it doesn't, and my previous comments in regard to you were not attacks. Secondly, as Gerard stated, fishing a conversation out of the archives and adding further comments to it is not the same as "editing the archives". Furthermore, there needs to be a consensus in the sources themselves, and of other editors. Your editing against consensus and clear sources is more "offensive" than anything I have ever done. If one source says that, say, Rage Against the Machine are "pioneers of nu metal", that doesn't mean that every critical assessment of RATM's music agrees with this statement, nor that you are allowed to put that sole source and statement in that article's lead. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Gentlemen, this page is for discussions of interpersonal conduct. Don't rehash the content dispute here. --King Öomie 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an attack at all. He claimed there was a consensus when there was none, so I asked simply whether or not he considers his opinion greater than the opinion of anyone else. And still I have gotten no simple "I'm sorry, I was wrong for attacking you." RG (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there never was an attack. And there clearly is a consensus - I posted the revisions in which users offered opinions on this issue on the article's talk page. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, have to clarify that the last post was made on a public computer, so there are edits by other people in the IP's history. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Obviously, this has gone far beyond a simple content dispute. RG, in my opinion, seems to be editing against any decision I make (including edits I've made that have agreement from other editors), in an attempt to get me to attack him, so he can claim etiquette breach. Apologies for not providing what you needed. This is childish. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sugar Bear, WQA is a voluntary process; you're not required to continue to respond. It appears the only third party ~~editor~~ editors who had a (resonable, in my opinion) suggestion for you ~~was~~ were Diannaa and PeterbrownDancin; if you want to simply consider that and move on in my opinion I think that would be fine. ~~Gerardw (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)~~ Gerardw (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that my opinion is worthless? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thought there was another response but just missed it when typing my response. Gerardw (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the above information. I'm just adding the comment that in my only interaction with Sugar Bear, I found him or her unnecessarily aggressive. Please assume that your fellow editors are working in good faith towards the common goal of writing high quality articles. ike9898 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Upon, reading some of the above, I would agree with Diana's point that giving weight to previously achieved consensus would be helpful. ike9898 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that this is not exactly a new problem with Ibaranoff/Sugar Bear. See here. No comment beyond that. → ROUX ₪ 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Ike9898 has stated Mr. "Sugar Bear" is generally on the attack against that disagrees with what he says(I believe he owes that user an apology as well.) These attacks should not continue, they are very uncivil. All I am asking for is a simple apology. That isn't much. RG (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave1185

Dave1185 (talk · contribs) appears to have a problem with civility. He deleted another user's mistaken but honestly so comment with an unnecessarily harsh edit-summary ("duh! move along now [...] I've got better things to do..."). I politely suggested that he could have moderated his tone, and he reverted this – in the process abusing the rollback tool, which is explicitly only for use in reverting edits which are unambiguous vandalism.

I left him a further polite message noting that he was free to delete comments from his page, but that the rollback policy still applied in userspace; this received the response, "stop hounding me again, I don't like to be disturbed when I'm making improvements to article pages, take heed as it is my talk page, now go make yourself useful for a change, wil'ya?"

He then left me a grossly insulting message on my talkpage in which he insinuated that I "DON'T KNOW ANYTHING", and ended with, "Hope you've realised your own mistake and newness now." (I take particular exception to his use of the word "newness", particularly given that I have been around for almost four years!)

I hope that community input here will help to moderate Dave's style of interaction – his mainspace edits are superb, but his style of conducting himself is, in my view, incompatible with the rigours of a collaborative community. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Dave was notified but seemed not to understand that the template is required by the WQA process, and took it as a personal affront. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Full disclosure: Dave1185 and I have had a prior interaction which resulted in me taking him ("successfully") to ANI [[24]] ). In any event, in my opinion his current behavior is in the WP:Gray Area and best resolved by ignoring it. Gerardw (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm the "victim" in question. Yes, I found Dave1185's comment to be insulting, but I'm not sure what reporting it here is going to accomplish. In my experience complaints about incivility don't result in any effective action being taken, unless the perpetrator is simultaneously breaking other rules. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WQA works maybe 10% of the time -- in the sense the reported party agrees to do better in the future. If nothing else the "victim" gets the support of the community. Gerardw (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave is a good editor, but he suffers foolishness badly, as do many of us. He should have been left alone after the message was rollbacked, but Treasury took affront by that, and had to make an issue of it, then got offended when Dave wouldn't back down. Sometimes it's better to let the other guy have the last "word" before things get ugly, even a revert. Btw, the "rollback" was used on his own talk page, as far as I can tell. To my knowledge, users are allowed to edit their talk pages in any manner they chose. This is also mentioned in the notes section of his talk page: "I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason..." This is there because he knows how he can react in such situations, and is trying to spare the other person some grief, but Treasury didn't take the hint. Yes, Dave should have been more civil, but in my opinion, Treasury is as much at fault here as Dave is. - BilCat (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote the part of the rollback guidline which says that making non-vandalism reverts in userspace is acceptable? And could you explain, again, how Dave's use of phrases such as "newness" and "YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING" are in line with the civility policy? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a mis-representation of my comments, so I'm not sure answering you will be productive. However, for truth's sake, I'll respond anyway.

One, I said "To my knowledge, users are allowed to edit their talk pages in any manner they chose." Per WP:UP#OWN: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." Using rollbacks on one's own userspace seems allowable to me, per that guideline. I don't remember when, but I believe that issue has come up at an ANI flied against me, and was upheld by the consesnus there.

Two, I said, "Yes, Dave should have been more civil..." How that implies that I think "Dave's use of phrases such as "newness" and "YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING" are in line with the civility policy" is quite beyond me. - BilCat (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll rephrase my last question: "How is my behaviour as bad as Dave's when he so flagrantly violated the civility policy?" ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 09:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor TreasuryTag wrote:

"Could you quote the part of the rollback guidline which says that making non-vandalism reverts in userspace is acceptable?"

Sure. The first sentence in the "When to use rollback" sections ays:

"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space [emphasis mine]; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit."

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, I wasn't aware of that exception. Now I am. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with TreasuryTag, he was polite and quite nice in his posts. Dave was clearly rude and incivil. His behavior is unacceptable. Caden ^cool 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The heinous crime of using rollback on your user page? Maybe you're thinking of me, as I was (falsely) accused of doing that on my talke page. As David Wilson indicated above it is legitimate. Maybe Dave isn't as civil as he should be but hounding him on his talk page isn't the way to deal with it. That was a bad move. Justin talk 13:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "hounding him on his talkpage" – I made an honest mistake about the rollback policy, which in no way justified his response (which anyway didn't address my mistake, it was simply abusive). ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a theme, here. Tan | 39 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 14:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag his response did, he pointed out he wasn't using rollback and as I found out using some of the edit tools some people can't tell the difference. Deleting a message indicates he has read it, continuing to push the matter wasn't helpful. I agree with BilCat that there was fault on both sides here, the problem being you just don't see it. Justin talk 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, at no point did I object to his deleting a message. I objected to his using rollback (or a tool exactly like it), which was an honest mistake. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 14:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now I see that Dave has decided to attack me for having shared my thoughts on here. See this [25] where he continues to be incivil along with another well known trouble maker (Bugs). Dave's attitude and behavior is not acceptable. Something has to be done about him. Caden ^cool 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some time back, Caden ordered me to stop watching his page,[26] and although he had no authority whatsoever to issue such an order, I stopped watching. Meanwhile, he seems to be watching mine. So apparently he applies different rules to himself than to others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Caden's block log[27] will give you an idea of the level of his credibility in complaining about other editors' behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bugs, I asked you to stop watching my page because you were stalking me. I did not "order" you to stop, I simply asked. Regardless, you have a well known record for harrassment, incivility, and personal attacks. As your block log shows [28], you're no saint and were blocked for a 5 day period. Looks like you learned zero from all those blocks, as it's obvious from your talk page that you continue to make personal attacks. No surprise there. You'll never learn. Anyway, I'm not watching your page. I was told on yahoo that you were attacking me again and so I went to your talk page. Caden ^cool 03:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Consider this your first and last warning. Take me off your watchlist. Understood? I don't care man that you have powerful admin buddies. Bullies like you don't scare me. Get lost." Funny, I don't see an "ask" in there anyplace. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no saints. And that was over 2 years ago. Your blocks all happened last year, one of which was indef and you were given another chance. Actually, I had forgotten about you until yesterday. I don't dwell that much on past issues unless they resurface. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that after a 9-month hiatus, Caden has managed to get himself blocked again due to - can you believe it - vulgar personal attacks, such as this:[29] I guess he'll never learn, to coin a phrase. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rossdegenstein and communication

Hello. I've indef-blocked a user, Rossdegenstein (talk · contribs), because of edit warring and refusal to follow directions with properly citing census data. The user has an awkward communication style and has recently branched out into creating an alternate account.

Even though I'm reaching my WP:AGF limit, I really believe this user could be a productive member of Wikipedia. If nothing else, they could use someone to patiently explain what the issue was. I've tried, as have others, and it doesn't feel like we have gotten anywhere.

I'm reaching out, hoping that someone here on WQA can 'adopt' this user and see if they can demonstrate more civility and AGF than I've been able to. tedder (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His facebook profile is also quite confusing. Could it be that he's not able to write intelligibly and understand normal communication? --Jonund (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple theories about his communication issues but I don't want to elaborate here for privacy/libel/minding-my-own-business reasons. Someone with enormous patience and perhaps even experience with speech and language pathology might be able to work with him. He seems to want to update the population figures for various cities, but he's not citing his sources. If there's someone who wouldn't mind doing such a repetitive task, maybe s/he could do the edits for him. I just can't get that worked up about population data but I know some folks are into that stuff. Any takers? I guess this should be requested wherever folks request adoption. Do we do forced adoptions? Katr67 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to have the minimum competence necessary to be an editor. Fences&Windows 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I point out User:hopiakuta who's output is extremely strange, due to some problem, but they still make constructive edits. Anyway, I think it's clear that they're making these edits in good faith, and can communicate, but are simply unable to communicate at a normal level (simple english will probably get a better response). I'll drop this by Wikipedia:Adopt a user and see if anyone's willing to help. Swarm^(Talk) 08:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz

Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk has deleted information from the article on Peace Now, in my opinion partly to push his POV. He is unresponsive to my arguments, scornful in his tone, accuses me of not understanding the concept of NPOV and refuses to discuss. I'm thankful for constructive input. --Jonund (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify "refuses to discuss"? It looks to me like there is a reasonable discussion at Talk:Peace Now, and I can't see that you've attempted discussion anywhere else. It also looks to me like, as Malik says, your edits have serious neutrality issues. You should perhaps be aware that Malik has a strong reputation as one of the few admins who can be effective in the face of the battleground mentality that dominates many Israel-Palestine articles. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you provide diffs of the specific contributions by Malik Shabazz you consider incivil. Gerardw (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to discuss WP:NPOV with somebody who doesn't understand why the use of words like "appalled", "disinformation", and "infiltration" in the encyclopedia's editorial voice is a POV issue. I don't think my comments were scornful or uncivil. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonund, I had a look at that article yesterday and it needs a lot of work. It doesn't even say what Peace Now's position is on various issues like the right of Israel to exist, that they advocate for a 2-state solution, how many members they have etc etc, basic facts. Why don't you actively demonstrate your neutrality by adding basic infomation like that rather than focusing on criticism ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on Talk:Peace Now, and it did not lack constructive elements, although some of my arguments were ignored. But then Malik withdrew from it, although there are open points, ascribing to me unability or unwillingness to understand the concept of NPOV. On this page, rather than discussing disagreements, he declares his unability to discuss.

A serious contribution, including explanation of the edit, was met with the comment "if you want to write an editorial of your own, start a blog", along with a revert that seems to be partly POV-pushing.[30] An earnest attempt at discussion returned, along with answers, the comment "if you want to write an article about how evil Peace Now is, write a blog."[31] It all ended with a refusal to either try to understand or to explain.[32]

I have experience of Malik, and his ways of running roughshod over his opponents by ignoring their arguments and deleting material that doesn't fit his POV are untoward to him.[33] That looks like the exact opposite of being "effective in the face of the battleground mentality" (which is not to deny that he behaves far better in many cases).

NPOV, in my understanding, means that all POVs are taken into consideration and together work out a version that all can agree about. That is how many good articles emerge. My experience is that where a constructive attitude reigns, a diversity of opinions is an asset, also when they are strongly held. Unfortunately, such an attitude isn't always present.

The suggestion to add some basic information to the article is a good idea, and I will consider it. At the present moment, I'm a bit discouraged but I hope I will overcome that feeling. --Jonund (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Talk:Peace_Now#Changes_by_Malik_Shabbazz I'm not seeing personal attacks; I seeing disengagement from an editor who is not hearing well Gerardw (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your comment doesn't invite confidence in you. Your accusation of refusal to 'get the point' recoils on yourself. This is a place for constructive attempts at dispute resolution, not for joining POV-pushers in their dismissals of contributions by those who disagree with them. --Jonund (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I advice Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk to be more patient and answer all arguments. The discussion about Martin Luther King (where I weighed in with a couple of comments) showed that you are, at times, wanting in preparedness to consider opposing arguments, and I think the same problem is present now, at least to some extent. I hope you will seek a solution by consensus and not by force. --Årvasbåo (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonund, you wrote "NPOV, in my understanding, means that all POVs are taken into consideration...". This is the root of your misunderstanding: that's not what NPOV means. NPOV means that the information is presented from a neutral POV, not from multiple POVs. If it is necessary to describe the views of various parties, they must be explicitly attributed to the people who hold them. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I expressed myself unclearly. I wrote in response to Sean Hoylands suggestion that I actively demonstrate my neutrality, which looked like a suggestion that all parties contributing to an article should be neutral. I think that's a misunderstanding of NPOV. Editors need not be neutral (on many subjects, neutrality is a vice rather than a virtue). Individual edits may well reflect the editor's view. But the resulting article should be POV. For instance, I may add material that I find important, and correct stuff that I react against, while Malik adds material he finds important and corrects things he reacts against. As a result the POV's cancel each other out. That's perhaps the most common way in which articles progress. Of course, there's also a need to discuss and reconsider one's edits. And we should never push our own POV at the cost of other's. --Jonund (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Every editor must at all times comply with WP:NPOV in their editing. The editor's personal POV shouldn't be relevant. NPOV is a core policy and is "absolute and non-negotiable". You are responsible for ensuring that your edits don't distort the neutrality of an article. You have to make sure that you balance postives and negatives etc. You can't rely on anyone else to do it. Even if you were allowed to work on the basis that NPOV is an emergent property of individually biased editors working together (e.g. someone else balances your edits, you balance theirs etc) it wouldn't work. Read about genetic drift to see why. What happens is 'fixation' where one POV dominates and may even eliminate others. There simply aren't enough editors working on any given article, discussing things, etc etc to be able to rely on neutrality emerging all by itself.It's major problem in the Israel-Palestine area of wiki because so many editors think it's okay to only make edits that advance their preferred POV whereas, in fact, it's inconsistent with a core policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the "dueling POVs" approach just doesn't work. It leads to articles written in the form "X is true. But some say X is false. Y is bad. But some say Y is good.", etc. The result is almost always unreadable junk. The only way to get a good article is for editors to be committed to neutrality from the start. Looie496 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and then there's the Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions that make NPOV compliance even more strict and encourage editors to simply walk away if they can't be neutral...not that anyone ever does. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PA and wikistalking

I am in a dispute with MarturetCR (talk · contribs) at Human Rights Foundation. Misleading edit summaries, removal of article flags, insertion of sharply POV material, as I see it. I have warned the editor, restored flags, removed the content. Some has been readded, and I have tagged it offtopic. The editor has followed me to utterly unrelated articles Kripalu Center and Persecution of Falun Gong, making personal attacks and disrupting already-difficult efforts. Perhaps other voices than mine would help the editor. And yes, I know I am abrasive and yes, refactoring the utterly impenetrable posts of calamitybrook (talk · contribs) is less than kind. - Sinneed 14:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I lost the links. Here they are: Kripalu nastiness and "use wp:BRAIN" and Drama Queen. - Sinneed 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly a sock. The first post by the account, from Feb 1, says "I have just joined wikipedia...", but even from the first day the account is showing a high level of wiki-sophistication. I don't think WQA will be useful here. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are correct, but wp:AGF when I can. My thinking runs that warnings only from me, when I am in a content dispute are not going to be as useful as from someone not involved. I suspect there is at least 1 other sock involved, but there isn't enough for wp:SPI yet, IMO.- Sinneed 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monshuai is accusing me of hypocrisy

Please take a look into this issue, I have asked the user:Monshuai not to discus my person, to discuss my ideas. The user got the message as evidenced by his reply. He continued to accuse me of hypocrisy in the response to my request and in the Talk:Bulgaria, here . Also in his lengthy tirades in Talk:Bulgaria he misrepresented my positions and baited me constantly. I report this here because otherwise I feel that otherwise I will start to breach myself all the civility rules. Or maybe it's OK on Wikipedia to call people hypocrites, please let me know. man with one red shoe 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:man with one red shoe has been making rather divisive statements about the lack of notability of Bulgaria's history. One of his comments was, "I'm afraid to say this, but "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians". I am not sure what lands the Bulgarians are occupying, nor why it is even necessary for him to mention ethnicity. He has also stated that I am "delusional" yet feels offended that I said he was hypocritical. Indeed, that is ironic as it is a clear example of hypocrisy and thus helps to prove my point. He has also posted on my talk page to discuss this issue with me, only to then say that he does not want me posting on his talk page. That too is a double standard. In his latest comment on my talk page he has used inappropriate language. If you have the time, please read the entire Talk:Bulgaria article discussion that the two of us have had for more information.--Monshuai (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here you go again, you discuss my person instead of discussing the ideas, if you were a bit civil you'd have said something like "you seem to contradict yourself, you seem to claim this here and something else over there" and I would have explained, but calling somebody hypocritical is not a way to conduct a discussion. You say "I am not sure what lands the Bulgarians are occupying" I used the word "occupy" in the sense of "inhabit" not in the sense that "unlawful or unmerited occupation" and I clearly explained that in the talk page. Bulgarians inhabit the lands of Bulgaria, big surprise... However, you chose to ignore my explanation and I can see this only as a bad faith act and pick on that particular word, and launch an accusation/insinuation of racism and now of hypocrisy. man with one red shoe 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You came here to discuss me as a person did you not? You said that I made "lengthy tirades", that I "misrepresented you" and "baited you" along with calling me "delusional" yesterday. Who is discussing who? I really hope you learn the meaning of double standards.--Monshuai (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said what you did, now what you are, that's the difference. Now, people might disagree with me about you baiting me, or how long and tiresome are your tirades, but the fact that you called me hypocrite or implied clearly that I am (as you did on this very page) remains. man with one red shoe 06:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes what I said remains and I stand by it. Indeed, I provided evidence to support my statement about you using double standards. You on the other hand said I am delusional, which according to "psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)." So by calling me delusional, were you accusing me of being sick/mentally ill? Can you provide evidence that I am mentally ill? Is that even something to say to a person? --Monshuai (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said "I didn't imply that, I'm not responsible for your delusions and imagination", more importantly I said it once and didn't repeat it many times like you did with your accusations. Please don't act like a victim here, I said it once, you victimized yourself repeating that 4 times, get over it. man with one red shoe 08:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I victimized myself? Weren't you the one that said you were offended by my calling your actions hypocritical? Weren't you the one who started this discussion because you stated that you hoped an administrator would punish me? Who posted on my talk page telling me not post on theirs? Who then came a second time on my talk page and used the s*** word? The difference thus far is that I have provided evidence for my accusations. As of yet you haven't provided any evidence that I am delusional. Please be fair and try to back your statements and take responsibility (as I have) for once.--Monshuai (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted you to be punished I would have referred this issue to another forum WP:ANI, here there no punishments imparted as far as I know. man with one red shoe 08:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have a feeling that based on the evidence presented regarding your use of double standards and vile words on my talk page it is you who may be punished.--Monshuai (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never interacted with either of you and I have no desire to insert myself into this mess but thanks to both of you for this hilarious post. I don't know what's funnier that Monshuai refers to "shat" as "the s*** word" or that a Man with one red shoe actually wrote the word on Monshuai's talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol (that is pretty funny now that I think about it) Although I'm still offended, gggggrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!--Monshuai (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say "shit", but then I remembered that some Wikipedia admins are morons, I don't know why I censured myself, is not in my habit, in any case I remove myself from this discussion I don't want ever to discuss with this guy. Wikipedia is much better for having him and not having me. Bye. man with one red shoe 09:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA has no value if it is used as a forum to carry on bickering. If you want WQA to accomplish anything, state your complaint, allow the other party to answer, and then wait for other editors to chime in. After a tenfold back-and-forth, I see no purpose in continuing with this. Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to ask for help but, as Looie496 has indicated, continuing the debate here is unlikely to get you assistance from others. I'd suggest posting an article WP:RFC or WP:3RD. Best to focus on getting assistance is resolving the content dispute and not attacking each other. Gerardw (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 * It is worth noting that this is not exactly a new problem with Ibaranoff/Sugar Bear. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-10-17_Hed_PE See here]. No comment beyond that. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)</small>
-::As Ike9898 has stated Mr. "Sugar Bear" is generally on the attack against that disagrees with what he says(I believe he owes that user an apology as well.) These attacks should not continue, they are very uncivil. All I am asking for is a simple apology. That isn't much. [[User:Rockgenre|RG]] ([[User talk:Rockgenre|talk]])Rockgenre 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
+::As Ike9898 has stated Mr. "Sugar Bear" is generally on the attack against that disagrees with what he says(I believe he owes that user an apology as well.) These attacks should not continue, they are very uncivil. All I am asking for is a simple apology. That isn't much. [[User:Rockgenre|RG]] ([[User talk:Rockgenre|talk]]) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 == More problems with 78.32.143.113 ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards