Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Nableezy (summary from WP:ANI)

Upon the recommendation of User:Sandstein, I have summarized the WP:ANI post by User:DrorK, which two administrators refused to act upon because apparently it was not posted on the correct page (I disagree, but do admit that WQA is a more specific forum for etiquette problems, as the name implies). Here are the basic points:

• Personal attack by User:Nableezy against User:Drork
• Personal attack by User:Nableezy against User:Shuki

I am notifying the people who posted at WP:ANI as well. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yn, the edit summary directed at Shuki has already been brought here. An honest oversight no doubt, but perhaps you should modify your original post. And I am not sure that anybody refused to act on it because it was in the wrong place, perhaps they refused to act on it because it such a minor, trivial thing. nableezy - 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Does asking somebody if they've had a blow on the head (when they've made a pretty silly claim) really constitute a personal attack? No. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Do you have anything more to say than "no"? Breein1007 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Drork said something that could not, under any sane reading, be called rational (that "everyone" agrees with his edits, excepting everyone who had commented on his edits). I asked a question that if the answer was yes would explain this irrationality. In fact, I assumed good faith that Drork was not simply lying, that he had a reason for saying such an irrational thing. nableezy - 19:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, no matter what Drork said, but IMO it would have been nice, if you are to apologize on his talk page for what you said to him.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, yeah, you should strike through and apologize for that comment. Among the many reasons is that someone who has just suffered a blow to the head probably won't be able to remember it. More importantly, the editor may just be a normal silly editor, the kind we have lots of. Suggesting a mental impairment, whether acute or chronic - that's really not on here. Franamax (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, such as that indicated, is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I cant strike out something that is funny, just cant do it, but I will promise to never again pose such a question when somebody says such a ridiculous thing as "everybody agrees with me" when nobody had. Ill just ask why that person is lying. But what I wrote is not a personal attack. Sarcastic incivility, sure, but not a personal attack. nableezy - 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I, at least, note that calling someone whose opinion you disagree with a liar will most certainly be wp:PA. While I agree that your post was rude, it may have skirted the rather odd definition of personal attack used by many here in WP, but calling someone out for lying when you simply disagree about who agrees with them won't be iffy.- Sinneed 22:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC) And yes, you can strike it out. In this case you can simply redact it under wp:talk. It adds no value and is offensive to some.- Sinneed 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I did not do it. But, when somebody says something plainly bogus, such as "everybody agrees with me" when everybody who had made any comment at all about the subject disagrees with that person, what should be the proper response. Inquiring about a specific cause for the delusion brought me here, calling that person a liar would be a personal attack that might merit a block. What should be the response when somebody claims that "everybody" agrees with him when nobody actually has agreed with him, and then tries to use that "agreement" with "everybody" as proof that there is consensus for his edits? nableezy - 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to cut through the wikilawyering her. First, incivility is not appropriate here. Second, if you believe that what someone said is not true, simply say that. As in, "IMHO, that's not true", or "I don't agree," or "I don't believe that to be true", or even "that's not true". React to the statement, and share your opinion. No need to react in such an instance to the editor, and call him a liar. It adds nothing, needlessly inflames passions, violates wikipedia guidelines, and leads to discussions such as this one which can easily be avoided affording you more time to engage in article editing.--Epeefleche (talk)

As you seem to take civility so seriously, is it civil to say another is wikilawyering? Good thing I dont mind that sort of thing, or we might need a new section on this page. nableezy - 22:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

nableezy, I agree with Franamax that you should strike your comment and apologize to DrorK. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Malik et al. As to Nab -- I gather you are not appreciating the distinction I am making between our commenting on an edit (calling it untrue or wikilawyering) and our commenting on an editor (calling him/her a liar, one who has been dropped on his/her head, etc.). I commented on your edits. If you limit yourself to comment on edits, you may find that time spent here is likewise reduced. I assume of course that that is your preference, but I can't know your mind.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You gather incorrectly. So would it have been fine for me to ask why Drork had made a delusional comment instead? And in my example I said I would ask why he was lying, not why he was a liar. Both are personal attacks (they both assert an intent to mislead by the party), and the distinction you are making is a false one. Im not going to strike out the comment, but if somebody wants to remove it I wont restore it. I will not say anything like that, or anything more acerbic, again. nableezy - 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, it does say what you've quoted in the rules. However, interpreted directly, as, presumably, you intend, it would mean that anything that could be construed as insulting is a personal attack, which, to me, does not make sense. Here is a comment far more insulting than what Nableezy wrote, yet it hardly raised a reaction. Do you think that is a personal attack? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(intended)For the record I am 100% agree with Drork on the subject, I'm just sorry I could not have been there for him to say that he was absolutely right on the subject. I am sure many other users would have agreed with him as well. What do you mean you did not call him a liar?You just did at that very thread.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Where? And the point is not that some people agree with Drork, Im sure many people may. But the idea that in a discussion with 4 people, with 3 people opposing, to say that "everybody" agrees with that 1 person is quite plainly ludicrous. Hell, it is a ludicrous thing to say even if all 4 people agreed with the edit. nableezy - 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen, it does not really matter what you think or what I say, what matters here is Drork's perception of what you said to him, and his perception is it was PA. That's why I suggest you apologize at his talk page. I am sure you yourself will feel much better, if you do.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My perception is that Drork doth protest a little too much (and operates a double standard). -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 -- No, Drork's perception does not matter. Drork is merely interested in continuing his pattern of harassment of users who oppose his viewpoint on Israel-Palestine articles. He does this every few days, and everyone who has to deal with it is extremely patient with him. A mildly sarcastic and abrasive response to such an illogical comment is not worth wasting everyone's time on. Seriously -- maybe he could wait a week between filing petty complaints, so that everyone here could work on improving the encyclopedia in the meantime, instead of arguing here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Note by Jaakobou
I had my own very recent NPA run in with the Nableezy as well.

• - "And you would have long since been banned." - Feb 26, 2010
  • (original) - [1],
  • (resubmit) - [2].

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, on that page you have repeatedly implied that other editors are antisemites with edit summaries such as this and this or comments such as this. Pardon my French, but if Wikipedia was properly constructed bureaucracy-wise you would have long since been banned. nableezy - 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nab--perceived injustice is not reason for you to engage in incivility. I offer you a cup of tea, and a pleasant day.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Perceived injustice"? Interesting. nableezy - 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Even injustice would not warrant incivility.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Comment: Nableezy seized the moment -- a note that was not addressed to him -- to be incivil as usual. An earlier 2 month ban in November-December 2009 did not seem to promote the desired change and when it was clarified to him that he's in violation of NPA, he couldn't care and resubmitted. Also, if I'm not mistaken, he's now repeating the same insult once more (per "you would have long since been banned"). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

<- This is incivility "u guys are all anti-israeli fucker why dont you and your anti-semitic freinds fuck off so that we could show israel tyo what it really is" and it was simply removed without drama. What Nableezy said wasn't even close to incivility. He tried to deal with some commonplace partisan nonsense with a bit of humour. It seems that prissy timewasting civility complaints are now just another weapon cynically used by editors who consistently demonstrate that they don't care about mandatory compliance with wiki policies that govern neutrality, verifiability, due weight etc etc or even being civil themselves. Reports like this are about constraining or removing a perceived opponent in a battle. The discretionary sanctions are willfully and repeatedly ignored here and almost nothing is done. The righteous-battle-bots continue their nationalist/ethnic/holy information wars sometimes in very civil manner, sometimes not. Either way, the content suffers and the editors grow tired of having to deal with all the neotribalist bullshit and hypocrisy. It's nonsense. There is no point of having the discretionary sanctions when mandatory compliance isn't enforced on the numerous POV pushing editors that willfully and repeatedly ignore them. Imposing some sort of semblance of compliance with the sanctions shouldn't be left to non-admin editors like Nableezy trying hold back the tide of partisan nonsense. Etiquette is not the problem here. The problem is lack of admin support in dealing with partisan editing and editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- this is just more partisan Israel-Palestine article "waste time snitching on editors with opposing viewpoints, for the pettiest and most insignificant of incivil behaviors, instead of working to improve the article" type behavior, unsurprisingly involving Drork. Nableezy responded to an inane and completely illogical comment with a bit of humor, which would have been ignored by most editors elsewhere, who have better things to do than harass people who don't agree with them on the WikiQuette board. In my opinion, I'm sick of having Drork's petty bickering about user behavior pop up on this board more than once a week. I'm impressed by the patience of Nableezy, Tiamut, harlan, and other editors who have to put up with the incessant harassment about their behavior, taking away their time for improving articles (which they are constantly doing). Drork's comment was abrasive and idiotic, and I don't feel that a bit of sarcasm was unwarranted in response. No apology needed, no harm done -- except for all the wasted time on another petty Drork whining session. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what Drork has to complain about here. The statement he made to Nableezy immediately before the comment in question ("I hope you are not suggesting the the entire editors' community is the three of you... ") is a facetious, unnecessary, patronising comment that doesn't even make any sense. If Drork wants to be treated with kid gloves then he should post politely and sensibly in the future. As it stands, the pot is posting a Wikiquette alert about the kettle. Factsontheground (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I personally withdrew a request based on civility because he apologized. He then went on to say that there were "too many stupid people here", told another editor to "fuck off". and made a silly comment about another having a head injury. Funny or not, it was not acceptable. There was a point where I was being a complete jerkoff and called one of Nableezy's buddies here a dirty liar. After thinking about it I jumped back on Wikipeida and apologized profusely. I was lucky to not receive a block even with that. Nableezy here could not strike out the "fuck off" comment since it was an edit summary but he could strike out the immature and unnecessary head comment as suggested multiple times by admins. There should not be a fourth pass on this. If he thinks it is funny and should stay then he should be blocked. It doesn't matter what the other editor did first. Open up a report on him if you want to discuss it. The fact that Nableezy continues to believe this behavior is acceptable is why a block policy exists: "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated." Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Following on from what Nableezy has said above, I have struck-through the comment objected to by Drork. Since, apparently, anything which may be construed as an insult to an editor is a personal attack, perhaps Drork would like to remove the word hysteric from his reply. -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy refusing to do so and you doing it only emphasizes the need for a stronger reminder. He has gotten away with incivility enough times that it appears that he can do whatever he wants. You can also open up a request against Drork if he has not been civil.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It treats the issue with the casualness and disinterest it deserves. These kind of non-events happen everyday in numerous pages and life goes on. Perhaps Nableezy was 'hysteric' because he has a head injury from banging his head on the keyboard repeatedly. None of it really matters because it doesn't address the root causes. There isn't a collaborative editing environment when it comes to many editors, there probably never will be and turning the politeness dimmer switch to create a nice ambiance won't make the slightest bit of difference because this isn't really about innocent civil people deserving of sympathy genuinely caring about civility. Insults, apologies and other assorted amateur dramatics are just people being people, letting off steam. Why buy into the drama ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of diverting this hopefully dying thread to further irrelevance, it might be worth noting that on this page - where Nableezy may well be a lone voice of sanity and in defence of basic WP policy - he has been variously and repeatedly accused of being "brainwashed", a "fascist apologist" and "in denial". It kind of brings one flippant response to a manifestly absurd comment from someone who by their own admission thinks 3RR somehow magically does not apply to them - even though they clog up noticeboards arguing that 3RR and other policies have to be rigorously policed against everyone else (see noticeboard archives, endlessly) - into perspective, you might have thought. N-HH talk/edits 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE: N-HH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently asked for a new username. Knowing the history of the editor and ban-evasion I expected one to be coming shortly (see: WP:DUCK). N-HH, was topic banned from "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" and from "commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles."[3] I'm not in the immediate intention of opening an AE thread over this, hopefully, single violation but I advice that it should not be repeated nor that fellow editors edit-war over keeping such comments where they are not allowed.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) fix 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa ....... you might like to rein in your horses a bit. There has been confusion over the position of the editors affected by the "West Bank / Judea and Samaria" case with regard to articles, such as the State of Palestine one, which are not directly about the Arab-Iaraeli conflict but which contain detail relating to it. Accordingly, I raised a question about whether Jayjg should be editing the Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial articles. FloNight, who was one of the arbitrators involved in the case, told me (see the "Jayjg and the Antisemitism and Holocaust denial articles" section on her talk page) that, in such cases, in her opinion, the affected editors may edit the articles and their talk pages so long as they didn't touch the parts of them that were specifically about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It may be, of course, that the other arbitrators involved have a different opinion, but, until you find out whether that is the case, I would avoid writing in such definite terms. Of course, if the latter is the case, then Jayjg will be affected by the judgement as well and it would surprise me if you earn his undying gratitude. -- ZScarpia (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I figure WP:NOTTHEM describes how I feel about your note. N-HH can't support editors with a viewpoint he sees as "a lone voice of sanity" in an area he was banned from. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is not in the A/I topic area. And even if it were, AE is thataway. nableezy - 04:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comment marked 03:30, 5 March 2010. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, can you follow the logic of my argument, which described how the case affects another editor who is under exactly the same sanction as N-HH? Unless you can see a hole in it or unless you can show that FloNight's opinion was flawed then it means that N-HH is not banned from the State of Palestine article (and consequently from here). -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments, which discuss general talk page conduct, are very clearly not in breach of any ban, and it is not up to Jaakobou to decide if they are or not anyway. Edit warring to remove them, while accusing me of having a "history of ban evasion" and of changing my username in order to get round such a ban, however, are fairly obviously personal attacks (not least because they suggest that I am pretty thick), probably best avoided on the WQA page. Now let's just drop this aspect of this thread. There's enough drama here as it is. N-HH talk/edits 10:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ps: for what it's worth, I'd say the SoP article more likely than not would fall within in the ban, at least in respect of most of it. Not that I have edited, or wish to edit there at all. Pan-Arabism would not, for the most part. Not that I wish to get involved there either.

Cptnono, perhaps the attempt to stop Nableezy doing "whatever he wants" has become so relentless and so focussed on fairly trivial things that it has begun to look like persecution and one or two editors to look a little too fanatical. Unless symptoms are very malign, it is easy for the cure to become worse than the disease.

Open a case against Drork? And make myself look like a prissy girly-man editor? No thanks.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mind calling other editors stupid and telling them to fuck off if we are all allowed to do so now. Sounds like it will add an interesting dynamic to the project.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But why would you want to? You'd only make yourself look foolish and lose the respect of other editors. And so, to a certain extent, would any editor it was aimed at if, instead of shrugging it off, they ran to one of the noticeboards to report it, especially if they gave an exaggerated, inaccurate account, say by claiming that you'd called them stupid when you'd done no such thing. As to writing "fuck off" as an edit summary on his talk page, perhaps Nableezy can clarify whether it was aimed at and intended to be read by Shuki or whether it was just a general curse which it was hoped would "pass under the radar." -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont get sucked in. This is a tried and true tactic, raising things from the distant past or that have already been addressed. I was told to take down the "too many stupid people" comment and it stayed down. The "fuck off" has already been addressed. I have already said I will not tell anybody "fuck off" again. I've already said I wont make such jokes as asking if somebody has been hit in the head recently. If an admin feels my refusal to apologize to Drork, a person who has repeatedly accused me and others of lying and hijacking articles, merits a block that admin can block me. nableezy - 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I'm sure that you wouldn't have committed small incivilities if you'd realised they'd produce the amount of mental anguish they obviously have. Perhaps you're worried that apologising will be humiliating, but, I have to say that, I think that in the eyes of people looking at it the right way, it would, rather, make you look bigger, willing to compromise and to listen to the good advise of editors like Malik. Of course, if Drork was equally as big, he would apologise for any hurt done to you. -- ZScarpia (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it would be humiliating, it is that it would be dishonest. I'll say sorry when I am sorry for something, this aint one of those times. I recognize that what I said may not be acceptable here so I wont say things like that again. But sorry? Not really. nableezy - 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"I recognize that what I said may not be acceptable here so I wont say things like that again." Well, that does sound like an apology to me. There are many "honest" reasons for giving an apology: indicating flexibility; complying with somebody's advice; allowing everybody to pack up and go home for tea. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

His exact words were actually "Too many stupid people here" so no that is not an exaggeration. He at least realizes that was not one of his finer moments and it was during a stressful point a couple months ago so it is much less of a problem then the head comment or edit summary. In regards to respect, he has tremendous support so it seems to be acceptable now. Maybe it is time to propose scrapping Wikipedia:Civility over at the Village Pump if that is the way it is. And I am sorry to argue so much. It just really gets under my skin that this continues. I'll back off and hopefully an admin will decided one way or the other on this.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

When the rules start being used for the "pursuit of war by other means" (which I suspect might be the case here), then, at the very least, care should be exercised in the way they are applied. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's really quite a lot to shrug off with Nableezy (e.g. see edit summary and comment). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with either of those diffs? nableezy - 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, honestly, I think it would take more effort to get worked up over anything in those diffs than to ignore it. Just think, by shrugging things off, you earn the right to expect others to shrug off any lapses you yourself might make. And, you know, in ten years you'll be missing the times when you could have a rumble with Nableezy to set yourself up for the day. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well,

Edit-wars to resubmit Nableezy's violations (see [here), or reinstate the violations of Nickhh/N-HH (see here and before here and again 1,2,3...), or follow me around to new places and delete notes made a year ago! (e.g. here), or just make incivil insinuations of malice (see here) are among the many shrugged off instances. There really is quite a lot to shrug off with Nableezy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, a tried and true tactic. But the only person who has edit-warred here is you in removing the comments twice (and it is not up to you to determine what is and what is not a violation of N-HH's topic ban, go to AE (arbitration enforcement) if you feel he has violated his topic ban and want the arbitration decision enforced). And you have yet to say what it objectionable in the two diffs you cited above. And "incivil insinuations of malice"???? Please, there are multiple diffs above of you implying that multiple users are antisemites. nableezy - 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an insinuation of malice in the above diff]. I requested you take a step back in tone but was unsuccesful. I reiterate my request here. Please take a step back in tone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Says the person who has no problem insinuating, and coming right up to the point of outright saying, that editors are antisemites. Forgive me for giving your request the consideration it deserves. nableezy - 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comment marked 07:00, 3 March 2010. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please drop the stick

It's been a long drawn week now, time for everyone involved in this drama to take the hint, drop their stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Note that Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor is it a drama series (read also → Wikipedia:Mind your own business), we can all learn to agree to disagree and disagree to agree. Please stop the name callings and go back to what we as editors do best – EDIT~! If nothing further comes up, I motion for this case to be close and to be referred to either WP:DR or WP:RFC for further comments. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that gaming the system here worked again, and that Nableezy is free to continue with his reckless beahviour? If I told you to F-off, would you think the same way? (and it was not his first time either) --Shuki (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note per WP:CIVIL, You might want to read up on baiting another editor and reflect on the words you just said. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I am confused too. This was brought over from ANI since it was supposed to be here. Now it is supposed to be somewhere else? I see a simple question posed to the Admins: Was Nableezy's behavior acceptable? Yes or no?Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185,

I haven't seen any baiting attempts here. With respect, WP:SOAP and WP:RFC have no relevance either. I also think you're wrong about bringing Wikipedia:Mind your own business into the discussion.

There's several diffs that require admin to review. To request this is not exceptionally dramatical.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Get off the high horse, Cptnono. What do you want, nableezy's head on a platter? At least two admins and a number of other editors told nableezy he should apologize and strike his comment; he said no. We can't force him to apologize, and if we could, you and DrorK would complain that it wasn't sincere. You were told a week ago that this wasn't "actionable", so why don't you pack up your tent so you'll be ready to throw gas on the next flame of this drama, wherever it may be. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like that. The admins coddling him is encouraging this repeated behavior. I can understand maybe not blocking him but when he spits in everyone's faces by saying it is too funny to strike out then it is time for you to at least give him a proper talking to as opposed to laughing along and doing nothing. So don't dodge the question: Is his behavior acceptable? There is no high horse about it. Yes or no? Cptnono (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Malik has stated his perspective about this, though I'm not certain he's really gone over all the relevent diffs. I myself skipped a few of the notes and missed the part about Nableezy citing an offensive comment as funny, refusing to strike through it. I looked it up and found it here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone over all the diffs, and I've read every one of the comments. Unlike Cptnono, who has consistently missed what I've written repeatedly. So I'll type real slowly this time so even Cptnono can follow along: What nableezy wrote was inappropriate.

Now, unless we adopt WP:incivility blocks and unless there is consensus that a comment like this is uncivil (please note that there was no such consensus at AN/I), I won't be blocking anybody for making a comment like this any time soon. Or one in which he attacks other editors by calling their changes lies. (Oh, wait. That was DrorK.) And if we ever do adopt incivility blocks, Cptnono, you might want to advise Jaakobou to stop insinuating that other editors are antisemitic. Just a suggestion. Lukewarm regards. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As an admin you should be telling both Drork and Jaakobou to stop being uncivil also. People keep on passing the buck on this by pointing fingers at other people. And just a reminder, I was guilty once of calling someone a liar. The difference is I have taken the warning to heart and not said it since. So Nableezy has had several warnings and keeps it up. So if his actions are acceptable we all need to know now to save any future confusion.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh LOL, MS typed real slow and I still missed it. Boy do I have poo on my face (seriously my bad). So users cannot be blocked for incivility and we are all on the same page now. Can anyone clarify if this impacts the AE thing or do I need to go over to the clarification board to find out? I don't want to tell someone to screw off just to find out the rules are tighter due to the sanctions on the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So dont tell somebody to screw off. Im not your role model. nableezy - 07:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are! In all seriousness, if we are allowed to tell people to screw off and the like regardless of the sanctions I would like to know now. I would love to say some mean things sometimes but more important I don't want to go through the effort of filing a pointless AE if this situation occurs again.Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just mind your own business. I for the life of me cannot figure out why you have commented so many times here. What does any of this have to do with you? Are you trying to be helpful or are you just trying to get me blocked? nableezy - 07:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A little of both. I opened up an AE awhile back on your civility and then retracted it after you apologized. I felt that your continued actions were a slap in the face and detrimental to the topic area which was therefore worthy of comment. Another problem is that people who consistently raise the issues with your behavior do it in a way that gets em blocked or retired. People have a problem with you and you know it. Unfortunately (in my eyes at least), they are not as organized as other editors are to stamp out a continuing problem. I really am not trying to wikihound you and I assume you know that. You do also know that there is some mutually crummy feelings. I am also assuming that you get everything I just said. Most editors can't be that pointed with each other without raising some hackles so that is a good sign at least. You stop being uncivil and I'll stop commenting on it. Sound alright?Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz,

No disrespect intended but I noticed Drork was sanctioned for his misconduct while you were somewhat protective of the tag-team he faced. I have complete good faith in your intentions here but Nableezy already gave his statement and I'm sure he has enough friends that would love to agree with his misinterpretation -- and it is a big one. You can exmine the diff in question; his extremely personal response[4][5] to a generic statement that did not involve him is quite personal, as was his following me around to remove a comment of mine from a year ago,[6] as all the other issues I've raised. Moreso when only recently he returned with a fuck-all attitude after a 2 month ban. No, I did not make any allegations towards Nableezy which should have elicited any of these dramatics.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s don't take this comment in bad faith - I'm just thinking that you've defended Nableezy enough in previous instances, which means that if even a friend finds his comments inappropriate, there must be some operative suggestions on resolving the problem. Nableezy refused deletion of his personal comentary (either by reverting or by stating he finds them amusing) and to ignore the issue at this point serves nothing but to promote further disruptive conduct by everyone involved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That was not a fuck all attitude, that was a fuck some attitude. And that was quite a while ago. Obviously I realize why you continually bring this up, and while I am tempted to bring up the many, many times you have said and done blatantly offensive things, I'm bigger than that. I'll just say that what you think is disruptive has absolutely no bearing on anything that I do. If somebody else were to say that the edits you are seeking redress for are a problem I might listen to them. But, surprise surprise, nobody else has. I've already said that I will not ask anybody about their mental state again. If there is something else to do here I'd be happy to know about it, but as it is the usual names saying the usual things so there is not much for me to do here. I already know the script, but by all means, keep playing your parts. Mighty entertaining this is. nableezy - 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, truly. Whether or not Nableezy will heed this complaint in the future remains to be seen, but this WQA isn't going to accomplish anything further. I reiterate Dave's above suggestion to close this with future complaints handled with an RfC. Swarm^(Talk) 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: How about, instead, we start with a removal of this? Nableezy just promised to not ask anybody about their mental state again. That is a good start. Another, would be to remove my mentioned NPA-vio. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not a violation of WP:NPA. It does not matter how many times you assert that it is, it is not. And I did not "just promise", I wrote the same thing a long time ago. You and a few others just wanted to keep this going so it was ignored. nableezy - 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So before this gets archived without complete resolution (another promise to stop being uncivil was appreciated and really the most important), was teasing someone by saying they might have a head injury uncivil? Does the lack of WP:incivility blocks mean that this is permitted even with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. I feel the editor was not inline with the decorum bit but that is not my call to make. Clarification on if an editor can be blcoked for incivility and if admins believe it was uncivil would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I will argue that it was unkind, and that it was baiting. *Personally* I would say it is a wp:PA, but the community at large has a narrower interpretation than I do. It was an escalation, rather than a deescalation, and these make reaching consensus harder, and therefore should be avoided. I wonder if a useful result of this might be some mention at wp:NPA that while teasing, taunting, sarcasm, and general snarkiness may skirt personal attack, they are to be avoided, and a pattern of such may result in a block, as it damages the wp:consensus process, drives away editors we need, and wastes stunning amounts of editor (admin and normal [haha]) effort.- Sinneed 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – address on article talk, or consider RFC/U Gerardw (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence User:A Sniper is repeatedly removing im,proval-needed tags disregarding the viewpoints of at least two other editors (many editors have expressed similar concerns on the talk page previously) - his rationale is that the tags are old and therefore should be removed as nothing has been done about them. User:Aprock and myself maintain that the tags must stay in place untill the problems has been solved as the tags are a warning to readers that there are potential problems with the article - not only a tool for internal categorizing of pages needing attention (which it also still does however). Could a few people comment on what proper wikiquette perscribes for removal of tags like this?·Maunus·ƛ· 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A similar wikiquette about possible ownership issues by User:A Sniper was filed by me in august 2009, but it received no attention from uniunvolved users[7]. The problem of course has not been solved. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• You should notify the editor and posts diffs of examples of incivility. The only example I found while quickly scanning is this [[8]]. Beyond that the dispute seems more like edit warring than incivility and should be addressed at an:3rr. Gerardw (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Gerardw: Uh, the only person you just showcased as being not civil with your example is Maunus. He accused me of writing a 'crappy' article when, in fact, I didn't write the article. By the way: the tags keep being removed because users simply aren't discussing the issues these two users keep raising. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned because of incivility but because of failure by A Sniper to observe the best practice of tagging and removing tags. A Sniper seems to think that tags have automatic expiry date when in fact they do not expire untill some one corrects the problem. Placing a tag does also not make the tagger responsible for fixing the problems at hand, nor is there a certain time limit within which the problems should be adressed.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is your opinion. However, it doesn't appear to have generated any discussion, either at this page or at Ashkenazi Jews. And, by the way, I didn't write the article, so it would be nice if you would retract your diatribe. A Sniper (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Malke2010

User Malke2010 is alleged to repeatedly engage in uncivil conduct. The latest series of uncivil exchanges began when the editor was reported at WP:AN3 for a disputed edit by another editor, Izauze (talk). User:Malke2010 then accused [9] me on the 3RR noticeboard of edit warring as a plank in his/her defense. I requested a retraction and apology. None was forthcoming.

On the Tea Party movement talk page, the same editor then blanked [10] a reference I provided to support an edit and accused [11] me of: biting, "singling me out as a disruptive editor," and implied I was dishonest in my interaction there. After informally warning him/her there that I viewed such accusations as uncivil [12], User:Malke2010 then accuses me on the article talk page of uncivil conduct [13][14] and asks a leading question [15] implying an WP:SPI (please also see here [16] and here [17] where he/she seeks an editor's help in "fishing" via WP:CHK). In a subsequent discussion, User:Malke2010 again raises the same WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT/WP:SHARE allegation against Izauze (talk) in a leading question [18].

After admins found the WP:3RR complaint did not meet criteria for sanctions, User:Malke2010 then unceremoniously gloats [19] on the article talk page of "vindication" and accuses the said editor of disruptive editing [20].

User:Malke2010 has been afforded numerous opportunities to both apologize and strike uncivil comments but instead continues the same pattern of baiting and badgering other editors. I'd like to see if we can change this sort of behavior--Happysomeone (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that Happysomeone can probably state the case better than I can, so I'll try not to add any clutter, but if anyone regarding this inquiry wants any information from me, I would be more than happy to participate. Malke's previous temporary bans for disruptive editing seems to display a history that she is repeating here. She has AGAIN (I believe) crossed the WP:3RR threshhold in the last 24 hours (after my last 3RR report a few days ago), but I have not as of yet filed a report because I don't want it to interfere with my current attempts to extend an olive branch and ask for a truce both on the forums and privately via email. Wishful thinking, though that may be. Thanks. --Izauze (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be forum shopping WP:FORUMSHOP. Their 3rr frivolous complaint did not succeed so now we're here. I did not violate 3rr in the frivolous complaint being referred to that the administrator dismissed as no violation. However, the administrator did find that Izauze did violate 3rr, but felt that since the posting had gone stale that he would not block Izauze. And removing uncited material and violations of policy are not part of 3rr. The Tea Party Movement article is about living people and the rules of WP:BLP also apply, as does WP:NOTE WP:SYN WP:NPOV to name a few.

It appears that this is harassment and as Izauze has said in his many posts on his talk page and the administrator's page, he would like for me to be blocked so that I will be discouraged and leave. Asking an administrator about sock puppetry is not a violation of anything as far as I am aware. And this complaint seems like another attempt to get me blocked because the other notice board did not give them what they wanted. I asked Izauze on the article talk page is he has edited under another name. There is also nothing wrong with that. Editors leave and come back with new user names.

Please note also, Happysomeone and Izauze cherry pick diffs to craft a scenario. They also always agree and support one another on the talk page and in their edits. For example, yesterday I was asking about a comment made by Happysomeone about an earlier collaboraton between himself and Izauze. I could not find such a collaboration and asked. Immediately, Happysomeone signed on and under my question said it was time to look at something else.

The impression given is that I shouldn't ask about that. This is just a content dispute that they are taking to an inappropriate level. Please allow me time to collect diffs. Thanks.Malke2010 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I'm not going to respond right now to your (in my view) deceptive assertions above, because I don't have the energy to chase you in circles... And I really don't know how many different times and in how many different ways I have to say it - but I want to make it perfectly clear that this is NOT a content dispute. I would gladly make that paragraph the exact way you want it, if it meant we could continue developing the rest of the article in a calm civil productive manner. At the end of the day - no matter via what method of dispute resolution - all I want is to work alongside good, neutral, civil editors who generally understand what the idea of being an impartial collector of existing information is about. If I were able to get you to agree to be that with me, all of this would be history. We'd both be happier. And the article (and wikipedia) would be better. Sounds like a good deal to me. --Izauze (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor

The three editors above are working on a somewhat contentious article. Mostly they get along well enough under the circumstances. Recently, their discussions have been a little overheated. I recommend that all three editors pause a couple of days. Do not collect diffs to bolster your arguments. That is likely only to inflame passions further. I think that all three editors are able to edit in a neutral, civil fashion and can get past their current problems. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sbowers. I came to this same conclusion and this is why I haven't posted diffs, nor have I filed a complaint with AN/I, which I would be justified in doing. The project is what is important here and the ultimate goal for the article is neutrality. If everybody keeps that in mind, there shouldn't be a problem with differing views.Malke2010 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the only diff I have to offer: look to the left, and note the page it's on: [21].Malke2010 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I'm glad you've now come to this conclusion and agree that all of us can work together civily and productively for the sake of the project. It may take a little time, but I think we should be able to collaborate just as before.

I would ask as a first gesture of good will in this new truce, that you either file an AN/I claim against me (I will not be mad at you for this if you feel it is justified and a valuable use of your time) OR not bring it up again. Because it is things like that and your dif to a piece of vandalism that seems in no way connected to this dispute that understandably can make the other editors feel defensive about being personally attacked.

I would appreciate a response to this so I know where we stand. I think that's reasonable.

--Izauze (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The following message has been delivered to user:malke:

Malke, I have posted a reponse for you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I will have to assume this matter remains unresolved until I recieve some sort of response from you. Thanks --Izauze (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing an apparent refusal to directly respond to any of my good faith attempts to extend an olive branch (including a very sincere private email), coupled with a series of what seem like agressive deletions/blanking of contributions, I have little reason at this point to believe that the matter is resolved and Malke is able to stop her disruptive editing practices. I would like to believe we can return to civility, as Sbowers does, but I am beginning to lack faith in that possibility, though I remain hopeful. --Izauze (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is some advice I've already taken. It comes from a well respected admin who once gave it out in a similar situation. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.Malke2010 01:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I just wanted to make sure (for the sake of the project) that we were on the same page, and I didn't think a response was too much to ask. Here's to hoping to move on -- Izauze (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A good place to stop

Yes - here's hoping to move on. This is a good place for both sides to stop (as Happysomeone appears wisely to have stopped). Nobody has won; nobody has lost. At worst you agree to disagree. At best you put this behind you and spend your energies on the content of articles. All three editors have made useful contributions to a difficult article and I hope will continue.

And so that nobody can complain about another having the last word, let me have the last word. Please. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - I have just become aware of this section. I do not pretend to be uninvolved with the user, whose edits - from what I have seen - push a highly opinionated POV, to the point of obsession. My interactions with him on the Karl Rove page have been some of the most unpleasant of my considerable Wikipedia experiences. I find this user to be highly disruptive and difficult to work with, uncivil in the extreme (to the point of corrective measures taken against him by an admin last summer), and I am not surprised in the least to find him being brought here.

In short, I suggest a more in-depth overview of this editor's edits and talk page interactions. I have moved on from my previous encounters with this unpleasant chap and do not intend to pursue this further, but I feel that I cannot remain silent in the face of complaints by other editors, and need to back up those with concerns for the sake of a complete overview. My thanks to those bringing this matter to community attention. Jusdafax 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An Even Better Place to Stop

Sbowers3 if you read my posts above, I had wisely added a final comment, but Izauze kept coming back and demanding more comment. He hounded me on my talk page and here making more and more claims. To put a final stop to this, I gave him a suggestion that seems to have finally got him to stop. And then you come along and add your comment which is not helping, I'm sorry to say.

Please understand that while I appreciate your efforts, your comments above are not helping anything here. This 'event' had already resolved itself. Whether you realize it or not, you appear to be assigning blame and making a value judgement. If you read the above posts made by me I am clearly trying to end this. Izauze would not stop until I posted WP:STICK. You should have left it alone when you saw him signing off. I put a hat on this thread to stop you from doing this again. And now you've come back and opened it again. Please stop. I will ask an administrator to now hat this. Please don't post again, and please do not open the thread again. Read this: WP:STICK and follow the advice there. Malke2010 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• WQA is an informal, non-binding forum. If you don't wish to participate, just stop participating. Gerardw (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - I think it's fairly obvious that nothing regarding the Wikiquette alert has been resolved. In fact, Malke2010 continues to describe other editor's actions in an uncivil manner, which is consistent with comments and interactions with others in the past, as recently as a Disruptive Editing block from a few weeks ago. It seems to me that rather than stop, an escalation of the dispute resolution process is needed, since it also seems that you've completely ignored this olive branch.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Happysomeone hits the nail on the head. I was unaware of the recent Disruptive Editing block, but again the news does not surprise me. The days drag past, and no contrition seems evident. The question becomes, does this move to the next stage? In light of the past issues and continuing current problems, that should be considered, in my view. Jusdafax 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On what I believe to be a related note, editor Izauze has now apparently abandoned the project. This appears to be a case of some hard-charging mastodons frightening off a contributor, who felt he was "banging his head against a wall".--Happysomeone (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mad Hatter

Chavdar Likov, known as User: Mad Hatter was noticed by me on March 1, 2010 to be engaging in clean-up edits with User: Harout72. A comment he made here makes a reference to me using illegal drugs, which is very far off from what I do being the son of two highly respected and wealthy physicians. It was crude commentary that shouldn't be welcome on Wikipedia. This comment by Harout72 "slightly" bothered me as he shouldn't have made any further reference to it, even if my response to User: Mad Hatter on his talk page bothered him: "Does this mean I should start believing in Mad Hatter's first statement/suggestion in this section?" I have recognized the two users as a duo edit articles sufficiently, but "snap" at other users' additions. Whether or not the users add sources to their additions, in my eyes I saw it as insulting and belittling to these other users the terminology used to refer to them. I believe the actions taken by him towards other users inclusions prove to me his lack of civility. They are listed here: [22] [23] [24] [25]. This user has been previously gotten into severe trouble and began to make a large amount of removals to the Backstreet Boys article from January 31 to February 12, 2010. This user made these changes in an abrasive manner and needs to be called on by his behavior. Signed by James--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notify user of WQA Gerardw (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the comment made by Mad Hatter was posted immediately after I notified Mad Hatter about Carmaker1 accusing him and I of Sock puppetry in here. While I realize that Mad Hatter's comment may have been somewhat harsh in nature due to responding in the heat of the moment, Carmaker1 has no right going around and accusing two other editors of Sock puppetry (which is equally offensive) only because Carmaker1 sees similarity in a style of language in edit-summaries.--Harout72 (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am well within my right to speak to an administrator about my concerns if I believe two users are the same person, but that does not excuse Mad Hatter's terminology at all. You were referred to and I didn't see you label me in the same manner. That's one example of self-control.Signed by James--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You accused me of Sock puppetry and destabilisation of Wikipedia. All I did is to make a joyful exclamation and to back-up Harout. And that's what I am still going to do. I am backing up Harout. You don't deserve anything but contempt for what you do and what you say. It's because of persons like me and Harout that Wikipedia is moving. Because of persons like you who acuse blindly and without any kind of heart Wikipedia is stalling. I don't care if you do illegal drugs or not. I am doing them, that's my concern. All I care is not to be acused blindly and without any kind proof and righteousness. If you don't have anything to say beside "You are rude and deserve to be spanked" you deserve nothing but contempt. I may be rude and offensive, but at least I am not a bad person. You are nothing but trouble and you don't deserve to edit Wikipedia. I have done a lot more work than you have and I have proven that I am capable editor. I might get blocked or get a warning but I don't care about it. All I want is to be left alone from some kind of freaky boyish wannabes. And that's all I need to know.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not being useful by your remarks at other users. You behaviour needs to be handled, as it isn't acceptable. I can't speak for whether or not you are a bad person in everyday society, but I'm surely unconvinced by your actions. Like I said before, I AM WELL WITHIN MY RIGHTS to bring to the attention of others any issues I recognize! Things are solved that way, rather than fighting with you. You are obviously still not realizing that it is better to not say/type certain things to keep a clean record, even though you don't have one. Harout72 hasn't warranted any reason for me to report his commentary, so why have you then? Your recent and previously unreported actions have led me here. Realize that and stop deflecting blame.---Carmaker1 (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Carmaker1

I don't care who you are or what your agenda is, mister. I don't care your upbringing and your personal history for me is irrelevant. The fact that you are nature's mistake of two wealthy physicians doesn't ring a bell to me. And you see, I don't give a shit about this. You accused me of sock puppetry (see this) and destabilizing Wikipedia. It is I who should be reporting this matter, not you, you douche, because of your delusional thinking and methods of work here! I don't give a shit about whether you are offended by my remarks. Seriously it has gotten too far! So, it has got to come to an end. Because I am equaly offended by your sheer lack of any reason and lack of moral thinking. Who are you to acusing me of Sock Puppetry?! Who are you to refer me in ofensive manner that I am destabilizing Wikipedia?! Who are you to minimize my edits and my contributions including Harout72 contribitions? Not to mention the fact that you in first place started destabilizing Backstreet Boys article, inserting unsourced release-date into the article of Backstreet Boys, meantime removing highly reliable sources and replacing them with Google search like sites, see this for example. Who are you to critisize me and report me here when all you've done is critisize, destabilize and remove serious hard work done by me and Harout72? How about that? Straps yourself boy, because you called it and that's the answer! I am sure administrators will be notified about you! What the hell can happen for me? I've been banned for a whole week, because of dealing with the types like you around here. So, in fact I am not scared of this so called "reprimanding", in fact I am welcoming it. And no, I am not going to apologize to you, you perverted version of a person. If I have to apologize that would be to a higher authority. That's all.

Regards to Harout72. Thanks for defending me man against this wannabe: The Mad Hatter (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that you have just proved Carmaker1's point. I don't know if you did this on purpose, or you really don't take civility seriously. I don't think that you have made many allys with this comment at all. Sorry, but it seems that Carmaker1 is right.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to make ally with anyone. The only probably true friend from here have been and always will be is Crestville. Do you think that I don't know what you got me into? Because you always raise hands and say act civil, oooh, you are not behaving well. I deserved to be spanked, don't I? Well, sometimes you can't handle it. Think about it. Do you act civil, does this wannabe-hipster act civil? When he does not act civil and acuse me of Sock Puppetry and destabilizing Wikipedia, when all these 6 years I have been working my ass off for the glory of Wikipeida - then sorry man - I just can't take it and act civil. If you have nothing meaningful to say, stand aside. Beside "you are not civil, Mad Hatter", there's gotta be something else that can be said. If that's all - I don't see any reason to discuss it further. I've said all I wanted.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should move on and find another hobby. I'm sorry if that sound a bit obtuse, but wikipedia should be about working together to create better articles. Incivility only creates more tension, and that tension only leads to more incivility.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to act civil. If only Carmaker1 appologize sincerely for what he said, then I might look in my heart for civility. However, I have to tell you that Wikipedia is not about working together. Wikipedia is about working alone on something you find meaningful. Chances are high that you will be working with loners and share the same identity. Wikipedia is about finding one true love through articles and creating better encyclopedia. I am not working with anyone around here. Only perhaps Crestville was working closer with me and shared the same knowledge and formality in editing articles. That's what about working here is for me. Not getting those hypocritical barnstars you like to give yourself. It is about working alone on stranger tides and finding something meaningful. To return to the question. If Carmaker1 obliges and gives full appology to me, Harout72 and everyone involved in this farce, then I might turn around and start acting differently towards the boy. Since then, I've nothing further to say. I've pointed all the instances where this user has repeatedly and constantly harassed me and offended me. So, the best will be is to stay tuned and see how it goes.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Exchange between Nightscream and Jean-Jacques Georges

After I removed unsourced material from the Brigitte Nielsen article, and left this message on User:Jean-Jacques Georges's Talk Page, he reacted by complaining that message templates like the one I used was inappropriate, because it was only intended for newcomers, and that it was "arrogant", "obnoxious", not civil, and indicative of WP:BITE for me to have used it. When I tried to explain to him that it was not a newcomer message, nor uncivil, he did not see it this way. I tried to explain to him about the policies pertaining to adding unsourced material to articles, but he refused to concede any of this. This is a thread of our exchanges on my Talk Page. He blanked each of my messages from his. ([26][27][28][29]) I don't know if problems will recur with him, insofar as adding unsourced material, but I thought I'd report it for future reference. Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if comments were offered on this before this discussion were archived. Nightscream (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Removing comments from one's own talk page is perfectly acceptable. Gerardw (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nightscream, I think what he did was per Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Correct me if I'm wrong, cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that essay (though I notice it's not a policy or guideline). But do you think responding with language like "arrogant" or "obnoxious" was consistent with WP:Civility? It is this was I was referring to as a Wikiquette matter, and not blanking his talk page. Nightscream (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to start off by saying that the usage of terms like "cretinous" to address threads started by other editors is, as far as I'm concerned, to a certain extent, a personal attack upon the editor. Secondly, the perception that Nightscream's warning was "obnoxious" is misconstruing of the warning message, and kind of incivil. While I don't see severe incivility in this issue, that's not to say Jean-Jacques Georges is out of the woods yet. They'd be in the woods until the incivility stopped, though I don't yet know if this is still going on. We'll have to wait and see if they walk out of the woods. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I didn't even notice that "cretinous" comment until now. I would like to thank Mythdon for alerting Jean-Jacques to this alert, something I neglected to do myself, as this was my first time making a WQA, and wasn't aware of that. And while I don't dispute that a "welcome" template may give the impression that a editor is being spoken to as if they're a newbie, the message I used was the equivalent of a Level 2 or 3 message, without the "welcome" message, which I specifically used because I saw that Jean-Jacques was not a newbie. In any event, it was not intended to be patronizing, and I apologize if it came off as such. That said, it doesn't make sense to complain that I was violating WP:BITE while simultaneously pointing that he was not a newbie, nor does my message justify the language Jean-Jacques has been using. Nightscream (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thing that you apologize for coming off as patronizing, because you definitely came as such. If you wanted to "be [my] friend" as your user page claims, it would have been better to just leave a personal message like "hello, could you please give a reference to the fact that Brigitte Nielsen speaks German ? Thanks", instead of using unpersonal templates. They are inadequate and should be changed for a start, or not used at all. For the sake of "etiquette", I'll just ignore your posting here which I find highly useless. I find it rather irritating to be reminded AGAIN of our exchange as I had said repeatedly that I was not interested in continuing it. Dragging here a simple case of misunderstanding does not generally appease things. Apologies accepted, case closed. Now please don't bother me again with this as I have no interest in it whatsoever. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Offensive false allegations and incivility by Stellarkid

I am disgusted and offended to be called a racist and a bigot by the Stellarkid here. I don't edit Wikipedia to be subjected to such vile accusations by another editor. The patronisation of this editor is also highly offensive. I'm not familiar with the complaints process so I hope I have the right section. This complaint is separate from the ongoing issues where Stellarkid's repulsive accusations have been made. thanks Vexorg (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In my view, which I should acknowledge may not directly address your concern, the discussion was a fairly inevitable result of 1.) the forum in which it took place, and 2.) an editor offering personal views on a controversial issue. The problem is that if you state a view on an issue which is considered by some to be offensive, then you have to expect that they will say it is offensive. If you have the right to state the view, then they have the right to say it is offensive. The only way to avoid this is to speak not of personal views, but only of the text in articles and what the sources say about them. Of course one could try to pick out and say others are entitled to call your statement offensive, but not to attack you, but ultimately the problem is that we are talking about personal views at all. The only way I know to avoid it is to stay focused on content; if editors attack you when that is all you are doing, then that is something where a board like this may be able to help. Mackan79 (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

People are entitled to be offended by another persons view, even if they are basing that on the erroneous claim that Zionism always equals the Jewish people ( There are many Jews against Zionism ), but to call people racists and bigots is an offensive personal attack and I'm disgusted and my complaint here still stands. Vexorg (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid made a general observation about racists and bigots that doesn't seem directed at you. It's not like Stellarkid said, "Vexorg, you're a racist and a bigot." That would be a personal attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Malik it was obvious to me what he was directly implying.

And for the record I am signing on for everything Stellarkid said. Let me please repeat it loud and clear "A racist or bigot generally does not consider his theories racist, but absolute truth." I would like to add that the same applies to Anti-Semites and Self-hating Jews.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not helpful. In particular I personally feel that the term "self-hating Jew" is uncivil in itself, and ought never to be used -- "anti-Zionist Jew" is the neutral term. But in general I feel that Vexorg doth protest too much. Having admittedly made arguments that he knew left him open to charges of racism, he can't now go shrieking and screaming to every forum around with complaints about it. If you can't stand the heat, don't start fires. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

'Open to charges of racism' by those who use the race card to stifle any criticisms of Zionism you mean. It's not racist to make observations or criticisms about a Political agenda. And yes 'Self hating Jew' is another repulsive term used by Zionists who try and make their political agenda a Jewish issue to throw out the race card. Plenty of Jews disagree with Zionism and it's just as offensive to call them self hating Jews. And Looie496 I do not protest too much whatever you mean by that. What I don't do is stand by and let offensive people make personal attacks against me. I'm not the one starting fires dude.Vexorg (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not the right place for such a discussion, but... The pathology of "self-hating Jew" was observed much before Zionism was mentioned for the first time. There's nothing uncivil about the therm itself (call them self-hating Jews or anti-Semitic Jews,if you wish). Besides I used the therm without mentioning any particular person. And I completely agree with the second part of your comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The term 'self hating Jew' is highly offensive, but considering your political agenda I'm hardly surprised you have brought it up. And 'anti-Semitic Jew' is a ridiculous term. 'Anti-Zionist Jew' you mean, and nothing wrong with that. Zionism doesn't speak for all Jews any more than conservatism doesn't speak for all Americans Vexorg (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic slightly, but for factual sake Jewish antisemites is not a ridiculous terms. Jewish communists during the Russian Civil War were very indifferent to the Jewish pogroms that killed 300,000+. Jews are capable of expressing antisemitism just like every other human being. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Communists hating Jews that aren't communist? Sounds like they weren't being racist but exhibiting political hate. You're just proving my point. Calling people racist for political differences is ridiculous, offensive and stupid. Vexorg (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish communists were really JINO. Communists Jews suspended their Jewish heritage to prove their fidelity to communism. And thus many communist Jews suddenly found themselves allied with Jew-hating Communists. Anti-Zionism is considered an opponent to communism and thousands of Zionist Jews were sent to the gulags. Jews are capable of hating Jews because they are Jews. The self-hating Jew philosophy is real and thoroughly documented, and is almost totally unique to the Left. This is seriously off-topic but I think it is important to note there is nothing ridiculous about the term "anti-Semitic Jew." Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. IMO it's ridiculous. Vexorg (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Offensive foul language used by anon 68.202.187.160

This editor, 68.202.187.160 (talk · contribs), for a good part of a month posted edits that were too trivial and irrelevant on the Weekend Today article. After seeing that his edits were removed, he resorted to profanity and foul language to voice his anger which he posted publicly on that article for everybody to see, as scene right here on this link [[30]] . I had already remove this obscene edit. To say the very least, this particular action by this editor is unprofessional, uncivil and definitely unacceptable here on Wikipedia. I would appreciate an administrator take a look at this and hand down the appropriate action on this anon. Thank you very much. Fourviz (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you need an admin, you must ask for help at WP:ANI. This page is for problems that are potentially solvable by friendly feedback, and often admins don't even look at it. Looie496 (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like vandalism containing attacks. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Which means that it's a manner for WP:AIV--SKATER ^Speak. 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Cgersten

Editor has on a few occasions decided to use the Edit Summary as way of disparaging my view point as he continues to try and add information that is not verified by the sources he is trying to use. Evidence is shown in this first and second summaries from last week and third and fourth from ealier today. This is obviously a comment on me, and not the content and are therefore uncivil in nature.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should censor Jojhutton for continuously removing historical information for spurious reasons.--cgersten(talk) tuco_bad 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact that something happened doesn't automatically mean it is important enough to belong in a Wikipedia article. Therefore this is an issue that should be settled by discussion; accusations of censorship are not appropriate. Has either of you made any attempt to discuss the problem? Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been any type of discussion, except in edit summeries. Yet the reason for this thread was to bring a general awareness of the comments made by this user. Which is the reason for this page, I think.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this are inexcusable. Addressing an editor by "censor" is a personal attack, in that it is name-calling. We are expected to treat other editors in a civil manner regardless of what we think of them, and Cgersten clearly does not realize that. Hopefully when this is over, Cgersten will realize that their behavior is uncalled for and take this thread as a lesson to not act that way again. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

/* Cyril and Methodius - Greeks or Slavs? */ and other Ancient Macedonia issues

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Belongs at ANI if anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am kindly asking an Administrator to look into the matter. If this is not the right place to ask this, please help me. The pages concerned are Discussion Pages: Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Talk:Alexander the Great, Talk:Cyril and Methodius. On these pages I already complain about the following:

1. I am experiencing violation of the neutrality policy on the pages on Macedonia (designation of the Alexander The Great as a "Greek king" (ethnic designation), when he was simply Macedonian king (state - political designation which is accepted as neutral), designation of Cyril and Methodius as Greeks (which is ethnic designation and not neutral) when it is only certain that they were Byzantines (again belonging to a state is neutral). (This is self evident from the discussion.)

2. In addition the problem is that even the administrator accepts the explicit propaganda material which is compiled from the nationalist sites (which I cited in Cyril and Methodius talk page), in spite of my warnings and full information where they certainly were copy-pasted from. This propaganda material has been used by number of editors who act overtly in concordance: “Anothroskon” and “GK1973” on many occasions. The persons have not been even warned by the administrator who unfortunately ACCEPTED the propaganda material as valid. The administrator is Tom Harrison who said: “Wherever the collection of references came from, they are individually reliable sources. They say "Greek." Tom Harrison Talk 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)”. I offered 600 references (not full list of course, just a link, on 8 March) that say Byzantine (and indicated that there are equally numerous references that do not state anything at all – what I endorse also), and gave a link for about 600 references that state “Greek”, but as I mentioned, these are references of lower quality. To mention “Byzantine” is only certain (they were citizens of Byzantium) and neutral (ethnic denomination is avoided), so satisfying the criteria of Wikipedia.

3. And, unfortunately, I have been exposed to insults from GK1973 in various forms in the last 3 months. He/she was calling me all sorts of names, ignorant, copy paster, false intellectual, he/she was responding with “.blah blah, blah blah...” to my comments, or with similar insulting mockery. The person has unfortunately not been even warned by the administrator Tom Harrison.

4. That person (I refer to GK1973) dumped on my Talk 30 pages of material and dumps similar quantity of unreferenced affirmations on the discussion pages.

5. I am afraid to have to say that I suspect sock-puppeting on the part of Simanos, GK1973, Ptolion, Antipastor, Athenean, Taivo and may be couple of others. They ALWAYS agree on pushing Greekness of everything what happens on Balkan Peninsula (this is even Greek peninsula for them, even when talking about central Balkan regions) but they, I have a strong feeling, regularly dissimulate slight and insignificant disagreements. For example I offered the most reputable references (Encyclopedia Britannica 2010, the most reputable linguist, Byzantine Historian, recent medieval encyclopaedia, stressed the neutrality (to state the citizenship and not ethnic belonging). The response was refusal in concert without supporting sources but instead backed by the obvious propaganda material which I showed to be 20% false, and in general of low scientific value as compared to the references that I offered repeatedly. And this and similar interventions have been happening for the last 3 months. I think that the sock-puppeting must be investigated.

I would greatly appreciate help from an independent patient administrator. Thank you very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask for help from an administrator -- the place to do that is WP:ANI. But my advice to you is to just drop it -- when one editor is in a dispute with five other editors and an administrator, the one editor is never going to win. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Gilisa's personal attacks and bad attitude

I have tried hard to work with this editor, but he continually posts contentless personal attacks such as the following:

"Factsontheground, As I see it you are not in position to accuse others for having POV. This whole article is now nominated for POV check -which seems to be unaviodable because of the style of editing that is typical for few users here and you're certainly among them. As I see the things you should be in topic ban and you're very lucky to not be blocked already" [31]

I mean, how am I meant to respond to that? It's just insults. There's nothing constructive or useful being said.

He has accused me of "falsifying" what people write, completely out of the blue and with no explanation.[32]

When I tried to discuss my edits to an article with him, he refused saying "You discuss it with yourself" [33] and that he didn't accept my editing anyway [34] .

Although he refused to discuss the changes, that didn't stop him threatening me with a ban on my talk page [35].

This user seems to have a bad attitude about Wikipedia and I have found him very difficult to work with. Factsontheground (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Factsontheground, it is absolutely unbelievable. There's no PA in any of your differences.

Half of them are three days old!

You were in such a hurry to fill out complain that

you forgot to sign.

No wonder, you are running from board to board with your complains.

Your constant reports at all the boards is harassment. Please stop it, and stop it now!--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, this has nothing to do with you, so please WP:MYOB.

Yes, I forgot to put a proper signature but who cares? Don't remove my signature when I put it there! Factsontheground (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to use this opportunity to complain myself. First, even though Factsontheground was asked in other case (at least, full checking of his log of edits seem required) by Ucucha to notify before when he accuse him on ANI[36], a post that it's highly likely he have seen (his talk page was archived after the Ucucha posted there) -no notification was made on my talk page.

Second, facts on the ground cited old version of response, which I updated much before he choosed to complain [37]-also, it can be seen that I edited my response 8 times (typical for me because of my bad English) and those edits (both this and the other he cited) were among the first edits. Also, indeed Factsontheground admited after an ANI was opened against him that the verdict was easy one [38]. Also, my response, he forgot to tell, came after this post of him[39]. His repeated accusation according which I refused to discuss is baseless -see this ANI that was opened against him and I already mentioned, here I explain in detailes everything [40] and I realy don't feel like doing it once again (also, you can find there bad faith statment from his side, scorning my English skills without any provocation from my side).

Factsontheground seem to be user with bad faith and with disruptive manner of editing-I ask his log of editds to be checked in detail. If I'm not mistaken, and I well be, he was already topic banned-I don't have the time to check it. Anyway, as for his assertion according which I treat him with ban, it came after he engaged into edit warring following which an ANI against him was opened. Only then I told him that he could find himself topic bann. On my last post that he already cited I just told that I think he should be topic ban-again, check his log of edits and find out. It was not a treat, just my personal opinion.

As can be seen from the sources given in the ANI my statement "you discuss it with yourself" appeared in the edit summery of an article. It went like this-Facts on the ground made edit against WP:CON and then I revert him and in the edit summary I mentioned it, then he reverted again and wrote in the edit summary that he discussed it in the talkpage-the only problem was that he "discussed" it with himself only before edits were made [41][42] -it can be easly understood that Factson the ground took my words out of the context and out of anything.

Last thing, reading this [43] you may understand my meaning. While I had valid arguments he argued like my claims were that I simply don't like the article. That's a complete flase. And he did falsified what I wrote, even it may be that I shouldn't use this term. However, look on his correspondence with other users in the very same discussion [44] - I didn't even bother to read all of it, but easily I found this (his applying to user Noon:

" Also, you are being disingenuous when you claim that this article is WP:NONSENSE. The article may be deficient in other ways but no one can honestly argue that it is nonsense. Factsontheground (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC).."

I rest my case.--Gilisa (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then, Gilisa let's have a look at the final comment you wrote after those 8 diffs:

Factsontheground, As I see it you are not in position to accuse others for not abiding the POV policy. This whole article is now nominated for POV check -which seems to be unaviodable because of the style of editing that is typical for few users here and you're certainly among them. As I see the things you should be in topic ban and you acknowledged yourself that you're very lucky for not being blocked already for your edits here. Also, the book is two years old and in any case, even few monthes are much more than enough to provide scientific and academic critiques -have you ever heared about WP:NOR? Because this WP rule put experts' opinions in preference on yours. So, how was the "long" wikibreak you took two days ago?--Gilisa (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)'

It's still a relentless personal attack with very little content plus some added stalking at the end. As fr your other claims, they're all baseless such as "If I'm not mistaken, and I well be, he was already topic banned-I don't have the time to check it." No, I wasn't. Why even say that if you aren't sure? Factsontheground (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Call it whatever you like. I prefer facts on high words. My comment came after you wrote this:

"...I really think Gilisa and Kuratowski's Ghost are not being fair or even attempting to abide by the POV policy..."

Which is, according to the standards you just set, a personall attack. As for the topic ban, just saw discussions on your talk page when I replied there which were dealing with close issues. Maybe I shouldn't say that-but again, it change nothing. As for your accusions I was "stalking" you-please, give me a break. I'm standing behind everything I wrote.--Gilisa (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? I see that she "attacks" your style of editing, says that you're lucky you're not blocked, and asks about a wikibreak. I see nothing attacking you. Gilisa is commenting on your contributions, not yourself. Incidentally, if you're going to call any of that a "personal attack", then this edit summary surely is, also. Save the hypocrisy and quit wasting everyone's time. Tan | 39 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:NPA, Tanthalus. It's very simple.

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

Gilisa is not commenting about the article's content at all. His comment is entirely insulting towards me. He is talking about the contributor, not the content.

As for my comment, part of the problem with dealing with Gilisa is that I can not understand much of what he writes because his English is so poor. That is not an attack; that is a fact. If he wants to comment on my talk page then he needs to write comprehensibly. Factsontheground (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tan. Factsontheground, don't you ever shut me up as you did here. I have the right, and will continue to comment in each and every place I feel as commenting.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, WP:MYOB and stop stalking me around Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. What is happening here is you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Tan | 39 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, give me a break too. Why are you going from board to board with your stupid complains? Wasn't the trout that you were slapped with few days ago enough? Are you allowing to comment on your comments only to the users, who are agree with you? Please Don't be a dick, and try to WP:AGF--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, how does this concern you? What are you adding to the conversation? WP:MYOB seems to apply. Why are you stalking me around Wikipedia? Don't you have anything better to do with your time, like actually improving Wikipedia?

And Tanthalus, how am I dishing anything out? I am just trying to edit articles civilly.

Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't abide by the rules of the schoolyard. "If you dish it out you have to take it" is not a Wikipedia guideline. Perhaps you should review the civility and npa policy. I don't think you'll find anything about Wikipedia users having to "take it". Factsontheground (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, good to know that my English is sooooo poor, to the extent that you "can't understand much of what he write" and that's, of course, whats ignited this all commotion from the first place. My English is not that good, but I'm very well aware of that. And thanks for this short civility lesson above, it's very instructive--Gilisa (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Gilisa, your English is very poor. THat's not an attack, that's a fact. here is another person who can't understand you. I don't know how you expect to improve articles on the English wikipedia with such a poor grasp of English. Factsontheground (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Intended) Factsontheground, you might be right in something. All your reports on the different boards should be ignored, as one would ignore an importunate fly.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Gilisa's English is very good, and that Factsontheground has no right to be telling another editor that his edits are not improving articles on Wikipedia. On the contrary, Gilisa has made several high quality edits from what I can see. But hey, I'll make sure to MMOB and allow Factsontheground to continue WP:OWNing this discussion, as he attempts to do with just about every one he takes part in. Breein1007 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So you were annoyed that I correctly called you out at AN3 and thought you'd come over and make trouble for me? Don't be so transparent. Factsontheground (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you dare put words in my mouth and make any public declarations of my intentions. I suggest you add WP:AGF to the list of policies to review. Breein1007 (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to assume good faith for 99% of Wikipedia editors. However, you're a known edit warrior who has vowed to reinsert contentious material despite a great deal of sources contradicting it at Sheikh Jarrah. Some advice: if you want editors to assume good faith, demonstrate good faith. Factsontheground (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well good, at least we have a record of you admitting that you choose not to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Breein1007 (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Several people here have exceeded the bounds of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, all of whom are reasonably experienced editors and clearly know better. That this is happening on the WQA noticeboard is particularly horrible.

Discussion regarding the underlying issues is welcome to continue. I and other admins will block parties who continue personal attacks or other seriously rude behavior while doing so. Please stop now and return to discussing the underlying concerns in an adult and respectful manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• George, I implore you to take a closer look at the whole page, as the personal attacks and baiting is not restricted only to this particular thread. On several occasions, I have quoted WP:Mind your own business, WP:POINT, WP:DRAMA, WP:SOAP and WP:BAIT, but yet there still exist uninvolved editor who came to fan the flames or derailed the discussion by bringing in Out-of-topic remarks instead of assisting Wikipedia and it's Admin to calm the situation down. IMO, this board should be off-limit to those who are not directly involved who aren't here to help. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, George. I agree that this discussion has completely derailed. It's sad how people are seeing this entry as an opportunity to launch more personal attacks and exercise old grudges. Factsontheground (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to read through this thread as much as I could, but it was pretty difficult at points, and fell off-topic pretty quickly (and often). However, here are some of my thoughts:

• I don't view Gilisa's comments as direct personal attacks, but they were uncivil. Telling someone to "discuss it with themself", while saying you don't want to get into an edit war,[45] is contradictory; discussion is what helps avoid and end edit wars.
• Likewise, Factsontheground was being uncivil in telling Gilisa to "learn English".[46] I can fully understand Factsontheground's inability to understand Gilisa, as I had a difficult time understanding Gilisa's reply above myself. However, while explaining your difficulty understand another editor isn't uncivil, telling them to "learn English" is.
• The thing most alarming to me is the constant back and forth, using (and exploiting) these boards, by editors on both sides of these disputes. Factsontheground's use of these boards is substantial, though somewhat understandable, as other editors appear to be edit-warring while refusing to engage in discussion or dispute resolution. They also appear to be ganging up, and wikihounding Factsontheground when reports are filed on such behavior.

In general, all of this behavior is counterproductive. Most editors involved in this discussion have already been notified, but I'll remind them to keep in mind the Arbitration Committee's Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions. ← George ^talk 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)