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

45g, Michaeldsuarez, and Snaisybelle

• User talk:Snaisybelle
• User talk:Michaeldsuarez/Archive 1
• User talk:45g

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#45g.2C_Michaeldsuarez.2C_and_Snaisybelle. The discussion was archived without being revolved, and the conflict hasn't ended. The conflict is mostly between 45g and Snaisybelle, but 45g has made attempts to involve me in the conflict as well. This conflict is rooted in Encyclopedia Dramatica's "Grace Saunders" article and has unfortunately spread to Wikipedia. The conflict involves uncivil behavior and passing out of personal information.

User:45g is the subject of the "Grace Saunders" article and User:Snaisybelle rewrote that article in the February of 2010. Snaisybelle is presently a sysop at ED. In February, 45g vandalized Snaisybelle's user page and talk page with personal attacks. User:DMacks then deleted those pages and gave 45g a warning.

I'm also a ED user, so I left a welcome message for Snaisybelle on April 1, 2010. This is probably why 45g decided to target me later in the month. ON April 19, 45g left the first of a series of messages for me. 45g proceed to made demands and such.

45g told a sysop that I was vandalizing his talk page, despite the fact that I never vandalized his page. I believe that 45g was attempting to "false flag" me in order to get me blocked.

45g acts uncivil and breaks several policies. As seen in this revision, 45g says Snaisybelle's last name. 45g has also made legal threats, which is against WP:LEGAL. As seen on User_talk:Snaisybelle, 45g has also made personal attacks. 45g has also falsely accused me of being a vandal.

Snaisybelle has also made personal attacks, as seen in this reference.

I came here, since 45g is "false flagging" once again. Instead, of following WP:Conflict resolution, 45g is continuously seeking to get Snaisybelle and me banned. 45g false flagged Snaisybelle, and called her a "crazy English user".

If I can't resolve the conflict here, I'll seek WP:Arbitration.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that User:45g has recently removed my comment to User:ThinkBlue. I believe that it's an attempt to hide this discussion from ThinkBlue in order to get Snaisybelle blocked. I don't think that 45g should be allowed to continue "false flagging" users. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I blanked the pages so they would stop accusing me of adding crap. They've been "plotting" all this on other pages. They egg me on because they want 'me' banned. Not the other way around. Anyway, I'll be ignoring these pair. They both spend hours of their life editing on ED and then revert the edits when the people discover it later on, because they have no lives and seem to enjoy harassing people they don't even know. Even Australia is trying to sue that site for the aforementioned slander, so I'm not alone. Would you really want to trust a mod from a site like that? I've been a contributor on Wikipedia and many forums for years. I've never argued or went out of line once, and I've never been bothered by anyone or been accused of being a nuisance, 'til now. Just go to ED and type in Grace Saunders, September 11, Heath Ledger or Michael Jackson and you'll see the sick pages they keep under lock and key.45g (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 45g, we're not here to discuss the content and the quality of ED articles; we're here to discuss your behavior. Snaisybelle and I aren't plotting against you. We simply want you to stop harassing us on Wikipedia. There isn't some anti-45g conspiracy or cabal. If you believe that we're plotting against you, then you should provide evidence. In addition, I believe that you're the one who's trying to get Snaisybelle and me banned, which can be seen here and here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you provide above show 45g's complaints not going anywhere. Your responses are merely escalating the situation. Would it be possible to just ignore them? Gerardw (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How will ignorance solve anything? Should we ignore the elephant in the room? Leaving a problem unresolved doesn't fix the problem. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Consider this matter dropped. Do not put any further comments about this on my talk pages ANYWHERE.45g (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't touched your talk page since April 22. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• I see you're still up to your crap.

http://bullyinglte.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/cyberbullying-ryan-halligans-story/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 45g (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 April 2010

I'm guessing that you've meant to link to this comment: [1]. I'm not sure of what crap you're accusing us of doing. Are you accusing me of impersonating you on that blog? That isn't me. I don't impersonate other users. I'm not a cyberbully. Nevertheless, someone is impersonating you on Wikipedia. An anonymous user left a threat on my talk page, but I doubt that it's the real Grace Saunders. Grace is from the UK, while the anonymous user is from the US. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

45g, 1) please don't make personal attacks 2) off wikipedia behavior is not relevant. Gerardw (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

45g has tried to get me banned for the third time now. He continues to call me a vandal. 45g also continues to ignore this thread and go straight to the sysops. In fact, 45g told a sysop not to notify me or the other parties involved, and he is using Emails instead of addressing his concerns in an open environment. I feel that 45g is trying to keep Snaisybelle and me out of the loop by creating a private Email discussion. 45g may attempt to ban us without us having a say. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. I don't even know these two jokers personally. I only know them because of ED. They are adding sockpuppet tags to old Wikipedia accounts I've not used in years. They found them by stalking my IP address. I've also made many edits to articles using my IP but without logging in. I either forgot to log in or a log in was not required to edit whatever it was I was editing. Also, they are apparently trying to keep Wikipedia from being mentioned on ED in order to hide the fact they are stalking me. Yet they constantly put my photos, dead links and e-mail messages on it without my permission. That's called harassment. Also, they add nothing to Wikipedia. Absolutely nothing. They're only here due to their obsessed methods of hassling me.45g (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I contribute to Wikipedia. I would also like to draw all your attention towards this revision by Snaisybelle. I believe that 45g attempted to hack into Snaisybelle's account, and he accidentally clicked the "Email new password" button in the process. I would like 45g to stop harassing Snaisybelle and me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Offensive inflammatory perhaps defamatory remark.

Wikipedia at the moment states the KKK is extreme right wing.
I debated the point and would like to see at the very least a neutral point on this.
jpgordon on 15:45, 29 April 2010 stated:
” You seem to be confusing this talk page for a Klan application form.”

I would like some advice on this offensive and inflammatory remark.
Before you say, ‘just ignore it’ this is a statement that I am a racist.
This is defamatory and I would like some advice on how to proceed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan#No_original_research

Thank you
--OxAO (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You should proceed by posting a specific WP:DIFF to the comment and notifying the editor there is a discussion here...please post {{subst:WQA-notice}} on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much

--OxAO (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• The complaining editor originally posted this: "The republicans haven’t changed one Iota they have always been for equal rights all the way down the line. The democrats went from being Anti-black to giving away the farm which started under the new deal Democrat party went from the party of wanting nothing to do with blacks to the party of pity for blacks. Democrats call that being liberal"[2], [3]. That is what jpgordon was responding too. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you Niteshift36. This clearly shows I made no remarks denigrating blacks or any other race.

--OxAO (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

JPGordon's remark does strike me as an unnecessary personal attack. It's not clear the discussion regarding democrats/republicans has to do with Wikipedia; please see WP:SOAPBOX. Gerardw (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

it really has to do with the first page saying the KKK is extreme conservative which it never was. He is saying the democrats were conservative and the republicans were liberals. I believe I disputed that point fairly well.

I believe we do need to establish party affiliation in order to determine if they were right or left wing in this case since the KKK targeted and attacked Republicans. Or are you suggesting we can simply dispense from using political affiliation all together (right or left wing)?

Thank you but how do I deal with him now?

--OxAO (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• How do you deal with it? Have you considered that the current wording is consensus and that you've argued the consensus with a lot of personal observations and links to wikipedia articles (which aren't valid references)? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry did you want more references that the Democrats which the KKK was the militant arm of the party, have always been the progressives since near the turn of the previous century? Or are you saying there is already a consensus that the Democrat party and the KKK were progressive? If there is already a consensus why is the KKK referred to as being extreme conservative when progressive ideology is left wing?

--OxAO (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second please Niteshift36. I didn't read the title of this page when I wrote the last line. I am here because jpgordon inexcusable statement against me personally. not to debate this issue here, but if that is what you wish that is fine by me.

--OxAO (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this acceptable Wikiquette?

Resolved

 – Filing party advised.

Per definition below, are the details following a matter of concern?

Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

Editor Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has taken the following actions against my edits within a 24 hr. period, and are worrisome:

• Deleted large section of article: Democracy
• Deleted another, larger section (9,300KB), 2 minutes later, from Moses
• 7 minutes later, posts a notice to the Fringe noticeboard: Fringe
• Begins filing a series of Speedy deletion requests of images I uploaded and used in 4 different, and unrelated articles: Einstein], Denis Avey, Yoni 1, Yoni 2, Halpern

Note also that multiple talk page discussions were opened regarding the above deletions, including RfCs on both, and the editor has made absolutely no comments there. It's obvious that when an editor's material is being deleted in such manner, and RfCs and Talk page discussions are ongoing, that posting speedies on the editor's unrelated image files, en masse, creates a distraction of attention and cannot reasonably be responded to. Should I assume the users sudden attention to my edits and images is a coincidence? If not, any other suggestions besides posting the question here? Any comments would be appreciated. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it is not a coincidence. I came across your dispute with Athenean because I was following certain other disputes Athenean was involved in, so I took a look at his edit history. I didn't comment on the RfC, because before I had an opportunity for it, other editors had already expressed my views better than I could have done. I then had a look at your edit history, as I always do when I find myself in a dispute, to see what kind of fellow Wikipedian I am dealing with. It so happened that my eye was caught by an image upload that I found questionable. Whenever I find somebody making questionable image uploads, I check their log to see if there are more of the same that need cleanup. I'm honestly sorry if you feel stressed by that, but it's just routine. That's what we have contribution logs for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the teardrop. I like to hope that common sense and common courtesy are also burried somewhere in the WP policies. Removing your speedy-blitz until I can deal with them would be nice. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a mere four images, two of them representing essentially the same issue, the other two extremely straightforward deletion cases that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of not getting deleted, for all I can see. The only complex one that will need some serious scrutiny is the PUI of the Einstein photograph, but the process gives us two weeks for that. About the others, during the time you took to file this complaint you could easily have given your arguments about why you feel they should be kept instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• As Future admits, he is certainly following you, which is a necessary but not sufficient element of wikihounding. The question is whether his edits are disruptive -- I'll let someone with better expertise than I pretend to have make that call. See WP:WIKIHOUNDING for more information on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Echo Fut.Perf.'s explanation. If an editor finds another user's edit problematic it is quite customary to go through the user's contribution history to check for similar/other problems. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not Wikihounding. Future Perfect at Sunrise found and reversed an edit that represented a fringe view and was not even balanced by mainstream views, deleted the same edit that had been made to another article and then posted a message about it on the Fringe Theory noticeboard. That is good editing - removing material that does not conform to WP policy and raising the issue using appropriate dispute resolution. Wikihounding otoh is arbitrarily reversing someone's work. TFD (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikireader41 continues personal attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#Reporting_personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41

Background to incidents

• In an attempt to reach consensus with the wikireader about the joining of two paragraphs in the introduction.
• I explained some reason for justification for the joining as both Paragraph had similar info about Pak support of non state actors Then ask what does he/her think,
• He was cooperative at first and ask for clarification of what i was trying to say .
• Then after that ,I try to give additional clarification .
• He then started to go of on a tangent about saying same groups attacking in Pak.(attempt at a personal attack because the user think i am this nationality , i believe this because of his history)
• Also saying that he is dyslexic and purposely writing incorrectly.But i interpreted this as a blatant attempt to commit another personal attack.(As i am dyslexic as a result this i un-subconsciously misplaced/missing sentence structure and words) I have told him that I am dyslexic before .As a result he uses it at a another chance to launch another personal attack .To prove this accusation just look at the links of his/her history.

• i have worked with other editors whether they be Jewish, Hindu Etc, on controversial pages and have reached consensus on many occasions .But this users has an agenda against me for his own personal reason. This is the 3rd of many personal attacks , Harassment and also a possible attempt of baiting respond to him/her .

Mughalnz (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How would i proceed from here.

You ought to notify the user, placing this tag {{subst:WQA-notice}} on his talk page: since this noticeboard is only a means to provide a feedback on someone's behaviour — and not for issuing sanctions —, User:Wikireader41 needs to know that someone's complaining about his. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, this edit might seem to be aimed at poking fun at you, because User:Wikireader41 appears to be able to write just fine elsewhere. But, for the moment, I prefer to stick to WP:AGF. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

so how would i actually go about stopping the user behaving in this mannerMughalnz (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

this is extra info

Behavior that is unacceptable

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.

• No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
  • No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
  • Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however.
  • Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page.
  • Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely.
• Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
  • Be precise in quoting others.
  • When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.
  • Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section.
  • DO NOT ask for another's personal details.
• Do not impersonate other editors
• Do not claim to be an administrator or claim to have an access level that you do not have, as this can be highly disruptive and may cause other editors trouble in the cleanup process. User access levels can be checked at Special:ListUsers by anyone.
• Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.

wikireader is engaging in behavior that impersonates Mughalnz (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• What would you recommend i do to prevent the behavior with the new information i added Mughalnz (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikireader41/Archive5#re_Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader

shows previous decision made on similar matter,where the user was temporarily blocked and promised not engage in an sarcastic abusive manner.Mughalnz (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• What would you recommend i do to prevent the behavior Mughalnz (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, I would like to see how User:Wikireader41 responds to your concerns. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mughalnz is the one who is violating WP:NPA here. the real reason he is running around forum shopping here is that I prevented him from POV pushing on Kashmir Conflict article so he is making complaints everywhere in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP as the admin did not feel it necessary to respond to him he came here.[4]

• Impersonation: I am not even sure what he means here. I would like to point out to everyone that mughalnz has a habit of not taking the time and writing very cryptic hard to understand edits and has been warned about it. he himself volunteered that he is dyslexic in his own posts but yet consistents refuses to take extra time to make sure his posts are understandable in spite of being told by an admin here[5]. I myself am dyslexic but take the time to make sure my edits are correct and legible.
• 'Do not claim to be admin' again I dont know where this comes from. even if somebody claims to be admin it is usually very easy to verify who is admin and who is not. perhaps somebody can point out to mughalnz how this can be done.
• Do not ask for any personal details: I agree and I would never do that. even if someone did how would it require a response. again mughalnz's comments make little sense to me.
• for those of who that do not know Mughalnz is doing this all on behalf of banned user User:Nangparbat with whom he shares his POV & who I actively work with various admins to keep at bay. Nangparbat incited him against me here. it would help if mughalnz read this Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users and WP:CIR
• He is also accusing me of sock puppetry here. I would ask the community to tell mughalnz not to make such baseless charges. If he really thinks that I have indulged in sock puppetry he should open a proper investigation and I challenge him to do so.
• also he should be told to take some time and make sure his edits are understandable so that he can interact usefully here on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

response

• I agree in the future ,i should take some more time in writing post that are comprehensible ,with other editors in WP.
• But does it give you the same right to act in this same manner as well ,if i do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict
• Also i apologies that accused you i being someone ,just because you edits were very close together ,with another editor that only edited two time.
• the user accuses me about corroboration with Nangparbat ,But i do not even know who Nangparbat is .The user also accused me of being Wahhabi Islamic Fascist that is sponsored by the ISI.He also launched personal attaks on other users.
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#Reporting_personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41 *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41
• Impersonation ,please even slavio said it appears you were poking fun at me ( this might have been taking out of context ) .
• Wiki reader has been blocked.He has a previous history of personal attacks that have occured in sarcastic manner toward me and other users.
• If the user believed that i supporting Nangparbat .Then he would have already reported me on editing on behalf of this random user. As he reported User:Nangparbat.Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users.I do not know if you are trying to divert attention away from from his history of personal attacks.But you cannot held me accountable for another random users behaviour .
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#Reporting_personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41 *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikireader41/Archive5#re_Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader+
• I did not claim you to be doing all the thing on copied section about Behavior that is unacceptable . I just copied the entire section on to the page .
• In conclusion .I believe that the users major shift in writing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict compared to his history of writing ,also previous History of personal attack,Blocking by admin .That this was a blatant impersonation aiming to poke fun at me ,without being caught .
• I am still committed to reach consensus on the talk page with wikireader .But i wanted wikireader to stop this behavior ,I wanted to tell him to stop it ,but past attempts to tell him to stop have failed .So i did not try to ask him to stop it .
• I also would love to cooperate with even though of his personal in a positive manner with
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#Reporting_personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41 *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41
• If I have made personal attack on the user, on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict Then user would show ,where i would .Again i do not know if the user is diverting attention from the actual issues of his continuous attack .
• WP:FORUMSHOP This does not apply as the editor did not respond to give his opinion,So i was forced to go on to this page to actually receive an opinion .What ever opinion that should be have been made this is relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikireader41/Archive5#re_Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader+ .Again i do not know if the user is diverting attention from the actual issues of his continuous attack.Not 1st time not 2nd time but 3rd time, I want it to be last .
• If the user just stop committing these personal attacks then ,then i would never would have the need to bring him .Ultimatley the user uses these personal attack to stop me from editing on the Pages . Also to prevent an consensus on current/previous talk page .

Warning - reported at administrators' noticeboard

You have been reported at the administrators' noticeboard for your recent comment at the 1965 Indo-Pak War talk page. --Hj108 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I would refer you to my notice a few sections above. You may wish to appeal your block; you may find it useful to undertake not to refer to other editors on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality in a demeaning, aggressive, or sarcastic manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I undertake not to refer to other editors on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality in a demeaning, aggressive, or sarcastic manner. Can I please be unblocked now. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Image dispute

Resolved

 – Closed to avoid possible PAs

It appears that me and another editor GageSkidmore are having a dispute over the image for the Family Guy episode Brian & Stewie, File:Brian & Stewie - Family Guy promo.png. The image they uploaded is a simple screenshot, while the image I uploaded is the official promotional poster. It was my understanding that a official poster was preferred over a screen shot. So I've insisted that my upload be in the infobox. Yet they have insisted that their upload is preferred, so we have be reverting back and forth. But I don't see why their upload is so much better than mine. This maybe bad faith on my part, but they are coming off as they're reverting the file because they upload it. Just because you uploaded something doesn't make it any better. Their recent revert was over a image size compliance failure. Which I said if the image size is a problem, then resize it. Their revert response was a simple "no". So what should be done? Sarujo (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should an image that does not comply with the fair use rationale found on the image page be used? If you would like for the "promotional poster" to be used in place of the screenshot, you can reduce the size of the image. Gage (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If the issue is photo size on the article then that can be easily changed by simply adding a specific pixel size to the file link. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. Gage (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this may be bad faith for me, but, I don't believe that your revert is on the ground of size compliance. As you simply did not address this in each of you previous revert. Then you just go and dispute A3RO here when he suggests to just make the image smaller with "It isn't". That sends a message to me that your just merely using a guideline as an excuse to to make you upload the default image for bragging rights. See, anybody else would have just taken a copy and reduced and made the necessary mods. But instead all you've done is reverted it to your upload. So what so special about your upload, and don't say because it's smaller. Sarujo (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just find it laughable that this is how you try to get involved with articles relating to Family Guy. Gage (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And what "laughable" way would that be? Calling out some who appears to be GAME? I'm glad somebody's having a good time. I appears that I'm dealing with another one of "those" editor again. Sarujo (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys seem to be fighting over this like it's a hot girl. However, there might be some tough feelings involving that specific article based on the editing history; the good news is since it's an image that's at the root of this problem(hopefully...) then this is a good place to take it to the discussion page and see how popular vote works. Until then, just let the image be. Guys, just chill... alright? Cool. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Incivility on my talk page

Resolved

 – Editor warned

I would appreciate someone taking a look at a recent uncivil post on my talk page and give me some idea how I should proceed.Hi540 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested a possible way to proceed on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Level three warning left for editor. Obvious personal attack; if they continue I will block them. Tan | 39 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a dolt anyways? --A3RO (mailbox) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Synonyms: "idiot, fool, clod, nitwit, dummy" - DVdm (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Old people language. Ah. Ok. --A3RO (mailbox) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A dispute between myself and William M. Connolley on "Climate_sensitivity."

Stale

 – 9 months old and only being dredged up now.

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_sensitivity#Cloud_and_Radiation_Budget_Changes_Associated_with_Tropical_Intraseasonal_Oscillations
A simplified history of our dispute runs like this...

Me: I think this published paper X should be mentioned in the main article for reason A.
Him: I dispute the validity of reason A.
Me: Oops, I'm not very confident of reason A because of my, freely admitted, lack of expertise in this area, but here's reason B which is much better.
Him: Ha ha, look how stupid you are for having put forth reason A.
Me: I'd like to retract A because B is a much stronger argument. If B is valid then A is irrelevant and requires no further discussion.
Him: Ha ha, look how stupid you are for having put forth reason A, lets talk about it in detail so I can humiliate you.
Me: Please let me retract all mention of A... look I'm deleting it.
Him: I'm un-deleting it so I can humiliate you some more.
Me: I made a mistake proposing reason A, reason B removes the need to even discuss A.
Him: no, I'm not letting people consider published article X unless you publicly declare how stupid you were putting forth reason A.

Discussions of the published paper X is now hidden inside a box saying "Went nowhere" on the discussion page.

I would like all mention of reason A and our subsequent flame to be deleted and the rest of the discussion of paper X left for all to see and not rolled up inside a "went nowhere" headline. Reissgo (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is from seven months ago? Ravensfire (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had left it alone for a while because I had thought to myself "well at least the paper and some excerpts were discussed on the discussions page so people may take a look at it". I only noticed that the entire thread had been rolled up into a one line comment "Went nowhere" a couple of days ago. I am not a frequent wikipedia user. The arguments are all still valid, I don't believe the issues involved have dated in any way. Reissgo (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just reopening the matter on the article talk page, starting over with presenting reasons for inclusion and seeing what happens might be a good approach? If you still see the same responses then perhaps come back here? But if not, if the article improves, we all win. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not about to put myself through all that stress again. Besides adding more flames just distracts from the paper I was trying to have considered. What I'd like to do is *remove* discussions, but If I do that, I'm afraid WMC will simply re-instate it and add *additional* flames. But don't worry - a solution is on its way - see my talk page for details. Reissgo (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's contrary to WP policy to remove old discussions except under specific circumstances. However, I've archived the old content so it's less visible. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate some assistance with incivility

I'd appreciate help regarding remarks KillerChihuahua is posting about me. There's a dispute at NPOV regarding whether two of the sections are appropriate. I posted an RfC about it on May 1, which is ongoing. KC wants the sections to remain, and has several times in edit summaries and posts called me dishonest, or said that I am lying, in relation to my wording of the RfC.

I realize that feelings can run high, and I wouldn't have posted this over one remark. But an admin or experienced editor repeatedly alleging that someone is lying is not appropriate. We should be able to disagree with each other without that. Examples:

• "No, you're not going to frame this as a lie ..." (May 2). [6]

• "No, you're not going to frame this dishonestly..." (May 2). [7]

• "...But don't lie any more about the policy getting 'longer' ..." (May 2). [8]

• "Stop being dishonest, and I'll stop calling you on it" (May 4). [9]

I asked her to stop here, but the last post above was her response. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to share your recent email, Slim? Seriously? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not sent you any emails, KC, and I find your response and behavior here really quite bizarre. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you sent one to four other people, lying about me, and one of them was decent enough to tell me, as you well know. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I wrote about you was: "That was followed by Killer Chihuahua accusing me of lying and dishonesty in edit summaries, then asking on my talk page whether I'm still an admin. I'm unsure what to do about this ..." There is no lie there, or anywhere else. You should be able to disagree with people without having to resort to these kinds of claims. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you, five? This is turning into a "she said, she said" whinefest. You've twisted what I posted completely out of meaning, and you did so intentionally. I asked if you were still an admin, and if so why was your page protected (for a year!!!). which I discovered when I went to edit your talk page for the *other* post, in which I suggested you and Blueboar read WP:CONLIMITED, since you were presenting 3 views (2 yes, 1 no) as consensus to make a major change to policy, which is just laughable . The question involves your page protection, which is inappropriate for an admin - you don't even have a sub-page for IPs to post on! If you're going to be an admin, you need to be accessible. You not only ignored me but you actually removed my question - with a misleading edit summary[10] and then you emailed that absurd "concern" as part of something I'm not even going to touch. I am done here. This is turning into a mudfest. Post whatever complaints you want, SV, its still just you spinning things to try to start a cat-fight. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, you claim three views on an Rfc to make a major policy change is consensus, with what, six years on this project? and I'm going to say that's dishonest. You can complain all you want, but that's just silly - that's not close to consensus even for a standard Afd, let alone for a major policy change. You're just trying to change the venue here. What exactly are you looking for? I told you if you stop being dishonest, I'll stop saying it - so are you admitting that two Yes and one NO view on an Rfc is not enough community input for a policy change, or are you sticking with that story? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The section head was misleading. Classifying it as a lie was rude. The two of you are sysops. I am amazingly disappointed.- Sinneed 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've noticed many civility problems start with an over-optimistic view of what constitutes a consensus, so I've even written a short section here discussing consensus. As KillerChihuahua says, the RfC was not sufficient on its own for a permanent policy page change. It was inevitable that more people would be brought in sooner rather than later to tidy up the loose ends, so this does not overly concern me. There is no need to be rude to each other. In particular, the sentiment behind WP:PEACOCK is relevant here: simply illustrating the position should allow editors to deduce the true situation for themselves. Each can decide a course of action for themselves. Personal criticism of other editors and their motives is unnecessary. I remember even four years ago when I joined, SlimVirgin was controversial, and although she comes from a different perspective to me, one of WIkipedia's strengths is its diversity. So I suggest that KillerChihuahua refactor her comments to soften her tone, stating facts rather than interpretations, and SlimVirgin apologise for any offence caused in off wiki emails - and both temporarily restrict the debate to the improvement of the policy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the word "lie" was poorly chosen, which is why I used "dishonest" afterwards. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Which section head was misleading, Sinneed? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?" - I did not review it because I did not understand it was a proposed removal... I read it as a proposed addition. Thus I did not look at it.- Sinneed 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"dishonest" I don't find any less offensive than "a lie" - misleading simply means the words mislead some readers: a reality of writing for 3 billion potential readers. "lie" and "dishonest" fail wp:AGF.- Sinneed 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I assume SV did not realize that three views was insufficient to support a major change in policy? That's not AGF, that's turning off my brain. I'm sorry, but AGF is not meant to force rational people to believe impossible things (not even six before breakfast.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not suggesting anything at all. The entire content of my statement is included in the words... nothing is implied... any inferences are entirely the reader's.- Sinneed 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I confess to confusion regarding your meaning, which is unclear to me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary was rude. That is all. At this point I am going to shut up. I am not helping.- Sinneed 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that my mentioning the section head here may be misleading... this is not a problem... just a reality.- Sinneed 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I worded the RfC that way because the sections had been removed in April by Blueboar after a long discussion (not simply because three people wanted it as KC says). Then an old version of those sections (not the version that was removed) was restored on or around May 1. To avoid these ins and outs in the RfC title, I asked "should the policy contain these sections," and I explained the details in the comment. People can disagree with that wording, and might have worded it differently themselves, but it's the assumption of dishonesty that crosses the line. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me.- Sinneed 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The section was moved, not removed, and it did have other discussions as SlimVirgin (and Blue Boar) have stated. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, was the religion section moved? Maurreen (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly the religion description is somewhat abbreviated in WP:FRINGE, and given as an example rather than a section on its own. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet, she's mistaken about what I said. I didn't say "just three people" - I said there were three views on the Rfc, which was titled "Should topic specific issues be discussed in a general policy". There were 3. Only two supported. I'm saying that's not consensus, certainly not enough for a major policy change, and elsewhere have suggested that attempts should have been made to get further input rather than closing as though consensus had been found. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) SlimVirgin, I am requesting you strike your misunderstanding that "not simply because three people wanted it as KC says" - which is something I never said. Please correct this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't open the first RfC, I didn't close it, I didn't remove the pseudoscience section (in fact I restored it in March when it was moved too early), and I didn't move it to FRINGE, though I did agree with that move. And there was plenty of discussion before the first RfC. My focus is only on the second RfC on May 1, which I did post. and which is entirely factual. And you are missing the point here. The point is not to accuse people of lying. Of mistakes, yes, if that's what you see. Dishonesty, no. Please stop thinking you can call people whatever names you fancy, but if they defend themselves, they're whining or attacking you. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pretending you know what I think. You are dead wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter whether you label what an editor said as a lie, or claim that editor is being dishonest - there is no difference in the end outcome because that conduct is not compatible with that expected of any administrator. In other words, if an administrator is engaging in that sort of conduct, they are gambling their tools. The whole "what are you, five?" question and the "you twisted my words intentionally" is simply continuing the uncivil conduct. I am mystified as to whether this is a problem of inability to be civil, or a problem of unwillingness to be civil. One does not have to turn their brain off in order to be civil. Comment on content, and if someone is misstating something, then raise the concern civilly instead of making flagrant uncivil accusations about the contributor. That's all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think "what are you, five?" may be a standard rhetorical device. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Five pillars seems to put it quite well: Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. I think that is irrespective of the way others behave. This is not optional. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have found reading the above surprising. KillerChihuahua is accused of being uncivil, and comes here and posts numerous comments, evidently intended as defense against the charge, but themselves very uncivil. I have come across worse in the past, but that this comes from an administrator who has been a regular editor for nearly six years I do find surprising. I strongly suggest that KillerChihuahua should stand back a little, and try to imagine what the above comments look like to an impartial outsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thought KillerChihuahua's RfA put it rather well: In that time she has shown herself to be a solid contributor with a good sense of humour. At the same time, she has shown herself to be polite and thoughtful, even in difficult situations. NPOV is being sorted, so everyone can relax a little and enjoy life a little more. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been perfectly civil. Explain to me how to address dishonesty without using the word. Calling it "misunderstanding" or "mistake" or "error" when it is none of those things is equivocating. There comes a point when one must call a spade a spade, (or lie and say its a daisy?). I have not called SV any names - you see me making no personal attacks. I am commenting on the behavior, not the editor. Otherwise you would see, for example me calling her a "manipulative lying bitch" or somesuch. You see no such thing. You see me attempting to address, with her, her egregious behavior. I am sorry you are all distressed. I am distressed as well. But I will not alsobe dishonest because you are all uncomfortable with the word. If someone murders, do you argue it is uncivil and rude to call it murder? You're not being logical, and you're merely chastising me without addressing the core problem, or suggesting any alternative phrasing which is not also dishonest. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop and think: you're claiming that everyone but you isn't being logical? I already explained to you how to approach such a situation - evidently from your 3 examples, you did not absorb the example or what I said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • • I have responded to your generalizations, which I did not find as helpful as perhaps you intended. Perhaps you could be more specific, and address my concerns raised in the post immediately preceding this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Compare the following. (zz) "You've been here for over 6 years and your acting like a school kid newbie - you're intentionally twisting my words; enough with your lies and dishonesty and I'll stop calling you on it". (yy) my original example: "Please don't misstate my position. My position is...." or "You appear to be mischaracterising what x actually says. 2 yes and 1 no does not constitute a consensus...." "Please stop it; you are repeatedly mischaracterising...." In one of these examples, there is no comment about a relatively unprovable intention, but it focuses solely on the content of the matter, as neutrally as possible. It doesn't matter how long people are here or how many contributions they make; people can do or say things they aren't expected to, be it out of foolishness, lack of clue, burn-out, misreading, mistake, experience/inexperience, an ulterior motive, or otherwise - avoid choosing what it might be, even if you're sure that it must be one of these, so that you can avoid excessive confrontation. No one is perfect in following this, as some of us can see through smokescreens and other crap and we have an urge to be blunt (yes, something that we appear to share) - but consider how it might be taken by someone else and what would be achieved. Also, many other users are intelligent and the fact that another user might be mischaracterising something should be enough for others to be wary; let them come to their own conclusions. I've been more specific this time in my examples, and I hope the contrast+explanation proves to be more helpful for you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • By using the word dishonest, you are assigning motive to someone else's action, but you haven't proved that motive - it is mere conjecture. That is part of the issue. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So what word(s) would you use to discuss the issue with claiming "consensus" given three views (one No, two Yes) in an Rfc, by an editor of over 6 years on this project? That's what, an error in judgment? An honest mistake? And above, she continues to mis-characterize what I say, claiming falsely that I said something I did not, and ignoring my request she correct it. Everyone seems fine with that. So basically you're attitude is that its ok if SV lies about what I said, but if I dare say anything about it, the civility police chastise not the one who is being deceptive and dishonest, but the one honest enough to try to address the issue? I find this outrageous and ridiculous. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin asked for assistance with your incivility. That is why we are discussing that here. That doesn't mean that SlimVirgin has or hasn't behaved appropriately herself. If you want to make a separate complaint about her behaviour, you can do so. But if editors believe bad behaviour from others excuses their own bad behaviour, we will spiral downwards. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And again I state, if someone is dishonest and the second says "hey, that's dishonest! don't do that!" it is a very different matter than if the first were not being dishonest to begin with. You may believe that it has no bearing; I beg to differ. I am attempting to address a very serious issue in the most civil way possible. Pretending my words float in an unjustified vacuum is not addressing the situation. Again, follow the example: if a person commits a murder, is it uncivil to say "that is wrong, please stop killing people"? At any rate this is all in the past, except for SV's continued statements about what I think, in which she is completely wrong, and apparently intends to ignore my requests to correct said statements. I do not see that any useful purpose can be achieved here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As for interpretation of consensus, I have seen people of all experiences in many articles claiming consensus when what they have is a low level of dissent. The correct way to fix this is to remind each person gently of the way things are done here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to absorb that I had done precisely that, and it affected her framing of the issue not at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I noticed you hadn't persuaded her to change her framing of the issue. But if your explanation is clear enough, then everyone else will understand it, it she can work it out later. Perhaps she has other things on her mind, or perhaps she thinks her explanation of not changing things is sufficient. Perhaps she thinks that the context of the RfC - namely a long discussion - showed that the RfC was actually unnecessary, and this was the reason so few people responded. Not every detail requires enormous debate. Perhaps the low level of interest in the RfC, which was watched by 1000 editors, indicated to her no one was really that concerned. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this appalling, so I'm not going to comment again except to ask KC to stop making remarks like that about any editor, no matter the situation, whether it's calling them liars or asking whether they're five. I'm posting below the post of mine that triggered this. If Wikipedians can't post RfCs about policy without kicking off this kind of response from an administrator something has gone wrong. That's all I want to say about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion? The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [11] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated to decide whether to restore or remove the sections.

Just one final comment: anyone who disagreed with any part of that wording only had to drop a note on my talk page: "Slim, would you mind tweaking the RfC to clarify X?" I'd have no problem tweaking it in whatever direction, because my only aim was to ask the wider community: should those sections be included or not. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We discussed the issue and we've tried explaining the issue in a manner that persuades KC to voluntarily adjust her approach with respect to all editors. I think we've unanimously stated that her conduct was not acceptable in this situation. Beyond that, I don't know why you consider it appalling - there's only so much we can do. But if problems persist, the next step would be RfC/U, though I hope it can be resolved short of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"appalling" - well...I was shutting up, but now I am not, and I hope that is not unwise... I feel as if I am watching a train wreck. No idea about Slim's reason, but that is mine. This seems to be a simple wp:content dispute gone wrong. The incivil editor has been warned and is unrepentant (reading wp:NOTTHEM would be good) and is not de-escalating. The content dispute itself is being reviewed by interested members of the community and will reach whatever end it reaches. I think that wp:WQA readers and editors have done all that can reasonably be done in this forum. Either things will escalate further or not. - Sinneed 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Erk... the reason it is appalling to me is that it is between admins, regardless of right, wrong, whose-fault, nobody's-fault, it damages the reputation of the incivil editor, the editor being accused of dishonesty (regardless of validity), and by "contagion" all admins and further of the WP community as a whole. Thus: train wreck.- Sinneed 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm grateful for the input here, and hopefully that'll put the matter to rest. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• In my opinion, KillerChihuahua's contributions on this matter have been over the top hostile. Alternate phrasing, e.g. It's not reasonable to say there's a consensus when only three people have made comments is readily available. As noted above already by other third party editors, "lying" and "dishonest" are commenting on the motivation of the contributor, not that contribution. Gerardw (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman link vandalism

Reporting a VIOLATION of Wikipedia Etiquette, by JP Gordon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpgordon specifically ad hominem commentary aimed against me with regard to link vandalism at the Meg Whitman listing (please see Whitman discussion page).

It is inappropriate to aim such an ad hominem accusation against me rather than address the issue reported, specifically yet another instance of link vandalism at this listing, specifically links revealing Whitman's Goldman Sachs business associations. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly did they say? I don't see any messages or anything in the diffs. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This?[[12]] While perhaps a bit snarky it's not an ad hominem attack. Incidentally, in Wikipedia the term "vandalism" is intentional degradation of the encyclopedia not content disputes. Gerardw (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but I wouldn't considor that an attack; perhaps you misunderstood his point; the edit was POV. See comment above. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)