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

Not assuming good faith and incivility by User:Mokele

Resolved

 – mistaken assumption of bad faith Swarm ^X 18:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Mokele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User_talk:Gracefool#March_2011 (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Gracefool#March_2011|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brief summary of the interactions in question:

• User:Gracefool made a few small edits to article Aquatic locomotion on 2011-03-13T05:32:40, diff. It does not appear that Gracefool had previously edited this article, nor did Gracefool have any history (to my knowledge) with the editor Mokele.
• User:Mokele responded by reverting the edits to the Aquatic locomotion article, then gave a one-time only (serious) Vandalism warning to User:Gracefool at 2011-03-13T15:18:34, diff. Mokele's edit included a threat to report (probably reasonable, if was really vandalism) as well as a putdown of the (presumed) belief system of the editor Gracefool (inappropriate civility, in my opinion)
• Gracefool responded on the Gracefool Talk page with a reasonably well-articulated defense of why the edits were not vandalism, requested non-presumption of ideological sensibilities, called out the attacking language, etc. on 2011-03-13T05:32:40, diff.
• Mokele responded on Gracefool's Talk page, diff, requesting that Gracefool "not make any such further edits regarding evolutionary topics." (a bit too far, in my opinion. It would seem to me that no editor should be asking other editors not to ask for citations on unsourced statements, or not to clarify prose, on a broad set of articles within Wikipedia).
• I (User:N2e) then commented on Gracefool's Talk page (diff), stating that "I find no vandalism at all in the edits of Gracefool in the subject article. Mokele should, indeed, assume good faith in initial interactions with other editors"; and
• I (N2e) placed a lightly worded caution on Mokele's Talk page (diff).
• Mokele deleted the comment from her/his Talk page (which is the user's right; I have no problem with that) and wrote a response to N2e in the edit summary that said "Don't care, not even slightly."

I find this lack of civility, and failure to assume good faith remarkable—which along with the editor's explicitly stated lack of concern for such personal incivility—worthy of bringing to the attention of this Wikiquette page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have no direct involvement, to my knowledge, on any of the mainspace pages where Mokele and Gracefool are interacting. And with one exception, have never interacted with either editor previously. (the exception was a month ago where I mistakenly and incorrectly placed a "Welcome-with-an-improperly-cited-material-caution" on Gracefool's Talk page that was meant for another user; when my mistake was pointed out, I agreed completely that the error was all mine. N2e (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at Mokele's contributions and personal Talk page to get a sense of his stance. One comment in particular stood out to me with regard to this situation. "Unfortunately, I don't get as much editing done as I used to, beyond fixing vandalism, but I periodically update important pages now and then. Mokele (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)"

It's possible that focusing specifically on potential vandalism is affecting the editor's point of view on non-malicious edits, creating a sort of battleground mentality. I can't speak for Moleke, and look forward to seeing his point of view represented, but for the time being, I get the impression that Moleke might play nicer if he would just WP:LIGHTENUP and have fun. -- Avanu (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an isolated incident that the Mokele was appropriately warned for. I don't think a WQA discussion is necessary. I will say that while their quick assumption of bad faith was inappropriate, it's perfectly understandable. Changing "did evolve" to "may have evolved" or "is believed to have evolved" is certainly controversial and questionable. This is better handled as a content dispute. Swarm ^X 18:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief, with a few key points.

Firstly, I've had no prior interaction with Gracefool, beyond an edit which is *identical* to several others I've encountered by creationist trolls. As such, I reverted and warned, and I'll admit I was harsher than probably necessary.

Second, I'll admit that axe-grinding vandalism (such as creationism) is particularly abhorent to me, and likely to garner a harsher response than is "nice". I try to remain at least marginally civil, but blatant stupidity such as creationism is sure to provoke harsh responses (hence why I avoid high-profile evolution articles).

Third, I also admit that my concern for others' feelings is minimal, at best. I'm used to a more academic setting, in which bad data or sloppy science is called as much without subtlety or concern, and frankly I hold that up as the ideal of discourse. However, I do acknowledge that most editors lack the ability to detach themselves so fully.

Fourth, the edit in question was undisputably disruptive, like editing Newton's second law to read "F is believed by some to equal M * A". Citation-needed tags are fine, but to introduce such ridiculous equivocation into matters of settled science is disruptive, unproductive, and verges on vandalism, axe-grinding, and weasel-words even if good-faith is assumed.

Lastly, Avanu is right - dealing with the unending influx of vandals and all-too-temporary semi-protection is draining and frustrating, leading to a greater chance that I'll snap at someone. It's particularly infuriating for the pages in which it's obvious that I'm the only person watching it, or at least the only one who checks more than every few weeks. This leads to both a reduction in my output and a general "us-vs-them" mentality. This actually ties into the current survey on the participation of academics such as myself on WP - as long as our edits will be washed away in a tide of vandalism without our constant maintenance, it'll seem pointless. I don't mean to soapbox, but something seriously needs to be done to prevent little-known pages from becoming solely entrusted to the care of just one editor.

Well, so much for keeping it brief. Point is, I did over-react and was overly harsh, but the edit in question was not nearly so benign as supposed, being a precise mirror of the kind of vandalism associated with creationist trolls. Mokele (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I don't want to get into it on this page, but the edit did seem strange and does indeed mirror creationism-biased tendentious editing. As I said above, their actions should be perfectly understandable. Swarm ^X 00:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm disapointed. If we want a community where WP:AGF is the norm, then a community response that is somewhat more than has occurred here would, I think, be appropriate. If this discussion, and the extremely mild conditional apology for such rude and inconsiderate behavior by Mokele, is all that occurs, methinks our community norms will be moving to less and less WP:AGF over time. But it is what it is. What we tolerate in this area is what we will get. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mokele was wrong to assume bad faith, but, in hindsight, it was quite explainable and understandable. You came off as a creationist troll, despite not being one. They called you on it. If you'll allow an analogy: you looked like a duck and swam like a duck, so they called you a 'duck'. It turns out, you were a platypus. Understand? Swarm ^X 04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

DailyEditor

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

---

• DailyEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Ghost Hunters episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DailyEditor wants to add a "date filmed" or "date investigated" category to the List of Ghost Hunters episodes article, but the information is being obtained through original research by the user watching each episode from their DVD collection and recording the dates/times the crew was at a location by what is displayed in on their computer video screens and cameras. To me, that is unacceptable referencing. I told DailyEditor this information is not reliable because it cannot be verified through proper references and this is info he/she is gathering and publishing themselves. No websites that I can find list these dates, just the date the particular episode aired on SyFy.com - the only official website for Ghost hunters. Likewise, I commented that the information, I believe, is trivial information which does nothing for the article except to add clutter and confusion to the listings. In response, DailyEditor threatened to "report me" and get me "blocked" because I'm "vandalizing" by leaving comments on their talk page. How else are we to communicate? I'm obviously not getting through to them, they don't want to cooperate, so now I would appreciate third party intervention here. Thank you. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: DailyEditor now claims their word is reliable because they have a "close personal friend who works for Syfy: Imagine Greater". Their actual words. (By the way, "Imagine Greater" is the company's tag line, not part of their actual name). Oh and "I messed with the wrong guy." Cyberia23 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the Ghost Hunters episode were a series of printed books, it would not be original research to look up information from them and cite the relevant books as sources on Wikipedia. How do published DVDs of episodes differ? If the DVDs were purchased (not home-recorded), they just like a set of books. If he wants to use this information, he needs to provide individual citations for the information. If he were citing from a book, he would have to state the volume and page number. He needs to cite DVDs in the same way. At the moment he is not doing this. He should also put something from sources saying why this information is notable - and yes, a citation will be needed for this too.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any specific examples, but I've seen a couple Wikipedia television articles in the past where people had cited information that was "exclusive DVD content" and some editors deleted them saying they were not reliable sources because not everyone had access to the DVDs. I don't know if there is a difference between books and DVDs, but still in this case, DailyEditor - who is clearly a adolescent and therefore shouldn't be taken as a reliable editor to begin with - isn't even citing DVD content; they are watching the show (claiming they own the DVDs, but could be watching them off YouTube for all we know), and saying the dates are on background computer monitors and feed from the thermal cameras. The actual film dates, as far as I know, aren't indicated anywhere on the DVDs (be it case or booklet or voice-over commentaries) and no website gives the filming dates. The show itself just shows a day and time of a specific segment, no actual dates are given. Therefore, the information is questionable and should not be permitted unless given by an official source. It can also be considered unnecessary "fancruft" material (as they call it) which is of no real value to the article. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack DailyEditor. Everyone is welcome to edit here and comments like that can be considered biting. I however agree that sources have to be either books or internet sources accessible to everyone.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't attack him/her. He/she had a fit about my so-called "violent" protest of his improperly sourced information. I just told them they shouldn't add unverified information based on what they saw on a DVD, and I'd be challenging it's validity and that's what I'm doing. I didn't threaten them, or call them names. I may get sarcastic when people say dumb things and since they didn't get what I was saying I assume they're either a kid or can't speak English. This should all be a no-brainer as to who is acting out of place here. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment and your previous one are the ones attacking DailyEditor. I don't want you to bite him. However, both of you need to stop attacking each other. While DailyEditor should not be unwilling to discuss like that, you need to not attack him/her on basis of age.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Cyberia23 Splendide mendax! It is conformed that you are having some serious problems as you were the casus belli who started a fire, and I just added more firewood. If you were a more 'experienced' editor, like you claim, you should have sorted out the dispute you started in a diplomatic way like John. It is crystal clear that you are a juvenile because you believe that only you are perfect and everyone one Wikipedia is stupid and is waiting to be guided by you. You cannot handle criticism or losses. In my opinion you are a persona non grata to Wikipedia and should be blocked. Quod erat demonstrandum, is proved. You are a spoilt brat, similar to the Winklevii in The Social Network. Everything had been going your way in life as well as Wikipedia until I came over. The world is completely contrary to the virtual world you are living in bear in mind you are not Queen Elizabeth II of the 1940s that you have the whole world under control, or if you are, even God will have a tough time helping England, You believe that everything you do, is right but, ipso facto, you can't even act as a diplomat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the article List of Ghost Hunters episodes for one week. Judging by what I read on User talk:DailyEditor, it seems DailyEditor was the first to take the conversation into inappropriate territory with his/her hyperbolic accusations of vandalism over a content dispute. However, Cyberia23 isn't helping matters by insisting to continue to insult DailyEditor on a page called Wikiquette disputes. That behavior, however understandable considering DailyEditor's insults, doesn't bring us any closer to resolving this dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, doesn't anyone else here see that this DailyEditor person is a complete whack job? Now he's speaking Latin to make himself look like he's some sort of genius. Delusional psychopath with multiple personality disorder is more like it. Go read his talk page, half of what he says makes absolutely no sense and the context changes with every comment. Why is he still allowed to be here to spew his lunatic rants and personal attacks? I've seen people blocked for weeks for far less. Cyberia23 (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic. However, calling someone a delusional psychopath is not the best way to convince an uninvolved third party that you are the sane and civil one in this dispute. If your diagnosis is even remotely accurate, then others will quickly see this without any further escalation on your part. Good advice in such situations is to refrain from such comments and let the other editor dig him or herself into a hole. Gamaliel (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh so now I am the sociopath instead of you, you are so sensitive to criticism that you will go to any extent to prove your false point. This proves that you are a human being (BTW I'm not sure whether you are a human) with an unreasonable attitude and a fat brain. I don't even know how madmen like you get into Wikipedia, a place for intellectuals not lunatics. I expect an immidiate ban for disrespecting a Wikipedian. By the way do you even know Latin? I am majoring in the classic, in your face. Beware fellow Wikipedians, if this vermin is not annihilated it will drool its venom on you. And before you cry and say that I called you a vermin, bear in mind that it is a metaphor. Now as I know that your English grammar is distressing, allow me to explain what a metaphor is. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity. DailyEditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Tell me what's Latin for "keep talking shit." Cyberia23 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well a perfect English synonym will be: Cyberia23

DailyEditor (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DailyEditor, that comment constitutes a personal attack, which is strictly forbidden here. If you continue, you may be blocked. As a whole for everyone here, I want all of you to redact (delete or strike out) your incivil comments and actually resolve the dispute. If the incivility continues, I will request an administrator to take action here.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Since both editors are engaging in incivility and personal attacks, maybe both of them would benefit from the same discipline? -- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree fully with Jasper, both of you knock it off. You're both coming across deplorably here, go find something else to do other than snipe at each other. Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Cyberia23

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

---

• Cyberia23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GH episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vandal, deleted reliable information at least 5 times. Should be blocked. Also violently opposed addition of reliable information. You can check details at my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion, User:DailyEditor is the one who engaged in personal abuse. For example in this diff he accused Cyberia23's mother of being illiterate! I looked at Cyberia23's contributions in the article on Destination Truth, and they are constructive edits. On the List of Ghost Hunters episodes, there is a content dispute between the two editors. However as DailyEditor cannot provide citations for the additional information he wants in the article, and Cyberia23 says that the information is too unreliable, the onus is on DailyEditor to provide citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clear to me with how DailyEditor has responded that they are child, or young teenager who doesn't know what they are doing and has no business being here. Although we cannot keep kids from editing, this is a clear case of juvenile behavior and they should be blocked from editing. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone regardless of age is welcome. That comment is not appropriate and I suggest you redact it as per WP:CIVIL.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reading comments, I suggest both of you do not attack each other as per WP:CIVIL.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, I see edits made by kids on here all the time, and if it's clearly an unconstructive juvenile rant, I'll delete it when I find them. Granted not all they're edits are stupid and if they make a good faith edit that can be corrected I'll help them out. But every once in a while you'll get one who throws a baby fit temper tantrum and you expect us to just say "oh how cute" and give em a pat on the head for it? No you need to correct them, and if needed to block them from access. Problem solved. To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure if DailyEditor is a kid - my guess is they're not an adult, but if they are, God help them, because they have some serious social issues. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No-one is perfect, and the attitude of Wikipedia is supposed to be welcoming. I want you to stop criticizing DailyEditor based on age. Back in 2008, I too used some rants myself, and have grown out of it. I learned WP:CIVILITY and am now an experienced editor. So, teach DailyEditor the ropes, by giving him policy links, which I'm assuming you did, and do not attack him on basis of age or maturity.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@DailyEditor:When you have a dispute with someone, and that someone takes you to a policy page, please read that page. One of the biggest things here is that you can't be afraid to be wrong. If you are wrong, do not attack the person who showed that you were wrong, and assume good faith. Be civil.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Cyberia23 Splendide mendax! It is conformed that you are having some serious problems as you were the casus belli who started a fire, and I just added more firewood. If you were a more 'experienced' editor, like you claim, you should have sorted out the dispute you started in a diplomatic way like John. It is crystal clear that you are a juvenile because you believe that only you are perfect and everyone one Wikipedia is stupid and is waiting to be guided by you. You cannot handle criticism or losses. In my opinion you are a persona non grata to Wikipedia and should be blocked. Quod erat demonstrandum, is proved. You are a spoilt brat, similar to the Winklevii in The Social Network. Everything had been going your way in life as well as Wikipedia until I came over.

@Toddy1, Ipso facto, Cyberia is the casus belli, Cyberia started the fight and disrespected my mother, so I did the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, please stop the personal attacks and incivlity. It seems none of you have read WP:Civility. Please read and understand it. This goes for all of you. To experienced Wikipedians:Do not publicly discuss DailyEditor's age and do not criticize him based on that. To DailyEditor, remember the Golden Rule that anything you do to others comes back to you. Please be civil and do not attack other editors just because they disagree with you.

As a whole, I want everyone to calm down and show civility here.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD) As with my comment sabove, I agree fully with Jasper's warning here, you're both making personal attacks on a discussion page, and you'll both be handed blocks if it continues. Walk away and get back to doing something productive around here, please. Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Rastamouse-ting

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked.[1] Swarm ^X 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Rastamouse-ting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Rubiscous (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Rastamouse-ting has made unwarranted and frankly bizarre personal attacks on my talk page. Has made attacks against others and never assumes good faith. Uses his own user page and talk to make unsubstantiated accusations of racism and to attack Wikipedians in general. Unless I'm mistaken Rastamouse-ting has already received a block as an IP user for homophobic vandalism of User:Biker Biker. Rubiscous (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Rastamouse-ting.  Chzz  ►  11:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology

I may be reporting myself or User:Leadwind, or both of us, depending on who is doing something wrong. This is just background: The article is part of a long drawn polarized dispute about how best to represent Evolutionary Psychology. One issue has been whether Evolutionary Psychology is a narrowly defined field r whether all evolutionary approaches to psychology are "evolutionary psychology". Today I added a source that states explicitly that some sources use the narrow sense and others use the broad sense. User:Leadwind then posted this to the talkpage gloating against his opponents:[2]. The post is clearly just baiting and taunting the named editors with whom Leadwind has had a dispute in the past, it doesn't even attempt to make it look as if it has a constructive purpose but is simply a lognwinded nyah-nyah (it also misrepresentst he situation because Leadwind had argued that the narrow sense was wrong and only the broad sense existed, now he acts as if the fact that both senses are obviously in use somehow supports him). I first answered and told him that that was unproductive, but then realized that this post was purely disruptive so i deleted it entirely, per WP:NOTFORUM.[3]. I removed it again[4], but then realized that I didn't know whether I was doing the right thing. My question is whether it is acceptable to make talk page posts like this one by Leadwind, and if it isn't whether it is acceptable for me to remove it. I realize that this is a borderline case per WP:TPO so if there is a consensus that Leadwind's post was not disruptive and that I had no right to remove it I will reinsert it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am involved as I have commented about the nonsense at Evolutionary psychology where some strange sources have been stretched to assert some POV. However, my exposure to the talk page has convinced me that too much off-topic speculation has occurred, and I think you did the right thing to remove that inappropriate thread. The enthusiasm with which Leadwind approaches the topic is not matched by improvements to the article, and it may be time for other editors to take firmer control, including strict observance of WP:TPG—there is no need to endlessly engage in unproductive debate. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage those interested in this dispute to consider its broader context, as Maunus and his compatriots have been less than civil for months, and repeatedly derisive about this topic in particular (the general term used for the application of evolutionary theory to psychology). Leadwind (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

...and in turn, I'd point out that, as the article talk page indicates, there has been a noticeable tendency for those arguing from a pro-evolutionary psychology standpoint to dismiss all criticisms as 'unscientific', 'politically biased' and otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. This is a contentious subject, and it's scientific credibility is disputed. A little less proselytising from the 'pro' faction might actually improve matters - at times, the talk page has looked a far-too-close imitation of the 'Astrology' one. Doubts about the validity of scientific claims aren't 'anti-science', they are a necessary part of the scientific process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like an inquiry into Leadwind's talkpage contributions at EvoPsych. He consistently misrepresents views of other, attributing them opinions they have neither voiced nor hold, often in sarcastic condescending ways. For example in this edit[5] he attributes to me the exact opposite view fo the one that I have argued at length feigning to "agree" with me. In doing so he also misrepresents my summary of a source that he has not read - attributing it the opposite viewpoint of what it has. Honestly this makes me incredibly angry. If any one editor is the cause of the derailing of the discussion on the EvoPsych page it is him.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Focusing narrowly on this one incident, the section was completely unproductive to the article, served as blatant baiting and and its removal per WP:NOTFORUM was appropriate. The removal of others' comments, especially when you're in a dispute with them, should be done extremely cautiously, but in this situation I think it was an appropriate and justified action. Swarm ^X 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 violating formal mediation

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Diablada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article of the Diablada passed through formal mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Diablada, and MarshalN20 was one of the parts, there was an agreement as seen on the article's talk page, however I noticed that MarshalN20 has started again with POV edit wars in the article violating that agreement as seen in the last edits since November 2010, P.S. sorry if this is not the right board I can't seem to find the one for these kind of matters. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Adding sources, images, and improving the format of the article (for better readership) is not a POV problem. All edits are explained in the article's history. Based on his edit style, this user is probably a puppet of User:Erios30, who is involved in edit conflicts in the Spanish Wikipedia. User constantly deletes images and sources from the article. If an admin could please explain to him how to properly edit without disrupting articles, it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I just restored what was agreed before, the neutral part that had all the points of view and was reviewed by the mediation committee, precisely to avoid edit wars between Erios30 and MarshalN20 and was very carefully reviewed. I find it insulting that regardless I asked him politely and explained what I was doing in the talk page, this user now says that I "need" any explanation about how to edit articles, what I did here was the most ethical and neutral way to solve this to prevent further edit wars, therefore MarshalN20 accusations only constitute a personal attack. I won't break 3RR but I believe this user is playing with the system to preserve a biased version of the article. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit history [6] shows you have been deleting material from the article. The mediation was focused between the edits of Ereb and myself. I don't understand why you claim to be a part of that past discussion. Your aggressive nature and usage of these WP resources obviously show you are the puppet of an established user, which does go against Wikiquette. I would suggest the admin (if any actually bother to review this silly case) to please either block this IP puppet or give him/her a better explanation on how to edit WP. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed to be part of the mediation, I said clearly that who was involved previously was MarshalN20, not me but it's right there in the talk page all what happened before, it's common sense I just observed a biased phrase. Besides the source that is claimed to be deleted is right there right now, I said it before that I was keeping it, repeating it constantly is just defamation, also the continuous puppet claims and repeating that I need any explanations are again more personal attacks, I just did some fixing there is no rule-breaking in that, for me the solution is simple, the article is okay as it is because it covers all points of view, I'm just calling the board's attention to prevent further conflicts. This is getting redundant, I prefer not to extend this to avoid making it more difficult to the person who will review this, but I advise to pay special attention on the accusations of MarshalN20, my edits are visible this person is just recurring to defamation, which is unacceptable. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Greetings to the IP user. Unfortunately, this board is where to report violations of WP:CIVILITY. I don't see any violations of civility, but I do see many revisions as "rv vandalism" when the edits aren't necessarily vandalism. I strongly recommend all users follow the WP:BRD system, and that Marshal refrain from reverting edits as "vandalism." Beyond that if anyone violates the three revert rule it should be reported at WP:AN3. Regards, Swarm ^X 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:OhSoHeartless and personal attacks

• OhSoHeartless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:History of British Columbia (edit | [[Talk:Talk:History of British Columbia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I left a message with the editor after seeing a personal attack [7] on an IP on the above page. The editor escalated the attack twice [8][9] on their user talk. To avoid further confrontation on their talk, have reported here. The Interior (Talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks; user warned. OhSoHeartless, please comment only on content, not contributors from here on out. Swarm ^X 00:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Racism, racism, racism *yawn*

• Tasho.spasev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing too important but could someone please tell the user that throwing around absurd allegations of racism is not a way of engaging into constructive discussions at WP. I am afraid he won't listen to me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now there are two IPs reverting who give vacuous responses on talk page and don't even have the capability to sign their comments on talk page. While I agree that a disagreement about contents lies at the heart of the problem, it also needs a minimum of observance of WP style and practices from editors such as edit summaries and coherent argumentation.. Right now I don't believe this impertinent IP plays by our rule book. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor without compromise

I writing to get some 3rd party intervention on editor Fry1989 (talk). He has been a completely inconsiderate to me and my other editors. There appears to be no compromise with this individual. He is a diligent editor, but has no sense in finding any middle ground when it comes to an impasse. Case and point we have been going back and forth on Military aircraft insignia article, please "View history" and you'll see he has stoned walled me other editors, in regards to the "Finnish Roundel" Even when consensus was obtained, he continued for a bit to pushes POV. Currently we have locked horns on Fin flash article, which I started, and he has been completely uncompromising on several images. Additionally he has been a tad rude about it as my talk page shows, titled under "Stop your rediculous self-promotion". I didn't want to bring this alert up, generally the editor is a good guy, but I think an open mind and a softer tone would be appreciated all around for the community as a whole. Jetijonez (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For all those who pay attention, you will notice several things. First, regarding the Military aircraft insignia article, which Jetijones claims I've stonewalled. YOu will find on the discussion page that Jetijones attempted to get consensus to add his lighter version of the Finnish roundel, despite pics showing it in a multitude of shades, which is why I suggested for conformity that it match the Finnish Flag. ON that discussion, only 3 users besides myself and Jetijones have weighed in on the matter. 3 people does not consensus make, and there is even another user who, while agreeing with Jetijones on the shade of blue for the roundel, agrees with me that there is yet to be solid consensus. However, I gave up on reverting Jetijones constant insertion of the questionable roundel because he won't stop, and I am tired of bothering, despite he being the offender. Second case, this user is engaging in self-promotion. On Commons, he is uploading duplicate and identical versions of existing files, and replacing those with his here on Wikipedia-EN. I've explained many times, that wastes Commons server space, and it's unnecessary for the duplication. Lastly, this user has been uploading inaccurate files, and insisting on them despite pics (from his own website of choice for sources) disagreeing with him. I will continue to enforce the correct versions of files, as per his sources and mine, as would be expected of any good editor on here. Those wishing for examples of what I'm talking about in regard to Jetijones behaviour can ask on my talk page. Fry1989 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One other note. This is most likely retaliation for my nominating several of his duplicate files for deletion on Commons. Fry1989 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jetijonez , please follow the instructions at the top of this noticeboard and include diffs for the uncivil behaviour you are reporting - I have no intention of wading through talk pages and [page histories to find what you are complaining about. Apart from anything else, how would I know that I have actually found the incident in question?. Be aware, however, that your own conduct in this matter is likely to come under scrutiny and a cursory examination indicates that you are not without blame here. Remember that this board is not a venue for punitive action but rather it is for attempts at resolution of civility issues. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I will take the advice from the other editors and ignore the uncivil behavior. I'll have to seek more consensus on the talk pages in question.Jetijonez (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What? I thought I was sooo bad and difficult, and you pull out after one user gives comment? Is it because you realize that you would be under question for your actions just as much as the ones you would like to raise against me? Fry1989 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No I have nothing to hide Fry, and if I'm a contributing factor to this dispute, than I will be willing to man up. Sad thing is I said in my opening remarks that you were a diligent editor, but need to be a little more compromising. Yet you somehow you continue, to keep swinging. Other have told me it’s not worth a few lines or images to a article. Jetijonez (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It sure seems to me as an uninvolved party here that Fry1989's tone just now would seem to prove 'Jeti' to be 100% right regarding the issue of civility, in any case. Suggest this be closed since Jeti is willing to walk away, which is very much to Jeti's credit, as I see it. Jusdafax 03:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to be civil, and I was in the begining, however it becomes extremely frustrating when someone constantly reverts and inserts his files, against any consensus, especially when those files are in dispute. This wikiquette alert against me is just the topping on a long line of difficulty I have had with Jetijonez. Do I respect him as a user and contributer? Yes. Do I respect some of the edits he makes, no. Fry1989 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie

Resolved

 – Reported user doesn't want to participate. However, the general agreement is that the best solution is to simply let it go. Swarm ^X 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie, an administrator, posted this message describing a thread I started as “crap”. (In fact, he later confirmed he posted it in the wrong place and it was my thread he was referring to.) This was after he had earlier tried unsuccessfully to close down the discussion. I’ve tried to raise the issue and ask him why he called it “crap” on his Talk page, but he says he’s “not discussing it”. I would have thought this is a breach of WP:CIVIL and in my naivety, I expect more from an administrator. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I probably would have used something stronger than crap for the eleventy-millionth "can we remove the images of Muhammad?" thread started there, especially one the was purposefully placed outside of the /images sub-talk article, honestly. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Still it does not warrant profanity. Just because Ohnoitsjamie is an admin however, doesn't mean he's automatically held to higher standards than other editors; but still, as an experienced editor, he should've known better and refrained from profanity. Ohnoitsjamie should've discussed - refusing to discuss is strongly frowned at on Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To Tarc: For the umpteenth time, the issues I've raised are nothing to do with Muslim sensitivities v WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a different issue. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone is right all the time on Wikipedia, but I agree that your policy citation was correct.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) On the contrary, admins are held to higher standards: "They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct."
Doesn't get more clear than that. Adminship aside, it's kind of a low blow to call someone's comments crap and then "refuse to discuss it." I'm sure this is a result of aggravation and stress; I don't think Jamie's a generally uncivil person, so perhaps they should cool off if they're starting to offend people. Swarm ^X 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Swarm hits it right on the mark.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I don't believe I aggravated him. I think I was civil throughout, and happy for someone to review my posts. DeCausa (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Reporting someone for calling something "crap"? Could we possibly be any more thin-skinned?—Chowbok ☠ 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the report is not for the word 'crap' alone, but because the admin used their authority to close discussion, and then refused to discuss why. Without looking further, this sounds like a use of admin power that is a bit pushy and counter to the community/consensus view of reaching conclusions. To me, that type of behavior probably warrants at least a small poke here. -- Avanu (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not what happened. Nobody closed the discussion. I moved it to the sub-page where it should have been in the first place, but Ohnoitsjamie had nothing to do with that.—Chowbok ☠ 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment is not civil itself, Chowbok. On WQA, do not flame anyone like that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins go through a lot of stress. Sometimes simple disagreements may be enough for aggravation.

On another note, Ohnoitsjamie removed the WQA notice on his user talk page with "I don't want this" as his edit summary, suggesting that he is refusing to discuss here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him twice to explain his comment and he's just deleted the request. It's not reasonable behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but my best solution is this: ignore Jamie. Just totally move on. Ignore their comments and focus on the content issue you have. If Jamie's not going to cooperate, forget about him. Swarm ^X 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The machinery of creating an Encyclopedia is lubricated by two things:

• not upsetting people even if you think they deserve it
• not getting upset even when you think you've been insulted

Calling someone's thread "crap" is uncool, but fairly minor in the grand scheme of the universe, and probably best handled by letting it go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Well said, Floquenbeam. Jusdafax 03:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. Swarm ^X 07:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I echo that as well. On a separate point, if the talk page is being overwhelmed by tendentious debate, then sanctions on the other parties are likely...I hope that they consider attempting to address the concerns about (the appearance of) discussions being repeated to death. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The real problem here is the excessive number of pictures at Mohammad. As a result, in visual terms the article gives a distinctly Western view on the subject, which per WP:NPOV is not appropriate. That's as if the article Paris gave the measurements of the Eiffel Tower in feet first, rather than in metres, and the article was generally written as in a travel guide for American tourists, stressing tourist destinations, fast food restaurants and steak houses. This is just not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, and clearly the fact that it is so hard to solve this problem has something to do with the American majority among Wikipedians and the deeply engrained anti-Muslim prejudice that is rampant among Americans. This is about a mob that is systematically fighting for their right to affront Muslims just because they can. I wouldn't mind so much if this was only hitting the radical Muslims, but obviously it causes a solidarity effect in ordinary, westernised, Muslims who would not normally care about the depictions but obviously get angry in the same way that an American atheist living in an Islamic country might get angry if Bibles were burnt there. (Given that Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, I doubt that this is something that would happen, but I don't know for sure.) They might not mind one image, or two, in appropriate places of the article. But with six images there is just no plausible deniability of the real intention.

The problem is the collective actions of the mob, not of any single member of the mob. Disperse the mob, and the problem will be gone. While picking someone out and setting an example might help if successful, you have to pick out someone who has committed a major offence if you want to get anywhere. This thread is just a distraction. If anything, there should be a WQA thread on "the community" for systematic display of contempt against a non-negligeable part of our potential readers. Hans Adler 08:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:173.117.94.129 vandals baseball articles and insults other users

Resolved

 – user [blocked]

Swarm ^X 17:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• 173.117.94.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted offensive comments on my talk page
• Adam Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), diff for Adam Dunn
• Pat Burrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), diff for Pat Burrell

It seems this user did not appreciate me reverting both of his offensive edits. In return, the user posted an offensive comment on my user talk page. What should be done?

Xionbox^₪ 10:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That was quite uncalled for. Have left a warning. If they persist, either vandalizing or dropping F-bombs, report to WP:AIV. The Interior (Talk) 10:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sinclair Broadcasting Group

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Removed the vandalism Swarm ^X 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Runnerhowie (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Contained in the introduction paragraph for the SBG, it says in the second to last sentence: "SBG is now broadcasting Balto II: Wolf Quest and Balto III: Wings of Change." While I found this to be humorous, I seriously doubt it's relevancy to the article.

Can you please clarify your point, at this time I am not clear on what you are saying and why you are posting here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sent the user {{sofixit}}, removed the vandalism. That actually is pretty funny. Swarm ^X 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness

Resolved

 – User warned Swarm ^X 23:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fifthhorizon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Limp Bizkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In an edit summary, Fifthhorizon told me to "get a clue". There might be a mild content dispute in whether The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) is an EP or an LP. Another user provided sources indicating it as an LP, and I agreed and made the changes, but Fifthhorizon reverted the changes, twice. The content dispute could be resolved if Fifthhorizon engaged in any discussion about the changes, as I suggested, but telling another editor to "get a clue" was not necessary. WTF (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has been given an edit war warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

After thinking some more, the user has also been given a personal attacks warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't stop do feel free to come back. Swarm ^X 23:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncivility by user Biosketch?

Resolved

 – User warned. Swarm ^X 23:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Biosketch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite my efforts to edit and reach consensus on differences we were having on the page Miral, the User Biosketch, without informing me that he had done so, reported me to See here to the Admin Noticeboard/Edit Warring.

BioSketch has used terms such as referring to my conduct as having a "borderline paranoid frame of mind" accusing me of "suspicion and uncooperativeness" stating that I am "harrassing" other users (User:Plot Spoiler at Victoria Affair) and that I am stalking BioSketch "purely for spite." Other terms such as "aggressive, uncivil, unjustly suspecting, stubborn, disruptive, and obsessive" have been used openly by BioSketch. I have addressed both edit related questions posed by BioSketch and have addressed his comments directly related to me.

I have brought up that i believe that this type of behavior is a violation, among other things, of WP:EQ. But to no avail. BioSketch's justification for some of the behaviors displayed is to state that it wasn't addressed to me, but the admins (ie, not in second person). Further, BioSketch's justification for even bringing me into the issue of Edit Warring is because now it is evident that there is justification for the edits that I made that he previously disagreed with. Is this not a violation of wiki etiquette to bring someone into an EditWarring inquiry because of their dislike of one's edits?

All of what i reference is on http://Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. I appreciate the assistance. GoetheFromm (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User warned for personal attacks. Please feel free to update here if personal attacks persist. Regards, Swarm ^X 23:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. GoetheFromm (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Snakefan55

• Snakefan55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eastern Brown Snake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of incivility in edit summaries and talk pages, in addition to edit warring and refusal to cooperate with other editors. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG and Bill william compton

• KnowIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bill william compton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's incivility going on here, but as I'm an involved administrator, and I'd prefer not to mediate between these two, and dealing with this sort of thing, quite frankly, isn't my strength, I'd rather have someone else look at it.

The incivility is described in the thread WP:ANI#Disruptive refactoring at RFC/U - Reblock needed but isn't getting the attention it needs. From my cursory glance at their talk pages there's some incivility going on there too. --Rschen7754 10:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all though it is against me, I thank Rschen cause the issue is from Bill as well. reply more in a nbit.m KnowIG (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

he accused me of being rude and that I shouldn't use 'slang' saying his culture finds it offensive therefore I shouldn't use it in other words I don't understand it so I'm going to stomp my feet. He also accused me of getting involved on a GAC Only beacuse your British (which is offensive). In response I said something that I probably (considering this user) should never had said, but in context... still. Anyway I then appologised. but Bill continued to be incivil and baiting with comments such as this and the two previous ones he made I'm better that you and can't be racist because I have a British flag on show (wow!). Note he has continued to bring issues up when it has been dropped see 21st and 24th to carry on being incivil and to harrase espically after an appolgy went in from me. he also put this box on my review of netball, specifically after he was [told not to put it there, but to put it in a bit saying GA proceduers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_william_compton&diff=next&oldid=419779495]. He didn't have to do that, he was clearly stirring and being incivil and can't follow instructions (if he did that by accident which I find very hard to believe). KnowIG (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)