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 discussions

MarcusBritish on WebHamster

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Referred to AN/I, please continue discussion there. Gerardw (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

MarcusBritish on WebHamster:

• he is a prime nut
• his "Godfather" persona
• (an example of) mental cases
• (among people of whom one can say that) society rejects them

-- and all those within a single message. I realize that indefinitely blocked editors (presumably blocked for good reason) who are less than polite when blocked (and indeed drop the occasional "F-bomb") may seem fair game, but this is overdoing it. I'd have a word with him myself, but I've been identified as belonging to the same "clique" as the blocked WebHamster, I've recently written amicably to and about WebHamster, and I've recently written with some irritation about MarcusBritish, so all in all mine would not be the most persuasive voice. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes my hands are up, I'm guilty of voicing the opinions of the people, including those 60–65% who supported his block. Get a clue Hoary, you few, you "special" few who kiss his feet and the ground he treads on really do disgust me, and these tactical manoeuvres to darken the name of those who oppose your precious group are hardly subtle. I stand by every word I say without remorse. Apologise? Honour? Are you trying to be funny or condescending? Honour is between gentlemen, which he is far from, especially with his gutter language. Your "irritation" is somewhat misplaced, as are your loyalties to one disruptive blocked, by majority consensus, editor rather than to the wider Wiki community. You're wasting admin resources here, and are looking for retaliation. I'm amused, because you can't justify your support the sockmaster without even taking my words out of context: "...respectable contributors, who are trying to create an encyclopedia, not a bloody forum for mental cases to..." Note: "cases", plural, WH is one person. Silly, silly. I was referring to the "Wiki is not therapy" in my own words. You knew that though. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a user is deservedly blocked, saying "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour."[1] strikes me as just hateful. Gerardw (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I hate what he is, what he stands for. I hate his language, rhetoric, arrogance, manipulation, dishonesty, cunning and persistent distasteful attitude. He's not a "good guy", not likable, nor does he feel he has to co-operate with Wiki policies, editors or anything. He is a law unto himself. I admit that I do not believe his "autistic" claims. I think he's playing for sympathy, and I refuse to AGF that he had any condition other than "gutter mouth". I don't feel the need to defend myself for standing up for Wiki policies or the 60–65% who want him gone, in the face of his supporters, or anyone who endorses his presence. Perhaps I shall request a consensus to block, blank and protect his talk page altogether in light of this "Save the WebHamster" campaign? See how the community responds to that, shall we? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you advising me to get a clue. (I hadn't realized that I kissed anybody's feet or the ground anybody treads on, but I live and learn.) I am not trying to be funny or condescending. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"I hate his language, rhetoric, arrogance, manipulation, dishonesty, cunning and persistent distasteful attitude" could also describe MarcusBritish. Two wrongs don't make a right. 86.169.227.208 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Clichés don't make a strong point. Also, you failed to identify what I'm supposed to have done "wrong", so there's little to be gained from your empty words. Although I'm sure the answer would be subjective, anyway, so you'd only be wasting your time. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Refering to someone as a mental case is a PA. As is calling him a prime nut(and if he has aspergers is also very offensivew). He got blocked for not keeping his gob in order and so should you if you continue in this vein.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No Steven, it isn't a PA. "Mental case" is no different to saying "wheelchair bound". And "nut", derivative of "nut case" is an everyday insult – someone in his position better be prepared to get as good as they give, with his potty mouth. Being British yourself, you should understand our cultural self-deprecation by now. Please don't waste your time with "it is!" remarks either, the matter is subjective and I'm not interested, we could argue the point until 2012 and still not agree. And do keep up with the times, the "aspergers" thing changed, he now claims to have "autism" – and let's keep a very open mind about the fact that anyone can claim to have anything online in order to gain sympathy or feign offence to gain retribution. Note that at one point he implied to have Tourette's then repudiated the claim when it didn't work out, which suggest to me that he games to garner sympathy – AGF policy abuse. You cannot prove anyone's age, colour, religion, sexuality, mental or physical condition, political beliefs, or claims to have been in prison, raped, molested, orphaned, traumatised, etc etc, unless you actually know them in person – even then, several of those bear no physical characteristics or medical evidence (i.e. no blood test can prove someone's religious, political or sexual leanings). Only when people apply a stigma on mental health issues does "mental case" become a PA. Just as using the term "gay" to express disapproval is not an actual homophobic attack – political correctness is not required on Wiki, not is it uncivil. And thank "God" for that, liberal-minded editors are stifling enough. I find it amusing that someone should find "Godfather persona" a PA. Yet if you called them "Einstein" they'd be chuffed to the chuds. Hoary is making a meal of this case and only giving me a vast playing field on which to throw out more of his mate's troublesome past, whereas I have no past to offer. So these sly attempts to debase me by his chums are futile. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Disagree, slightly. The offensiveness of calling an editor a prime nut is independent of personal characteristics of the editor. Gerardw (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also say that calling someone a mental case is not the same as calling then wheelchair bound, its more like calling them a spastic (especially given the context). Also self-deprecation, means you take the piss out of yourself, it does not mean taking the piss out of others.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Times change fast and frequently. "The Spastic Society" is now SCOPE. "Queer as Folk" would once have been considered an offensive title. Black people calling themselves "nigga". The list is endless, because some people still use "spastic", some gays still hate "queer", some blacks hate "nigga". There's no standard for what is acceptable to who. "Nut" to me, is mild, like "git". It is used more often to suggest someone is crazy (mad, deranged, prone to anger, bad-tempered), rather than actually mentally-ill. Self-deprecating is cultural – most British comedies are based on it... Black Adder, Gimme Gimme Gimme, Dad's Army – those take the mick out of well known British traits and events, not just individuals. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be because they are British, taking the piss out of the British. As such I can only assume that your insults were aimed at one of your own accounts, are you therefore the same person who used the WebHammster account? If not you are not taking the piss but of yourself but someone else. In fact your attitude and actions are so similar that I think a block for this may be the only answer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You've convoluted the matter into a circular argument. He's him – the nut. I'm me – the git who called him a nut because he's in the habit of spinning out of control rapidly. He says so himself.. some crap about "poke the bear and it'll wake up" on his talkpage. To be frank, I've yet to see it in hibernation. No self-control.. though perhaps that's his "autism". Who truly knows? Blocks don't scare me, btw. Blocks used to "get even" are against policy. And your hasty judgement is ill-conceived. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You claimed its self-depreciating, that can only be true if you are the same user who created WebHammster. The fact you say you are not mean its not self-deprecation (and thus is an invalid excuse for your tone). Moreover I fail to see how my calling for a block is getting even with you, as (to my knowledge) we have never interacted until now. Also what hasty judgement is ill conceived?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Go read the instructions atop the page. If you want a block, go motion one an AN/I or wherever. Your judgement is ill-conceived because you don't appear to understand the full picture or history of this case. Your remarks are baseless. Ciao for now, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The intructions at the top of the page are about filling a request for assistance, as I did not request this how does it apply to me?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because you didn't open the request doesn't mean you can make motions contrary to the purpose of this board – there are purpose-built boards for such requests. You're barking up a telegraph pole instead of a tree. Now, unless you have some kind of OCD, you're not providing any "assistance" here, in which case.. go do something else worthwhile with your time. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Marcus; if WH bothers you that much just ignore him, simple. Go do something constructive & related to building an encyclopaedia. Long, immature and wearisome rants are only going to encourage admins to block you. I am not sure what point you are trying to prove with this continuing screed, but what it is doing is prolonging a tedious issue that seemed put to rest. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I could have told you that. It's these people siding with a blocked troublemaker who are provoking the issue. I reply to them, not them to me. Fact of the matter is, we have too many turncoat admins more willing to support a long-term deviant of Wiki policies, a sockmaster, an aggressive wiki-lawyer. Editors who take joy in allowing him free access to talk page, which he now uses as a forum, almost therapeutically, as well as seeking leverage to overturn a block agreed by a consensus, which he and several other just cannot accept. I have already indicated this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for blocked people to prolong the pain of their disruptions and seem sympathy and compassion. And admin who blocks me is going to open a whole new can of worms, because it's a simple matter of requesting a consensus to block WH's talkpage for good, and prevent his pet-admins from reverting the block so that he can continue to offend the community and spirit of Wiki.

And here's something else for you to consider. WH says "well if you block me, I'll just sock with IPs that can't be banned due to mass use" – seems like he holds all the Aces. But ANYONE can make that claim. So why doesn't someone call his bluff, and get him to post with a few of those so called "invulnerable" IPs, then we can have an admin verify them and confirm that he is "unblockable". Until then, his claims are empty, and he's simply trying to get his block over-turned with idle threats. I'm not as naive as some, I think things through and see deception. And not as willing to see Wiki overrun with persistent constant foul language users, uncivil attacks across all of wiki, offensive edit summaries, and such. So people can shout "MarcusBritish is uncivil" all they bloody like. But if you dig deep enough into the matter, you will find it couldn't be further from the truth and will also find my comments all follow one underlying motive unwaveringly – the prevention of free access to Wiki by long-term "shit stirrers", via recognition of their trends. I put WH in the same bag as that TreasuryTag character who got away with murder, manipulated many a good editor, changed his tone to suit his detractors, and all along one thing applies, to him and to WH: A tiger can't change its stripes! Problem I see, is too many people are willing to turn a blind eye, abandon the community, and support the bad guy. Like wanting to let a wasp lose indoors, so it can sting again. But hey, you go ahead and dismiss all that as "immature" if you like, because everyone on Wiki is such a good faith assuming flock, that WH might as well be given an admin mop, WMF grants and presidency, because he's such a marvellous guy! Right? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are totally correct (although I haven't checked each post to see whether any might have breached CIVIL), however my suggestion would be to ignore the issue for a couple of weeks. Wikipedia is a big place, and contributors include a wide range of people, some of whom have ridiculous ideas about what is helpful for the encyclopedia. We all know that CIVIL applies to everyone, and we are not allowed to point out the obvious, so that should not be unduly repeated. However, participating further in debates over the issue would be pointless as it is merely amusing the onlookers. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice to see someone who doesn't have an axe to grind against the wrong party! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I susgest you look at the history of Webbys blocks and ask yourself why would I (of all people) have an axe to grind over this issue. I would have more faith in your intentions if it was not obvious that I have no time for Webby or his childish games.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. You say you have no time for WH and his games, which I agree with. The only reason he is active, even with a block, is due to support from a handful of enablers and toadies to his will, which depends on your POV. The only way his childish games could possibly end are if he was blocked indef, which he is, but with his talkpage fully blocked so that he could no longer communicate with anyone. And pp-talkpage to prevent communication with him. Two way block, no crap in, no support out. That seems a simple solution, the only solution, which you could agree to would result in 100% end to his games, via that account. The same solution, if you read everything I've ever said on him, that I've been asking for all along. Yet, for some addlepated reason, you want me blocked instead of him, despite the fact I'm virtually campaigning on behalf of your apparent distaste for him. That's a bit like those who support reforms to the British economy, but then want the anti-capitalist protesters in London removed, instead of the bankers who cause economic misery fired. So either get your mind in order as to where you stand, or if you don't have time for the full matter, period, why don't you refrain from commenting here on your time, because your comment above is hypocritical. I don't see any connection between you and WH's blocklog – so if he's been blocked before at your request, you'll have to give us a hint, i.e. some diffs, instead of a nob in one general area. And FYI, the top of this page reads: "Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks." At the moment, you and I are also falling into a fresh spiral of disagreement, because you don't stand on firm ground, you just talk meaningless talk and just appear to want "in" on this circus act promoted by Hoery. So unless you want to fall into the "uncivil trap" also, whether intended or not, I suggest you get your camp organised, instead of speaking for yourself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

When have I sadi I don't want him blocked?Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

More pertinent a question: When have you said you do? No table turning mumbo-jumbo here. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"you want me blocked instead of him" is what you have acused me off, where have I said that? Also try cheking the history of the case [2]Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[3] Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do forgive me, but I fail to see there where I say I want you blocked instead of Webby, I belive I say that you should be blocked as well as Webby. If your going to gob off at least be accurate about whatever you claim someone has said. Also do a little research next time, you only had to check webbys history to see that I have been in conflict with him.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't weasel out of your own remarks – just because you didn't say you "don't want him blocked" doesn't mean you said "you did" either – you've made no motions on supporting my proposal to block/protect his talkpage indef, you just seem to enjoy arguing for arguments sake, yet you don't seem to have a position. Placing yourself a in ambiguous "safe" position so that you can "escape" any form of challenge is deceitful and undignified. As for "a little research", July 2009 was 21⁄2 bloody years ago. Seeing as you were already aware of the date and event, wasn't it so much easier for you to simply point to the page in the first place, than expect me to dig bag through 21⁄2 years of yours or his edit history in the hopes of spotting that trivial tit-for-tat? Think I've got nothing better to do than chase your old ghosts? But regardless, you have a history with WH. So where do you stand: should he be allowed free access to his talk page to engage with editors, make subtle and not so subtle snide remarks, attempt to overturn a block than was reached through a ~65% consensus? Or are you going to make an enemy of me, by suggesting that I'm in the wrong for suggesting he should be banned outright? This ain't no death penalty campaign you know.. putting his account on the block doesn't stop him breathing and going elsewhere to continue his aggressive existence! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop putting words and intents into my mouth, Where have I said you are in the wrong for suggesting he be banned outright? What I have said is you have no right to insult other users. As to why I have not asked for him to be blocked from editing his talk page, if you check the current talk page you will see I have in effect been warned of any interaction with him. As such if I were to 'support' your aim I might myself face sanction for 'kicking a user when he is down'. As such I have had to disengage from webby (and regardless I don't agree he should have no right of appeal).Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#MarcusBritish I feel there is nothing more to say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's how you want to play it.. fair game.

• "What I have said is you have no right to insult other users." So now you're here: "The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks."
• "I have in effect been warned of any interaction with him". So really, by interacting with me, whilst effectively "topic banned" from him, you have a COI, a bias, to "wipe the slate" so to speak with regards you history with him. So your interaction with me is little more than.. what? A chance to have a whinge? Thus far, having failed to "help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution", due to a) Webhamster is blocked, he can't come here. b) You can't interact with him. c) I don't interact with him, and never have directly, afaik.
• So in conclusion, the issue, raised by Hoary, is invalid. There is no interaction between myself and WH. There never has been. The matter has been discussed on ANI, and two talk pages - Roger Davies, and mine. And here. Given that Hoary has not been willing to participate in this conversation, and is potentially a WH supporter, he too has COI concerns that make his position unattainable. Which leads to the added conclusion that he simply created this page, in the false hopes of luring, entrapping, whatever, me into becoming genuinely uncivil, into telling people like yourself to "F--k off!" etc, so that he might have some more solid grounds for pushing his POV through ANI. Clearly he has failed in his mission, because I'm not the type to dismiss people in such manner. I'm a thoughtful guy who has more integrity than he. You may question my civility, perhaps my motives. But if you cross the line and question my honesty, you step into dangerous ground, contrary to everything wiki stands for. The concerns of WH's clique do not interest me, nor do their attempts to force me to back down in my opinions.
• Seems you have nothing more to gain by rattling on here, and I have nothing to defend, as you have no case - your "ban" with WH means you are in no position to resolve anything. Not that you attempted to "assist" anyway, though. You can get off your high horse now. I know I can't insult other users. However, if my raising someone's history as proof of incompetence and demanding their outright block is "insulting" then so be it.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:22, 26 November 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.

Editor is following my edits and canvassing

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – no action required Gerardw (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Well, all that has transpired explains it all then. I hereby retract my accusation. I do not back away from one single statement of mine, I'm simply dropping it. You won, E. There's clearly not enough room in the known universe to argue with British Markus and Walter Goorlitz. Djathinkimacowboy 16:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My report is against User:Erikeltic, who has been stalking mewatching your contribs and following you around and canvassing editors to do the same. They in turn are either edit warring or simply following up my edits. I would love it if that editor could be warned to stop doing this to me. He thinks I am a sock of some old enemy of his. I'm sorry if I formatted this wrongly. Djathinkimacowboy 06:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have informed him when opening this discussion. I have done that. If he strongly suspects you are a sock, he needs to go via WP:SPI and state his case. No point in arguing "if" you are or not between each other. Admins have the tools to check. Simple as that. If admins confirm you're not, his case is closed and he should stop claiming you are socking. If you are, they will deal with it as necessary. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what you suggest has been done - and I trust the admins. who are investigating in the SPI he opened. I know they have the tools, and I know I am innocent. Not to beat a dead horse, please forgive me, but I am most interested in stopping him canvassing. It is not something I myself can successfully do - he will obviously delete all pertinent posts of mine, and he will claim ignroance. He has done that heretofore. I have noted that my favourite subjects are being monitored for my edits only, and more often than not the result is edit warring by the other party. Do you think I can advise him to stop and be successful, having advised him of it already to no avail? I have even raised this subject at the SPI. He's making my life horrible. Editing on Wikipedia was something I used to enjoy. In any case, my humble thanks to you. Djathinkimacowboy 08:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would first suggest you list some diffs that support your claim. To me it sounds like paranoia, but if you can present proof of this behaviour with your edits being closely followed by reversions or rewrites, it may be considered disruptive behaviour that you can present to AN/I. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to wait for the SPI to conclude, and I would also like to see what Erikeltic has to say as well. The diffs would also be useful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sir, that is a great deal of work, trouble and time. Might I suggest, to begin: User:Erikeltic has a sordid past of his own sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting. See here:1 and here:2 (I believe the incident is #41 or #42 in the table of contents). With the small amount of time I have got, I'll try to gather links to prove my point - first see the 2009 charges against that editor, then you'll know how difficult it will be to prove most of what he's doing. Djathinkimacowboy 09:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You may find this of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erikeltic

• For information purposes: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Fuersturm

Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds - i.e. holding grudges is counter-productive. An SPI dating back 2–3 years means nada now. Maybe if it were less than 6 months old it'd matter. But more than that, you're just digging up old skeletons.

As for this "stalking" claim, I only found one example on Spock:

• Djathinkimacowbut adds names of Spock actors ("young" Spocks in III): [4]
• Erikeltic removes name without leaving edit summary: [5]

Hardly a big matter, though.

Seems to be a lot of petty squabbling, condescending remarks at one another, and such.

Still, need to await Erikeltic's side of things too. But 2–3 year old SPIs.. forget it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Sir, that is a great deal of work, trouble and time." – You want to make a case, you make the time and prove your case. We don't react so hearsay, POV, or "cos I said so". Diffs, evidence, support your accusations. Erikeltic seems to be good at getting diffs, which could tip the scales in his favour and leave you dangling on a rope just because it's "too much effort". If you want to make an issue of this, then do it be the book. Identify the problem with diffs, not tell-tales. If we consider it serious, you will need this diffs for any AN/I case. If you go rattling off an unsupported story to them empty-handed, they'll dismiss you also, or consider you uncivil. No point bringing a case here then not being willing to follow it through. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Any moment I might be blocked if this thing is decided rapidly. So here you are, for starters:

Changes via stalking & planned edit warring to Zucchetto by User:MikeWazowski whom you will see in the old matters is an old meat puppet for User:Erikeltic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462757821

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeWazowski&diff=prev&oldid=462760165

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462760184

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462761325

...and I quit editing after this, suspecting entrapment.

Interference by Wazowski at my talk page (harassment): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djathinkimacowboy&diff=prev&oldid=462760281 and may I add that I resent your intimation that these problems are "because I said so". These problems are because of the malfeasance of User:Erikeltic. Did you not bother to read the earlier materials? What use is that? They provide evidence of what that editor does! Or can he change in 2 years into an angel, whilst I cannot even defend myself? Djathinkimacowboy 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2 years.. almost 3. It means nothing. And there is no "intimation" so you can resent 'til the cows come home. Either you can prove your story, or you can't. That's called "fact vs theory". Also, "malfeasance" is an "official misconduct". Wiki has policies and guidelines. Nothing is "official" they are simply various levels of standards. There seems to be some hyperbole on your part, I advise you remain objective and refrain from throwing "old news" into the ring. If Erikeltic has been harassing you, we need recent examples, that relate to you. These 2/3 years old cases aren't worth looking at. Attributing past behaviour to present behaviour isn't how we do things. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Will you read what new diffs I am offering now, or won't you? Here's all of it - that which remains of what I can give you on Wazowski and User:EEMIV: Changes via stalking & planned edit warring to Zucchetto by User:MikeWazowski whom you will see in the old matters is an old meat puppet for User:Erikeltic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462757821

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeWazowski&diff=prev&oldid=462760165

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462760184

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462761325

...and I quit editing after this, suspecting entrapment.

These "examples" are different editors, in different subjects. OR warnings are not harassment, they are there to advise you of a breachof policy. Tagging is not harassment, they are there to serve as cleanup messages for other editors, to aid improvement. I suggest you read WP:OWN. No one owns an article, no matter how hard they work on it. Expect other people to tag articles when problems are found, mercilessly. As for those top tags - they are right - references are given but no in-line citations. I'd have tagged it myself, I had seen it first. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spock#Request_for_assistance_in_addendum_to_lead_photo_info -This is where the trouble with User:Erikeltic began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEMIV#Spock_2 -This is where User:Erikeltic began his campaign and his canvassing, at User:EEMIV talk page.

Interference by Wazowski at my talk page (harassment): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djathinkimacowboy&diff=prev&oldid=462760281

Wazowski covers his tracks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMikeWazowski&action=historysubmit&diff=462771364&oldid=462761322

Erikeltic attempts to harass me on Wazowski's page (note both diffs): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMikeWazowski&action=historysubmit&diff=462760165&oldid=462759725 Djathinkimacowboy 09:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, you'd have tagged it yourself if you had been canvassed just sufficiently enough. That article hadn't been touched in I do not know how long. And as I said, this is only the beginning ... and I am TIRED. It seems you are not carefully reading the rest of the diffs, especially User:Erikeltic's. Forgive me, but the attitude here is making me smell something burning. Djathinkimacowboy 09:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? If something is burning, it's probably the axe you keep grinding. I don't see anything in these diffs that support the definition of "stalking". Stalking lasts for months, is a malicious act and usually subtle. This guy seems to think you're a dick, and you think he's a dick. There is nothing of substance in these diffs. At most he is being uncivil by remarking on talk pages that do not concern him. I see no major disruption to articles, however. You seem angry at these people because they challenged your edits. Nothing more. Time doesn't matter on wiki. People can add articles to their watchlist which never get touched for months. Then you come along, make an unsupported edit, and they remove it. That's not stalking.. it's part of the system. Anyone can monitor anything, if it interests them enough. Anyway, I've looked at your POV, I suggest you wait until Erikeltic comments and, without interfering, allow me or others, to consider his comments. Then we'll know what the situation is, and where you stand. Of course, if you intend to "quit editing after this", the outcome won't bother you. Right? This page aims to resolve a dispute, not to take sides. So please don't come all cocky with me because I don't instantly take your word for granted. I haven't heard his story yet. Even then, I will only advise you both. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you shall excuse me. Point well taken. I was overtired - and no axes here except perhaps the one Erikeltic placed close to my nether regions. I do not mean to be burdensome now, but you will want this:

At Ring (jewellery) previously uninvolved user IP 69.152.169.56 (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.152.169.56) suddenly removes a line for no reason, leaving a gaping space, and cites that the edit is due to the line being uncited. This type of edit warring will begin to look familiar soon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ring_%28jewellery%29&action=historysubmit&diff=462804665&oldid=462722258

At Slouch hat, previously uninvolved user IP 70.160.31.50 (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.160.31.50) does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slouch_hat&action=historysubmit&diff=462724461&oldid=461033582

At Faleristics, previously uninvolved User:Giraffedata, who apparently is on a crusade to eliminate all uses of the term "comprised of", does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faleristics&action=historysubmit&diff=462842034&oldid=462056352 and this is the funniest of all because this one shows little activity prior to my editing there.

All examples coincide with User:Erikeltic's extensive canvassing. And how coincidental that they suddenly appear simultaneously at many of my favorite articles. All I ask is you contemplate the page histories when you review this evidence. They hold the key, because they prove that these edits are particular and suspicious.

As to the mysteriously appearing IPs, who knows who they are; it is easier to canvass when only IPs are used in reply. And Erikeltic has done all this before, as I have already demonstrated. It is your wrong-headed choice to ignore that evidence, which has direct bearing on what Erikeltic is doing now, in this case. Djathinkimacowboy 12:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! When I wrote that "I quit editing after this, suspecting entrapment," it was in reference to the diff link immediately above that phrase. I hope you did not think I meant you or this page! My reference was to being snared into an edit war at Zucchetto. Did you really not understand that bit? Djathinkimacowboy 12:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. There is no foundation to this report. I would suggest that Djathinkimacowboy should let the issue drop. Someone disagreeing with you is not uncivil. I stopped reading about halfway down after looking at the sockpuppet accusations and the first set of diffs, which were not only civil but correctly implemented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so hasty, if you please. Djathinkimacowboy 15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your addition here was a desperate attempt to remove someone whom you perceive as a competitor. It's inappropriate to be an ongoing discussion. You've been discovered and it's time to drop it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, "discovered" doing what? Stop what? "Wikihounding, as you accused me of doing at the SPI? Thanks, loving ally of Erikeltic, but you're doing yourself no favors either. Djathinkimacowboy 16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And to make a counter claim: this is uncivil. Please stop attacking editors who disagree with you. It doesn't help your case here or anywhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Having read all of the responses, only one editor, the original nominator, seems to think this is a valid case. Time to close. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You were being asked a legitimate question. Who are you? What is your keen interest here? It's strange the way I keep hearing from my opposition's supporters. I wondered who you were and why you find this all so laughable. And I'd appreciate it if you kept your lies about my "wikihounding" off this discussion! Djathinkimacowboy 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

First, calling me names by intentionally misspelling my name doesn't impress me.

Second, check the edit history of this page. I have been a watcher on Wikiquette assistance for about a month.

Third, you are a reprehensible little man. You just called me a liar but at least I don't come to several pages, which in itself is against policy if not common sense, and make accusations because someone accuses you of adding information without references. That's worse than wikihounding, but it is a form of it. When you go to my talk page and make veiled accusations there, when they belong at the appropriate discussion that's clearly wikihounding. You disgust me. You represent the worst part of wikipedia: hypocrites; those who can't see their own faults but jump on others for what they perceive as faults when it's just a disagreement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Erikeltic

First, I want to say thanks to MarcusBritish for letting me know about this discussion. The irony is that I'm being accused of canvassing and I had no idea this discussion was taking place. Second, I want to state to everyone that this will be my one and only response to all of this nonsense. Djathinkimacowboy appears to be a sock puppet for the indefinitely banned Jake Fuerstrum. The details of that ongoing SPI can be found in this link [6]. I will not rehash all of that in this place, as it would be inappropriate. The allegation of canvassing that Cowboy/Jake is making is just another example of his long history of WP:NOTTHEM. Repeatedly Cowboy/Jake starts Wiki-wars, then feigns innocence, and wears the victim's cloak by accusing other editors of the very behavior that he is complaining about. A quick look at both of his editing accounts' histories demonstrates that fact. Let me be clear about something -- I have not canvassed Jake/Cowboy at any point. I offered him an opportunity to explain why he appeared to be a sock puppet (upon our "first" meeting) and he became unnecessarily belligerent. As he made more edits and continued making ad hominem attacks [7] I became more and more convinced that Cowboy was Jake Fuerstrum. Cowboy himself wrote on my talk page (after having been asked more than once to stay off of it) "If you have proof, produce it." [8] So I did. I gathered the proof, opened an SPI, and alerted two other editors that were involved in the Spock article. One of those editors, EEMIV actually asked that I alert him if I opened an SPI. Since I opened the SPI, Jake/Cowboy has been canvasing [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. The allegations he is making here is just another example of his own bad behavior and is laughable at best. Again, the irony is that I am being accused of canvasing. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that explains it all then. I hereby retract my accusation. I do not back away from one single statement of mine, I'm simply dropping it. You won, E. There's clearly not enough room in the known universe to argue with British Markus and Walter Goorlitz. Djathinkimacowboy 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

This is an open and shut case.

Djathinkimacowboy – you came here to resolve an issue. Instead of accepting the investigation of editors, you are attacking their conclusions. How does one resolve uncivil behaviour, if you're only going to extend an uncivil attitude towards them? Lighten up...

There are over 10 million registered members on Wiki, and millions more anon IP users. You cannot feasibly attribute them all to Erikeltic. That's paranoia, and leads to highly disruptive reactions, first from you, then from those you're accusing, resulting a battlefield. Admins could swiftly consider you a risk to the project if you continue to aggravate parties without substantial proof.

I suggest you both keep away from each other. Respect each others edits. Do not track each others edits on talk pages and come interjecting. Do not endorse or support other editors giving warnings on one anothers page.

In a week or two it'll all blow over.

And FYI my username reads MarcusBritish – that order, no space, 'c' not 'k' – your childish renaming does you no favours with me. Grow up. You're not here to argue, anyway. You're here to present a case and look to resolve it!

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing this nonsense for what it was. I don't know that it will blow over though, as the editor clearly has a grudge against me. Once the SPI comes through and reveals that Cowboy is actually Jake, I suppose I will need to wait until his next regeneration comes calling to cause more problems. Both of their histories read like a guide of what not to do on Wikipedia. ~sigh~ FWIW, Jake also refered to me as "E" and did petty name stuff like above. It's interesting, but the more he edits/flames/rages, the bigger the hole he's digging for himself. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with MarcusBritish. Time to close. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, feel free to close. Djathinkimacowboy, I suggest you distance yourself from the matter for a while. If your "suspicions" still exist in a few weeks, try WP:AN/I, but with what you've presented here, it won't get far, and with your self-defeating attitude, could get yourself a block. Erikeltic, don't give cowboy any reason to imply you are stalking him by commenting on any user talk pages he has, unless it's vital to the improvement of an article or a serious dispute resolution manner. i.e. no chit chat to upset him. There have been some minor snide remarks from you also, I will note, but either way, I suggest you both stop your interaction and let the matter drop. If he persists in accusing you of things, you too can use AN/I. Thanks all for your time. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:30, 28 November 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.

Persistent personal attacks over content dispute, reopened

Work in progress; comments welcome

Regarding reopening, it is really beyond WQA's remit to do what you're asking for. If actual admin intervention is required, then WP:ANI is thataway. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. All I'm asking for is that an admin ask the user to stop making personal attacks and explicit assumptions of bad faith, which the user continues to make, both in edit summaries and on the talk page. If a request for such seemingly minor intervention is beyond the scope of WQA, what is within the scope of WQA? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While I've some evidence admins occasionally stalk this page, it's mostly mostly non-admin editors who help out here. The first diff you present is a very mild personal attack, as these things go, and the second diff not a personal attack at all. I went to Bloodofox's talk page to ask him to rejoin the discussion but I see that before you initiated the WQA you called him a dick? Twice? That's certainly more offensive than 'ideological user.' I'd advise you to tone it down and focus on the content dispute resolution. Gerardw (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Relentlessly accusing another editor of dishonest motives as a substitute for simply arguing about content and policy is not even in the same neighborhood as merely calling somebody a couple of names in two brief comments, spanning about 10 minutes, complaining about those persistent personal attacks (which continue even now). It's a little hard to focus on a content dispute when the other participant insists on making pointless accusations about my character, motives, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:Gray Area. While not unsympathetic to the situation, in my experience, few editors are willing to audit the history of two somewhat uncivil editors to ascertain which is being more uncivil than the other. My advice is to first ensure your own behavior is scrupulously correct and civil and to ignore the pointless accusations. Gerardw (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, now I wonder exactly why I wasn't notified of this being reopened? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was never "reopened" because it was never "closed"; just archived by a bot. And I didn't say anything new, just asked for comment on what had already been said. Not like this could have somehow taken you by surprise, so plz. don't pretend I was trying to ambush you or something by making new complaints that you had no opportunity to respond to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You "reopened" it and didn't notify me. And I was supposed to find that how? That speaks volumes. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't reopen it. No one ever closed it. I didn't add anything new. I didn't ask anything new of you. I asked for comment on what already had been said. The fact you're now trying to paint me as dishonest for seeking comment on an arbitration that I notified you about, after already having persistently accused me of dishonest motives, speaks "volumes". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You absolutely did "reopen" it, and days went by before I found out about it. Nice. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to Factchecker as ideological -- comment on the content not that contributor Gerardw (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to that for civility purposes, albeit I believe otherwise, and I think other users should be aware of his strong pro-Fox, anti-"far left" stance, and I don't see that as a personal attack, but rather a neutral observation.

So what happens when a user refers to another use as a "dick" and an "asshole"? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually an editors own actions make any biases apparent to the community so labeling the user isn't necessary; in any event, simply referring to the edits is a far better option in the long run. e.g. "Remove POV edit"

As for the personal attack, see [16]]. Gerardw (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Doug Guetzloe biography

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – answered on users' talk page Gerardw (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• [[17]]
• [[18]]

Just edited and reworked biography of Doug Guetzloe to clean up, add credible links and refine for neutral view. Original tags still remain. I believe article has been improved. Any advice on how to remove these tags, which are now misleading? Jerosaur (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks by Brewcrewer

• Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YehudaTelAviv64&action=history

Brewcrewer is attacking me on my talk page, even after posting a warning (User_talk:Brewcrewer#Personal_Attack) on his talk page. In his original attack, he accused me of being an editor who I have never heard of -- User:Supreme Deliciousness. Please, stop him from attacking me on my talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Sections Retitled as Personal Attacks

• Goodwinsands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I and another editor have expressed concerns to User:Goodwinsands about his editing history and possible multiple accounts since he started editing in January 2011. He now has renamed all those sections of his talk page to mock our concerns. He collapsed the entries under one title: Under the green bars: documentation of a tag-team harassment campaign. He renamed our section titles, per below. I think someone needs to explain Wikipedia policy on personal attacks and misuse of talk pages to Goodwinsand and encourage him to either revert to original comments or archive the whole mess.

• POV Warrior #1 tries: false accusation of sock puppetry (Was at this diff “Your editing history?”) Details of why I was suspicious are in a later WP:SPI link below.
• POV Warrior #2 tries: don't call a Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier (Was at this diff “BLPN Israel Shamir”) Regarding Goodwinsands adding a category to an article when that subject was currently under discussion at BLPN.
• POV Warrior #1 tries again: bogus redefinition of 'revert' in attempt to pin a false 1RR. (Was at this diff "Gilad Atzmon: Edit warring notice".) Per this discussion (at this diff) Goodwinsands inaccurately stated and perhaps still holds that "No, a revert means undoing the actions of another editor within the last 24 hours."
• POV Warrior #2 tries again: false allegations of sock puppetry (Was at this diff "Multiple accounts.") User:Off2riorob asked him about the possibility of multiple accounts.
• POV warriors #1 and #2 tag team in false accusation of sock puppetry, no not sock puppetry, erm, er, er, give us a sec and we'll come up with it... (Evidently Goodwinsands split up the "Multiple accounts" section.) Seeing I was not the only with suspicions, I decided to investigate further and at this diff discussed which editors on one sock puppet plagued article Goodwinsands possibly might be a sock or multiple account of. I was told by an administrator at this diff that if I had suspicions I should take it to Sockpuppet Investigation.
• POV Warrior #1 tries: another false accusation of sock puppetry Per administrator's comment I did so, whole discussion here. I guess it didn't present enough details and an admin closed it calling it a "fishing expedition."

Needlesstosay, this kind of mocking behavior discourages people from trying to deal with real concerns. Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice. Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC 05:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a very easy solution to this problem, though I strongly suspect you will not want to go along: Stop bothering him on his talk page. Make whatever comments you want about him on other talk pages (like this) where he can't change the section header. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility says "It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages..." This is the civility noticeboard. I'm just asking for someone to clue him in so the next person who has a legitimate concern isn't driven away by the mass attacks on those who have had past concerns. CarolMooreDC 05:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're worried about the next person, perhaps you should just wait for the next person to have the same problem.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, just to be clear here, because I have kept the evidence of your campaign of harassment against me on my talk page, and because I have labeled it for what it is, you continue your campaign of harassment here by complaining that I have dared to complain about your campaign of harassment?

One more for the list, then, isn't it. Goodwinsands (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)