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

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): [1]
• Erikeltic removes name without leaving edit summary: [2]

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 [3]. 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 [4] 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." [5] 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 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. 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)

"Days"? Try again -- more like 1 day, 10 hours. Stop trying to trump up trivial nothingness into something you could conceivably have a legitimate right to complain about. It's appalling that you would nitpick on silly details like this (and quibbling about how often I use the "outdent" tag, and reposting a comment from your Talk page on article talk) after making dozens of uncivil and snide character attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Weaseling around your lack of notification will get you nowhere. Equating crude name calling (which you blame me for) to referring to you as ideological also isn't helping your case. My "quibble" about your usage of the outdent tag, again, referred to your using it every few posts. Your spite post on my talk page was also very dubious. It's all here for the world to see, there's not much more I need to say about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I tolerated numerous insulting and rude comments from you, going beyond merely saying I'm ideological, before having a moment of anger and calling you a profane name and referring you to a Meta article that is redirected from WP:DICK. Since that brief outburst, I have said nothing about your character yet you continue to speak to me as one would speak to a dishonest and vile con artist. And yes, you quibble about trivial junk in an effort to make it look like you have anything legitimate to complain about other than the brief outburst in which I called you a profane name. Ask yourself: whether or not I "blame" you for making me angry enough to use profanity, do you really think it is in keeping with core WP policy—on how we're supposed to be polite to one another and ignore our differences—to constantly berate and act uncivilly towards someone you're having a content dispute with? Do you recognize that this treatment is going to do nothing productive, but merely make the other person upset and angry? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never called you any names. I've referred to you as ideological and accused you of heavy POV; that's hardly a personal attack in my book, but I have agreed to refer only to your actions. Your anger is your own issue to deal with, and there's no excuse for calling others names, no matter how angry you get. Nobody pressed those keys for you. I have the right to call you out in a Wikipedia-acceptable manner; i.e. I did not appreciate that you called me base names, that you did not let me know about this reopening, and I did not appreciate you spite-spamming on my talk page. Further, you should have taken the olive branch on the talk page when it was extended by another user (which I immediately agreed to) rather than coming straight here. In addition, you've repeatedly violated the revert rule you've placed on your talk page. All of this says something about where you're editing from and you need to really consider adjusting your approach for when you come across an editor who won't simply roll over. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to name a couple instances, it should be obvious to you that it's not "Wikipedia acceptable" to tell another user to "try to feign a little neutrality" or say "I guess the cheap shot was just too tempting for you", or accuse another of an "attempted hit job", or suggest I am a paid astroturfer, etc. Yeah, you made personal attacks; even now at the OWS talk page you can't even say 10 words on the subject without talking about my alleged political leanings, which you have no clue about, and which are irrelevant to the discussion. And what the hell is "spite spamming"? It seems you don't even realize how uncivil you're being and how far all of this is from being an acceptable and normal discussion of a content dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 2 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 [13]]. 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)

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.

---

• [[14]]
• [[15]]

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)

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.

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)

Didn't see this because of the melee below.

Yes, this edit and this edit are not at all civil. One should not allude to or accuse another editor of being a sockpuppet. It's a personal attack. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." YehudaTelAviv64 did the right thing in placing a NPA warning on Brewcrewer's talk page. Similarly his religious/ethnic attack is not acceptable. However, YehudaTelAviv64, you didn't notify Brewcrewer of this discussion. I can see, though, that he is aware of the page and had ample opportunity to respond. I would like to see his response here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 2 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)

Please ignore Brewcrewer as his advice is neither helpful nor appropriate. One does not tolerate uncivil behaviour until it bites another user. We talk to the editor and inform them of their behaviour in order to avoid future confrontations. Brewcrewer also appears to be involved with the accused having left a welcome message on the user's talk page. Not sure what the association is.

With that said, have you notified Goodwinsands of this discussion? The behaviour described, and some other behaviour not mentioned, is not at all civil, but I would like to hear the editor's side of the story. I went to the talk page and did not see a notice there.

Also, the behaviour of the other two editors is not civil. One does not allude to or hint that another editor is a sockpuppet. With that said, incivility does not call for further incivility.

As a result of the edit conflict, I see that Goodwinsands knows what is happening here and continues to attack rather than comment on his own behaviour. This is for discussion not attacks. There was no campaign of harassment so there's nothing to complain about to. They were trying to engage you in conversation, which you don't seem to like to do. Perhaps a cool-off period would be a good first step--walk away from the article you're having contention over and come back in a week or two. If you're still planning on editing the same articles, discussion would be a good second step. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz is correct. I looked at this report earlier but decided not to post because the refactored headings at User talk:Goodwinsands were not knock-out examples of incivility, and I thought my comments would be misinterpreted. However, the "One more for the list, then, isn't it" comment above shows that involvement is required. A good way to understand why Wikipedia's procedures is as they are is to contemplate what the inevitable outcome of not having those procedures would be. For example, if a civil and relevant comment at a noticeboard can be dismissed as "one more for the list", what is to stop those on the other side from responding in kind, with a downward spiral into what is seen at all unmoderated Internet forums. Please just stick to discussing issues related to improvement of article content. If unwelcome comments appear on a user's talk page, that user is entitled to simply revert them (and if wanted, a pointy but polite edit summary such as "misguided" can be used for the revert). But it is not helpful for community collaboration for editors to refactor the headings of posted comments and to add commentary about those who posted them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The talk page headings are personal attacks and it would be best if Goodwinsands changes them. 11:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

Just to clarify, as I wrote above: Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice." I should have asked someone else to. But frankly he monitors all my edits so I knew he'd find out. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No editor can bar anyone else from commenting on that editor's talk page. Only an admin can lock a talk page and they have to have very serious reasons from doing so. The "barring" in an of itself is not civil. The best one can do is request that an editor not hound you on your talk page and open a case for hounding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As Goodwinsands' reply here indicates they are aware of the discussion, it's a moot point. I concur with both the interpretation that a "ban" is not supported by policy and the wisdom of respecting a request not to post a notice. I periodically post the WQA-notice myself if a poster has missed the instruction to, or, as in this case, made a conscious decision to avoid escalating the conflict. Gerardw (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on no provision for "banning." I certainly comply when it's a matter of just discussing things on their talk page. But when it is a matter of alerts that need to be made, I'm glad to see we still have that right. (I also just remembered that "Retired" User:Spaceclerk also banned the same two editors as Goodwinsands because of our suspicions and an SPI. Will have to write that factoid down somewhere.) CarolMooreDC 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor becoming increasingly uncivil

• MathewTownsend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:MathewTownsend (edit | [[Talk:User talk:MathewTownsend|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor has become increasingly hostile and uncivil during Talk Page discussions and in edit summaries, resulting in unwarranted personal attacks against me. Diff links:

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4

This seems to have started when I spoke out against the editor's use of forum shopping and Wiki-lawyering when not getting the answers he was looking for at two forums. On his talk page, I asked him to step back for a bit and allow things to progress naturally at the noticeboard RfC's he's filed today rather than trying to force them to progress. His responses are in the diff links above. The latest personal attack from him that was the last straw for me: "I don't think I want to be a bullying editor who assumes bad faith like you are and reverts as a way of life."

The incivility from this editor has gone beyond anything appropriate and/or necessary, in my opinion. In the future, I want to be able to edit cooperatively and collegially with this editor, but the hard feelings and atmosphere he's creating and perpetuating as demonstrated by the above diffs are making that more and more an unlikely scenario. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything more? The four diffs show pretty ordinary back-and-forth on a user talk page. When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with "There is no deadline in Wikipedia". I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level". It may well be that some inappropriate behavior is going on somewhere, but WP:CIVIL is not a guarantee that editors will not face frank opinions when raising an issue at a user talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)