Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

Question regarding a rude editor

Stale

 – It's incivility from an IP - not much comes of these complaints usually. Conflict seems to have ended. --Cheeser1 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

In general, IP's are only banned in severe cases due the risk of collateral damage (i.e., if the IP is dynamic, innocent bystanders can get whacked). That said, I'll leave a warning on the talk page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed here - even anonymous people who are rude. Until they are banned, they are still welcome on Wikipedia. This user seems extraordinarily disruptive, and may require more banning - possibly: it may be difficult or inappropriate, since it's an anonymous IP contributor (which might ban more than one person, even innocent parties who share a computer). Based on the conversation on his/her talk page, the editor may have no intention of obeying WP:CIVIL, so I don't know if we can help. If the user vandalizes any page or does anything else actionable, you may request administrator action at the administrator's noticeboard. However uncivil his comments here might be, please keep in mind: (1) your edits are original research and actually don't belong in that article and (2) you brought up his/her past editing history (which may not even belong to the same person) as a way of discrediting him/her in the content dispute - this is actually a violation of etiquette guidelines. Clearly this user has a history of incivility, and has made no exception with you, but responding with incivility back-and-forth isn't going to help. --Cheeser1 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Everyone is allowed here so you better don't mind him or just ignore him. users or members or even a guest or visitor here in wikipedia are always welcome. They can talk or write what ever they want even they are in bad manners but still they can freely express there thoughts to anyone and everything in here. Users can also be banned but in reason if they violates the policies here in wikipedia but we don't know if they come back as a new user then he repeatedly insulting you, so then you better calm down and just ignore anyone who's insulting you. Just keep your mind relax and be a professional.--Oliviatrolles 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of sock puppets to evade bans is explicitly prohibited. The Wikipedia community has ways to identify those who create new accounts to evade bans. Your username goes here 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User WaltCip

Resolved

In User Categories for Deletion, The discussuion of removing the category Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer was rather personal when User:WaltCip responded to my comment to "go ahead and delete the category but have you read previous debated archives dealing with this". I noted his first comment was a rather personal slight but I did not attack anyone personally. His next comment clearly equated my actions as similar to anti-semetism which is very offisive and highly personal as the subject at hand (surviving cancer like I did) has zero to do with religion. I ask that the volunteers review this discourse and rener any appropriate decision. Respectfully, Mikebar 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His somewhat personal, sarcastic comment was more likely in response to this comment from you: "The zealots who cannot read previous archived discussions win." In other words, sarcasm begat sarcasm. The point of the analogy regarding anti-semitism had to do with deleting categories, not to call you anti-semitic. It wasn't the most prudent analogy, since it can be easily misinterpreted as a suggestion of racism. But it's possible to assume good faith about it. To me, it looks like just cooling down and taking a break from each other is the best solution. The etiquette violations are on both sides, and relatively minor (assuming he didn't mean to call you racist). Let the personal dispute go. Bsharvy 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Bsharvy and would say that this is incredibly minor. Unless this incident has caused some sort of hard feelings or ongoing dispute, you both seem like you'd just as easily let it drop and never have a problem again. That's definitely the way to go. --Cheeser1 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that is what has happened. Call this one resolved & thanks to both of you. Mikebar 07:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I've also agreed both of you guys. Well, For me we better ignore those minor concerns like saying "Do what you want" without directly hit your feelings but with in your senses. It's understandable that all of us have the rights of what to say or what to do but with the attitude without hurting anyone feelings or with no personal intention to hurt feelings. So we better ignore somewhat personal intention and it is just like a comment to accept and to response.--Hannahmarqueza 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Yitzhak Hudas

Resolved

 – The issue appears to have been somewhat resolved, and no diffs regarding incivility were provided. --Cheeser1 07:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Above editor has accused me of "whitewashing" antisemitism on the Dalit Voice page, where you can see the history. Also said I had been "whitewashing" on the Antisemitism page. I take strong exception to this accusation. I also believe this editor to be a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar and have reported this. As instructed above, I went to his talk page to warn him. I was not as polite as I usually am (I spent hours discussing patiently with Hkelkar before he was blocked and turned into a prolific sockpuppeteer and also was polite to his alter ego User:Nahartasanhedrin, who was blocked as an alternate account without being formally linked to Hkelkar). I do not want to spend any more time on what is essentially feeding a troll. I need some advice on how to deal with this quickly without tacitly admitting to antisemitic beliefs that I emphatically do not have. Itsmejudith 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been a fair amount of discussion on the article's talk page (here), is there still an issue that needs to be resolved? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes because the talk page discussion is quite rightly about the article. This is about this "user". I've just noticed that I completely messed up my attempt to have him blocked as a sockpuppet of Hkelkar but I need a quick solution otherwise we're all wasting our time with what is basically just trolling. Itsmejudith 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs of edits that you consider to be uncivil or personal attacks? Thanks. All I'm seeing is a content dispute, and honestly, if you appear to be removing legitimate claims about anti-semitism, then you are whitewashing - that's what the term whitewashing means, and if that's what he thinks you're doing, then that's what he's going to say. Now, is that really what you're doing? I don't know - I'd assume that's not what you're doing. But it's not like he called you a "big dumb nazi jerk" - not that I can see. So please, provide us with some diffs. Thanks. --Cheeser1 07:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppet allegation

In an edit summary, GreenJoe made the allegation that I am a meatpuppet. I take this claim seriously and have repeatedly asked GreenJoe to either withdraw the comment or present his evidence at WP:SSP. Thus far, all requests have gone unaddressed. The exchange can be found under the subject "Edit summary" at Concordia University talk page, GreenJoe's talk page, and my own talk page. Victoriagirl 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that edit summaries are effectively a write-only medium; it's possible to change them but not always practical. So, retracting the comment is not an option--certainly not within his hands as a user. I think an apology would have been a polite thing to do. It's not inherently incivil to not apologize, but it shows less than an abundant show of good faith in fellow editors.

That said, the comments are in his edit history, and should he start committing other acts of incivility or disruption, it would be weighed by the administrator determining how to deal with him. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that an edit summary might not be easily changed. In asking that the comment be withdrawn, I am not seeking a deletion or rewriting of history, but an acknowledgement the allegation is incorrect. That said, since filing this alert, GreenJoe has placed a post on my talk page indicating that he stands by the comment. I have responded by again asking that he present his evidence. Victoriagirl 19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've chimed in on the talk page as well. This seems to be unfounded and in violation of WP:NPA, not to mention WP:CIVIL. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GreenJoe has indicated that he will nether withdraw the charge nor present any evidence in support of the allegation. After mulling over the advice offered, I have decided to walk away from the matter and have written GreenJoe as much. My thanks to all who offered council. Victoriagirl 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a meatpuppet. Definitely a stalker with an agenda. Dominic J. Solntseff 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

While I usually ignore comments by Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs), the irony is of such a level that it is worthy of note. Victoriagirl 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A typical non-answer answer by this dishonest and disingenous editor, who works so very hard to push an agenda on Wikipedia while trying to Wiki-fiddle her way into an admin spot. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of your accusations against Victoriagirl. We cannot help mediate this situation if we don't have anything to go on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's "counsel", Victoriagirl, not "council". For someone who does so much wikifiddling, you should be more careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.167.209 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Angry comments / edit wars on two Anti-semitism-related AfD's

Stuck

I'm not sure what exactly is the locus of the dispute, but these AfDs seem to have led to an extremely heated discussion and accompanying edit warring right on the AfD pages.

• WP:AFD/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)
• WP:AFD/The Jewish Bolshevism

Also note the accompanying talk pages.

Someone with a strong stomach should wade in and try to sort things out. (As a side note, I'm not convinced that the whole AfD thing was necessary, since it seems more like a merge proposal, but whatever.) <eleland/talkedits> 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the first one ("Protocols of Zion") and see if I can ask for calm on the talk page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

These seem to have calmed down some. It's not quite resolved, but the heat/light ratio seems to have settled down. (And resolution should come when the AfD's close. Marking as stuck for now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper Cornish?

Following the publication of advice from the Cornish Language Commission to the Cornish Language Partnership at http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=38616 on 13 October 2007, here has been some seriously unwikipedian activity at Talk:Cornish language. Any peace-making available would be much welcomed. Some blocks on unregistered users may be needed and at least one registered rhetorical user needs some firm advice. Until persistent vandalistic behaviour is reduced it will not be possible for the article to be properly updated to an encyclopaedic standard. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would favour protecting the article from edits by unregistered users. -- Evertype·✆ 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Still unregistered users can edit the articles. If they blocked by the administrator that's the way surely protected from unregistered users from editing.--Jeshermoza 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Stiletto belongs in any discussion about drag

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Complaining editor is upset about removals of external links. No civility/etiquette violations, and the links are basically spam anyway. Referred to WP:EL and WP:SPAM --Cheeser1 01:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor DeRahier, whose expertise is in putting funny marks on foreign words, is saying that a link to the Golden Stiletto doesn't belong and constitutes spam. The Golden Stiletto is a resource for anyone wishing to learn about drag. It belongs in this encyclopedia as an external link, at least. Here is the headline of the blog. *The Golden Stiletto Suisse Kelly and Elle Beret report on everything d.r.a.g. -- performance reviews, product, illusion, tips, interviews, resources, culture, sexualite, cock soup for the drag soul. The Golden Stiletto is dedicated to building and raising the art and execution of drag. The blog does not sell anything nor is it involved in any profit making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoahemolele (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Um, this page is about wikiquette -- and the core principle of wikiquette is to remain civil in your interactions with and comments about other editors; and your comments about DéRahier (t c) strike me as particularly rude. Please take a moment to examine your motivations and tone. Also, please note that "link spam" doesn't mean that the site being linked is commercial or trying to sell anything - it means you're "spamming" the article by adding an undesirable (in that person's opinion) link. Thirdly, please note that the preferred process to resolve this kind of disagreement is to open discussion about it on the article's talk page — don't just jump straight to a form of dispute resolution without first trying to have a conversation about the problem with the person you're disagreeing with.

Regarding the link itself, although we typically don't comment on content here at WP:WQA, see the external link guideline, specifically the links normally to be avoided section, number 12. That guideline specifically states that blogs and similar sites are to be avoided as links unless they are written by a recognized authority in the subject area. Since the site is hosted by blogspot.com, ergo it is a blog.

Someone obviously disputes that the authors of that blog are recognized authorities. If you think they are authorities that satisfy the EL policy, then you need to say why you think that on the talk page of the article, preferably with links to other sources that support your opinion - a news article that mentions the blog authors as being significant, etc. --Darkwind (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you did not notify the user who is the subject of this alert as to its existence. I will do so for you. --Darkwind (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As I'm spending my spare time to improve the quality of WP's articles, like reverting vandalism and inappropriate edits, I did find this topic concerning my counter-vandalism before I got Darkwind's alert. The tone of Kainoahemolele aka 66.8.205.91 about me makes me smile rather than offending me, I know better than that. But to the facts : this user anonymously added the same and dubuous external link on not less than 7 different articles, and added it back several times after they had been removed. This is spam and nothing else.

I wish WP having more vandalism-fighters and less abusers.

DéRahier 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting vlog but hardly worth including at this time. There are dozens of better websites that clearly are resources for those wishing to learn about drag minus the requirement of watching videos. Benjiboi 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the definition of a recognized authority in WP? Can someone provide the link? I was unable to locate it. Darkwind, thank you for coming down on the issue and citing specific provisions that that blog may have violated. The other editors didn't know enough to cite them for a single-purpose user. Also, Darkwind, you know should know that it was WP that said to start here first after a discussion with the recalcitrant editor. I had a discussion with him over the message system before there was a discussion on the talk page. I'll get better at this.--Kainoahemolele 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between users regarding pages on Korean Universities -pers. attacks, incivility

Users: Epthorn and Patriotmissile

Pages involved: Talk pages of users, and following articles:

1) Korea_University (talk page and very recent edits)

2) Sungkyunkwan_University (talk page)

3) SKY_(schools) (Talk page, bottom)

I do not want to go into detail here (for neutrality's sake) but this is a conflict I am afraid my end up moving from the talk pages to the actual articles. I hope this will provide some help of an informal nature. Especially useful would be some help from users who cannot be accused of puppetry, etc because of their long wiki histories. I would be tempted to just leave the issue alone but since there are few users interested I think there is little chance the articles would be improved.

I apologize for the general scope of the request, it does stretch across several articles- if someone would like me to explain reasoning or establish a better timeline, please let me know via my talk page. Thanks for any help you can provide. Also sorry for the format, I'm not yet particularly good at linking within wikipedia. Epthorn 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Epthorn - I'd like to help, but I would really appreciate it if you would summarize the conflict, and maybe provide some representative diffs. It's pretty overwhelming to jump in there without context. If you're worried about neutrality, just be as neutral as you can; we're pretty experienced at cutting through non-neutral content summaries anyway. Sarcasticidealist 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a calm down message here to see if people will stop slinging around blatant insults. I'll wait on a summary before doing anything else though --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I will try and summarize the situation as best I can, and then see if I can figure out the diffs (I've not had to do this before)

-I read through Korea University's wiki page and thought it looked like an advert and was not NPOV. Overall I considered the article to be a poor example of what an encyclopedia should look like, so I decided to remark this on the talk page. I also added a "POV" tag to the page.

-User Patriotmissile seemed to immediately believe I was a puppet of another user, "Brincos." He continues to accuse me of this, despite my requests for him to take it up with an admin. Believing that I am from another University in Korea trying to vandalize Korea University's website, he has made several veiled threats to "edit" that article in kind (my characterization of 'threats' is, of course, my own).

-Patriotmissile also brought me up on the Sungkyunkwan_University page. At that point I got annoyed that he was misquoting me as an excuse to make edits there.

-Patriotmissile and I also clashed on the SKY_(schools) page even though I basically agreed with him (at least insofar as I thought the page should exist). He still remarked that I was a puppet for Brincos. I'm not sure how much of this is miscommunication, but I haven't had much luck clearing it up and it's making editing difficult.

Now that you've heard my 'side', please give me a few minutes and hopefully I can provide the specifics in terms of "diffs" Epthorn 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry if this is a poor format, but here is one example I found particularly unnecessary as P.M. tried to misquote me on a page and then tried to blackmail me by threatening another University's article (which he has since marked as POV in the last few minutes). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASungkyunkwan_University&diff=166315966&oldid=157049751

Here is the infamous "dog" statement. Please judge for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APatriotmissile&diff=165811617&oldid=165361250

Finally, if you look at this page you can see what started all this. I cannot quite get the diffs right for this one, sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korea_University#POV.2FNeutrality_redux

Those are somewhat extensive diffs, and there are more. Many, many more. All basically follow the same pattern though... I'm a puppet from some other Korean university who should leave the country. Anyway, I hope this helps a little. Epthorn 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And now, since it's 7am in Korea, I should be getting to bed. Please let me know via my talk page especially if there's anything further I can do later. Hopefully I've roused enough 3rd parties that a consensus will eventually be possible (it's hard with 2 people who simply don't agree). Epthorn 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs - those are very helpful. I agree that User:Patriotmissile has been behaving uncivilly. I'll leave him/her a polite note, and see where things go from there. Sarcasticidealist 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that is the end of it. The user apologized for the allegations of puppetry. Hopefully this will result in a more productive edit discussion, especially with some new blood. Unless it attracts sharks. This was a useful board, hopefully I can pay it back as I gain experience. Thanks again, Epthorn 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ciao 90 on the Playstation 2 page

Basically, he keeps rewriting the "consensus introduction" that everybody agrees with, and inserting his own introduction (thus deleting valuable info in the process). Our requests for him to stop have been ignored and he just keeps doing it. I've already issued a warning on his talk page, but he seems to have ignored it, and continued his behavior. - Theaveng 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the talk page, and I don't actually see that there has been a consensus. It would certainly be preferable for User:Ciao 90 to focus more on developing a consensus than on revert-warring, but it looks to me that the wording of the introduction is still an open question. If I'm misreading this, could you direct me to the portion of the talk page where "everybody" (which I would take to mean you, User:Dancter, User:JTBX, User:Vdub49, and User:Silver Edge) agrees on an intro? Sarcasticidealist 20:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Theaveng claims false consensus and refuses to properly discuss on Talk page what I've made my statement. He also keeps warning me as vandalism not signing their posts on my talk page in avoidance behavior - he wouldn't want discuss and reach conseus, he's just forcing a revert war with insults, weasel words and emotional statements. --Ciao 90 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Fabartus

Stuck

If anyone wants to try and break impass, feel free.

I've received a few messages on my talk page from Fabartus (talk · contribs) in response to a content issue that seem far more aggressive and uncivil than necessary. I've requested that he stop posting on my talk page and discuss content on the article's talk page. Any other suggestions? Thanks, Chaz ^Beckett 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi ChazBeckett. Since I've been helped on this page I'm happy to try and look at issues here as well. Having skimmed over your talk page, it looks as though things got a bit overheated, probably because editors naturally tend to get defensive when an article they've worked on gets changed (WP:OWN). I'll look at the content page and in the meantime a little cool-off period may be best. Epthorn 09:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Chazbeckett, I tend to agree that Fabartus (talk · contribs) made some remarks that are, at best, not constructive. I added a request to his talk page that he be a little more careful about that. Once thing to remember is that even though you are not required to note edits on the talk page and explain them, it can sometimes help. WP:BOLD is a useful guideline, especially with non-controversial edits... but can hinder constructive editing when people disagree. While I am not taking a position on the edit itself, may I suggest that you ask for outside opinions? Perhaps a good place to start would be Portal:American_football where you can ask for help or take a look at how other articles have been written. Then again, maybe after a little time both of you will be able to work together.I hope this helps, and feel free to comment back if you think the situation still is unresolved. Epthorn 11:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Epthorn, I agree completely with your remarks. On my part, I probably could and should have better explained my reasons for reversion on the article's talk page. I have made several comments there since and hopefully that should encourage input from other editors. I'd like to think that any content issues can be worked out, I'm just not used to dealing with personal attacks. Thanks again, Chaz ^Beckett 11:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, whenever someone completely agrees with my remarks it means I must have done something wrong. Epthorn 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Epthorn. I'm hoping that discussion on the article talk page can resolve the content issues, though the conduct issues may prove a bit more difficult. Content issues become exacerbated when incivility and assumptions of bad faith enter the equation. Anyway, I'll try to avoid Fabartus as much as possible; fortunately I don't think there's a great deal of overlap on the articles we edit. Thanks, Chaz ^Beckett 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good way to avoid problems. WP:MEDCAB is another non-binding method of resolving a dispute, but it too requires cooperation from all parties which I suspect would not necessarily be forthcoming. I'm going to call this dispute "stuck" for the time being. Epthorn 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Matter unresolved User Fabartus (talk · contribs) believes he was in the right and rebuffed suggestions otherwise on his userpage User_talk:Fabartus; I believe he asserts that Chaz was uncivil by reverting Fabartus's edits. You can also see Fabartus' reply on my talk page User_talk:Epthorn. I have informed him of this dispute page if he wishes to make his thoughts known directly. If this continues to be an issue I am afraid something else along the WP:Dispute may have to be explored, although perhaps the two users (or one who chooses to be WP:COOL) should simply lay off the offending site for a bit of time and invite third party intervention in terms of content WP:RFC if the dispute continues. Epthorn 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:StevenBlack

When User:Butseriouslyfolks slapped an AfD on an article that was less than two hours old, StevenBlack (talk · contribs) went into a full-court press, removing and moving the AfD template multiple times, calling it "heavy-handed" and "bullying", and generally violating WP:CIVIL at every turn. Can someone with a little more distance from the subject step in and help this from getting out of hand? (I know nothing about the subject, but I do know this editor from the Fox community, and don't particularly want to be at odds with him.) Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The AfD-moving came up on AN/I - it's the civility violations that I'm looking for help with.--SarekOfVulcan 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: For the record, I was unaware at the time about Wikipedia AfD protocol. I apologize unreservedly for first removing it, then moving it to the discussion page, then moving it to the bottom of the topic page. I didn't know. Mea Culpa. But the besmirching of the credibility of a topic that was barely two hours old, this after it was unilaterally deleted with no recourse -- no way to even retrieve its contents from history -- I consider that to be heavy-handed, extreme, and frankly, odious. You want respect? Then show some basic respect. I remind you: I am here with my name in full. All the people involved here are hiding behind nicknames. Consider how all this might appear from my perspective. I've been an active wikipedian for ages and I have NEVER been abused like I have been abused today. KNOCK IT OFF and let me finish my work. Then judge. StevenBlack 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steven - thank you for accepting responsibility for your mistreatement of the AfD tag. Wikipedia policies are extensive, and I doubt anybody is familiar with all of them, so we all make the occasional mistake, and admitting it is the only reasonable way of handling these.

I'm not going to deal with the question of whether the placement of the AfD tag was appropriate, because that's really not a Wikiquette issue. Instead I'm going to focus on the issues of user conduct that aren't directly related to the content dispute. Here are some of my thoughts there:

• While it is your choice to reveal your full name (I make the same choice on my user page), the fact that others choose not to do so in no way devalues their contributions. Pseudonymity and anonymity are both explicitly allowed by Wikipedia policy - it is inappropriate to accuse people of "hiding behind" nicknames.
• I think that there have been violations of WP:CIVIL on both sides, albeit not critically serious ones (for example, this is inappropriately sarcastic on the part of User:Butseriouslyfolks, while this is slightly uncivil and fails to assume good faith).
• Since this has gone to WP:AFD, the content dispute over whether or not the article should exist should be resolved shortly. Hopefully that will help resolve the civility issues, since the community will have determined whether or not the article should exist.
• Steven, since there seems to be some resistance to having the article exist in its present form, you might consider developing it more fully in your userspace, and then posting the content to the article once it's fully-developed.

I hope this has been helpful to all those concerned, and I hope that the incivility ceases once the AfD process is completed (at the very latest). Sarcasticidealist 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In the comment above about "hiding behind nicknames", StevenBlack ignores both that I have my real name on my userpage, and that he should have a pretty good idea who SarekOfVulcan is from previous off-WP association. Also, where does this diff fall on the "critically serious" spectrum?--SarekOfVulcan 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: Note that I wrote Butserioulyfolks is acting like an... and not is an.... I stand by that. In this case, Butserioulyfolks was most definitely acting abusively. StevenBlack 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good example of incivility, despite being totally correct. This user's conduct is inappropriate; however, I believe he is right. We can't seek out new pages and immediately AfD them while others are right in the middle of writing them (including adding the required references, etc). I believe such an action is also fairly disruptive (although incivility may not exactly describe it), and while I'll assume good faith, I'd say that in the case of this AfD, that assumption comes with some reservation. --Cheeser1 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

AGREEMENT: I can attest that a wholly premature AfD is VERY disruptive, besmirches the work, AND discourages otrher Wikipedians from contributing at the very moment an article is best subject of input and fleshing. In this case, it turned an article ABOUT Lake Ontario Waterkeeper into a battle to HOST AN ARTICLE ABOUT Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and that just isn't right. Considering Butseriouslyfolks' standing here, I consider this an abuse of power and I am requesting a formal apology. StevenBlack 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just by way of background, the article was first posted and deleted as a copyvio and per A7. When the article was re-created, a third editor prodded it, I prodded it rather than A7 to give the author a chance to fix the problems but the author removed the prod without fixing. So I AfD'd it rather than A7 to give the author a chance to fix the problems. Then the author went about aggressively removing the AfD template and dropping abusive posts on my user talk page and elsewhere [1]. I'm a patient admin, but I'm certainly not perfect. I do try and rise above, but I do occasionally break down and defend myself. -- But|seriously|folks  15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me that he was in the process of cleaning it up and expanding it when you put the AfD on. It was just over an hour since his last edit when you nominated it for deletion. That's really jumping the gun, IMHO...--SarekOfVulcan 16:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if it was you prodding it, why does the history show a different account doing it?--SarekOfVulcan 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm wrong! Somebody else prodded it. I fixed my comment above. Also, the author had not been back to the article in over an hour, and I had no way to know whether he was coming back. Stubs are fine as far as I'm concerned, but they still have to meet WP:N from the time they are posted. -- But|seriously|folks  16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The comments that ButSeriouslyFolks brings to light (those on his user page) are very inappropriate. StevenBlack appears to be overreacting to what was a poor, but I believe good faith (now that the back-history of this article was given), AfD of the article in question. Nobody makes formal apologies, nobody besmirches work, etc. It was a misunderstanding, and BSF should be more careful in the future, but Steven began dropping uncivil comments all over the place and removed the AfD template (which is not allowed, without exception), which I believe was disruptive. He could have civilly and calmly made his case at the AfD. --Cheeser1 07:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, nothing in the deletion policy gives a "grace time" to articles before they can be tagged with {{prod}} or {{AfD}}. Doing so might not be the nicest thing to do, but it is neither abusive nor rude. AfDs run for 5 days, and the article can be expanded during this time. The deleting admin is supposed to take into consideration the final shape of the article after the full course of the AfD, rather than the state it was at the begining. While BsF might have been nice and waited a few more hours before sending the article, he was under no obligation to do so (personally, if an article doesn't change for an hour, I believe the user has switched to something else). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Sarvagnya's deletion of my Talk:India posts

• Earlier today I made this post on the Talk:India page about some potential problems I foresaw with the rotation of images being currently tried in two sections of the India page. (I had earlier organized the straw poll for/against this rotation here.)
• Almost immediately after I made the post, user:Sarvagnya deleted it in this edit, with edit summary, "this is a discussion page. not a blog. blogs are free, go find one and record your idle musings about your "vivid experiences" with encarta or whatever."
• user:Sarvagnya's edit was soon reverted here by user:Dwaipayanc, however, user:Sarvagnya re-reverted here with edit summary, "rv abuse of talk page. see WP:TALK and WP:NOT."

This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.

• He deleted my post there in late August 2007, (see here).
• He then made a post in early September 2007 on the Talk:India page here, which ended with, "For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page?"
• This in turn elicited a polite but firmly opposing response here from user:Abecedare.
• However, when user:Sarvagnya persisted in the very next post here and, moreover, accused me of "defecating all over the talk page," he brought on a more aggressive response here from user:Hornplease, who threatened to report user:Sarvagnya to Wikiquette alerts.
• I should add that user:Sarvagnya is less than forgiving when he is at the receiving end; my edit once here that merely put his out-of-chronological order interruption in proper chronological order, elicited this response from him, with edit summary, "i will add my comment where I think fit.. stop moving other people's comments around!"

If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. His general rudeness is one thing, but this is beyond the pale. Please advise! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, look who's talking. Mr. Fowler, let's look at these Wikiquette (sic) edits of yours:

To User:Sarvagnya Perhaps you could return to the Karnataka article and start preparing for its next FAR and in your wake spin-off yet another generation of shimmering daughter article ... For an editor, such as yourself, whose ill-humored, carping, and nonsensical comments on these pages (including ones above directed at me), are a legion, it is presumptuous to decide what is nonsense

To User:Gnanapiti what the heck is the matter with you? what is illogical other than you knee-jerk tendency to revert; don't you have anything better to do

To User:Embargo don't know who you are, but you are a new comer to this page, which I am not (see talk page)

To User:Bharatveer you are pathetic! I wrote this article and knew him; you don't know the first thing about the guy, and keep wasting time with your precious little obsessions

To User:Bakasuprman what's the heck is the matter with you dude; read the discussion, there's a link to pdf whhich explicitly says he an athheist; hkelkar still pulling your strings?

To User:Nikkul Don't know what the heck you're trying to pull dude, but you're getting to be tiring...

To User:Szhaider If you can't write grammatical English, then don't.

To his so-called Indian POV warriors Apparently the Indian POV warriors can't write the English Language. May I suggest the Hindi wikipedia

To User:Nikkul Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The reason these users have not pulled you to admins for the personal attacks above is that they assume good faith with you. The least you can do is to reciprocate that gesture. So stop feeling tired, pained and grieved if people return the above favour that you have been giving them.-- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note regarding the refactoring of your comments. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To user:Amarrg: I am assuming the links above are meant for me? Since this section is really about user:Sarvagnya's actions and not mine, you should really open a new case against me here on Wikiquette Alerts or on some other Wikipedia forum. Meanwhile, I have replied to your post elsewhere. I apologize to the Wikiquette Alert volunteers for replying here and adding to their work. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You are not immune from scrutiny here, and your comments to others are certainly relevant to the way others deal with you. -- But|seriously|folks  20:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am requesting user:Amarrg to open a Wikiquette Alert against me. I just felt, given what user:Bfigura gave me to understand in another context (about not increasing the volunteers' work), that this was not the best place for it, but if you think it is, please go ahead. However, please examine both the past and the aftermath of each of those incidents. As I say in my post, referred to above as "elsewhere,"

“ user:Nikkul was banned for sock-puppeteering soon after I made my first remark. user:Szhaider is still banned (although in fairness to him, he came around to see that I meant well, and when I later came to his defense, he awarded me a barnstar), user:Embargo was banned for a couple of months within minutes of that exchange, user:Bharatveer had an arbitration case opened soon after that incident; I don't know what happened, but he too has disappeared. As for user:Bakasuprman, user:Sarvagnya, and user:Gnanapiti, they were all three, but especially the latter two, playing the game of what I called "knee-jerk" reverts without any explanations whatsoever. ”

My point is not to attack the characters of these people, but to make the point that my words were (inappropriate to be sure) responses to their behavior, not vice-versa. That nevertheless doesn't absolve me of responsibility for those words, and for them I apologize unreservedly to my interlocutors. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PS What I mean by the "past and the aftermath" is this: I am quoted above as saying, "Nikkul you should be ashamed of yourself." I did say those words, but what is not mentioned is that, I made a series of edits and a few minutes later my words looked like this:

Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself. After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff. Why? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Nikkul, I apologize for my choice of words. I didn't mean to be demeaning. You are someone who is clearly interested in improving the image content on India-related pages, and everyone can see that you have talent and drive, so why not use them more productively? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes were made of my own volition, not consequent to a response from Nikkul or anyone else. Here is the relevant section of the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PPS And now that old memories are being dredged up, an isolated quote from what I said to Nikkul doesn't say that I gave him the benefit of the doubt even after he had been banned for sockpuppeteering on the India page, when I tried to patiently explain to him how to paraphrase an article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum-shopping at its worst. Noting what I have seen above:Gimme an H...gimme a Y....gimme a P...gimme a O...gimme a C...gimme an R...you get the point. Violating WP:OWN really accentuates your disregard for collegiality and your tendentiousness. I'm not a civil person myself, so I'm not going to delve into your rudeness, but coming on to this board to whine is rich.Bakaman 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ferns

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyathea_capensis&diff=prev&oldid=166681442

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Liefting&diff=166706471&oldid=166039490

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emesee&diff=166707458&oldid=166707081

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_24#Category:Ferns

User:Alan Liefting's actions seem like a blatant disregard of Wikipedia:Revert#When to revert, and don't seem appropriate. --Emesee 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on this [2] diff you provided, it seems an explanation has been provided, although it should have been in the edit summary. I'll leave a nice note on his talk page saying as much (since I'm willing to AGF that it was an innocent mistake). Since this is already at CfD, I don't think more needs to be done at the moment. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive, bad-faith edits by Gene Nygaard

Help. I need assistance with editor User:Gene_Nygaard. He disagrees on factual disputes on the Kilogram article that are totally beyond any debate in science. His arguments have been debated to infinity and back and he ignores reason. For instance, he continued to argue that “weight” does not mean “force due to gravity”. When he was told the following:

Encyclopedia Britannica very simply defines “weight” as “[the] gravitational force of attraction on an object, caused by the presence of a massive second object, such as the Earth or Moon.” Wikipedia’s Weight article defines weight as follows: In the physical sciences, weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object. World Book (print edition) says this under Weight: Weight is the gravitational force put forth on an object by the planet on which the object is located. Further, the Kilogram article adheres perfectly to Encyclopedia Britannica’s discussion of the distinction between “weight” and “mass”. The article also gives proper and fair treatment to the fact that the term “weight” in common vernacular can occasionally mean “mass.”

…He responded with “There's no reason for us to stoop to Encyclopedia Britannica.” He also said “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” and then linked “reliable source” to Wikipedia’s own Wikipedia:Reliable sources. His point was that the link in the Kilogram article that linked to weight wasn’t suitable. He didn’t agree with either Wikipedia’s definition nor Encyclopedia Britannica’s. With regard to World Book, he responded only with “Now World Book too?”

One of the editors who disagreed with him is a professor of astrophysics. This would normally carry extra weight but Gene Nygaard argued with him too and had his question properly answered (again). When his arguments didn’t get any traction on the kilogram article, he went to the Mass article and engaged in the same sort of edits there. The editors there had to deal with him (account here). After other editors weighed in with edits in an attempt to appease Gene Nygaard, he did this to the article. Another editor User:Enuja, who does her best to seek consensus and accommodate others, told him that "Disputed" and "Misleading" tags were not suitable (account here).

Please help. Greg L (my talk) 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience with this editor at Talk:Enzyme_kinetics#Molarity_is_obsolete, he changed the article to replace a set of units with an incorrect set of units diff then edit-warred to retain the error diff. On the talk page he stubbornly maintained that his preference for units were used in biochemistry, and quoted obscure journals on inorganic and organic chemistry to try to support his argument. It was only when faced with overwhelming evidence of multiple citations from biochemistry journals that he accepted the actual usage. This is verging on disruptive editing. Tim Vickers 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to stem from a content dispute. Has an RFC/U been considered? --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bfigura, please briefly explain the distinction between this forum and the one you are suggesting. The spark that lit the fuse on all of this was originally an argument over the definition of “weight” and the proper, encyclopedic treatment of the topic. The real issue, IMO, has become one of not accepting the consensus of others after hours of tirelessly explaining to him what the facts are, only to ultimately have him do stuff like this…

---

While the weight of objects (their gravitational force) is often given in kilograms, the kilogram is, in the strict scientific sense, a unit of mass.

---

…and this:

---

The unit of force: kilogram-force Template:TotallyDisputed-section

When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms…

---

…again, this is all after lengthy and tedious debate had transpired far beyond what any administrator would put up with (due to lack of acceptance of reality) and his arguments didn’t get traction with any other editors. In short, the issue is one of being disruptive. Tim Vickers’ problem with this Gene (see above) seems to be the same basic issue: ignoring clear facts he simply choses to ignore and incessantly doing the same edits anyway. I don’t know how many other editors weighed in on Tim Vickers’ article, but Gene totally ignored others editors too on Talk:Kilogram (not just me) and does what he wants anyway the moment anyone stops responding to his circuitous and ever-expanding arguments or it has become clear he won’t get his way.

Do you see this as being the central issue, and if so, are you saying the RFC/U would be a more suitable forum? Greg L (my talk) 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not entirely sure. If you want to form consensus on an issue (ie content), you should use a request for comments (or RFC). But if you want to establish consensus on an editor's behavior, then you want an RFC/U. Basically, you list the places where you think the editor has gone against policy, or been disruptive, and invite comments (which includes responses from the editor in question). The idea is to try and establish if a certain behavior is or isn't acceptable by the community.

As far as the above, those tags would seem needlessly disruptive, although I'm hesitant to say that with any certainty since I'm not entirely familiar with the dispute. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Will go to RFC/U. Thanks. Greg L (my talk) 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Drop me a line when you list it, and I'll be glad to give my outside view. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bfigura, after looking at the RFC/U process, it looks like a daunting process that is too great of a hurdle. I think if we can just address the suitability of the “dispute” tags that should suffice for the problem at hand and will serve as a lesson-learned. User:Slashme has done lengthy and excellent edits (recent history) trying to reach a compromise. Some of Slashme’s edits were painful for me to see because Slashme’s treatment of the issue was to delete entire paragraphs I had written (like this one). But I accepted them and understood they were a reasonable compromise. I actually expected that all that would satisfy Gene too. Nope. User:Enuja has patiently explained why the article doesn’t merit them (here). I’ve given him ample warning of his disruptive edits (here). Now he’s got the “disputed” tags in the article again. Please help. Greg L (my talk) 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I deleted the STUCK tag at the top thinking it might somehow interfere with your ability to note that this is back to being active. Sorry for being presumptive. Greg L (my talk) 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite ok. I shouldn't have stuck them in yet :). I'll go poke my head into the article though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bfigura, I don’t know what the proper remedy would be, even if you do find that the tags are unwarranted. But if you conclude that the article should be restored to some other state, this was the state I last had it in. And this is the state the last known other contributor had it at. That contributor User:Timb66, whose real name is Tim Bedding, is a professor of astrophysics at the School of Physics, University of Sydney. I can’t make a case that Professor Bedding is unbiased regarding Gene’s behavior, since he wrote “I agree with the comments by Greg L” (Talk:Mass#Disruptive edits) after I laid out a clear case regarding the scientific nature of “weight” and how Gene’s behavior was disruptive. Note however, that Professor Bedding made his edit to the Kilogram article after he posted that comment. Accordingly, he wasn’t a party to any disputes on Kilogram before reading that one was raging on Talk:Mass. Only then did he take an interest in the Kilogram article. I think it is fair to assume that Professor Bedding found nothing else he felt was worthy of correcting and find it noteworthy that his edit was only to change an occurrence of “and” to “or” (edit difference here).

  After studying the Wikipedia policy some more, I believe the proper charge in this forum would be that his incessant arguing on the discussion pages after finding that his arguments don’t get traction with other editors, and his resorting to the use of {{disputed}} and {{misleading}} tags, are all aspects of tendentious editing. Greg L (my talk) 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Update regarding expert help: Bfigura, during the writing of the Kilogram article, I exchanged over forty e-mails with a physicist at the NIST who works on the kilogram in order to check facts, clarify issues and obtain additional information. That NIST physicist directed me to various papers published in Metrologia and Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards (some of which I used as citations in the article). As a favor, he has previously reviewed specific portions of the Kilogram article for accuracy. I asked him if he would review the entire last, non-Gene, historical version (this one by Professor Bedding), and to comment on its accuracy. I also asked him to compare it to the current version and take note to the sections that Gene tagged. On Friday he agreed to do so and said it will take a few days. Given that this dispute originated over technical issues, I hoped you would appreciate the outside help as it might make your job a little easier. Regards, Greg L (my talk) 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gene_Nygaard has a long history of problems in this area. See his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gene_Nygaard block log. He was informed of this Wikiquette alert on 25 Oct on his talk page. Yet he has not participated and continues in this behavior, even calling one user and "ass" and referring to at least one other's lack of intelligence; see User_talk:ArielGold#Improper_use_of_conversion_templates.2C_and_problems_with_what_they_do, [3], and [4]. Based on this, I am blocking him for 72 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine anything more likely to sabotage what is intended to be an informal first step in a dispute resolution process, anything more likely to exacerbate this dispute, more likely to fan the flames and to create more hard feelings and anything more counterproductive to the spirit of cooperative editing, than what you have done here, User:Rlevse.

Your actions, Rlevse, (and perhaps equally important or more so, the actions you have failed to take) fly directly in the face of the spirit of this entire process.

But your actions are not merely contrary to the spirit of this entire process. It is much more than that.

In fact, they are contrary to very black-letter rules of this process, as set out in a big honking box at the top of this very page:

"This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.

...

"Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts."

a "non-binding noticeboard"; and in the opening paragraph:

"Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors. This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate."

and further down the page:

"Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures."

and you can't get much clearer than without resorting to formal procedures.

The ball had already been picked up by one of the regulars here Bfigura, who had already said that he was going to look into it. Rlevse grabbed the ball right out of his hands, with no discussion whatsoever. (The fact that Bfigura some time afterwards tried to pick it up again, but fumbled the ball himself, is irrelevant, though at that time it might have been appropriate for him to call for some backup help. But that hadn't happened until after Rlevse's disruption here).

If my participation on this page were important, and there is no evidence whatsoever that you, Rlevse, know beans about how this is supposed to work, then you should have invited me to come here and comment on it. An out-of-the-blue, totally undiscussed block, for not doing something which I am not in any way obliged to do, is not by any stretch of the imagination an appropriate response. To instead prevent any comment from me is about the most illogical, irresponsible action anyone could possibly imagine.

The only possible explanation for it is that it was somehow deliberately intended to give Greg L the advantage of unfettered, one-sided discussion.

That this process's integrity was in fact the primary target of your (User:Rlevsa's) attack is also evident from your posting of your notice about blocking me here a few minutes before you even posted a notice to me about it on my talk page, as well as from the fact that you had not done the same at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade, nor had you done so at User talk:ArielGold. It is further evidenced by your placement of your notice on my talk page under the existing User talk:Gene Nygaard#Wikiquette alert header halfway up my page, not in a new notice at the bottom (and you didn't add the subheader, I did that later). There's no disguising of the fact that the additional charges laid were intended as nothing other than red herrings.

Especially when

1. There is absolutely nothing on this page instructing me to offer a response.
2. What is here, in fact, actively discourages such discussion, by saying "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page" and "Do not continue your discussion in detail here".

I am at a total loss as to why you might have done this, Rlevse; however, once again, no possible explanation offers itself other than the clear implication that this was, for whatever reason and motivation you had, deliberately designed to give User:Greg L an upper hand in this dispute.

Purpose, and future, of this process

I've never seen it used anywhere, either successfully or unsuccessfully, that I can recall. Does it ever work? Is it even used to any significant extent? (Rlevse doesn't know, either, I'll bet.)

I don't know if there is anybody who even cares about this Wikiquette alerts process any more. Hello! Anybody home here?

If there is no one here willing to stand up to a rogue administrator, one who has never once in the 2½ year history of this process ever made any positive contribution to making it work, never once participated in it, who comes barreling in out of nowhere and intentionally disrupts it, then maybe it is time face facts and to admit the obvious. If it doesn't work, whether it was just a bad idea in the first place or has out lived its purpose or has just withered away from a failure to advertise it and a lack of participation or whatever, just throw in the towel, and officially declare it dead. Is there anybody left who even cares enough to go through the steps to officially place this page up for deletion? Gene Nygaard 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This alerts page is not the place to see help attacking or otherwise censuring a "rogue administrator." --Cheeser1 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That administrator blocked me specifically for not replying on this page. I have now done so. So why aren't you taking him to task for telling me that I was supposed to be here? Maybe what you need is better instructions as to exactly what is and what is not expected on this project page, because User:Rlevse obviously does not know that, and now you are telling me that I do not either. Gene Nygaard 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, while you do have explicit instructions to "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page", you have let User:Greg L fill the page with hugely excessive discussions, so you also need better policing of the policies you do have. Gene Nygaard 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Bfigura, I’m still waiting on the opinion from the kilogram expert at the NIST. I must say, that after writing that previous sentence, I am struck by the preposterous number of hoops we other editors have had to jump through in order to accommodate Gene Nygaard’s outrageous behavior. Anyway, besides the kilogram expert at the NIST, I also asked Professor Bedding to carefully review the historical version before Gene Nygaard’s last wave of edits and dispute tags (version, here). I asked him to comment on the accuracy of the version and to give particular attention to those sections in the current version that Nygaard tagged with DISPUTE, DISPUTE! I asked him to comment as to whether he found the historical version accurate, balanced, and informative. I received his opinion several days ago but it took until today to receive his permission to quote him. He wrote “feel free to quote my reply in full.” His comments on the original version are quoted in their entirety as follows:

From: [e-mail address redacted]
Subject: Re: Kilogram
Date: October 27, 2007 1:41:36 PM PDT
To: [e-mail address redacted]

Hi Greg,

I am sympathetic to your problem. I am not an expert in the definition of
the kg, but I do know basic physics and I know how things should be
explained. I have looked through the current article and don't see
anything that is worthy of a dispute tag.

Thanks for the effort that you have put into Wiki editing. I don't have
the time for such diligence and am grateful for your efforts.

Best wishes,

Tim

Bfigura, I think it is safe to assume that since Professor Bedding teaches astrophysics at a university, that he 1) is being slightly humble in stating he knows “basic physics,” and 2) I believe it to be obvious on the face of it that when he wrote “I know how things should be explained,” we can assume he is very familiar with textbooks and the proper encyclopedic treatment of subjects.

I’ll let you know when I hear from the kilogram expert at the NIST. Greg L (my talk) 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your actions (I think, work prevents me from doing a complete review), in as much as I don't think there's a need for a dispute tag here. I'm not sure there's a need to contact experts (any such material couldn't be included as it'd be original research), although I do recognize it as a good faith effort to settle a dispute. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Very well. I see from Gene Nygaard’s talk page, where he is arguing against being blocked, that he claims my contacting the NIST amounts to “original research”. Of course, this is patently baseless and false. As I clearly stated in my above writings, those communications were to “check facts, clarify issues and obtain additional information.” And by “additional information” (as I also wrote above), I was referring to obtaining numerous scientific papers published in Metrologia and Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards—not baby food from Popular Mechanics. Of course, I cited these papers throughout the references section in the Kilogram article.

  It was this very same NIST employee who also e-mailed me a free picture of the NIST’s electronic kilogram after the one used in the NIST’s own press release was yanked from Wikipedia because it was copyrighted. I uploaded it to Wikipedia and used it in the article. Does this picture also constitute “original research” since it came through me via private communications with my contact at the NIST? Obviously not. Wikipedia and its readers are the beneficiaries.

  Any quick reading of the Original research page reveals a clear and unambiguous policy: that “material must be verifiable and backed by reliable sources.” It isn’t “original research” to contact the experts at the NIST and get directed to the original scientific papers and to cite them throughout the article, nor is it original research to ask the NIST expert to review some of what I wrote to make sure I gave the subject proper treatment; it’s called “researching the subject thoroughly, making sure I understood it accurately, and citing the writings extensively while contributing to a Wikipedia article.” Wikipedia and its readers are, again, the beneficiaries.

  Nygaard’s transparent attempt at taking my effort in doing my homework to track down all the original scientific papers—something that probably fewer than one in a thousand Wikipedia contributors make the effort to do—and trying to turn it around to his own advantage is nothing more than a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Greg L (my talk) 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my comment may have come accross wrong. I applaud all the work you're doing. I was merely saying that we can't cite communications with experts in the article itself. Material obtained from them (images, references, etc) is perfectly fine. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I understood that. Sorry, I wasn't railing against you. I precisely understood your point and why you wrote it. I perceived (perhaps erroneously) that your feeling the necessity to write it suggested that Nygaard’s arguments on his talk page (while trying to get unblocked) might be gaining traction with others. So I thought it best to preempt that trend. He may eventually try to argue his case here. His arguments absolutely never end, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. As of two days ago, he was still arguing about the definition of mass and weight. Note how endless his arguments are with the editors over on Talk:Mass. Scroll down and note that, throughout the length of it, both the other editors don’t agree with him. Note too, the appeal at the very end to somehow put the issue out of its misery. Greg L (my talk) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. At this point, it seems that his behavior seems to be verging on tendencious editing that is starting to outweigh his positive contributions here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concluding this

• Bfigura, I received the response from the NIST contact. Not surprisingly, there were zero problems with “weight” being “force due to gravity.” Unfortunately, I can not quote him nor even name him without getting his first getting NIST Public Affairs involved so I don’t know if the wait for his input was worth it. I think we just have to go with the arguments provided above. The only person who feels the disputed and citation needed tags are warranted is Gene Nygaard. Can we fix this? Also, I expect the removal of the tags will not change Gene Nygaard’s opinion on the issue of “mass vs. weight”; how can we avoid disruptive editing on Kilogram in his usual forms just because the tags are removed? Any remedies you think will work would be much appreciated. Greg L (my talk) 07:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• To get some idea of how much needless effort would be invested in trying to make good-faith answers to Nygaard’s objections, please see Sorting it out on Talk:Kilogram. There, I provided detailed responses to the two easiest-to-answer issues he raised. A proper treatment of all Nygaard’s objections would simply be too tedious and, in the end, would result in circuitous arguments that go nowhere, as others have discovered on Talk:Mass. Greg L (my talk) 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to make the changes, indicate why on the talk page, and try and build consensus That seems to be done already. I'd just remove the tags. If Gene continues to revert against consensus, I'd start an WP:RFC/U. If he's violating the 3-revert rule, you could report him per WP:3RR. Other than that though, I'm not sure what the best solution is. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User: Haukaikela

Resolved

I have currently had to revert edits on his/her talk page 2 times because he/she seems to be blanking the page in an attempt to hide warnings received. He/she blanked his her talk page again. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No policy that says a user has to keep or archive the contents on their talk page. The fact the user deleted it shows that it's been read. I further note you reverted the deletion and called it vandalism. That could be seen as a personal attack. Please read WP:VAND to learn what is really considered vandalism. Jeffpw 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that I really didn't know what I was supposed to do. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Chessy999

Although I have not been able to keep my temper under control at all times, this editor has been quite rude to myself and at least two other editors in a debate about the fate of Enemy (military), see here: [5], [6]. I have advised them to assume good faith, apologised for any out-of-line comments I may have made and tried to assist them in improving the article. My comment on the editor's conduct ([7]) was met with a personal attack - [8].

As well as this conduct on talk pages, the editor has also:

• Removed a speedy deletion template - [9]
• Removed an orphan template twice - [10] [11]
• Reverted a constructive edit, made by myself, though I was genuinly attempting to improve the article - [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidovic (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Davidovic is doing everything he can to get my recently created article Enemy (military)‎ deleted. He insisted on posting a frivolous "Speedy Delete" +tag, which an administrator agreed should be removed and that was done. Not satisfied, then Davidovic posted another frivolous "Orphan" +Tag on an article that was only in existence 10 minutes. The article is now interwiki linked to many articles and the "Orphan" +tag has been removed. Now the article is under AFD and once again Davidovic is participating to enhance the potential for article deletion by deleting information from the article. Not happy still, Davidovic has posted this over-zealous wikietiquette complaint. Based on the facts I believe that Davidovic has reflected that his/her statements are biased McPinions and the editor is a liability to Wikipedia. Thank you. Chessy999 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As user conduct goes around here, I do not consider the initial problems raised by Davidovic very much out of line. (except for the removal of the speedy tag by the author--that's never OK. ) What was a little absurd was a attempt to discuss on the talk page whether a speedy deletion was or was not appropriate. If there is any reasonable case made for keeping the article, it should go to AfD (which is where it is at the moment). Speedy is for unquestionable deletion, and another admin declined the speedy. Just discuss the article at AfD. The consensus will decide. DGG (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave the discussion on the fate of the article to the AfD debate, the reason I created this alert was because I think that User:Chessy999's conduct is poor. I have linked Chessy999 several times to the Wikipedia page explaining good faith, and I've tried to explain what it means. The editor has disregarded my advice and the advice of Wikipedia itself and continued to be impolite. I don't have a personal vendetta against the editor or their article, but I think that their attitude is out of line. If noone else sees a problem with their behaviour, though, I'll withdraw from this argument. Davidovic 14:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel David is out of line and made inappropriate comments, I attempted to help the User to become more professional, but the editor only keeps on the same path, if the administrators are in agreement, I would suggest this editor be suspended from Wiki-Cop duties for a period of time. Chessy999 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in, in support of Davidovic and to account for my own part in this. I can see that much of this dispute is my fault, and I am cincearly sorry for that. I feel that very early on in this dispute, Chessy999 resorted to personal attacks [13] which were, in my opinion, unwarrented. I do not feel that Chessy's actions towards me require a Wikiquette alert, however I can understand why Davidovic would do this, as Chessy999 has responded heatedly to both of us.

I feel that all parties involved may have become a little heated and argumentative. I do not think that Davidovic has done anything that makes them a "liability". In my opinion, Chessy has made some unfair personal attacks against this user. Lex Kitten 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults over a few months

User:Shabiha has insulted me over content disputes on multiple articles for almost two months, despite repeated warnings. This has gone on across the Deobandi, Barelwi, and Mawlid talk pages and also the talk pages of multiple users, and usually consists of calling me a Wahhabi, which I already explained to him/her is a derogatory term, in addition to other things. This has also been through multiple IP addresses signing comments as Shabiha during discussions on talk pages. This is what I dug up of personal attacks from just about two minutes of searching:

• 18:55, 26 September 2007
• 19:02, 26 September 2007
• 20:29, 27 September 2007

And from my previous warnings to this person:

• 23:16, 26 September 2007
• 23:20, 26 September 2007
• 22:57, 27 September 2007

I thought my second warning in particular got the point across, but apparently not. I found this while going to the talk page of a Wiki buddy:

• 19:26, 29 October 2007

I tried my best to warn this person to keep discussions civil and about the subject matter, and not myself. I really, really tried. They obviously don't take this very seriously, and I resorted to WP:ANI, and they directed me to here, as I wasn't aware of this noticeboard at the time. Any help would be much appreciated, because the person almost seems to disregard any comments I make as "wahabi propaganda" making discussion of articles very difficult. MezzoMezzo 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo

I am forced to re-state my original post here, as Leranedo does not thread his responses although he has been pointed to WP:TALK several times:

Now it is under it. See: Easy solutions. No need to bicker. Leranedo 07:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. So what do I do? Everything was replied to on the talk page already and I thought it finished already? Leranedo 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Replying again... Leranedo 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo (talk · contribs)'s talk page is a collection of WP:FAC participants imploring him to remain civil, explain his commentary on FAC pages, justify his NPOV claims, explain his copyedits, follow the instructions regarding Supporting and Opposing, and follow talk page conventions. (Tvoz, Karanacs, Awadewit, Arcayne, Malleus, SandyGeorgia; samples only, there are more.) Several editors have reached out and tried to reason with him (myself included, he has exhausted my patience, Tony1 (talk · contribs) reached out and Epbr123 (talk · contribs) gave him a Reviewer's award); several have issued warnings (myself included, worded as politely as possible).[17][18][19] His talk page is hard to read because he unthreads posts, chops up posts, and starts new headings. (SG)

Well, these were all replied to already, unless I missed a person's comment. I never check my watchlist so any comment or changes directed towards me would not have been received.

What more do you want from me? Are you trying to exhausted my patience? This is like a rerun of life. I'm not interested in that. My interest is stated explicitly on the user page. Leranedo 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, my talk page is perfectly fine. Starting new headings helps me reply as they become smaller. How is that a problem? Plus I had already addressed that and received no responds, but I didn't need for everything was peaceful. Leranedo 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC is not like an article or talk page where edits are buried in history; comments at FAC remain on permanent record in {{articlehistory}}. (SG)

Then anyone can see my honest comments. I have nothing to hide. Leranedo 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be heeding anyone's commentary, no matter how helpfully phrased and in spite of numerous editors having approached him. (SG)

Did I not say "I will try to moderate my sharp and incisive remarks" or something along those lines. And many similar replies. Check the talk page, though not all replies are there, so look around. Leranedo 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility

• Referring to others as psychotic humans in edit summary
• Only brainless people fail to see that
• Are you stupid? Are you insane?
• Perhaps your Wikiname describes you well to WastedTimeR
• Only brainless people fail to see that (SG)

• All addressed a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggg time ago. Are we still with that? Leranedo 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• For full picture, one would need to see the current status. I think I edited some of these, for better or worse, and there were replies afterwards. Leranedo 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Finished. Leranedo 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC impacted

• An example can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan (although hard to follow, Leranedo has deleted comments, moved comments, and has unsigned comments there). (SG)
• This was deleted and moved, and I had already explained why I did it: The editor of the article did not like off-topic talks.
• I sign almost all the time, sometimes I forgot. Not a remarkable deal for contention.
• Finished. Leranedo 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Muliple requests on his talk page to please respect instructions at WP:FAC regarding declaring Support or Oppose for candidates there, as his commentary is hard to understand. (He declares articles "Passed" or "Rejected" which is misleading, and opposes on the basis of NPOV without giving examples of why he considers articles POV.) (SG)
• You are misleading. It use to be No and Yes, changed along the way as the asking of people. Now, it's Reject & Oppose and Pass & support, respectively. Leranedo 07:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

.

• Multiple requests on his talk page and at FAC to explain his declarations of NPOV at FAC. (SG)
• All answered to, and I did provide points, and will do so on any other opposes. Leranedo 07:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I see no problems in passing it as it is better than most articles on this sickening FAC page (SG)
• That's not a personal attack; it's a view that I stated whenever that was written. Leranedo 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting an article on the basis of the low standards it sets (SG)
• Low standards are perfectly acceptable. The vote is valid. You don't even need a reason to support, but sometimes, I add a remark. Others, I think like adding reasons though. Just like many things aren't require for FACs, it's not require. Leranedo 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• removing others' comments at FAC (SG)
• Is this the one about moving the comment up there which was already addressed on this same page. Leranedo 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• You must be drunk or something (SG)
• I had replied already. I seriously thought that person was drunk or something. That person was extremely annoying. Leranedo 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AGF

• Are you trying some FA quota at the expense of quality articles? (SG)
• It was a question. Never received a response.
• But I don't mind. It's OK. I don't even remember it.
• Finished. Leranedo 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

His first posts as a newly registered user were to FAC statistics pages. (SG)

Oh yes, I remember that so very faintly. I thought it had to do with a infobox that was blocking the statistics so that I could not see. I moved it so it was above the data so the viewer may see both, but apparently, you, if I recall correctly, moved it back to block the view giving some kind of excuse, that we should leave it to be blocked until the infobox was formatted correctly. It appeared, though I do not know, that you work at wikipedia if you were stalking the "FAC statistics page" for no reason I could see. I was there because I wanted know but I couldn't because someone placed it in a way to prevent knowing. Leranedo 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Part I: I had edited extensively many articles varying in their respective topics, always anonymously for I saw no reason to create an account. I explored

Part II: So then,

Part III: Now,

Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo, this page is already a good example of the problems communicating with you. WP:TALK conventions have been explained to you several times, but you still won't thread your replies, so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo, this page is already a good example of the problems communicating with you. WP:TALK conventions have been explained to you several times, but you still won't thread your replies, (SG)

I have no idea what you mean by "thread your replies." As I stated, I already went over that and it's not against this format of replying, which is also stated on the talk page, and it received no response. But now I'm confused. Leranedo 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With the amount of text altering and re-arranging, indenting and re-indenting, moving and labeling that I've seen you do in one week, I have a hard time understanding what is confusing you. You thread things on your talk page exactly as you want to, indenting and changing, so I don't know why you are confused. Since you clearly know how to thread replies on other pages, and stated that you've read WP:TALK several times, it's hard to understand where the confusion is. It's simple: do not touch words you didn't type. Put your responses below them, indented for clarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lerandeo, this is about the fourth request (counting the ones on your talk page). Do not alter other people's posts.[20] This means do not change anything on this page unless it is something you typed yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a second. I don't know what you're referring to. Leranedo 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But the (SG) is so there isn't any confusion. What's wrong with that??? I already explained in the edit summary.... How's that not a good reason?? What more do you what.... Leranedo 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is my fifth request:[21] if you alter my posts again, I will ask that you be blocked. I do not see what you do not understand: it has been explained repeatedly. Do not touch text that you did not type. It's very simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was replying!! I will not anymore. Too much trouble. Leranedo 07:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo, multiple people have asked you to follow the FAC format for giving your opinion on articles, either Support or Oppose.[22][23][24][25] but you continue to use your own version,[26] rather than the guideline. As you've replied to most of these comments, it appears that you understand the problem but are deliberately violating the guidelines, with no explanation as to why. Karanacs 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have left a civility warning for Leranedo on his (my apologies if that should be her) talk page; Sandy has covered that, so I won't go back into the details—just mentioning for disclosure. What is perhaps the most troubling to me, is that Leranedo can be dismissive and will not engage in conversation. Often, when an editor stops by to try to help him adjust to Wikipedia culture, he will attempt to shut down the conversation, sometimes directing editors to the top of his user page, which says he is "averse to talking". For example, this reply to Arcayne, as well as his implication that we are wasting his time here. Discussion and consensus are cornerstones of Wikipedia, and I encourage Leranedo to fully embrace that. Pagrashtak 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am glad Sandy has brought these matters to attention. In addition to all of the above, I have seen user Leranedo comment on scores of FACs in a day. A good review of one candidate article takes sometimes 3-4 hours so it is plain to see he does not give the hard-working editors of these candidates the courtesy of even reading them. He cannot even follow simple instructions of stating either oppose or support, and he comments based on his own opinions and not guidelines of what a featured article should consist of. And giving him a review award is completely comical and beyond my comprehension. IMO he is disruptive of the entire FAC process. ♫ Cricket02 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• I am glad, too; I thought maybe I was just being thin-skinned about his (her?) behavior, which I found to be unnecessarily dismissive and rude. I cam into into contact with him via the Nancy Reagan FAC because I found his usage of Reject (in bold) and oppose (in plain text) to be misleading. As it's presence at the bottom of the page led me - who doesn't have a lot of FAC experience - to initially think that the FAC had not been successful, and had been rejected for Featured Article status. After closer inspection, I realized this wasn't the case, and asked the editor about it. He claimed that its not a problem, that he had been doing it for a long time without complaint,etc. - neither of which I found to be compelling arguments for providing misleading votes. He then moved the entire conversation to my User Talk page, which i didn't immediately have an issue with, as I didn;t think the page needed to be cluttered up with All The Drama™. In retrospect, i would have moved the conversation solely to his page and provided a short note in the FAC noting that the conversation about the incorrect and inappropriate usage by Leranedo could be discussed there. RL and other considerations crowded me enogu that i didn't do so, and wasn't more forceful in asking him to cease and desist with his usage of Reject an Pass.

After reading through his User talk, and the FACs of three other articles hes contributed to, I am struck by two things almost immediately: first, Leranedo is quite intelligent in his commentary when he provides it - and certainly smart enough to know that his alternative choices for voting are going to negatively influence other to vote. The second thing I've noticed about his edits is that he is exceptionally rude and dismissive, both in edit summary and in his actual posts. I have been contributing here long enough and have been dealing with difficult editors long enough to know the difference between a user who is just a sad little monkey using Wikipedia to find a place to vent their frustration and push everyone around with their 'great big brain', and someone who wants to change Wikipedia for the better but has little or no control over their level of sarcasm. Usually I can tell right off the bat which one is which, but I cannot tell this about Leranedo. In either case, his behavior is distracting, disruptive and corrosive to editorial cooperation and harmony. I wish I knew the magic bullet to set him a-right, as I think he has a lot to contribute to the community. However, i am unsure what to say to help this user find his politeness and conformity, and I see a sticky end if he refuses to even try to find it himself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent discussion on my talk page

The entire discussion is 4 pages in word by now, so please refer to this section of my user page for the [complete version]

In short this is what happend(From my point of view, of course):

During my regular vandalism patrol i spotted an edit that,in my eyes, was vandalism. The edit consisted the word "Scumbag" next to the name of an person. Also, the word "Too" was spelled as "Tioo" and the comment was made on a user page, leading me to think this was user page vandalism. I reverted the edit, and placed a level 3 vandalism warning on the users page. About 30 minutes later the exact same edit was made again, and i again reverted it and placed a level 4 warning on the users page(Uknown to me to be precise, as i forgot it was me who warned him before).

The response i got to this was the fist post in the long discussion on my user page. I deemed the response rather, if not very rude, and responded with a "more annoyed then polite" response to the users inquiry. Minutes later the owner of the user page comes around, and claimed (Again rather rude, in my opinion) that i made a wrong accusation here. I also made a response to this user, which was certainly more friendly then the previous one. When actually reading it thouroughly i decided to leave a little notice stating that i thought it was getting rather personal.

The responses after that can be described as a "Name and Blame" from the editors side, and a "Defend and counter" from my side. Claims from their side began to include that i threated a respected editor with blocking, something that was appaling, and that the origional commenter obviously had the right to feel insulted. The counters from my side mainly were that it wasn't intentional, and that (in more polite words) there shouldnt be such a fuss about it.

The next comment was actually the most(And anout the only) useful one, and came from a colleague reverter, Philip Trueman. Philip took a very neutral stance and indeed noted that i made a misjudgement here, but also offered advice that could prevent this from happening in the future. For me this was actually a big cheer up, which caused my next comment to be a lot more like my usual "Happy Dappy" style of commenting. The last two responces are actually the ones that caused me to post here:

*There's no need to cut slack. He made a mistake. When I pointed it out, all he had to do was check it and say "oops, sorry" instead of reverting me again and issuing a second template. This debate is really pointless, and a real waste of time. Sure, busy vandal-fighters will make 1-2% mistakes, whatever. All they need to do is be humble enough to acknowledge it when it happens, and move on. It's the self-righteous twiddle and the "no one understands us vandalfighters, we're the front line" crap that gets me. Most of us old hands, myself included, were fighting vandals before you knew what wikipedia was. Move on.--Doc^g 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(Responce transcluded from users take page, where it was removed in [This ] revision) I have not got the time or patience for this nonsense. While working on a serious project to reduce libels on this encyclopedia, on a user's talk page, I happened to express my subjective opinion that a neo-nazi was a scumbag. Well yes, I think neo-nazis are scumbags. I think Le Pen is an idiot. I think Nick Griffin is positively evil - a prat, a dangerous lunatic. Are you going to call that vandalism. Now go away, play with your scripts, follow your logic with your brain in neutral, and stop wasting my time.--Doc^g 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC) '

Since this involves 4 editors, i have a few questions, mainly to question my own behavior and handling in this:

(Yes, i understand that my vand3 warning at once was not the best move, and was actually not justified)
- Were the two "attacking" editors comments ok, a little rough, or just plain rude?
- Did the origional editor really have the right to react like this, especially at the last two comments?
- Was my first comment along with the vand3 to strong, and was it perhaps the reason this ignited into a flame war?
- In my opinion i stayed rather polite. But thats just me judging myself. Whats your thought, did i stay polite, or were my responses also flames?

Thanks in advance for your assistance!
--Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole thread would have stopped right there if you had admitted that you did make a mistake. I like how you were able to stay polite (and use smilies haha), but it really was a misunderstanding that everyone could have avoided. In a similar circumstance I think you would have responded as Doc did. ALTON .ıl 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a neutral editor, but I'll give my 2 cents for the next time: when you use Lupin's RC Tool, reverting from it is okay, but then always double check your revert before issuing the warning. If you're not 100% sure, don't template (especially when a quick glance at the user talk shows that this is not some child vandal). Yes this is sometimes a loss of time, but it's a small price to pay compared with all the time you "lost" here arguing. Keep in mind that for a newbie, a non warranted template can be very bitey, and we don't want to drive contributors away, do we? (By the way, NPA is for attacks against editors, not people outside WP). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I thank you both for your advice regarding this matter. Its indeed true that i should have been more careful when posting the templates. The warning level was way to high for a "First vandalism", which is something i still cant explain. I still believe that Doc should have posted a more polite first responce, but then again: My responce to his post was also not exactly the most polite post ever. I think that if we both kept it a little more professional this would have been very easy to avoid/solve, but alas, we didn't. Guess this is just a nice example to remember for the future :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)