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

User:LessHeard vanU

Resolved

This user blocked me for 24 hours a couple of weeks ago (ironically he alleged I violated No Personal Attacks and Civility). Following the block, I've tried to understand why he blocked me (which would I think be the first step in a potential dispute resolution process). However, while I believe I have remained quite civil, I think he has been uncivil in his comments on my talk page and in edit summaries.

On my talk page, he has made edits that are judgemental, and don't assume much good faith with comments like here that said of me "You appear incapable of understanding these simple comments ...". Then on his talk page, he archived part of the discussion; a review of the edit summaries shows that his summaries were "archiving per WP:DENY" and "archiving - per WP:TROLL". The first seems to imply that he is calling me a vandal - which makes little sense, as no one has ever accused me of vandalism in my 4 years at Wikipedia. And the second accuses me of being a troll? This appears to be most uncivil, and I believe not appropriate. That combined with the tone and content of his written comments appears to me to be out of line. But I admit - I'm not a neutral observer - and perhaps I'm overreacting! Before dealing with what I believe to be his inappropriate block of me, I was looking for neutral input on what I perceive to be his lack of civility. Nfitz (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not having time at the moment to research the entire history leading up to your block (I've only looked at LessHeard's talk page summary and the diffs you pointed out here), I'm inclined to believe LessHeard's assessment that you are harassing him beyond what is necessary and reasonable. Whether the block was justified, he seems to have made it clear that he no longer wants to talk to you, so continuing to post repeatedly on his talk page is a nuisance at best, and is trolling or harassment at worst. As he said, if you believe that your block was unjustified, take it to WP:AN/I - that is the appropriate venue to request a block review once the block has expired.

That said, could you please provide some more context to this dispute? What led up to your block? (If necessary, I'll ask LessHeard as well.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's worth mentioning that the policies he linked to in his edit summary (WP:DENY and WP:TROLL) provide complete descriptions of the behaviors he believes you're engaging in. They should be sufficient to explain Wikipedia's policies on those particular behaviors - if you're questioning what they mean or taking excessive offense to them, that suggests to me that you perhaps you haven't fully read or understood them. Obviously, they don't fully answer the question of why LessHeard implied you were a troll or a vandal, but they should at least serve to explain the policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly appears to have made clear that he doesn't want further contact - which is difficult, as when I read the dispute resolution process, I have to try and carry out sustained discussion with the other party before going elsewhere. The incivility all seems to relate to discussion today (March 25th - both EDT and GMT). Not counting a couple of minor edits made a few seconds after the original edit - and the notice I'm required to place on his talk page about coming here - there are only 4 edits I've made on his talk page today. The first I posted after his post that seem not civil - where I simply refuted his claim that his block was valid, and noted his incivility. The second was after his "archiving per WP:DENY" edit summary; I questioned what that meant - as there had never been any suggestion in 4 years that I was a vandal. To which he simply archived again, with the "archiving per WP:Troll". The third was when I questioned what that one meant - my understanding is that I need to raise this with him before going elsewhere. And the fourth was a question to him what procedure he thought I should follow to resolve this - perhaps the fourth was unnecessary - I could have asked someone else ... though by this point, it seemed to me, that he had already appeared uncivil, and implied I was a vandal and a troll; however for all my differences with User:LessHeard_vanU, he's still an Admin - and I have no doubt that he'd still give a fair answer to a question (and he did ...).

I've reviewed the policies he's referenced WP:DENY and WP:TROLL. I can't see anything remotely in WP:DENY that's relevent - I'd need some history of vandalism for that. As for WP:TROLL - well you seem to imply that posting on his talk page to resolve this could be trolling? That isn't covered in WP:TROLL. It clearly says that Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. And it clearly says that Genuine dissent is not trolling. All I have done in discussing with User:LessHeard_vanU is politely dissent with his actions against me.

As to the context of the larger dispute. It is complex - and I hadn't intended to discuss this here. I simply wanted opinion on the incivility - as if I have misinterpeted the whole thing, I want to leave it out of the WP:ANI case about him blocking me - and I recognise that I might not be unbiased in what I'm perceiving.

The short story of the larger dispute is that a different administrator had indefinitely blocked another user, noting that they only did vandalism; when I pointed out that the other user's edit history was only 2 out of 4 posts vandalism, with the 2 cases of vandalism both occurring before the user saw a warning, the other Admin ignored me, and continued to note that it was a vandalism-only account. As this was knowingly a mistruth, I simply asked the other Admin "But why the lies?" ... and when I got no response "I wanted an explanation why you've had no qualms in the lies you made, in your block". In retrospect my choice of words wasn't the greatest - and to save a whole lot of debate, I would phrase slightly differently - but for this User:LessHeard_vanU suddenly appeared and gave me a "official first warning for violation of " WP:NPA—this was my first encounter with User:LessHeard_vanU. After that I replied questioning how could documenting that someone is lying be a personal attack - and for that I got a 24-hour block - which is the block that I don't feel was justified. But I repeat - I don't think that is the case that should be discussed here - as I don't think this is the appropriate forum for that issue. Nfitz (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that when contesting a block, the reason for the block is inextricably tied up in the history leading up to it. That's why I asked for the context. Admins certainly aren't always perfect in their interpretation of policy, especially in well-known "grey areas" such as WP:NPA and WP:AGF. But I would agree at least to some extent that "Why the lies?" is not really the best way to pursue the topic, whether the admin in question is the one you say is lying, or another user. It shows a lack of assumption of good faith, and continuing to do that is often considered disruptive. If everything went as you say, LessHeard may have jumped the gun on a block. But keep in mind that admins often step in to give official warnings and issue blocks when they are otherwise uninvolved, when they see a need to do so. You don't need to have a history with them - if one of them sees that you're attacking other users or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia, they can and often will step in.

Note that I am not endorsing LessHeard's actions, since I don't know the full history and I don't have time to research it right now. I'll drop him a quick note and ask him to explain to me what happened, from his POV, and that may help me address this situation a bit better. For now, I'd leave him alone - I think you're only going to inflame things more if you keep pestering him. The block was temporary, and so long as you abide by WP's policies, it's unlikely you'll get blocked again. It's probably not as big of a deal as you think it is, at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In itself, not a big deal. But many of the Admins I've seemed to have encountered lately seem to shoot first, and ask questions later, operating way outside guidelines. When you start pointing this out, the wagons seem to close, and you start feeling like your bad-guy in a one-horse town. I'm concerned that the integrity of Wikipedia is at stake, if Admins aren't accountable for their actions. It's not that I'm concerned that I'll be blocked again (I'm not bothered by being blocked). I'm concerned that the Admins in question will repeat their error again. And I'm concerned that many of those that that they do this too, will not realise that they have been wronged. If it was a simple one-time honest mistake, I wouldn't be worrying about it. I'm concerned that there is a systemic problem here.

To save you from researching the history, it looks like there is a well-written, reasonably complete and concise summary now on my talk page - User_talk:Nfitz#Heading_off_Wikidrama that someone dropped in with. I've got a few minor quibbles that I've noted on his talk page, but really it's an excellent summary. Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I would agree with that person's assessment of the situation. My personal opinion is that nobody in the situation is blameless - I feel that the blocks against both Victor64 (the person whose block apparently started this mess) and you were a bit hasty, and there is some question as to if LessHeard VanU fully understands the policies he was quoting in his edit summaries. But at the same time, neither block was without warrant, and if things had continued in the direction they were when the blocks were issued, the blocks would very likely have happened anyway - they just wouldn't be open to the "shooting first" argument at that point.

LessHeard said to me basically that you seem to harbor a rather narrow view of what constitutes vandalism, trolling, harassment and other disruptive behaviors, and that that doesn't really jive with what's accepted by the community at large. I agree with him, in that you were advised by multiple people to drop it, let it go, and get back to constructive editing. I think that was much more about the way you were pursuing the issue, not really so much about the content of the issue itself. LessHeard feels that you have been harassing him - he's made it clear that he doesn't want to be bothered by you anymore, but you have persisted to ask him to explain things to you that he feels he already has, and he has directly told you that he intends to ignore you. Continuing to pester him, especially over what would otherwise be a minor issue, is properly considered trolling and harassment, and regardless of the specific technical term for it, your behavior violates WP:POINT. It is doing more harm to the project than good, and there are other ways to pursue the issue if you feel it really needs to be pursued. (Be advised, too, that WP:CANVAS may also apply here - I realize you're following WP:DR to the letter, but I would question whether it's really necessary.)

From what I can see, your block came about apparently as a result of your saying (or implying) that Philippe was deliberately trying to harm the project and cause trouble ("documenting the lie", which is an indirect way of calling someone a liar), and I agree with the original assessment that that constituted personal attacks. The additional fact that you were apparently sticking up for a personal friend and showing fierce loyalty to him further cemented the perception that you were simply retaliating against the admins and did not have a real, objective case to be heard. Whether that's what you intended or not, that's how it came across, at least in my review of the situation.

And, as has been said multiple times by multiple people, your best bet at this point is probably to let the matter drop. Rest assured that the hasty decisions in this situation have been brought to the attention of multiple people now, and if further action is necessary, more experienced admins will deal with it. The original block against Victor64 was lifted, so if that was your aim, the matter has been settled. It's not worth continuing to harp on it when the original admin has corrected the situation you were originally complaining about. And continuing to do so may result in another, longer block for violating WP:POINT and/or harassing users.

I hope this helps explain the situation better. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already documented on how Victor64 was actually working on constructive edits at the time of his block - so the idea that an indefinite block would "very likely have happened anyway" seems not to be true - and also seems to violate the concept of warning new users first. Had LessHeard actually tried to engage me in dialogue, rather than blocking me as soon as I showed any sign of disagreeing with him, then that block wouldn't have been necessary either.

I find any suggestion that I have been harrassing LessHeard particularily odious. I simply documented his uncivil behaviour on his talk page, to try and confirm if that is what he meant. Surely the first part of any dispute is to raise the issue on the users's talk page.

(Be advised, too, that WP:CANVAS may also apply here - I realize you're following WP:DR to the letter, but I would question whether it's really necessary.) I'm not really sure what your trying to say here. I don't see the problem in following WP:DR - who am I supposed to canvas? Part of the problem here, is the procedures seem to overlap each other, are not clear, and at times contradict each other.

If I saw any indication from the offending editors that they thought at all that there actions were a bit hasty, inappropriate, or stifling, then I would not proceed any further. But if we have admins continue to not understanding their role, or the policies they were quoting in their edit summaries, then surely it is the duty of every user to continue to point this out, until there ability to be an admin is removed, or they are re-educated? I see no evidence of any progress with the attitude and actions of Phillipe, LessHeard, or Stifle. Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We're likely going to need to agree to disagree on this issue at this point. I've already stated in multiple places that I felt your specific behavior was at least pushing the boundaries of what would be acceptable, and as I mentioned above, it made you seem as though you were simply retaliating. Trying to engage an admin with "fighting words", as it were, is more likely to make them go "Oh, the guy I just blocked is having his friends come after me now", and is going to make them less likely to want to talk to you. I'm not sure how else I can explain that.

I will also restate the fact that the situation is over and done with. Several admins have now reviewed the situation and agree that, given the relative lack of information at the time, the blocks were justified. Given the more complete information FOLLOWING Victor's block, the block was lifted (and quickly, I might add), and Philippe appeared to express an acknowledgement for the hasty action, if not an outright apology. LessHeard feels that his action against you was warranted, and again, I agree with him to some extent. (Note that while I have said I agree with him to some extent, I am not saying he was 100% correct.) He firmly believes he did the right thing under the circumstances, and at this point, it doesn't seem you're going to make much more headway with him. As a fellow admin, I don't believe his actions were out of line, much less that they warrant any sort of recall action against him. However, he has also received feedback from both myself and at least one other concerned user that we hope he'll take into account next time something like this happens.

My advice to you, as others have already said, is for you to drop it and move on. Continuing to bring this up over and over again when the original precipitating event (Victor's block) has been corrected is only going to get you in trouble. Again, see WP:POINT - you've made your point, we've all heard it, and I'm not sure there's really any more to be said on it.

Regarding WP:CANVAS: My use of this policy was a bit shaky, and I do apologize for the confusion. My reason for bringing it up was because of my perception that you were trying to force the issue by coming here, after already being advised that the situation had been corrected and that LessHeard didn't want to talk to you anymore. However, it is true that (to my knowledge) you weren't going around to forum after forum asking people to take action against him - all I know about is what you've posted here and on LessHeard's talk page. So WP:CANVAS probably doesn't apply in this situation, but instead would be considered good reading (as is the case with all of WP's policies).

Again, I hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To KieferSkunk: I disagree with your evaluation of the situation as far as LessHeard vanU's behaviour is concerned. This admin seems to have a problem with understanding and admitting his own mistakes, a problem which is normally overplayed by his generally good-humoured attitude. It is perhaps not an accident that this case first escalated when he tried to protect Philippe from criticism in a situation where Philippe had exhibited a similar problem. Telling Nfitz to go away and that he is wrong on a minor point on which he is obviously right is not going to improve the situation.

To Nfitz: Removing your comments about a borderline block was an obvious overreaction of Philippe, and the way he did it was an insult. I am sure that he did this, not in bad faith, but because he assumed bad faith about you. LessHeard vanU blocking you in connection with this was another overreaction and highly unprofessional. I explained the problem to him, but it seems that he cannot understand it. I think at this point the best thing you can do is probably to give up. If you want to pursue this anyway, keep in mind that almost everybody who hasn't examined the case in detail, and some who have, will come to incorrect conclusions about your motivations. You need to counter this by an unambiguously non-confrontative approach to get out of the Michael Kohlhaas mechanism of following due process and being wronged by it. For example you could ask a well-respected admin, whose judgement you trust, to look at the situation in detail (including the discussion I started on LessHeard vanU's talk page, and which ended with "agree to disagree"), and t analyse the situation and explain it to you. If, as is likely, this admin decides that LessHeard vanU and Philippe were part of the problem, then they can have a private word with them.

To sum it all up: Some relatively minor points are being blown out of all proportion by Philippe, LessHeard vanU, Nfitz, KieferSkunk and (probably, although I hope it's not the case) me, all trying to do the right thing and getting at least one important detail wrong. We need to get out of this spiral. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(shrug) I'm of the opinion that some mistakes were made and have been adequately dealt with, but I'm certainly willing to concede that I may not see the whole picture here. In any event, if more review is needed, it should be taken up at WP:AN/I. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think I'm to the point, that I'm ready to concede to everyones' better judgement, and drop the whole thing. I've certainly conceded that I could have phrased things better (with the hindsight of much reading of arcane Wikipedia guidance documents - some of which seem rather contradictory, I must note - though I guess that is to be expected). I'll take your word for it that Philippe has thought about things - I haven't looked into it. I'm not convinced that LessHeard vanU gets it ... but I guess that isn't my job. And I'm not sure anyone actually told User:Stifle that the discussion was taking place - oh well, his loss. Thanks to everyone involved (well, to everyone that didn't apply blocks at least :) And particularly to User:Sbharris who must have taken some considerable effort trying to summarize how this came about, and who I can forgive his antiquated but common views on education. Nfitz (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Weareallone

After I nominated an image for speedy deletion based on an obviously invalid copyright claim, Weareallone (talk · contribs) left the following comments [1] [2] about me on image uploader's page. I found the comments to be accusatory and uncivil, and I think they were clearly meant to prejudice others against me. (The image in question was deleted and the uploading user banned as a sockpuppet, incidentally.)

I warned Weareallone to stop making such comments before bringing it here, but noticed that one of the comments was repeated on their talk page. I asked them to remove the comments, but instead of doing so they have cut and pasted sections of WP:NPA and repeated their assertion that I am Wikistalking them, both in the text and the edit comment. See their recent edit history for another (abeit coded) message about me.

Fair warning to anyone getting involved: Weareallone and I have an existing conflict which stems from my AfD nomination of their biography and subsequent sockpuppetry case. Weareallone has previously made statements about me on their our respective talk pages, but I find the recent comments to other users completely unacceptable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to my message notifying them of this alert, Weareallone added further accusations of wikistalking and appears to be accusing me of being an Australian transvestite singer, but that's not completely clear. They also repeat completely baseless accusations of racism stemming from this AfD by a now banned user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And now, as well as "harrassment" and "cyberstalking", I'm being accused of "threats and hateful postings". These last accusations are completely baseless, as a review of my comments to Weareallone (talk · contribs) would show. Should I take this directly to WP:RFCC? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I can see that WPWQA isn't likely to work for me, but if someone can point me at a different forum or way to get some resolution of this situation, please make a suggestion on my talk page as I am no longer watching this page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I should like to add that I am the person to which weareallone is inferring is Delicious Carbuncle (incorrectly). I have just joined wikipedia. I am not DC, he/she is not me. The Weareallone editor, who is known to me, called me in New Zealand on 28th March (I have a recording of it) where I reside to accuse me of being Carbuncle and threatened a lawsuit in a menacing manner. Delicious Carbuncle is almost correct, IMO at to the identity of both Weareallone and Papillionbleu, and Weareallone has self-admittedly been also Mmmovie, who wrote the original bio page (about himself). This is not unsubstantiated when you look at the history of his bio page. I feel this is not a sockpuppet case though, these are two separate identities but working together, as they usually do, you have another word for that here on wiki.

I am sorry DC has been accused of being me (and an Australian transvestite as well!- which I am not BTW, that's just the usual name-calling), but yes my name is Pauline Berry as weareallone has repeatedly asserted/accused Delicious Carbuncle to be, who is NOT me. Related to this impoliteness dispute I think someone should look into the history of the Mark Bellinghaus article, its origins, its tone and sense of propaganda, thus it's writers self-serving motives. The harassment I receive outside of wiki at the hands of the person behind weareallone I accept is nothing to do with Wiki, unfortunately it has now spilled onto wikipedia. However now that I have pointed out myself here on Wiki I hope the harassment does not come to my talk page, and that it stops towards Delicious Carbuncle. Hopefully someone watches out for the newbies?Restawhile (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)restawhile

Restawhile (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)restawhile

Edit summaries and fact tagging by Otolemur crassicaudatus

This editor has added numerous unsourced tags to various articles. The main issue here is with Smallthorne, where a number of sections had every single sentence in them tagged, though similar things have been done by the same editor over the past two days to other articles I have edited. Other editors and an administrator found this actuon to be unhelpful, and after a short discussion here (the editor deleted the section almost immediately after the last comment by myself), reverted all his fact tags to Smallthorne with an edit summary that is both inaccurate, fails to WP:AGF, and is insulting to those who were concerned with the manner by which lack of sources was being indicated. edit summary can be seen here. I do think that these actions were unhelpful, and the editor seemed quite resistent to any suggestions of this in the initial discussions. I had had previous similar fact-tagging experiences on Great Sankey yesterday with the same user. Opinions?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for my edit summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Do you also withdraw the allegations that we "are supporting addition of unsourced material" and that we "see addition of fact tagging as unhelpful, not violation of WP:V" also, since they are unsupported and unverified allegations about us (ironically)?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to raise a further incident here, where in an edit summary in which the editor removed a message about a tag he had placed on Peterloo Massacre which myself and other involved editors felt was inapproppriate and unjustified, he first warned me on my own talk page of being uncivil and of harassment, and then used the term "trolling" when he removed my message to him. The content of the message pointed out to him that many other editors, including at least two adminstrators, had felt the need to advise him about overly-zealous tagging, and, as I pointed out in a later message, my own was intended to try to get him to adjust his method of working. (The talk page history of this editor includes a series of messages now deleted about tagging issues, etc.)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficult communication on Gabrielle Giffords

→ In re: user Bobheath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
→ See also: Talk:Gabrielle Giffords (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs).

A new user has been trying to add inappropriate content to Gabrielle Giffords, and I've been reverting his edits while trying to introduce him to Wikipedia policies. However, getting the new user to engage in conversation has been difficult, and we're stuck in a revert war at the moment. johnpseudo 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sunnybondsinghjalwehra

User:Sunnybondsinghjalwehra to User:Daulakh:

"tu mehnu apna patta de.. tere garh das pandra bande bhej ke teinu marunga!"[3]

translation from Punjabi: "Give me your address.. I'll send 10-15 goons to your house to beat you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.179.4 (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

lols, that wasn't meant seriously... Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks as if it was meant seriously in the sense that you were genuinely angry. My first reaction when I saw this was: This is clearly a threat of violence, and based on my limited knowledge about Punjab (coming mainly from Bollywood movies), it could actually be meant seriously. I was close to referring this matter to WP:ANI for admin action when I saw that you are quite open about your identity, and that you live in Belgium, where I know this kind of "conflict resolution" to be relatively unusual.

Please have a look at our policy No personal attacks if you haven't done that yet, especially the section which defines what a personal attack is. This includes "threats of violence or other off-wiki action". (Of course it also includes "u idiot", by the way.) Whether such a threat is meant seriously or not is not an argument, normally, because often we can't tell for sure, and especially the target of a threat could think it is serious even if it was clear to you that it wasnt't.

If you are not planning to do this kind of thing again, I suppose there is no reason to waste any more time with this. Unfortunately you have created a user page for User:Daulakh. I don't know what is the right way to remove this message under the circumstances. Perhaps the user page should be deleted, but only an admin can do that. I suggest that you look for an admin you trust, and that you tell them what happened and ask them to do whatever needs to be done in this case. Then you can contact Daulakh again, but on their talk page, and tell them whatever needs saying in a polite way. That's not only less likely to get you into trouble, by the way, but also more likely to have the intended effect.

Does this sound like a good solution? Remember to tell me when you have done it, so that I can mark this thread as resolved. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As u wish! Its a good solution. thanks. Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The 11:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC) edit by Sunnybondsinghjalwehra remained. I blanked the insults from that page as a courtesy to the other user. — Athaenara ✉ 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated failure to respect WP:Verification leading to personal abuse.

I felt that the changes to Safe Speed by User:Benny the wayfarer required verification under WP:Verifiabiltys "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" clause. After repeated failures to abide by the policy - [4], [5], [6], [7] they then resorted to personal abuse - [8] which I resent. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Verifiabilty cuts both ways; the text you prefer doesn't have any citations either! If I was in the same situation, I'd be inclined to find sources that backed up my claim (I take it that you're objecting to the "pressure group" tag?) and adding them. If you have a reliable source that says the group are a "road safety and motorist advocacy organisation" (Safe Speed's own web site obviously doesn't count as a reliable source) then restore that text, with a citation.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the personal abuse (ie breach of WP:Civility policy), otherwise I would have posted on WP:3RR. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What personal abuse are you referring to? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In The subject text quoted here I have not referred to any person, therefore there can be no grounds for claiming that this is personal abuse. Come on man! The text quoted only refers to the the previous version of an article. i am at a loss to tell the difference between an advocacy group and a pressure group, if that is the issue, (if you include a fact tag it could help clarify this) except that people know what a pressure group does and is, whereas advocacy sounds a bit posher, and is probably used inaccurately here as it trends to refer to a specific person's issues rather than a kind of issue. i love diciplining sentences with verbalitis. please don't take offence.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Electrobe

Hi. I (and I imagine at least one other user, User:Philip Stevens) would appreciate some assistance with this user with regard to the following pages and and their recent histories (i.e. the past few days):

• User talk:Electrobe#Template:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
  and User talk:Electrobe#.7B.7BGreat_Offices_of_State.7D.7D
• Template:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
• Template:Chancellors of the Exchequer
• Template:Great Offices of State

I hope the problem is readily apparent, but if any elaboration is needed, I can try to write something here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Electrobe has engaged in almost no discussion whatsoever and seems to be making mistakes in some cases, and then reverting to those mistakes. That's bad. However, those reverting him are often also not explaining themselves and not making good attempts at describing the problem. You all need to try harder to communicate. Electrobe hasn't used edit summaries enough, but edit summaries aren't sufficient discussion anyway: after one revert, a discussion should start on the template talk page. Mangojuice^talk 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've converted my note about here left on Electrobe's talkpage to this. (Since there's more than one template involved, I'm guessing it's better to centralize the discussion there.) Thanks for your input. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it looks like Electrobe is continuing to ignore people, not only with regard to the above but elsewhere too; see the most recent posts on his/her talkpage. Time for more action? If so, what? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• Looking at his (I think Electrobe is male) talk page and also especially the opening to the "Stalking, One and Only Warning" thread here, I see Electrobe is continuing to antagonize people. Advice/assistance, please. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've tried discussing with Electrobe at both my talk page and his, trying to stop him from reverting my edits. I have tried really hard to communicate, but I haven't got the skills it takes to communicate with this guy. Fred Bradstadt (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that you are trying to help him fix mistakes. Flibirigit (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thank Sardanaphalus for notifying me of this discussion. Electrobe seems to be having some difficulties with some of our core policies and I am watching his edits, having formally warned him about his behaviour.

Having said that, I caution all users to beware of WP:3RR and encourage reports of breaches of this policy to the appropriate forum. I also encourage everyone to stay as calm as possible, even when provoked. Breaches of civility or attack are not excused by other people behaving badly too. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add this edit summary (and diff!) from his talk page to the list… –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then Well I thought it was about time I came to see what all the fuss is about. Ok... Here goes please be patient with me throughout this discussion I am trying my best to do the right thing here. First of all before we go any further could I trouble somebody for a proper definition of what I have done? I don't mean tell me what I've done wrong please just accuse me of breaking a rule/s. Then at least I feel we are on a fair footing and everybody including yourselves will actually know what I am accused of and then this discussion can continue following a logical pattern. You may wish to discuss my 'charge' amongst youreslves because really I'm just going to have to accept the fisrt 'charge' against me or I feel I will be here for hours just trying to find out what I have done. I hope we can sort this out because despite what you may think of me I do enjoy editing Wikipedia and I dont mean to be obstructive. Electrobe (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think your new template layout is perfect even when many other users disagree try discussing these changes before making them, and you still havent admited your wrong with regards to the Template:Scottish First Ministers. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't actaully understand whats going in do you? I'm going to ignore you because unlike in all th eother cases being brought against me here on this one I'm right. If somebody else would like to come up with a definition per my last comment I would be very much obliged. Electrobe (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Electrobe, what you have done can be defined under three distinct headings:

1) You are creating poorly-formatted, poorly-written templates that are functional duplicates of already existing, well-formatted, well-written templates. This creates problems on two fronts as it means that you now have double the number of templates to maintain, at no benefit, and the templates you create lack accessible formatting. These templates also clutter the system and are a classic example of true cruft.

2) You are adding incorrect information and images to templates, and when these are inevitably reverted you become aggressive and intransigent, and are unwilling to discuss your opinions or bother to go away and do some research to see why your changes have been reverted. Apparently you regard yourself as some sort of British constitutional expert, in the face of obvious evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

3) Your attitude is, frankly, obnoxious. People have, in good faith, tried to clean up some of the cruft in your templates and you have simply reverted to the rubbish version with no discussion. People have tried to bring up your poor pattern of editing with you and you have either ignored them or accused them of launching a witch hunt against you. Against some fairly potent provocation on your part these editors have maintained an even and cooperative approach (bar one exasperated slip from Fred Bradstadt), which directly contrasts with your offensive, aggressive, hectoring tone.

Does this make it clear as to why people have a problem with you? There is no "case" against you. In fact, what this forum is actually about is trying to get you to see why there is a problem, and to get your side of the argument. You may or may not agree with my points above, but the polite and civilised approach is to think about what I have said and respond to them with a rational, thought-out, and evidence-backed riposte. So? Pyrope 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being most helpful Purope I am much obliged. I can accept your third point quite easily althouhg I think you will find that Fred Bradstadt actually was following me, alhtough I have to say what he was doing was correct he has admmited to following me however lets put hat aside shall we? Your second point I dont understand I dont beliieve I have ever mentioned the Briitsh Consituition and I think you will find that it doesn't exist except in theory. You first point (i'm sorry i;m working backwards here by the way) I can partually agree with I did create a number of templates (the Navbox Military disaster however has been dealth with) one of which seems to be proving quite succesful and as I have not reacieved any complaints about it for a number of weeks I asume nobody minds it that much. On the poijnt of the inncorrect informeation on the templates I never change info (unless I can see its obviously wrong) and so dont understand that part of your point I merely re-arrange the presentation. Sorry if this first reply was a little prickely but while I can now after reflection see a number of my points a feel I must myself strongly against claims which to my mind I can't in any way agree with. Once agian I am much obliged. Regards. Electrobe (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, cooperation is what Wikipedia is about. Fred Bradstad was perfectly correct to follow you, and he was actually behaving as every responsible, dedicated and dilligent editor should. When you spot an editor making repeated, simple mistakes in one page it is a safe assumption that they have probably made similar mistakes in other pages that they have edited. Sometimes these are simple typos, sometimes they arise from a misunderstanding of the Wiki code, sometimes they arise from poor use of English (we have many editors whose first language is not English, and many young editors), or for a variety of other, good-faith reasons. Copyedits and simple mistakes are best spotted by a fresh pair of eyes, and I know that many pages I have either created or expanded have subsequently been cleaned up by another editor, for which I am always grateful! You owe Fred an apology. As far as British constitutional (note use of small "c") matters go, although we don't have a document titled "Constitution", we most certainly have a constitution. This comprises the sum total of the legislative decisions made since the beginnings of centralised rule (way back into Saxon times), but I'm not getting into a detailed discussion here. You have most certainly run into this issue through you repeated edits to Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly templates. You also seem to have, unilaterally, decided on a template colour scheme that others have, rightly, objected to on the grounds that on many screens the contrast between black writing and dark purple background renders the titles unreadble, especially for those with reduced eyesight. It may look fine on your screen, but as anyone who has had to make a PowerPoint presentation knows, what looks fine on one screen may be a complete mess on another. These are all perfectly valid objections and if you really believe that they ought to be made then you should discuss the matter, not get into an edit war. If you believe that information is wrong then you need to support your assertion with a properly cited reference to a reliable source. "I know it" is not a valid argument. Also, you must discuss things properly. I see that you have been warned about the three-revert-rule already, so I'll just reiterate that you will be blocked if you continue. Continue the discussion on the talk page, and have the courtesy to actually go away an read references if another editor takes the trouble to find them for you. Pyrope 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Xbox_360_technical_problems

A few users who routinely edit on both the Xbox 360 and Xbox 360 technical problems articles seem to have gotten each other all riled up, degrading the talk pages of said articles into thinly-veiled attacks at each other - specifically User:8bitJake, User:Wageslave, and User:Dibol. I strongly suspect the whole issue could use some outside attention from cooler heads. Ayocee (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Ayocee. Wageslave (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cygnis insignis

For the last two years I've been responsible for systematically improving many snake articles. I started out in the Viperidae section, but later went on to work on other snake families, such as the Pythonidae. I've not had all that much help doing this, so I've mostly been operating on my own. As a result, a few of my methods are a little off-beat, but on the whole the results have met with approval. I like to pay particular attention to taxonomy, article consistency and references.

The last few months I've tried to spend a little less time editing WP, usually limiting myself to removing vandalism and correcting mistakes. My edits to the Antaresia and Antaresia childreni articles were nothing out of the ordinary and I even took the trouble to explain to the user, Cygnis insignis, the issues involved. I've done this many times before. Unfortunately, he just didn't agree and insisted that his edits be restored. When I tried to explain further he became even more defensive and eventually uncivil. I discussed the situation with an admin I know, Accounting4Taste, decided to ignore Cygnis insignis for a while, staying away from the articles at issue, giving him a chance to cool off.

Unfortunately, that's proving impossible: I suspect he's been watching what I've been doing and is determined to make life difficult for me. For example, check of the edit histories for Vipera berus, Morelia spilota variegata and Python reticulatus. Most recently, he left this warning on my talk page. I considered Accounting4Taste's advice to ask for a Third opinion, but this is a conflict that involves more than one article. It looks much more like a personal attack, which is a first for me. Therefore, I'm hoping that this avenue is the correct choice. If not, perhaps someone can inform me of a better one. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SandymcT

Several days ago User:SandymcT edited the Alcoholics Anonymous page removing 4K worth of information. Several editors, User:PhGustaf, User:Scarpy, and myself User:Coffeepusher felt that the edits needed to be discussed and contacted sandy with that information and reverted untill that discussion could be had. As User:PhGustaf noted on sandys talk page, all three of us have very different ideas about what the AA page should look like.

sandy told us that these fell into WP:BOLD and said that since we all agreed that changes needed to be made (in comments on their talk page) that s/he should be allowed to make the changes. we finaly got Sandy to go to the AA talk page to discuss the edits...and sandys comments where less than helpfull in resolving the situation[9].

This problem is compounded with the fact that it appears that English is not Sandy's primary language, and I believe sandy dosn't feel comfortable discussing changes.

Now Sandy dosn't discuss changes at all, we templated her/him for 3rr, and removing content and the only reponce was to template us as well. it has become a sticky situation, where all constructive edits on the AA page have ceased and it is just a revert war now. since the origional incendent User:MisterAlbert, User:Mr Miles as well as several others have reverted Sandy's edits. this encompases the major participants who are currently active on the AA page (with the exception of User:DavidMack and User:Desoto10 who seem to be sitting this one out).

Ok, so what the heck can we do about this?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note on User:SandymcT's talk page that several editors have tried to urge Sandy to make changes more slowly, and to try to work for consensus. His or her responses were, well, unresponsive. (I was in fact about to file a 3rr report, in fact, but perhaps this will work as well with less bad feeling.) PhGustaf (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC). (

hi, my changes have caused arguments sorry for that: my changes are 1. section too long (editors agree) 2. section POV (editor agree) both need changes agree by other editors, I have removed the newspaper from britain from 2000, to much writing about that? what is there now explanes the 13thstep and cult behavior i condense too, no problem. I put together in 'other notable studies'.

I offer it to editors to make changes but they just revert, no talking, no changes. They stuck on old version, dont let anyone else make changes. I thought that vandalism and revert to. Check my changes [10]

Thats all. -SandymcT (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with the responses to the request for mediation, so far. For the record I haven't reverted the 'Sandy edit' at all, I actually agree with most of the changes. It's my understanding from reading the discussion pages that these edits have some consensus (Lucida.ann, Scarpy and myself seemed to like the changes). I think Coffeepusher's idea to set up a Sandbox was a good one and that the best way of moving this forward would be to capture feedback on that and upload it as the latest version. It's disappointing that the Edit War has distracted people from working on the Sandbox. Mr Miles 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I also agree with some of the edits, but that's not the point. I pointed out to Sandy long ago that making the changes one at a time, with justification on the talk page, might give better results. (It's also not the point who was unSandying, just that there were several of them.) PhGustaf (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you seem quite angry about it, I'm not sure what you can do then as Sandy doesn't seem to be listening to you. Mr Miles 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)

I don't feel angry. My posts both here and on Sandy's talk page have been downright avuncular. Please don't ascribe feelings to me. 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs)

Well, I don't feel avuncular any more. In the edit at [[11]], Sandy not only reverted the changes under discussion, but altered a template to indicate that the page was protected for five days after the original two as well. Whether she thought this would work or not isn't an issue. But so much for assuming good faith. PhGustaf (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

My (User:Pichote) request for reexamination of the fair-use rationale of his/her (User:Yorkshirian) uploaded image Cartimandua.jpg has been disregarded. Repeteadly, the editor does not assume good faith nor address the issue. Instead of it, he launchs accusations of first vandalism and then trolling.

Cartimandua.jpg (originally here) was obtained from William Whitaker's website. Taking a look at his website one can deduce that Whitaker is probably a living person and therefore all copyrights apply. The use of his Cartimandua's painting to illustrate the article is very debatable, as he is/was not contemporary of the queen, nor he seems to be a notable painter. A free alternative is possible, because Whitaker's work was probably based on a certain girl (a model) and any artist could theoretically draw a supposed portrait of Cartimandua and then release it to the public domain or under a free license. -- Pichote (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) refuses to discuss disputed edits

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has a long-standing pattern of refusing to discuss disputed edits. See Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Pointless, Talk:Annie Lee Moss#User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edits, Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Image caption, Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward for some examples (there are many others). When he does finally enter something in a discussion about one of his disputed edits, he is often bizarrely off-topic, as in the Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Pointless exchange, where, despite repeated attempts on my part to correct him, he kept insisting that the problem was that I hadn't read the sources of the footnotes he was inserting. In several cases, the dispute has ended only because some third party has entered the discussion. These third parties often become involved at RAN's request; sometimes with honest descriptions of the dispute [12], [13], and other times with dishonest descriptions: [14]

On several occasions I have left messages on RAN's talk page asking him to respond to some unanswered question on an article's talk page. This has been fruitless.[15], [16], [17], [18]

He also often neglects to use an edit summary comment. This is generally only the case when he's involved in a dispute--he doesn't seem to have a problem with using the edit summary box when he's making an undisputed edit. See: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

• • The above changes were discussed on the talk page. According to the Wikipedia article, and the New York Times, and the Washington Post. McCarthy left the hearings during the testimony of Moss. So the change to testifying before "McCarthy" was changed to "McCarthy committee". All was brought out on the talk page.

Yes, it was discussed -- 29 hours and 4 reverts after the first revert. RedSpruce (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Internal contradictions in the article are not good. Thats why I tend to add sources to every fact I have a reference for, and I have trouble with someone reversing the addition of sources to the article. You like to add the books you read, I like to use the New York Times and the Washington Post. Both can exist side-by-side, I never delete your reference and replace them with mine. For instance [here you just reversed every addition I made. You tend to remove additions to the article not made by you. Its classical ownership syndrome from my perspective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually the first revert was here, where you reverted back to the incorrect "before Joseph McCarthy" instead of the correct "McCarthy committee". McCarthy left the room after she started testifying. It is just knee jerk reversion by you without checking the facts. You did the same at the article on Roy Cohn here, where you reverted another editor.

• • For instance here RedSpruce just reverts an editor's changes back to what RedSpruce wrote. So, which school did Cohn attend? Both, as discovered by an editor who actually did the hard work of searching for reliable sources. Its hard to do research, its easy to revert changes to an article that you didn't make. No one is immune from making errors that is why we add lots of sources, and quote the actual text. The more eyes reading and correcting errors, and adding sources, the better. If you don't like reading the references, or the actual quote supporting the text, skip it, thats why they are at the bottom. It is there for the scholar to look for errors, and to see what was actually said. I add the additional sources, because I want to know what was actually said, or because I am correcting an error. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, this behavior is frustrating. When an editor disagrees with one of RAN's edits, there are often only two choices: engage in an edit war, or let him have his way. If the article is an obscure one, it can be difficult to find a third party to break a stalemate, but that isn't really the point. The larger point is that this user is behaving in a way that's contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If some uninvolved person (or better, a few people) could leave RAN a polite note on his talk page to remind him of the necessity of discussing disputed edits, maybe the message will get through to him. RedSpruce (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The central point to resolve is one of style: whether verbose references are appropriate (i.e. lead sentence of cited newpaper article, or whole segment of text verifying fact). I'd say no; unless the precise wording is critical, it's enough to cite where verification can be found. And I agree with you, the lead-sentence format is especially unhelpful when it's about some irrelevancy not verifying the footnoted fact. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly one point, and is the major cause of my editing disagreements with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). My main point here however, is RAN's relentless, dogged, unceasing avoidance of discussing any disputed edits. That's the real "Wikiquette" issue here. RedSpruce (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it as an initial thought because getting a wider consensus on what, if any, Wikipedia style standards apply might be a less antagonistic way of clearing up the problem than wading into behaviour issues. On closer examination, I find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive385 - sections 12 User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) refuses to discuss disputed edits and 13 Pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing by User:RedSpruce, which shine a very different light on the issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of this page was to "wade into behavior issues." I guess I misunderstood. RedSpruce (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is to find out what's going on, and the possibility of bad-faith or unreliably-reported nominations is always looked into. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love to type in a long essay discussing the points brought up by RedSpruce, but my argument is identical. Just substitute in his name where he complains about me and reread it. Ultimately he was banned for 24 hours for reversing my additions. And two ANIs were brought against him. He also leaves messages on my talk page such as: "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you. RedSpruce (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, don't be shy, RAN; please, provide our readers with a list links to cases where I've refused to discuss my edits with you. Please, just a little list. Please?

And yes, I insulted you. You infuriated the hell out of me with your relentless and bizarre refusal to say anything meaningful in response to the questions I asked and the points I raised. If you're going to behave like that, you'd better get used to being called names. RedSpruce (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

May I just point out that two wrongs don't make a right. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you are into endless repetition, here is the information from the ANI:
  • Here at Annie Lee Moss you reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date.
  • Here at Mary Stalcup Markward, you deleted every edit I have made to the article back to your last edit. I think any meaningful debate ended when you called me a "moron" on my talk page.

I understand the pride that comes with contributing to Wikipedia, but when you delete everything added by another contributor, your displaying ownership which is not good for a collaborative work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are links to the ANIs:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive385#Pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing by User:RedSpruce

For what it is worth, I have found Richard Arthur Norton friendly, polite, and helpful in any of my interactions with him. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From an immediate inspection of the discussions, both users need to keep cool heads. Insults and sarcasm are not proper tools for dispute resolution. Maybe both people should voluntarily take 24-hour breaks from the articles in question, just to chill out a bit. - Chardish (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I go with that. I'd sum it up as User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) having a bit of a unlaterial attitude to citatiom

RedSpruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.80.84 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am calm, and don't allow myself to drawn into a verbal fight by his insults and taunts on my talk page. I also don't remove his contributions to the articles. Instead of getting into an edit war, I invite third parties to offer their opinions. The best policy when being taunted and insulted, is to ignore the person leaving the insults. When we reach the point where the discussion page is bigger than the article page, there is a problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:66.56.39.29 (aka User:170.35.208.22 and User:24.99.154.165) No edit summaries, non-sequitors, and personal attack(s)?

• 66.56.39.29 (talk · contribs)
• 170.35.208.22 (talk · contribs)
• 24.99.154.165 (talk · contribs)
• The Turtles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Fourmost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tommy Quickly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

specifics added in standard format Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An unregistered user has made a series of content deletions, without providing edit summaries, to pages I have worked on or created. I have rolled back a few of these edits out of hand, because they did not improve the articles in any way I could see, and posted user notices/warnings on the relevant user talk pages. User has thanked me with poor attitude ("Stop wasting people's time", "I see you're at it again", "try not to make assumptions about people", etc.), "explanations" that do not suit Wikipedia editor's guidelines ("It isn’t important to replace errors with facts, as you claim. Removing an error is sufficient in itself"), and an apparent refusal to legitimize himself by creating an account ("I post very little here. Only a couple threads"). I have followed Wikipedia guidelines in dealing with things as I see them; this has gotten me "what you think you're talking about", "if you had behaved like a gentleman", and similar statements, by way of (unsigned) reply. (I'm glad the bots have begun to address this aspect; I get the idea that if I'd made the attributions, he'd continue to take it personally.)

I have answered his latest round of questions (and accusations, and assumptions) on Talk:The Turtles, but I do not wish to get in further with this person, and would prefer an admin step in and set him straight on Wikipedia norms and expectations. It sounds like he doesn't want to hear them from me. Zephyrad (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon unexplained deletion isn't constructive, but if we're talking Wikipedia norms, the whole The Turtles article is unsourced and could validly be gutted if someone felt like it. The anon is right in that respect. The kind of material you reinstated, in particular, is very subjective [25]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be... but it does not address my concerns, for the tack and tone this gentleman is taking here, and the deletes in question are awfully subjective. I'd rather the information remain as is until it can be replaced with sourced material. I could go in and strip it down in such a manner (and so could anyone), but what would it leave, in the meantime? "The Turtles were a band", if that? (At least Gordon's deletions did give an explanation.) I did ask for an admin to speak to this editor. Simply going in and redeleting his deletes, without a word to the editor himself, will only encourage him to not follow guidelines, or try to find them out. Zephyrad (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem though - unless material is sourced it can (and should) be removed (as the {{unreferenced}} template says: "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed"). The WP:VERIFY policy states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you've restored text that has no sources, that counts as original research, and can be removed. If the only sourced material that is available is that "The Turtles were a band", then that's all the article can say. If the band meets notability guidelines, then surely there must be more information that can be found in reliable sources? If sources CAN'T be found, then I'd suggest that the band fails the notability test, and the article is looking at a deletion! ;-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt over notability - see Rough Guide to Rock pp3-4. Generally nuts-and-bolts stuff that's trivial to source - e.g. songs produced, band members - isn't a problem. It's the unsourced quasi-NME critique that needs to go (e.g. song X "seemed almost a parody of itself") unless sourced. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that they may be notable. What I'm saying is that if (as has been established) they are notable, why are there NO references in the entire article? Surely a notable band would have been written about in a format that can be used to add reliable sources to the article? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since neither Gordonofcartoon nor JediLofty is an administrator (neither appears on any admins list, and neither of their user pages indicates they have adminship), why they have chosen to involve themselves with this matter completely escapes me. I will repeat my request once more, politely: Will an admin please speak to this unregistered user, about his conduct on Wikipedia? I was not asking for anyone to weigh in on whether his deletions were proper or not. I was asking for admin intervention on un-Wiki actions and conduct, by the user in question, and I will thank both these persons to read and heed what is written, next time, particularly since they are not administrators at this time. (And if JediLofty seriously thinks the Turtles and their music are not notable, or that the article should be deleted over notability, it is my sincere wish that Flo and Eddie come and sit on him, while they sing ALL their greatest hits. They had a few.) Have a nice day. Zephyrad (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Unlike WP:ANI, it's not a noticeboard to sic administrators on someone. It's for community input on situations involving Wikiquette; that may or may not involve admins. If you look at Talk:The Turtles, you'll find that 170.35.208.21 now understands that there's a convention of explaining edits, which is all that's required. Since his/her edits to articlespace were the origin of the dispute, it was reasonable to look at them too; and I don't see anything to complain about. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

non admins are encouraged to help out here--we admins need the assistance badly. For that matter, dealing with problems like this is an excellent way to prepare for adminship. DGG (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the enlightenment. I did not use this page to "sic" anyone on anyone, and I do not see how this user has been discouraged from making personal attacks, or being snippety toward other editors in the future, or encouraged to register instead of editing unregistered from multiple addresses; I figured admin involvement would accomplish those purposes. Again, the instructions say nothing about non-admins getting involved, and (despite Gordon's statement that he doesn't "see anything to complain about") I am disappointed that Gordon did not encourage the user to register, or to be more civil, or to realize that I was only doing what any editor who sees content removed is likely to do. I notice the user was nice (almost overly nice) to Gordon, while still being snippety toward me (if he can do it toward me, he can do it toward others), and now Gordon has also begun making assumptions ("you're mistaken", and that "sic" comment). I have to wonder what sort of admin he would make, if he's already in the practice of shooting the messenger like this.

The next time I see such trouble, I doubt I will use this forum, and will likely speak directly to an admin, since my initial and primary concerns were not addressed, and all I've gotten for my good-faith efforts is more hassle, when I didn't need a hassle in the first place. Nobody does. (Has the user been encouraged to register, to read the guidelines, or to be more civil toward others here? I haven't seen it, and I'd say Gordon missed my point.) So be it. Zephyrad (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Reywas92

Yesterday, I asked for a featured article review on Angkor Wat. Reywas92, who has never edited the article, left a remarks that I found insulting and that had nothing to do with the article in question.[26] When I asked if the comment was necessary and asked him to be more civil, he made an even more insulting remark regarding my editing.[27] I feel these remarks are uncivil and unnecessarily hurtful, but as they were made against me, I feel a more neutral third party should take a look at the remarks. Collectonian (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry! I just feel that the removal of many references on Jeopardy was unnecessary and do not fully violate RS. I don't really mean them to be against you, just that I strongly disagree. I'll stick to Angkor Wat and won't bring that back to the FAR. Also, I found your final comment to me very insulting, and the report here even more so. Actually, I have edited it before, although minor; you have never edited it before either, so I don't know why that was relevant. In my experience, I would never FAR an article, though I respect your opinion to do so. In most cases, tagging an article for something does not help at all. For example, you could have easily taken care of the image problem yourself, rather than FARing it. I'm sorry if I insulted you, and this was unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JeanLatore

I first noticed JeanLatore (talk · contribs) when he made the comments at [28], [29] and [30], and reported him at [31]. He responded with this, to which I, admittedly, without a great deal of etiquette, replied with [32]. Since then, we had had a couple of what I felt were civil comments between each other. But then I happened to be on WP:DRV today and saw Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_5#Anal_Sex_with_Sluts. I had already had concerns over JeanLatore's edits, and went to review his contributions, and nominated Calin chi wong and Aristoff for deletion, based on my feelings that neither subject is notable. Apparently JeanLatore then began poking through the history of my User page, because he decided to comment on the previous version of my User page, which included the statement "I am not new to Wikipedia, despite my relatively short edit history. I got off to a bad start (although I was never blocked), and want to start over again. Consider this my new Wikipedia life.  :)". In an update to my page, I had removed that line, which had been there since I first started editing with my current User id. JeanLatore made the following edits on my Talk page: [33]. When I told him on his Talk page that I would have said who I was before if I wanted him or anybody else to know, he stalked me to Mystik Media, which I had speedy tagged for deletion as an ad, removed the speedy deletion tag, and replaced it with a PROD tag whose justification for deletion was "Not a valid speedy", which is not a valid PROD reason, so I reverted him and gave him a uw-2 vandalism warning. I will admit that my actions have probably not been really good in this whole deal, and I won't bother him any further, and in fact, I wouldn't have even gone any further with this at all, especially since Mystik Media was speedy deleted anyway, except for the fact that, in reverting my removal of his PROD tag, his edit summary said "reverting admitted troll and vandal". I have never been a troll and vandal, have never admitted to any such thing since it isn't true, and I want JeanLatore to knock it off. I will notify him of this discussion on his Talk page, and then will not edit his Talk page again. He's going to get blocked soon anyway, based on the way he's been editing. Corvus cornix_talk 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a short note on his page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Angrymansr

This user continues to attack and harass me. His behavior isn't limited to just my talk page, or his. His edit summaries as well have been abusive and rude. He's even gone as far as changing my comments (that are on his talk page) to make me look stupid. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rob, just following along. Provide diffs and it'll be much clearer what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's where he edited my comments. The first time- [34], the second time (borderline, but it's close enough in my view)- [35]. Abusive edit summary: [36]. Personal attack section he posted on my talk page: [37], the same section which he added a very rude title to: [38]. Here's where he was warned by someone that wasn't me: [39]. His most recent poor behavior towards me:[40] and [41]. I'm getting very sick of this. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In defense of Angrymansr, Rob's low-key tenditiousness has both caused a string of problems between him and other users, yet kept him under the radar.

Profanity doesn't serve any purpose, and calling someone's edits bullshit is out of line, so he's got a pretty significant point in this case. However, telling someone to "grow up", as he did in his first link, is as much of a personal attack as calling someone a "fucking douchebag" like Angrymansr did to him.

And quite frankly, continually leaving warnings on people's talk pages isn't exactly good faith either. Talk pages are for attempts to work problems out, not needle people with warnings. Was this [42]? necessary? Don't you think it's a little bit bad faith itself to accuse someone of ignoring/not bothering to read policy?

The reason I decided to post this is because I've seen enough cases of people getting blasted by wikipedia in general for being the ones to lose their temper, while the editors who keep their tenditiousness and starchyness low key and under the radar get a free walk. There's two wrong parties here, not just one guy who used a bunch of profanity and an innocent well meaning editor. McJeff (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

While I am guilty of losing my cool, I am not the problem editor here. Please allow me to showcase the type of editing that RobJ1981 displays. Most of this activity is from this year alone. What made me lose my cool on this editor is when he reverted a good faith edit of mine without reason, most likely just because my name was attached and failed to acknowledge any wrong doing.[43]. All of this stemmed from his continual tenditiousness of the article Smackdown vs Raw 2008.

If you look at the talk pages, you can see that the majority of editors have made a case for making the roster of the game a list. [44], [45], [46], [47] Rob has reverted many users who have re-added the list no less than 14 times.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]

Looking through the talk pages you will see the following:
Users who have asked for this section to be a list or table: User:RobJ1981, User:Ladder4321, User:WWEBoffin0101, User:220.235.118.203, User:Govvy, User:Greyglue, User:InfoLove, User:Welshy1791, User:Masterofdestiny, User:AD_Double_J, User:69.207.161.152, User:Credema, User:75.117.53.19, User:Technogreek43, User:ArcAngel, User:Truco9311 , User:DonJuan.EXE, User:Dlae, User:Kaizer13, User:Maestro25, User:165.21.154.110, User:Fhassan, User:Nifboy, User:Amamamp, User:McJeff, User:Angrymansr

Against a list/table User:Jtalledo, User:Krator, User:RobJ1981, User:Truco9311, User:3bulletproof16, User:Guyinblack25

Rob has been reverting anyone who makes the roster a list or table, though there is very little support for the roster to be prose. If that wasn't bad enough, while this debate was going on he started converting the other wrestling games rosters to prose.

Now that you have our history, let's look at how he treats other people.
Calling people hypocrites [62][63] [64]

Accusing others of being revert patrole[65][66][67]

Dressing other down[68][69][70]

Accusing other people of stalking[71][72][73][74][75]

Abusive edit summaries[76][77]

Assuming bad faith[78][79][80][81]

Telling people to "go elsewhere"[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

Accusing others of WP:OWN[90][91][92][93][94][95]

The be all end all[96][97]

Get over it[98][99]

Reporting to administrator noticeboard without notifying editor[100][101][102]

Accusing me of harrasment by informing him that I will notify administrators of his behavior [103]

Accusing others of forum shopping with no evidence[104][105]

Requesting protection due to edit warring while being the major edit warrer, then failing to discuss issue during protection[106]

Accussing of purposely breaking policy [107][108][109][110][111]

Reverting without reason[112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119] [120]

Making major changes to article without consensus[121] [122] [123]

Accusing others of vandalism when it appears to be good faith editing [124] [125] [126] [127][128]

General incivility [129][130]

Accusing others of sockpuppetry [131]

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive42#User:RobJ1981.2C_continual_tenditiousness. Angrymansr (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I havent had the time to go through all those links. But all of the WWE Wreckless Intent ones are justified. It's been noted numerous times on the talk (and in the warnings in the article itself): the track list is the back of the CD and nothing else. IP editors (for the most part) add whoever has the song currently, and that's not correct. Listing a bunch of links, then not knowing the history of the article (and conflict or situation with it) isn't helpful. Link #63+64: once again you don't know the situation at all. Link #96 wasn't uncivil: I said hell when I asked a question. Link #36 is the only rude one of the "dressing down" links, the others were a little harsh I suppose. However, there is no crime for being a little negative in comments. Also I want to remind everyone: this is a Wikiquette alert about Angrymansr, not myself. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For someone who thinks that negativity in comments isn't a crime, you sure do spend an inordinate amount of time accusing others of incivility. McJeff (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an adminstrator, but after reviewing all of the information here, it certainly seems like Angrymansr could stand some time away from the encyclopedia to reevaluate whether or not they want to continue to edit. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

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

---

This is a content dispute, and editors will be better served if they pursue WP:DR. Wikipedia is not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16

03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I've never come across an incident like this before, so i'd be appreciative of some help or guidance as to the correct course of action.

It centers around this editor, User:Arcayne. Basically, he's being very, very obstructive and abusive.

The issue is on this discussion page.

User:Arcayne made some quite serious insulting and unhelpful responses.

The dispute began with his reversion here. I then undid his action here; to which User:Arcayne then reversed here, and made highly presumptive and condescending comments on my Talk Page, User_talk:Kapowow.

I began a discussion on the discussion page's Flags in Post-Response section to try and resolve this dispute, to which User:Arcayne replied with many obnoxious remarks here and here. The worst had to be "If you want to discuss, I am here, ready to discuss with you. If you want an argument, maybe you and the anon 75... can go off somewhere private and beat on each other. I've no time for it. And trust me, getting into an incivility contest with me is a sure way to end up weeping inconsolably in a darkened corner of your closet, so dial down the aggro a notch, okey-doke?"

which is totally unprovoked. I had clearly laid out the arguments in contention, and received a stream of abuse. I tried my utmost to keep the discussion on-track and level-headed.

Discussion with this individual seems incredibly difficult, and his overall tone is one of accusation, threat and abuse. I asked for other people to contribute to the discussion, but I feel that people are too scared by this editor's voluminous attacks to be able to participate in any meaningful debate.

I would like this issue resolved as soon as possible, as it really is just a trifling matter.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

As per the guidelines, I shall inform the editor in question of this on his user page.

Kapowow (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree - indeed you will find a trail of abuse and lack of good faith in his wake. Is there a formal way to make specific wiki editors aware of this process?75.58.34.144 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, six of one and half a dozen of another here. I agree that Arcayne has been a little patronising, but s/he was not aggressive initially. Your own attitude is far from perfect by the way. There is a long-standing avoidance of over-flagging articles, and using flags in main body text is a definite no-no (WP:FLAG #3 to reference your previous discussion). Arcayne's initial revert gave a good reason for doing so and was perfectly fair, but rather than sitting down and discussing it you merely reverted. Look up WP:BRD for some idea of how disagreements should be resolved. Reversion chains lead to edit wars and you really ought to avoid starting them. Arcayne's comments on your talk page are hardly "presumptive"; you yourself proclaim that you joined Wikipedia on March 7, 2008, so pointing out that you are new and so may not be fully aware of many guidelines is simply fair comment, and it was not done in a patronising way. Your assertion that Arcayne's "okey-doke" comment was unprovoked is laughable, by the way. In the preceeding post you yourself are fairly obnoxious and use "duh" and are sarcastic throughout. You own logic also fails, ironically in the very sentence where you accuse Arcayne of that very fault. Arcayne's point that "Since wikilinking the country is faster, the inclusion of imagery is unnecessary and therefore decorative" is perfectly logical. Text wikilinks are faster, smaller, more descriptive and less ambiguous than a flag, which relies on the reader being familiar with flag designs and can be easily confused by similar flags, especially in the 20px sizes used in the flagicon template. Therefore the flag images are unnecessary in text and the only remaining purpose that they serve is decorative. I will fully agree that, as a relatively experienced editor Arcayne should have opened discussions earlier and moderated their tone far better (and some of those turns of phrase are beyon the pale... although I have written a few down for future use), but you are not absolved of blame for this spat. You appear to have an unfortunate combination of thin skin and a fast tongue. Do not imagine that your "what a fucking asshole" edit summary has gone unnoticed... Do not expect sarcasm and hostility not to come right back at you. I'm not going to get drawn into the EU discussion, that's not an area that I am qualified to comment on, save to say that you must try to produce third-party evidence for any assertions that you make. Pyrope 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)As per the notification of the wikiquette alert, I will now reply to the accusations of "obstruction" and "abuse" leveled by two different users.

Kapowow - the first reversion referred to removed flag usage as per our WP:FLAG policy (the images failed at least half of the criteria required for inclusion). Kapowow, instead of discussing, simply reverted, without discussion. It was only after I reverted yet again (again suggesting that discussion was needed) that the user decided to actually try discussion. The first two (of three) remarks I made to his user talk page (after his first revert of the material) were indisputably very polite and helpful (1, 2). My last comment (3) was prompted after his uncivil remark made in the article discussion:

• "I do not wish to be drawn into an accusatory diatribe with you, as you seem to have a very condescending agitated bee in your bonnet"⁴

Kapowow's behavior deteriorated (5) from that moment on, and his subsequent post was littered with uncivil comments and personal attacks (6, []). At that point, he filed this wikiquette alert, citing personal attacks and abuse that simply do not exist.

Anon user 75.58.34.144 - From the moment I posted to the article or discussion, this user (almost assuredly an single-purpose account 7) has been extraordinarily uncivil, and there is hardly a post where he doesn't take a shot at me.

I think it should be initially noted that this particular user edits anonymously and pointedly ignores requests to sign their posts. Normally, this would just be an annoying quirk from a newbie, but a closer look at the editing patterns suggests that this user is also operating under at least four different IP addresses:

75.58.34.144

• 75.58.57.10
• 75.58.36.51
• 75.57.200.103
• 75.58.62.44

As all four of these accounts appear to be operating as SPA's almost entirely in the Fitna article, and all seem to specifically avoid posting signing their posts, and support each other in group voting, I have been compiling a complete list for submission to Request for Check-User before submitting the results to WP:SSP as indicative of abusive sockfarming. If it isn't socking, then the user, through these clones, has violated 3RR repeatedly in the Fitna article.

I call the sockfarming abusive, as my first two edits to the article removed an uncited addition of a cast member's pseudonym, incorrectly linked to an article for a fictional character that had nothing to do with the pseudonym (8, 9). After which, the anon user accused me of having removed cited references for the pseudonym 10, 11, 12), and displayed incredibly bad faith, accusing me of:

• inappropriate (edits which) verge on Vandalism,
• "intellectually dishonest an fraudulent"
• "pseudo sockpuppetry"
• "less than good faith here...has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed those same sources. This pseudo-sockpuppetry
• obstructionism
• the same, cross-posted to another article

Apparently the user is unaware that consensus is not a static concept in Wikipedia (13, 14, 15), or that Google hits are not be used at face value, due to Google-bombing (especially with contentious and virally-marketed topics like anti-Muslim propaganda) (16, 17, 18), or even that he cannot be a cited source for an article 19.

As well, the anon (as well as the likely sock-puppets) kept trying to close out discussion on the matter by repeatedly noting the discussions as 'resolved' (20, 21, 22, 23), when clearly, the weren't.

Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. I could list the posts of all the others, but that would number close to 50 posts. At no point was I rude to any of his socks; I even made the point of ignoring posts which were mostly composed of personal attacks.

In conclusion, Kapowow is simply incorrect in assuming that I am making personal attacks on him. If anything, I have been polite, even posting - again, politely - to his user talk page when he violates WP:CIVIL. What he sees as obstructive is my enforcement of current policy and guidelines. He is misinterpreting current guidelines, and I have suggested methods by which he could either confirm the current policy or poat to advocate a change in policy. He has chosen not to do so, but to instead 'attack the messenger'.

The anonymous user is another matter. He/she is more than likely but one of a largish sockfarm trolling the Fitna article. After posting to RfCU and SSP, I will update this wikiquette alert to reflect the results of those investigations. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠*I will simply defend myself against the false accusation of sockpuppetry by quoting you:

Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. I could list the posts of all the others, but that would number close to 50 posts. At no point was I rude to any of his socks;

I not only use a distinct identifier - I have a unique voice and refer frequently to my previous writings. This is clearly NOT sockpuppetry, it is an absurd accusation.

• Further, I fail to see anything unusual in the content of the postings you displayed, only tabloid headlines. I've added (Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad) for clarity to identify the "it" in context. This is my supporting link for this addition:[132]

Here then are Arcaynes Tabloid headlines and the content of those links:

• inappropriate (edits which) verge on Vandalism,

Other than the film itself, which displays it prominently in the credits, here are another Sixteen Hundred mentions on Google:[133] I'm sorry that someone chose a pseudonym that upsets you, but they did. It is what it is. The entry is simply an encyclopedic reflection of the work it seeks to describe. What possible argument could you have for NOT including it? I'll suggest that your Reversions are inappropriate, the onus is now upon you to explain why deletion is necessary. Your actions are inappropriate, violate the spirit of the Revert Rule and verge on Vandalism.The inclusion of Scarlet Pimpernel was not done lightly, it was discussed at length since the inception of this article and was adopted by consensus. Your Reverts have undermined that community consensus - it is you that must show cause for exclusion.

• "intellectually dishonest an fraudulent"

That's just grand. You keep referring to it(Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad) not being in the Fitna article. I believe there are three references to you making that claim. What you failed to point out is that you removed it (Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad)from the Fitna article only to have at least two separate members replace it. Your argument relies upon your own pseudo-sockpuppetry as support for your position. Your actions in this situation are intellectually dishonest and fraudulent

• "pseudo sockpuppetry"
• "less than good faith here...has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed those same sources. This pseudo-sockpuppetry

I move that this be considered resolved.

• • The film does credit a "Scarlet Pimpernel"
  • Google shows 1600 hits discussing "Scsrlet Pimpernel's" role in Fitna[134]
  • Major media has discussed it and been referenced (Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad) in the article
  • The community struggled with and adopted an existing position on this issue already. It has achieved community consensus.
  • There are indications of less than good faith here, Arcayne has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed (Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad) those same sources. This pseudo-sockpuppetry.

There is no basis upon which to exclude the mention of Scarlet Pimpernel or his role from the Fitna article.00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• obstructionism

I would not normally disagree - however Arcayne has been very quick to edit and edit again followed by throwing up a wall of questions here, at the Scarlet Pimpernel Talk page and thirdly on your talk page. He has received lengthy responses to his query's at all three -- But has not responded anywhere yet. This appears to be obstructionism. I would suggest reverting his edit on the basis that the onus falls on him to show cause not to include mention of the Scarlet Pimpernel in this article. But, as a courtesy, wait a respectable number of hours for a response before reconsideration of applying a resolved tag.01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• the same, cross-posted to another article

You are an excellent WikiLawyer, but there is no substance to your accusations against me.75.58.34.144 (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess we will know after the RFCU, won't we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also submit that this likely sockpuppet isn't above meat-puppetry or canvassing, either (1, 2, 3, 4]). Before he denies this, and I simply take this to AN/I to have him blocked/banned, someone ask him what criteria he used to select the recipients of his "special notices". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I have sent out neutral notices. Your characterization of it as "special" is not an honest report. People are free, if they choose, to express themselves independently. I have simply noted that a topic of interest has been opened. 75.58.34.144 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, what criteria did you use to select the recipients? Might it be that the folk you have cherry-picked just so happen to be folk whom I've disagreed with at various times, and now you are seeking back-up, hoping to reinforce your report? You are going to learn - presuming you aren't banned before then - that you are not smarter or more clever than any other person here. It would be a lesson you would be better off learning rather quickly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree with the assertion of "50/50" blame by Pyrope. Pyrope states that "Your assertion that Arcayne's "okey-doke" comment was unprovoked is laughable, by the way. In the preceeding post you yourself are fairly obnoxious and use "duh" and are sarcastic throughout."

What obnoxiousness would that be? A single use of "duh"? Is that it? Compared to Arcayne's lengthily viscious assault of "you and the anon 75... can go off somewhere private and beat on each other. I've no time for it. And trust me, getting into an incivility contest with me is a sure way to end up weeping inconsolably in a darkened corner of your closet, so dial down the aggro a notch, okey-doke?"

So if I am to understand this correctly, I am free to go around Wikipedia saying that people should go and "beat on each other", which is possibly sexual or homophobic abusive language, then bait people about engaging in an "incivility contest", and warning me "If you feel I am being condescending, consider the significant restraint I am displaying in not responding in kind to some of your unpleasant characterizations of my edits" which means basically that I disagree with him.

At least Pyrope agrees that "some of those turns of phrase are beyon the pale".

As for the edit summary on my User Page? well, as far as I can make out, at WP:USER, that is my prerogative. I removed Arcayne's absurd statements on my userpage, and the reason is that I think he is a "fucking asshole", which I stated. I suppose it could be construed that I am inferring a direct insult to Arcayne, which would be frowned upon I'm sure; alas, edit summaries are unchangeable, are they not.

And if that's the worst thing I said, it looks as though Pyrope has sided with Arcayne, by appropriating a higher percentage of blame to me in relation to Arcayne; id est, imo, where I have 10% of the blame, and Arcayne has 90%, Pyrope unfairly and unduly apportions me with 50%.

Pyrope then warns me that "Do not expect sarcasm and hostility not to come right back at you", which is ludicrous, as all of Arcayne's responses had happened before the removal of his "helpful comments" on my user page. If Pyrope is using one edit summary as a reason to be hostile to me, as opposed to everything else I wrote that was neutral in tone in an actual discussion page, and not on my user page history edit summary, then that is entirely biased and seems simply a means to justify apportioning me with undue blame.

Pyrope accuses me of being "sarcastic throughout". Unfortunately, that is not the case; as a thorough (or even cursory) reading will show that I had carefully argued with sincere statements my opinion on the use of flags in an article. I had not resorted to the kind of abusive tone used by Arcayne, except in the singular use of "duh"; which, given the extreme and intense assault aimed at me from Arcayne, was a feat in itself. Anyone undergoing an attack as viscious and ill-intended as Arcayne's would be under immense pressure to remain calm. Pyrope's assertion that I have a "thin skin and a fast tongue" seems wholly unwarranted. Is Pyrope claiming that I should just "put up" with the kind of abusive language freely administered by Arcayne, without addressing the situation on this page or anywhere else? How am I at fault for Arcayn'es language? How is Arcayne's abuse aimed at me MY fault, by apparantly being "thin skinned"? Pyrope appears to be biased in favor of Arcayne.

On the actual issue being "discussed", re flagicon use, Pyrope says: "Text wikilinks are faster, smaller, more descriptive and less ambiguous than a flag, which relies on the reader being familiar with flag designs and can be easily confused by similar flags, especially in the 20px sizes used in the flagicon template. Therefore the flag images are unnecessary in text and the only remaining purpose that they serve is decorative."

OK, I would say that their use is decorative. My assertion on the Talk:Fitna_(film)#Flags_in_Post-Response_section was that they served to unclutter, seperate and distinguish the various countries' responses, and that is why their inclusion should have remained.

Pyrope says that "There is a long-standing avoidance of over-flagging articles, and using flags in main body text is a definite no-no (WP:FLAG #3 to reference your previous discussion).". This is the crux of the matter that was being "discussed". The flag use was not in the main body of text. They were in use at the start of a paragraph to demonstrate which country said what. WP:FLAG #3 states that "Flag icons should not be used in general prose in an article." They were not. Their use was similar to that of this article, which has far fewer paragraphs cluttering the layout.

The issue is one of presentation, legibility, clarity and usefulness, something that WP:FLAG clearly states, and which I had mentioned in my original discussion as:

1: The flag images were useful, as served to inform at a glance the nationality that the criticism originated from;
2: The flags were appropriate as a visual navigational aid as there are a lot of countries responses that frequently ran into one another, and citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand;
3: The flags were not used in the general prose of the article;
5: The flags were not used as stand-ins for images of people or other article topics;
7: Flag use here is not inappropriate;

Which is NOT obnoxious in any way; compared to Arcayne's derogatory and factually incorrect "we call that prose, btw" response.

Pyrope also alleges that flagicon use "relies on the reader being familiar with flag designs and can be easily confused by similar flags", which is untrue, as the name of the country will appear alongside the flagicon, as shown in the original article [[135]] and the [[136]] article that also uses flagicons.

Nonetheless, I accept that my use of "duh" in my discussion was wrong. The only reason I have for it, as well as the "fucking asshole" edit summary on my user page, is like Pyrope said: "Do not expect sarcasm and hostility not to come right back at you." I would expect Arcayne to be similarly reprimanded, as it seems to me a case of unmitigated bias on the part of Pyrope. The only criticism of Arcayne was: "I agree that Arcayne has been a little patronising, but s/he was not aggressive initially", yet he was; "Arcayne's comments on your talk page are hardly "presumptive"; you yourself proclaim that you joined Wikipedia on March 7, 2008, so pointing out that you are new and so may not be fully aware of many guidelines is simply fair comment, and it was not done in a patronising way", yet it was patronising, as evidenced a couple of paragraphs below by his use of 'handing me my butt on a plate', and seems to be agreeing with Arcayne's use of abusive language; "Your assertion that Arcayne's "okey-doke" comment was unprovoked is laughable" is laughable in itself, and should properly be referred to as a sexual abuse comment; "I will fully agree that, as a relatively experienced editor Arcayne should have opened discussions earlier and moderated their tone far better" yet you mitigate that with an apparant bias in favor of Arcayne: "and some of those turns of phrase are beyon the pale... although I have written a few down for future use".

Now Arcayne, as for your "The first two (of three) remarks I made to his user talk page (after his first revert of the material) were indisputably very polite and helpful is just nonsense. How precisely is "some new editors don't even bother with that, and usually get their butts handed to them by people not willing to try and help new folk" undeniably polite?

Is he threatening me with violence? Or merely saying how he will 'demolish' me figuratively? Either way, it is aggressive and uncivil, and seems to be made with the intention of stifling debate and affirming his own superiority.

It is an insincere, sarcastic and patronising offer of help, made to prevent anyone from questioning his motives; and Pyrope's belief in its sincerity shows his bias again.

Arcayne said:

"My last comment (3) was prompted after his uncivil remark made in the article discussion:

• "I do not wish to be drawn into an accusatory diatribe with you, as you seem to have a very condescending agitated bee in your bonnet"⁴

Kapowow's behavior deteriorated (5) from that moment on, and his subsequent post was littered with uncivil comments and personal attacks (6, []). At that point, he filed this wikiquette alert, citing personal attacks and abuse that simply do not exist."

Please list these discussion that is "littered with uncivil comments and personal attacks". I stated that I do not like you. Am I allowed to say that I don't like a user? Or must i keep up a pretence of loving unconditionally all who edit Wikipedia? Perhaps you are referring to the incorrect assertion that the EU is an NGO, with such diatribe as:

[Arcayne]: "If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak, having learned through the same trial and errors that you are undergoing right now. If you feel I am being condescending, consider the significant restraint I am displaying in not responding in kind to some of your unpleasant characterizations of my edits"

Arcayne's desire that "If you truly feel that the flag usage is appropriate, please feel free to post in the MoS discussion page at WP:FLAG" is my next port of call. However, I feel that his language and actions are indeed beyond the pale.

Also, Arcayne's retort aimed at 75.58.34.144 that "I simply take this to AN/I to have him blocked/banned" seems very vindictive, and presumptive of his own unique infallibility. Is threatening other users with being reported to an administrator a violation of wikipedia etiquette? because Arcayne has done it many times, as shown on his Special:Contributions/Arcayne page. Arcayne's latest barb, "You are going to learn - presuming you aren't banned before then - that you are not smarter or more clever than any other person here. It would be a lesson you would be better off learning rather quickly" seems once more to be a vindictive threat: shut up, do as I say, and you won't get reported. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Kapowow (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠It is the very essence of Arcaynes Modus Operandi. To threaten is his stock in trade. I'll guarantee I can show FIFTY recent examples of this behavior. And I'll even throw in half a dozen threats by Arcayne against administrators for good measure.

Arcayne's latest barb, "You are going to learn - presuming you aren't banned before then - that you are not smarter or more clever than any other person here. It would be a lesson you would be better off learning rather quickly" seems once more to be a vindictive threat: shut up, do as I say, and you won't get reported. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Would Arcayne have any objection to first hand reports from editors on this note?75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Actually, I wonder if I could find one for each hour of record...

Consider my short note of enquiry far better than say, a complaint filed at an admin board. ...I will report you, out of simple protection to the community. Good day. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guess I am am finding Kapowow's reply to be rather full of (incorrect) assumptions. Quid erat demonstrandum, indeed. His first assertion is that I am tossing homophobic slander or sexual innuendo at him through the use of the statement: "you and the anon 75... can go off somewhere private and beat on each other. I've no time for it. And trust me, getting into an incivility contest with me is a sure way to end up weeping inconsolably in a darkened corner of your closet, so dial down the aggro a notch, okey-doke?" I was simply suggesting that due, to the rather angry little posts they were throwing out, they should fight with each other, as I wasn't interested in their reindeer games. And no, that is not a suggestion that Kapowow is in fact a reindeer. If Kapowow reads something lurid into my posts, that something he should take a moment to clarify with someone, as we all know what happens when you assume (you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me").

Also, Kapowow finds fault with a compliment given him in one of only three posts to his user talk page, wherein I congratulate him on being (at the time) polite as "some new editors don't even bother with that, and usually get their butts handed to them by people not willing to try and help new folk"' undeniably polite? Kapowow doesn't see that I am descriing the pitfalls of new editorship, which many (including myself) have fallen into. What state of mind does one have to be in to see that as a threat of violence or demolishment? Clearly, not a happy one, and certainly not one prone to correctly interpreting posts from others. My comments were meant sincerely; that he chose to see them in a sinister light is something I have little control over.

The purpose of wiki discussion (as this is what my posts actually consisted of) is to find middle ground or convince another user of the strength of your arguments in favor of a position. This is what I was doing, not "stifling debate". As for my superiority, I don't really think that, either - but I am growing to have the opinion that I am interpreting matters somewhat more clearly.

I readily admit that I don't suffer fools or rudeness gladly. I can be a bit more impolite than necessary, especially when people fail to display civility or AGF. I used to be far worse, back when I started editing. I would like to think that I've grown since then, and when I warn folk that the end result of them bullying their way around an article or article discussion is that they are bound to meet someone far more competent at bullying than them. No one in Wikipedia is the smartest guy in the room. With millions of users - most of them college-educated, the only feeling of superiority comes from working well with someone who you have never met, and who likely is utterly different from you in culture and creed. at least, that's what makes me feel good about editing in Wikipedia.

And, looking over the format used by Kapowow, I am finding some identical methods to those of various anons, (who also have some rather interesting similarities between each other. The use of unindented paragraph breaks, the over-boldening of text for emphasis, the style of writing, etc. Maybe I am jumping at ghosts here.Maybe I am not the only one doing so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I have just been forum shopped by user Arcayne. He has Formally accused me of the following:

• • C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents
  • E 3RR violation using socks

The link may be found here:[137]

There is not a single 3RR - This all occurred in a Semi-protected article! As a public editor I made no reverts during the period it was locked. No evidence in the form of Diffs has been presented at all. And there is NOT a SINGLE case of Vandalism!

Amazingly this appears to be made up completely. I'll suggest here that something unusual is occurring and I am not comfortable. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I did say that I was submitting the Request for Checkuser when I first replied, followed by an SSP and probably an AN/I after that - we don't tolerate sock-puppetry here in Wikipedia. You may be using a dynamic IP address, but your defense of yur own edits without signing your name and your incivility prompted the check. You seem to be well versed enough to know how to sign a post. That you choose not to, and act poorly under the guide of anonymity is cause for suspicion. That you also canvassed my user history to seek out users with whom I've disagreed with before is in itself cause for warnings and/or sanctions. Yu are clearly not a new user, which begs the question - why are you hiding? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry you feel that way Kapowow. I can to this dispute as an impartial, disinterested editor. I said it as I saw. There was nothing in Arcayne's first post, or the posts on your talk page, that was at all derogatory. Cheeky, maybe, but you must always assume good faith. Arcayne's posts were perhaps a touch condescending, but this is a very different thing to a personal attack or even a derogatory comment. You also seem to be reading far too much into many of Arcayne's comments ("beat on each other" is a very different phrase to "beat each other off", which is what I think you read it as) and where they say that many new editors launch into attacks only to have "their butts handed to them" is directly third-person, and was actually explicitly referring to people other than you. Arcayne was complimenting you on your own attitude. Ironic. Aside from reading threats of physical attack or "homophobic" comments into virtually everything Arcayne wrote, no matter how unsubstantiated, you seem to be incapable of seeing just how offensive and aggressive your own tone and turn of phrase are. This is what I meant by "thin skin and a fast tongue". Please note that I am only referring here to the early days of this dispute, not the personal war that has developed between you. Finally, and most seriously, you do not have the prerogative to call any editor "a fucking asshole" anywhere, at any time. Everything you do and say on Wikipedia is visible to the entire community, and personal abuse made on your own talk page or in edit summaries is just as serious. Now I'l say the same thing to you as I said to Arcayne: sit back and wait for the results of the checkuser request. Go away and cool off for a bit. Pyrope 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kapowow has been cautioned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: The "checkuser request" and direct accusation of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" were against me. It was much later after this action here that Arcayne added Kapowow to his case against me. He accused me of sock puppetry, not Kapowow.

♠I think the most interesting thing about this is Arcaynes ability to tie up so many resources and manpower over something he has NEVER supported. NO diffs. Nothing. Is it not reasonable that when one accuses another of a crime - that a crime exist? Having spent numerous hours in multiple forums having to stand up and shout "It's me!" "I'm one!" while Arcayne ignores the written words on the screen is wasteful for us all. The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. Arcayne has failed to support his allegations of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" and has abused the system in an attempt to harass and ban a public editor.

What becomes of me is no issue - it's your Wiki, it will become whatever your community chooses it to be. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pyrope, I too am sorry that you feel that way. I simply must call into question your impartiality, as evidenced on User_talk:Arcayne#Wikiquette. As I read it, the phrase "beat on each other" clearly means to masturbate one's penis on each other, and is highly offensive.

Regarding Arcayne's use of "their butts handed to them", that was with regard to Arcayne suggesting that many new users do not cite WP guidelines, not, as you assert, to inform new editors about "launching into attacks".

Every claim has been substantiated by me. Everything is out in the open for all to see. I question your ability to remain neutral when attempting to mediate, as none of Arcayne's defenses or otherwise have any credibility or evidence whatsoever.

I am unable to see any offensive or aggressive tone, as there is none. Discussing with Arcayne was impossible. Simply impossible. An utter refusal to act with cordiality or conviviality was my sole reason for making this complaint; not a "personal war". I freely admit that I am new to Wikipedia; and as such, I was hugely shocked and stunned by the apparant free-reign this particular editor had at stifling debate. If this level of abuse is routinely sanctioned and condoned, Wikipedia is not the place I thought it was: a place where genuine discussion can be had, in order to produce articles of worth and merit.

I have realised the improperness of calling someone a pejorative insult as a reason for an edit change. Although it may be true, it is not polite or acceptable to have such remarks on any part of Wikipedia.

May I respectfully remind people that if new users are treated with such disdain and inequity, pretty soon there won't be any new users.

Following your response, Pyrope, here, I appreciate your time in addressing some issues. However, I find your take on the whole situation utterly biased in favor of Arcayne, as shown by your comments at User_talk:Arcayne#Wikiquette, such as: "faced with an editor such as the one who posted the Wikiquette about you it is often a lot easier in the long run if you maintain the high moral ground and leave them to howl at the moon. The best way to deal with an aggressive but incorrect editor is to use as few words as possible, and make sure that they are all backed up. That way, when the admins (inevitably, in this case I think) get involved, your position is easily understood, an their's is the rambling, incoherent rant." Which is a direct reference to me, presuming that I am "incorrect" and labelling my attempt to seek a mediator on this page as a "rambling, incoherent rant". That hardly seems neutral to me, and, I'm sure, nor would it to anyone else. Repeatedly helping Arcayne in his dealings with WP:WQA and other courses of action may belie a conflict of interest or a favored point of view.

I have not "taken exception" to your criticisms of me; actually the opposite. I have repeatedly acknowledged the improperness of my mistakes on this page. The only exceptions I have taken is with your bias and partial behavior.

With reagard to your stance that Arcayne's responses to me were not a diatribe, I think they are. A diatribe is a severly critical piece of work. Which his was. Your claim that by me calling Arcayn'es responses a diatribe somehow makes me "pointedly aggressive" is, again, a biased point of view in Arcayne's favor. You assume all good faith from him, yet none from me.

My response to Arcayne regarding the sarcastic comments of "duh"; ok fine, that was sarcastic. But why are my response , according to you, "heavily sarcastic", yet Arcayne's responses of "we call that prose, btw" and "kinda silly" are "exceptionally mild", according to you.

The "ZX Spectrum" remark i made was an attempt to show that CPU processes, a point that Arcayne had made as a reason to not use pictures in an article, was redundant and false. My comment that "Wow you just plucked that out of thin air" refers to Arcayne's made up and imagined argument that flagicons were used as a replacement for wikilinks in articles, specifically, he mentioned, for Pakistan; which was untrue, incorrect, wrong and easily seen by anyone who cared to look. He made up points of argument in order to get his way.

Pyrope, you claim that I "somewhat smugly" reprimanded Arcayne's tone; this was not the case. After his constant berating, I kindly and sincerely asked him to stop bickering, to not engage in personal attacks, and calmly and without provocation, insult, sracasm or malintent, made my points against a torrent of abuse.

If my interpretaion that Arcayne's use of 'to beat on each other' is, as you say, wrong, why then challenge its actual meaning? as you say, you cannot allow it to "stand without challenge"; unless, perhaps, as a reason to prove how wrong I am in one thing, and therefore must be wrong in others; or used as a litany of excuses aimed to defame my character. My interpretation of telling someone to "beat" on someone else is as justified as your non-sexual interpretation; it could mean that.

This is not an argument based on petty personal dislike. The problem is this editor, Arcayne, seems to be able to threaten individuals with being "reported", or uses extreme pressure and intimidation, to get what he wants. Pyrope, you claim that: "You started well by backing up your point of view, but you never should have let it get personal. You don't have to respond to another editor's snide comments with rude comments of your own." Fine. I tried my utmost to remain neutral and on-topic, laying out all the points without recourse to Arcayne's level of abuse. Except for the comments listed in the paragraphs immediately above this one, that is precisely what I did. I consistently backed up my point of view; Arcayne did not; and you sided with him against me. Maybe because I am a new editor; who knows.

I take your well intentioned assistance about cooling off with good nature; thankyou for those tips. And thankyou for complimenting the contributions I have made already. I do wish to continue to be a participant of Wikipedia, but not at the expense of being forced into imbroglios that delay, impede and stifle the development of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapowow (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that I found this entire debacle deeply below any expectations I had of Wikipedia. A simple discussion instigated by me, with complete honesty and sincerity, was responded to by one individual with a gross and magnificent barrage of vitriolic words, who refused to accept any interpretation of the WP:FLAG guidelines other than his own, and who, ultimately, was shown to be incorrect: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags). I also found the use of this page in my request for assistance in dealing with an awkward editor wholly unsatisfactory, as I received totally biased ctriticism as detailed above. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to glean whatever lessons can be learned from this incident, and hope for a better interaction with Wikipedia in the future. I understand the democratic process inherent in editing Wikipedia, but wish that such occurances of editorial conflict could be better mediated and more appropriately resolved without recourse to 'taking sides' or direct criticism of people's mistakes or faults. Kapowow (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Lbrun12415

This user has been adding unsourced material to an article. When reverted and asked for a source, he uses image hosting websites or otherwise unreliable sources such as blogs. The article in Mario Kart Wii. I already asked for a full protection or semi protection and have seen no results. When I sent him a reminder about reliablity on Wikipedia, he replied with yet again posting images based on picture hosting websites. I removed his 'sources' and he lashed out at me and reverted my own talk page (despite the fact I reserve the right to remove read messages).

(cur) (last) 01:01, 9 April 2008 Lbrun12415 (Talk | contribs) (970 bytes) (You wanted proof so here it is if you take this of i'll take off every thing you add vidoes are not proof so shut up) (undo)

While editing the Mario Kart article he referred to me as a moron.

This editor is rude and does not seem to care about any of Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to reliable sources. It is my hope that I can obtain some assistance as to what to do with this editor. Is he in breach of the 3reverts rule, or any other Wikipedia editor abuse rules?

Update: I added fact tags to all of his unveriable claims. He used photobucket, blogs, fan forums, etc for his sources and reverted my edits. I once again added fact tags. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:McJeff

Every since he has had a problem with me here: List of characters in Bully, he has been uncivil and shown a lot of bad faith. A few recent examples: [138] (first time he blanked my comment on the talk page). I reverted it, and told him about Template:Notyours. Later, he once again blanked my comment out: [139]. Then there is this: [140], which I see also as bad faith. It should be noted I hadn't edited that Bully list page (or it's talk) for a while, so his original attack (found here: [141], wasn't necessary at all. There was no need to drag past editors into the discussion, and basically drag their name in the mud because of past disputes. Then he butted into this alert: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Angrymansr, due to past issues with me. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had enough of you. I'm taking this to the admin noticeboard.McJeff (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rob posted this exact same discussion on the Administrator's notice board. here. McJeff (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

However, I'll defend myself here slightly. I guess this was unavoidable. RobJ1981 has been determined to drag me into a conflict ever since I first gained his ire by suggesting that in regards to the List of characters in Bully article, he try to improve the article instead of just yelling that it violates this and that and the other policy.

First, let's look at the comment that provoked him to get involved on the List of characters in Bully talk page.

RobJ1981 - I'll see if I can put this in a way that's neither tenditious nor bad faith. He holds a philosophy that wikipedia requires intensive regulation of information to enforce quality over quantity, and uses extremely strict adherence to the rules and policies to regulate content. He's not the only editor like that on wikipedia. That's why he's done the same thing he did here with lots of other articles.

Huh... looks to me like I bent over backwards to explain his point of view fairly and neutrally even though I personally disagree with it and don't care for him either.

You see, this is Rob's M.O. Provoke a conflict. Leave message after message after message on someone's talk page with the {agf1} template, which is pretty much the equivalent of poking someone while saying "ow quit it". Once he gets a reaction - or in this case, a trout to the user talk page - he either runs here or to the administrator talk pages.

Also see [142]

Also see [143]

I think that this demonstrates that Rob is a chronic bad faith editor, and that this wikiquette alert combined with the continual needling he has been subjecting me to, constitutes harassment. Which is why I'm going to take it to an administrators talk page. McJeff (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What he stated on the talkpage on List of Characters in Bully is not an attack, If you call that an attack, then I dread to think what you would call pure verbal abuse. Just for your information it wasn't him who dragged your name into the conversation in the first place. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty soon Rob is going to have all of Wikipedia on here. I like how he says that reporting to an administrator is harrassment and tattling, but yet he does it to other people all of the time. This is good comedy relief.Angrymansr (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read that he stated that warning to tattle on someone was harrasing, That is so hilarious. Very hilarious indeed. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have either of you two made any serious efforts to reach an understanding with him like I did here? And have him respond with more of the same like he did here? If you have and he did to you what he did to me, ignored the message and continued to be argumentative and tenditious, then we have a case that can be brought to Request comment on users to try to deal with this. McJeff (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you try and make an understanding with someone who thinks he is right all the time? Which might explain why he is argumentative and tenditious. Now thats my opinion on him, civil or uncivil. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him at least twice to cite specifically any part in any policy that this list violates but he did not respond to either of the requests. He's referred to policies when speaking, but refuses to defend them without speaking in general terms. Of course pointing the finger that everyone is violating policy along the way.[144][145] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrymansr (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Asrghasrhiojadrhr talk

User:Asrghasrhiojadrhr simply created two article

• General systems theory
• History of systems theory

By coping two of my draft versions:

• User:Mdd/General systems theory
• User:Mdd/History of systems theory

And:

• Without my knowlegde and any communication about it
• Without a reference, pretending that was his own
• While these articles where no more than a draft version in my user space

I think this is a completely onaccaptable violation of the Wikipedia code because these drafts were in my userspace. Now I allready referted these actions. But could somebody take a look at this, and give me some feed back. -- Mdd (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The user name account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username. -- Mdd (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Bardin

I seem to be having a bit of an issue with this gentleman regarding his use of edit summaries. I do a lot of NPP and I do a lot of deletion tagging and redirecting whenever possible. His interests included heavy metal music; a redirected substub at Years in Waste was reverted by him several hours later with a rather nasty note in the edit summary. The user had created a number of similar substubs and I followed procedure on that individual's talk page advising him about creating too-short articles, notice removals, etc. I left polite word on his talk page asking him not to use the edit summaries as such and he fired back with another nasty response. Another polite response on my part led to yet an even nastier, more sarcastic response on his. I don't mind if someone disagrees with an edit I make and I don't mind being corrected for mistakes, but this is just wrong. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your description of the situation is completely misleading. A reader unfamiliar with the situation might think based on your words that I'm the user who has been creating a number of similar substubs when it is another contributor that you're referring to. I did not create that article. I had not even heard of the band or the album before I came across the article. The fact that my interest includes heavy metal is completely irrelevant. Here is a more accurate and detailed explanation of the situation for anyone interested:

An article was created by a newbie, someone who is clearly and evidently not familiar with the process of creating an article. Another editor comes along and hastily added a CSD on this article within a single minute of the article's creation. This editor has since apologised for adding the CSD. The newbie contributor continues to work on the article and in the process removed the CSD tag, presumably because he or she did not know the proper process of dealing with the issue. For the next hour, the newbie contributor worked on the article and improved it to some extent. Then PMDrive1061 came along and abruptly decided to redirect the article to the talk page. This was done just one hour after the article was created. I came across the article while I was going through the contributions of the first editor who had made similar hasty CSD and AFDs all over the place (and again has since humbly apologised for that). I instantly recognised that the article was a legitimate topic for a wikipedia article. So I reversed the redirect and in my edit summary, I wrote: "ridiculously hasty CSD and redirect; can you give the editor more than ONE MINUTE before you add a CSD? added more appropriate tags." I do not believe I was being nasty in my comment. I believe then and I still believe now that I was describing what it really was: ridiculous. The CSD was blatantly ridiculous coming at just one minute of the article's creation. I left a message on the talk page of the editor who issued that CSD. That editor has apologised. I did not bother to leave a message though at the talk page of PMDrive1061 who made the redirect. Instead I spent the next few minutes improving the article, adding the appropriate tag, stub and category, even providing a link to a review of the album. All for a subject that I genuinely had no interest in whatsoever. As I've said, I had not even heard of the band or the album before I came across the article.

The next day, I find PMDrive1061 issuing a complain on my talk page about me leaving disparaging remarks and trying to justify the redirect by suggesting that the "user had more than adequate chance to expand the contribution." I responded that I did not think one hour is adequate chance to expand the contribution and I mentioned that "its very easy and convenient to just redirect a poorly written article but all you needed to do was spent a few minutes as I did to correct the formatting, add the proper tags (stub and expand) and improve it otherwise. That user is clearly a newbie who had little idea what he or she was doing. The behavior of the CSD tagger and yourself have probably scared off that user from ever contributing again to wikipedia. Go take a look at WP:Bite."

PMDrive1061 responded defensively to my remarks and among other things said: "In all the years I have contributed to this site under two usernames, never once have I added empty content. Every new article of mine has been a real, live article or stub right out of the chute. I made my fair share of mistakes starting out and was called on it. I learned from the mistakes. There has been a lot of talk here regarding quality over quantity. I believe in quality and my edit history backs that up. I have also mentored new users and problem users; I am well aware of the "not biting newbies" clause."

I responded with among other things: "You say that you are well aware of WP:Bite but your actions indicate otherwise. I suggest that you get off your high horse and take a moment to reflect on how your abrupt and impolite behavior can come across to someone who is completely new to wikipedia. If you do not like to receive what you perceive as nasty remarks, then I suggest you think twice before committing any further ridiculous actions. I was able to do in just a few minutes what you should have done and that was to help the newbie improve the perfectly legitimate article with the proper formatting and tags instead of scaring away the newbie with redirects and warnings."

Now PMDrive1061 has brought this matter here and in doing so has tried to tarnish me by noting that "A quick look at his edit history and his communication with other editors show that I'm not the first to incur this user's wrath." As far as I can recall I have only had one other argument with a fellow editor and that was settled after we both issued apologies. That other editor and I now have a cordial relationship and we have since continued to work together peacefully. It should not be of any relevance to this discussion.

I do not believe I have done anything wrong here. Apparently, PMDrive1061 is upset that I have used the word ridiculous to describe the redirect made. I am fully aware of WP:Civil but I do not think that being civil means being censored from using the word ridiculous. If I feel an editor has done something wrong, then I will say so. If I feel that thing that was done wrong is ridiculous, then I will say so. It's not as if I'm calling anyone a fucking arsehole or some other insult. I'm using a perfectly legitimate english word to describe an action that I feel merits that description. I also think it is ridiculous that PMDrive1061 is trying to make this an issue about my choice of words when the problem in my view is his very own behavior. It was certainly not my intention to pick a fight with anyone or get involved in an argument. I do not think I have been "nasty" but rather that PMDrive1061 has been overtly sensitive to my choice of words. Instead of reflecting on his own behavior and how his actions falls under WP:Bite, instead of taking the humble route like the other biting editor has done, PMDrive1061 has instead chosen to drag this issue out. --Bardin (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

After browsing through this wikiquette alerts, I came across Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. Seems quite relevant here:

Certain editors will take a statement, detached in tone, that negatively evaluates their work as a personal insult, no matter what. ... Problematic editors often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, as a means to prevail in content disputes by shifting attention from the article topic to behavior, rather than as a means to prevent personal attacks. The best course is to reduce the opportunity for any accusations against you.

I reckon that this is a perfect example of what the essay is describing. That is some good advice there so I'll try to refrain myself from calling a spade a spade in the future if only to reduce the opportunity for any further accusations against me from editors like PMDrive1061. This is not by any means an apology or admission that I was in the wrong. --Bardin (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Responded on your talk page. Good grief, let's just drop this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was neither the one who brought this up in the first place nor was I the one who dragged it out. I'm perfectly willing to drop it. --Bardin (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti

The "Ottoman Flag" and "Republic of Turkey Flag" has been a long in dispute in wikipedia. Many authors have speculated on the issue. These unique states share the same symbols, and Republic of Turkey is a successor state of Ottoman Empire. However "Republic of Turkey" is a unique state and in 1936 standardized its flag, which made these two flags different. User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti is from a perspective that claims in his words "I'm proud of my heritage" and try to make the point that Ottoman Empire and Republic Turkey have the same flag. Thus they are same states. In doing so User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti copies "Republic of Turkey"'s flag under different names and claims it is Ottoman Flag. The pictures of the period clearly disproves this point (he also brings pictures that disproves his own point). The argument is brought forward to the Wikipedia:Third opinion. this is the link. The talk page extensively broughts the positions forward. these are the discussions I informed the user not to involve "edit wars" before the dispute resolved. this is the link. He personally attacked me claiming "I'm a shame." this is the link He does not wait to resolve the issue and continue to change the article, with adding insulting edit summaries on my English level. [146]. (1) A quick look at his edit history and his communication show that he is not acting Civil. (2) I don't mind if someone disagrees my position, but he is not coherent (claims flags are different than says the original is "paçavra") and constructive (he thinks we are idiot not to recognize that his proposal flag is the copy of "Republic of Turkey" flag) (3) The problem is very methodological. There is a law which defines exact shape and color of the Republic of Turkey flag. There are "original pictures which are not paint brushed" that shows Ottoman flag. Instead of "Truthfully creating the history" He creates a fictional history (name a copy the Turkish flag as Ottoman). When people reacts (such as me) disagrees because we can look at the pictures and recognize the difference, he insults and tries to create conspiracy theories. I 'm asking this person to be reminded to act [WP:Civil]. I'm asking this person to stop insulting me with values (love of my nation) which I surely prove this with my life and only communicate if he has anything to add regarding the issue, but not his political agenda. --Kemalist (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The "all new" Turkish flag of 1936 is as "all new" as the "all new" 2009 Jaguar X-Type (with a slight make-up on the front grille). Anyone who sees the photo of the late Ottoman flag (1844-1922) and the present-day flag of Turkey will realize that the "modifications" are minimal, and the Turkish Flag Law of 1936 basically brought geometric standards and legalized them, nothing more. The Republic of Turkey didn't use a different flag between 1923 and 1936. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are repeating your political agenda. This "Jaguar X-Type" or "not having flag" is all non-factual discussions. The facts are clearly represented at the talk page in a single table that shows "an original picture" "The current Ottoman Flag", "The Turkish Flag", and "Your proposal." You are "lying" and "insulting" people by claiming you created a different flag by coping Turkish flag with different name ("Your proposal.") and claiming "Your proposal" is the Ottoman Empire flag. However, it is clear from the picture that the current ottoman flag used in Wikipedia is closely resembles the flag in picture, if not better than "Your proposal." It does not matter what value your argument have, what emotional state your are in. When you try to defend a position which is proved by a historical evidence that is not true (in this case 1914 jihad picture showing clearly the flag used is different than current Turkish flag), you and your arguments become a liars excuse.
By the way, Islam was removed from Turkish constitution in 1937. It was only in 1936, the Republic was ready to have its own "Unique" flag. Ataturk created the "Republic" step by step. The outcome which Turks live, and I cherish is unique. And not Ottoman Empire. I'm proud with it. It is nice that you can link your genes to your grand grand parents. But if you can not recognize your current position (your own genes or flag) that link to grand parent does not earn you an honor. You fail to recognize these entities are different. Symbolized in this case with the flag. Flag is the symbol of sovereignty. Republic's sovereignty lies in "Turkish people", Ottoman empires sovereignty lies in the Ottoman Dynasty. That is Kemalism.
I'm asking administrators involved with "Wikiquette_alerts" to inform you that you can not take single handed actions. You reverted the article one more time. This is bad if you disregard other people; what is the value of your personality, or beliefs you carry. You blame me for being a shame to "Kemalism." Ataturk (Kemalism) did not dream people who are uncivilized to defend itself. --Kemalist (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:wjmummert

Pertaining to Chicago Cubs as well as my talk page. Edit-warring, adding peacock words, not maintaining POV, as well as personal attacks. Generally not adhering to any Wiki policies. Examples: [147], [148], [149]. My only goal is for him to learn civility, and general Wiki technique for sourcing and keeping POV out of articles. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Twaz

User:Twaz has been uncooperative with regards to a dispute on censorship on the articles Who the Fuck Is Jackson Pollock? and Brian Cowen, PRODding the first article (diff) and reverting a good faith edit as vandalism on the second due to an anonymous IP that added a well-cited, yet vulgar nickname. In the case of Brian Cowen, Twaz warned the anonymous IP up to final warning (diff) even as the user was trying to discuss the changes (diff). In both cases, Taz continued to blank his talk page of notices (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (including a threat to send this to ARBCOM), 6, and 7), which was not conducive for a proper discussion. He also made various uncivil comments to my talk page and to The359's talk page. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User has also blanked this section in WQA, claiming that I am making a personal attack (diff). —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User also seems to be reverting articles without giving any reasons why. His reversions do not seem to be vandalism, from what I can tell. Also, created Scetoaux for some odd reason. The359 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)