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

Ned Scott

Stale

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott is making comments which breach our policies and guidance. [1], [2], [3], [4], I have tried to raise the matter with the user, but it is escalating the issue, User talk:Ned Scott#Civility and personal attacks. Hiding T 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologized for the edit summary one, and even stopped editing after I made it, realizing I had gotten to heated about it. The last one, [5], doesn't break Wikiquette, so I don't even know why you mention it. As for the other two, I'll agree they broke Wikiquette. I probably shouldn't have said the "fool" comment to you, Hidding, but I stand by my "bullshit" comment to Vassyana. I don't know what you think posting here will do about any of this. -- Ned Scott 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In the last one you state "Don't act stupid". That doesn't seem to assume good faith. I hope posting here will garner outside opinion on the issue. Hiding T 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I offer my observations and a suggestion. Vassyana is working on some policy debate which I won't get into, but which is clearly intense for several interested editors. Ned Scott I think has spoken in haste and realises it now. I am satisfied by his apology here and I think Hiding should be too, and not press this complaint further. To you Ned Scott I point out that certain words you have posted are uncivil and could be removed without any loss of the useful points you make. I suggest that you do exactly that. I don't see any policy to hinder one from applying WP:RPA to one's own posts, and to do so would certainly regain for you a high moral ground (and incidentally respect from me). Your good nature will doubtless guide you in this decision. Here is a specific list of the words that you surely can excise:

Bullshit. Thanks for making the situation worse, and sticking your nose in a situation you don't even understand.

Damn it, Pixelface, the adults would like to have a nice conversation now, could you please knock off all the nonsensical ranting.

..you guys have your panties in a bind because..

Jebus people,..

You don't go acting like a fool like you did and remove sections of policy because you're having your period.

Don't act stupid, Percy, you know full well...

It's like you're one of those typo nazis... Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cuddlyable3. These are the points I am trying to get across, but perhaps not doing so as well. I am indeed happy with the apology. All the best, Hiding T 09:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to start a thread here regarding Ned Scott's recent comments but I see this one is open already. In the past three days, Ned has made comments like:

• 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC): "If you guys want to freak out because of some recent discussions on this particular talk page, then get a grip. Wikipedia is more than this talk page, and that section doesn't suddenly lose support because a hand full of Wikipedians have their panties in a bind."[6]
• 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC): "We owe it to the project to consider things beyond this talk page, and to not be so shallow that we flip out right away because of some recent discussion where some people got all pissy."[7]
• 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC): "Your interpretation that he can't start a section heading is moronic"[8]
• 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC): "And for the love of god, the entire point of his restriction was to make him take these issues to the talk page."[9]
• 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "Jesus, what's wrong with you?" and "You have no clue about TTN, do you?"[10]
• 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "I'm sorry you guys have your panties in a bind because there's some users who don't apply things from WP:NOT correctly, and misunderstand what it says. Jebus people, that's been a problem for every single WP:NOT entry"[11]
• 11:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "I'm going to start a list of every time you say something so mind-blowingly stupid and false. Do you think the protecting admin gives a crap about the dispute?" and "Damn it, Pixelface, the adults would like to have a nice conversation now, could you please knock off all the nonsensical ranting."[12]
• 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "You don't go acting like a fool like you did and remove sections of policy because you're having your period."[13]
• 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "Let me repeat something, since you are having such a hard time understanding it" and "And on a side note, it is shameful the way you are campaigning to drive TTN off the project because of what amounts to a content dispute. Who's next? Will you be supporting a bogus block on me if it suits your needs?"[14]
• 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC): "You guys don't even know what you're talking about"[15]

I understand that Ned thinks TTN's recent block was completely unjustified and that Ned has a different interpretation than me of the restrictions imposed on TTN. And I understand that Ned supports keeping WP:PLOT in WP:NOT while I support its removal. I can understand it if he's frustrated. But I think comments like "I'm going to start a list of every time you say something so mind-blowingly stupid and false." and "Damn it, Pixelface, the adults would like to have a nice conversation now, could you please knock off all the nonsensical ranting."[16] are absolutely uncalled for and are a breach of the civility policy as well as the no personal attacks policy. In the past I have said I was happy to have Ned as a fellow editor and fellow human being, but he has lost all the respect I have for him with his latest remarks. --Pixelface (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note, many of these comments are already being dealt with above. I'm not sure we need to quote the full text of the remarks, I believe diffs are all that is necessary. Ned has already apologised above, so I think we can leave it there? Hiding T 09:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologized to whom? --Pixelface (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To the community. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And I stand by most of those above example comments you've listed, Pixel. Most of them are examples of frustrations, but are not necessarily uncivil. Regardless if you've lost all respect for me, I still have some respect for you. Life isn't so black and white that we have to hate someone just because of a few disputes. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't hate you. I said I no longer respect you. If you don't think those comments are uncivil, I don't know what to say. And the only thing black and white about this is you acting like Jekyll and Hyde. --Pixelface (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott I represent the community that you claim to have apologised to. The Wikipedia community can tolerate an occasional expression of "bullshit". It can not tolerate the collateral damage you are causing by sustained incivility viz. the examples we see above. Your intemperate speech deters people from joining a discussion where you take part. That, and not anyone's "hate" that you may imagine, will be the reason for likely administrative action to block you for a while from tainting Wikipedia further with your "frustrations". (I am not an administrator.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the lynch mob after User:TTN? I don't believe I would feel bad at all if I deterred someone from joining in and attacking a good editor. It really is shameful to try to drive someone off the project because of a content dispute, and that is something that should be said. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No Ned, my post is about the cause stated of this Alert. I believe it makes us all feel bad when anyone turns a content disagreement into personal attacks. Most blocks are temporary and we welcome a blocked editor to return as a good editor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yuz Asaf

Stale

I posted worries about this page at fringe theories noticeboard. User:Dougweller came to help. Now a newly-created account User:NewYork10021 is throwing accusations at him. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links of where he has made such accusations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Daimerej

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Daimerej appears to be User:Ewenss, who was banned for sock puppetry (he basically conceded it in the talk page of Trinity United Church of Christ. He is back again, and appears to be editing under that name and 74.233.86.145, as well as possibly 64.66.192.62. They're making identical edits, giving identical reasons. He has also behaved uncivilly on the AfD page of Joshua Packwood‎. Trilemma (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Any concerns you have about sockpuppetry should be voiced at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, or to the administrator's noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:MegX

Resolved

 – -warned editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This user reverted several edits I made to Led Zeppelin articles on the basis of "vandalism." As a glance at the edits in question will reveal, this charge was patently false. I reverted her edits, encouraging her to discuss the issue on each article's talk page before deleting my edits. Then I sent her this message:

Wikipedia is a community that depends crucially on effective communication between editors. My edits were in good-faith and not vandalism; your claim of "vandalism" was a means of evading communication as to what you found objectionable about my edits. If you believe my edits were inaccurate or unsourced (although most claims in those articles about various Led Zeppelin songs sounding like earlier-recorded songs are not sourced, and logically so as one does not need an expert to determine that two songs sound similar), please start a discussion on the talk page as per wikipedia guidelines instead of inaccurately claiming vandalism.

Allon Fambrizzi (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

In response, she sent me the following message:

"although most claims in those articles about various Led Zeppelin songs sounding like earlier-recorded songs are not sourced, and logically so as one does not need an expert to determine that two songs sound similar" That is a patently false statement. Courts of law use musicologists to determine if a song sounds similar in structure to another song. Neither Traffic or Jake Holmes has taken the issue to court, therefore it is not fact. Wikipedia deals with facts not opinions. I have no intention on having a discussion with you because I believe by your edit history to be a sockpuppet. Don't deny it. MegX (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is important to note is that she made another groundless claim, that I was a sockpuppet, after her earlier lie that my edits were "vandalism" was exposed (again, this is all evident in the talkpages of the various articles.

It is appalling to me that respected editors within this community have become so uncivil and impolite. At no point did MegX assume my edits were in good-faith; rather, she disagreed with a claim I didn't even make in my edits (that these similarities in Led Zeppelin songs were legally actionable) and made personal attacks against me.

Allon Fambrizzi (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

[is not a publisher of original thought] and [is not a soapbox]. Hearsay and opinion is not fact. You are passing off opinion as fact. At no point has your claims of plagiarism been tested in a court of law. Issues of copyright are determined in courts of law, not pages of an encyclopaedia. Please desist from passing of opinion as fact. MegX (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

MegX is correct here. Injecting unverifiable original research and opinion is the opposite of what Wikipedia is based on. In the case of Led Zeppelin, if there is some sort of documented court settlement regarding songwriting then that can be introduced as long as the proper references are in place. If there is no court settlement and no supoorting documentation then the content is personal pov and has no place on Wikipedia. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Requiring a documented court settlement is very strict. There are published reviews of popular music which can be sourced, if found. I have not listened to the songs concerned; has anyone made an accusation of plagiarism? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No. it's the original editor's personal pov. Even their added text is very "8th grade book report" style in trying to push their opinion into several articles without any supporting/verifiable/reliable sources. Led Zeppelin have a small number of court settlements connected to certain recorded tracks. And these are all documented in the appropriate Wikipedia articles with references. Most of the cases stem from lyrical similarities and not music. All of these other claims are just poorly written original research based on editor POV. And these contributions have been removed, and rightly so, by several editors trying to block any POV/OR from these articles.

I agree with the positions of User:Anger22 and User:MegX. Those songs that have already been covered in decades-old out-of-court settlements have already been well documented elsewhere. That's not in dispute here. What editor User:Allon Fambrizzi was doing was adding personal opinion/original research on other songs that have never been subject to a court case, so of course there would be no court documents on these. I have accessed online peer reviewed journals on popular music at our university the last hour and have not found any claims that back up some of the additions made by User:Allon Fambrizzi. HelenWatt (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just point out that substantive disagreement with edits does not justify MegX's earlier claims that I am a "sockpuppet" engaged in "vandalism." I did attempt to source these edits. And most of these edits were simply elaborating on thoughts that were already in the article. MegX was wrong to engage in unsubstantiated personal attacks, and should be reprimanded for doing that. Allon Fambrizzi (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

I can't argue with MegX's bizarre claims that I am utilizing "hearsay" and am not citing legal opinions (these standards obviously have never been applied to Wikipedia articles in the past!). I still maintain my original position that these edits improved the articles. I would encourage people to listen to the songs I have mentioned in the articles; this was not original research but rather, in most cases, elaborations on statements elsewhere in the articles. The unfortunate thing is that I likely would have to start editing under a different name if I wished to contribute to Wikipedia in the future as MegX has been blanket-reverting my edits on the basis of the fact that this screen name made the edits, without first establishing a community consensus on the talk pages of the respective articles. MegX has not gone through the proper procedures for settling disagreement on Wikipedia; the fact that she apparently has unlimited time to blanket-revert edits she doesn't like apparently wins out over reasoned discussion. Allon Fambrizzi (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

I would further encourage people to read the following post I made on MegX's talk page, which she has now deleted (it is the last one): [17]. Allon Fambrizzi (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

MegX, please keep the following in mind in the future. If you feel that an individual is engaging in vandalism repeatedly (deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia), then please make your concerns known at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Similarly, if you feel that an individual is engaging in Sock-puppetry, then as the policy states, please make your concerns known at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. Remember, it is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums. We're here to deal with impolite or difficult communications - not content issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited uncivility

In this post User:OhanaUnited , who is administrator on Wikipedia writes about me "The image he attempted to replace with the already-featured is his own creation. Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit someone else's picture so that his can showcase his image here. Also, at that time, his reason for demotion is "because I like this image better." These statements are false to say the least. I possibly could not try to discredit someone else's picture because both pictures in question were taken by me and I believe I have the right of the creator of the images like one on my own pictures better than the other of my own pictures. Let's say that User:OhanaUnited has missed the point. Anybody could be mistaken. Well user:catch-22 pointed his mistake out to User:OhanaUnited , but User:OhanaUnited has never bothered to remove his false accusations and never responded to user:catch-22. At that point I assume that comments made by User:OhanaUnited were made in a bad faith. I'd also like to point out that administrator OhanaUnited has deleted my polite message from his talk page with the edit summary: cleaning out some garbage, which IMO is more than uncivil and more than impolite. IMO administrator OhanaUnited should remove his false accusations from this post, should be issued a warning about his uncivilty and should be considered for de-adminship. BTW I would have notified OhanaUnited about me filing this alert, but I am afraid I cannot do it because he told me that he that his "gut feeling" told him he should "ignore me from now on".He even protected his talk page for few days. It seems to me that OhanaUnited relies on his "gut feeling" instead of relaing on the common sense. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything incivil or impolite here, and certainly nothing to suggest that his adminship is in question. He's within his rights to remove comments from his talk page, so you shouldn't be upset by that. It was polite of him to state that he has an intention of ignoring you, and gave a reason, rather than ignoring you entirely. While you may disagree, it's his choice. I'm not clear about the initial dispute concerning some image, so I won't comment on that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your respond, Ncmvocalist. I'm afraid it was not helpful at all and I'm afraid you are not clear in anything from my initial post. Would you agree, if I say that removing message with edit summary cleaning out some garbage does not consider to be civil or/and polite? Would you agree, if I say that admin, who's protecting his own talk page uses his admin rights with the wrong purpose? Would you agree that, if he falsely blamed me in "trying to discredit someone else's picture" while talking about my own picture should at least remove his false statement from post? I also doubt that an admin, who could say he would ignore a user with absolutely no reason could be a good admin. Oh and btw IMO calling my post noise does not consider to be civil and polite either. May I please ask you,Ncmvocalist, if you are sure you are in the right place? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• When I made the post at that page I hoped for the understanding. Instead I found harassment, and what was even much worse - stupidity. Indeed as Euripides said: "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" or like Martin Luther King Jr said: "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."I guess "Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege". Do you like the quote, User:Ncmvocalist. Sorry,I forgot you were going to ignore me. As Jewish Proverb says: "Don't approach a goat from the front, a horse from the back, or a fool from any side." I guess I'll let it go now. I am really tiered (=_=) to fight with windmills (read "to fight for the common sense on Wikipedia") --Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, at last you've got something right (cannot believe it), Ncmvocalist,I want to get blocked. By the way may I please wish you and a friend of yours OhanaUnited to continue ignoring me. You're doing just great with that so far! And this was my last post here. From now on I am going to ignore both of you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

Resolved

 – Among themselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently, this user seems to have breached AGF/CIV/NPA a few times. Here he accused me of bad faith in an AfD that garnered a fair amount of support. Here he attacked my beliefs rather needlessly. And here, just today, he both accused me of bad faith (where none was present) and pointed to the fact that I'm a monarchist, which has nothing to do with the AfD in question, and even if it did, WP:NPA prohibits "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views".

Additionally, also today, he made these remarks, accusing another established user who made an AfD nomination that drew a range of reactions of a "Bad faith nom by pro-America POV pushers... Wikipedia is not the place for pro-America misinformation mongering". While the user is entitled to his beliefs, such remarks are quite corrosive in their effect. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In this AfD, calling the nom "bad faith" was a mistake. My bad. I have changed the wording and strikethough the monarchist comment. [18], [19]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I don't make frivolous nominations either, but thank you for your apology. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory, soap box, forum, incivility

Resolved

 – -warned editor Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was redirected here from the fringe theory notice board after posting a complaint about a certain editer who has broke about half a dozen policies not to mention the fact that he has some rather backward views. To get the full story as i have documented it please follow this link. I would appreciate your help on this, he has caused at least one editer I know well a lot of bother. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links or diffs to the incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant this or not, but "backward views" aren't a problem, as long as the editor doesn't introduce poorly referenced, POV material in the article space or use the talk pages as a soapbox to discuss things unrelated to improving the article. Whether or not the person's views are "backward" is, by itself, irrelevant. -kotra (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here the editer "CadenS" is promoting a fringe theory on talk pages that is actually quite offensive. He calls it the "Homosexual Agenda", which is a right wing way of saying "gays are plotting against the world". I have listed just ten examples below, there are many many more edits like this by the user. He called one user who is a member of the LGBT community "Heterophobic" for not agreeing with him. I know that the editer was very offended by the comment. Now being conservative and christain is fine with me, but this is going too far, i see these unhealthy ideas spouted on Conservapedia and honestly its dangerous.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - im guessing "this" means homosexuality? 11 - and again, Caden has found another example of the "Homosexual Agenda", running wild in wikipedia

Sorry i couldnt get back to you sooner, my internet connection went down. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Caden has continued the dispute here. Accusing bookkeeper of starting a hate campaign against him. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Infact, this isnt a campaign against Caden, oh no, much worse. Its a campaign against heterosexuality seen here. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of "promoting a fringe theory", or of "soap boxing", or of being "anti gay", or of "prejudice" or all the other negative things you are accusing me of. I am doing no such thing. I never said "gays are plotting against the world", so please do not put words into my mouth. Please stop this nonsense of yours. I find what you are doing highly offensive and consider it a personal attack towards me. CadenS (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've given him a warning and explained what was wrong with his conduct. If it continues, or he does not agree to comply with policy, let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I will, prejudice doesnt die quickly so i dont think it will be long before i return, sadly. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Why are you doing this to me? Do you hate me that much? You don't even know me and we have never spoken before. Please stop making these false accusations about me. I do not appreciate it. Please leave me be in peace. CadenS (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think these comments made by an administrater best sum up how tired we are with your behaviour. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Those comments were not appropriate. I found them personally offensive. As far as that religion bit, I have no idea where he's getting that from. Could you please leave me alone and please stop wiki-stalking me from one talk page to another. I don't understand what you are trying to do here. But I don't like it. CadenS (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The same comment was posted on [20] WhisperToMe (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and deletion of talk page postings

Thanks to whichever volunteers handle issues at this page, I hope you find your work rewarding.

I've been tolerating provocative rudeness by User:Ilkali at Talk:Gender of God for some time now. Mainly I've ignored it, and stuck to answering nit-picking challenges and Wikilawyering. Eventually, I worked out it was trolling of some kind and I shouldn't feed it. I gave notice of withdrawing from discussion and explained why.

Now, however, this user is actually insisting on removing a reply I have given as part of a very long standing discussion to another user, who is currently absent. I have given warnings and finally a 3RR warning. Personally, I'd rather the user just chooses to be more civil, and allow things that irk him to stand; but how can I continue interacting with another long standing editor on this page, if a third party deletes my replies? Or am I to understand I can edit talk pages as well as articles and delete comments I think are inappropriate?

It seems to me we need to be even more generous in what we allow in talk pages than we do in articles. Where would we be if people had the right to delete talk page posts they disagreed with? Does this user have the right to remove my comment here?

Sorry to trouble you, but I've spent a long time talking an important issue through with User:Andowney and we actually seem to be getting to the end of it at last. But now Ilkali has deleted my reply. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, you and perhaps User:Andyowney are misusing the talk page: [[WP:TALK}} "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." You've written " Asking questions and challenging human doctrines derived from revelation, not revelation themselves, is a great way to push oneself to depending more heavily on scripture, prayer, obedience and love. To depend on scripture is to depend on God (if we are correct to believe God is there and that he has spoken). Although I believe there is only one truth, and although I believe scripture informs us of much regarding gender, I think the processes are as important as the results. As you say, now it is "through a glass darkly" then it will be "face to face".But what do we say at Wiki? Christian view: "through a glass darkly" (Paul as understood by AH and AD)? I think here we must simply place the dark understanding of the scholars to this point, and leave the question quickly. If people want to know more, they should go to church and join the collective struggle to wrestle for as much grace of revelation as we can find as we turn to God's word together." That looks more like a sermon than using it as "a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article". If I were active on that page, I'd probably remove that myself.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are overlooking the point. I say: But what do we say at Wiki?. You say: That looks more like a sermon. What does? The second half of the last sentence. Were you to remove on such grounds, and then repeat that after objection. I would report you for uncivil and biased editing. Thanks for taking the trouble to follow the links, and for reading the disputed comment. If the last sentence is the only objection, I will count your voice as agreeing with retaining the post. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"I've been tolerating provocative rudeness by User:Ilkali at Talk:Gender of God for some time now". Your first reply when I urged you not to use the talk page as a forum: "If you can't follow the discussion, feel free to stay out of it Ilkali". Do you consider that a civil response?

"Where would we be if people had the right to delete talk page posts they disagreed with?". Where would we be if people did not have the right to delete inappropriate talk page posts? This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. As has been confirmed here, you were misusing the talk page. WP:TALK explicitly authorises the removal of off-topic posts.

"how can I continue interacting with another long standing editor on this page, if a third party deletes my replies?". You can take it to his talk page, as I urged you from the beginning. What exactly is your problem with this recourse? Why are you refusing to even consider it? Ilkali (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!!!! user:Toobills and user:RC&RB incivility, libel and harassment

Both have continually been uncivil, have posted libel/defamation of others (and myself) on Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū. Please look in the Revision history of Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū. Here:diff1; Here: diff2; Here:diff3 Here:diff4; Here: diff5 Here: diff6 And there are a few more that I am leaving out. I've tried to be as civil as possible, to no avail. This has led to continued insults and threats and it seems to be escalating. This has continued from e-mails sent to me personally at a prior date, threatening me from post user:Toobills and user:RC&RB stating that that any "posts I make at Wikipedia have to be approved by user:Toobills first". Now on here at Wikipedia, they are attempting to follow through with harassment, namecalling and general incivility. I fear it will turn into vandalism.

Mekugi (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mekugi -- where are the personal attacks and insults? In the diffs you have provided, all I see is that the other users have written a very long discussion of the points in contention (which I don't understand at all, so you'll have to bear with me), and you reverted their changes. I think your reversion was inappropriate, unless there are personal attacks I did not see. The users in question did say several times that they thought you were incorrect, but I do not see the personal attacks. Could you help me out by saying what "insults" and "threats" you are specifically objecting to? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The first post, DIF1 & DIFF2 is about libel.Namely incivil statements like:

"Or do you speak for a small faction in Tokyo, headed by a former low graded "student" of Shitama Sensei?" The low graded student is my teacher in the martial art. I dunno, but calling someone low-graded when they are of a higher grade than the person posting is rather rude. The argument is clearly an attack on me and my group in Tokyo, not about the content of the article. Nothing in [:diff1 is about the article itself, but about me being stupid, low graded, not understanding anything. It's tough, but if you look back it's a tyraid respones at this post: diff7 where I simply outlined the information .There is no reason to get person or make rude, incivil statements IMHO. Also there are statements regarding my research (pulling test out of books and authentic ancient documents and not limited to his "original research"- which is not allowed here) and he knows it, and he is trying to make a hostile environment. I am going to try to just post a few of the incivility diffs here: diff8 "This is consistent with the behavior of your low graded group in Tokyo. This is why your web site has been removed from the Sekiryukan web page for cause. Furthermore, I'm not surprised, as I have a collection of incorrect online statements, and outright lies you have posted over the years." Being called a liar, low graded, false statements, etc. I fail to see where any of this applies to the article in question or how it betters the article, but in fact is an attack on me and my group in Tokyo. This stands out: You are a fraud, and just another blow-hard coward behind a keyboard. Being called a fraud, blow hard. I seriously fail to see how that relates to the article.

This is pretty buried under a load of rants of how I am not suitable to write on wikipedia, more or less. Mekugi (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Attack based on falsehood from Guettarda

User:Guettarda recently claimed that I've "gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good" in an unspecified post at Wikipedia Review. [21] The problem is that it isn't remotely true. I have made no such post, nor do I believe anything I've posted could be interpreted in such a way. As a result, I'm left with the conclusion that Guettarda's statement was a lie, and responded based on that. [22]

The problem is, Guettarda has refused to retract the statement or prove it, and only removed the "observation" because it made me more than a little angry, which was "distracting from its purpose." [23] I find the allegation extremely offensive, and do not want it to become a "fact" simply because Guettarda stated it and refused to retract the claim.

I was unfortunately not able to submit this earlier, as I was away for the holiday weekend. Does anyone have any suggestions? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have tried discussing this with the subject of this Wikiquette, but I'm afraid I already know what he's capable of. Try AN/I - but be clear about what you want (he be warned or asked to retract the statement or whatever it is). Keep the length roughly the same as this, if not slightly shorter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems like that may be necessary. I would like to get some more input before doing that, but I guess I'll probably submit it later today. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and Harassment

What can I do to get user Mdsummermsw to stop following me around and trying to falsely attach me to other accounts, IPs, etc (see their talk page and the Michelle Rodriguez Discussion Archive page)? It's getting really old that this person reverts practically every edit I do, constantly makes accusations, and when I try to resolve the issue peacefully on their talk page, disemvowel my words, leaving only their own (again, see their talk page). They're behavior of psychotic research trying to prove some point that I am various others is disturbing and disruptive and I'm tired of it. At this point it's stalking, harassment, and slander. I just want to edit articles accurately, I don't want to be stalked and harassed 24/7 by someone who lives on Wikipedia every second of every day and makes it their goal to declare withchunts for no other reason than ego boosting or lack of anything better to do. I tell them to stop stalking and they respond by MORE stalking. It's insane, pathetic, and highly disruptive. Hope you can help. Thanks. LBear08 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet looked into the allegations of harassment and false sockpuppetry accusations, but the disemvoweling is wholly inappropriate, such as in this edit. It is not acceptable to refactor other people's talk page comments, even on one's own user talk page (you may delete comments on your own talk page, but not edit them). I have warned the user about that.

Regarding the other allegations, do you have any diffs you could provide? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

LBear08 -- do you deny that you and User:L8ear08 are the same person? The allegations of sockpuppetry do indeed seem to be accurate, unless you believe you are using multiple accounts in a way that is within policy. Mdsummermsw has done nothing wrong by pointing out that these two accounts are almost certainly operated by the same person. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it looks like Mdsummermsw's disemvoweling was in retaliation for the same repeated behavior on the part of LBear08. That does not make it okay, of course, but the deeper I dig, the more obvious it is that LBear08 is the problem here. The only thing Mdsummermsw did wrong was a single retaliatory disemvoweling edit, which she has since reverted. Mdsummermsw is pretty much in the clear here.

Now the question is, why is LBear08/L8ear08 engaging in sockpuppetry and filing bad faith Wikiquette alerts? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, Yes! While L8ear08 seems similar to my name obviously and all of that, *I* personally have never signed in as that to the best of my recollection. Even if say I'd accidentally created two similar accounts and somehow don't remeber it, the problem is that the L8ear08 account makes edits to pages like "list of famous bisexuals" and Bjork, two topics of which I have no knowledge nor interest and especially would not be editing. So how can that be me? I don't know what's going on with the L8ear08 account (glitch? copycat?), but I am LBear08 not L8ear08. If I'd forgotten to sign in then one of those IPs could be mine, but the rest can't all be mine for goodness sakes and I'm tired of being hunted and having someone on my back (who is not an admin) 24/7. I just want to contribute to a few pages in peace as best I can. I just want this person to DROP IT and move on. Look back at how long ago that sock crap was posted and look at today's date and this user is STILL going on about it. At what point does it become deemable as harassment?

Second, no. My disemvowelmeant was in retaliation to THEIR constant doing so over the last several days (see their talk page and notice how they've been at it for awhile whereas my disemvowelment I JUST did today to prove the point of how obnoxious it is. That user is only in the clear when they stop harassing me. At what point will they stop with the accusations and stalking? LBear08 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, all of this began b/c of a previous disagreement we'd had. Awhile later I decided I wanted to go back to that discussion page and remove my own comments as I had no desire for petty argument to remain up like that. I never should have sunk to their bickering level. So I removed my own comments. This user then decides it's their right and priveledge to dictate what I can and can't remove that I myself contributed (to a talk page mind you, NOT the article which I know cannot be edited like that). I simply was trying to demonstrate maturity and obtain peace and the user wanted all disagreements to remain, all of their baseless accusations to remain, etc. for no valid reason. I've attempted peaceful resolution and suggested he/she delete their accusations and I my retaliated comments. However, they refuse...and for no reason whatsoever. I simply want resolution and then to be left alone by this user. LBear08 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of "who started it" with the disemvoweling, it will no longer be tolerated, and that goes for both users. I hope that much is clear.

I find it extremely hard to believe that User:LBear08 edited Michelle Rodriguez for the months of March and May, and that User:L8ear08 edited the same article for the month of April, and that this is all just a coincidence. But in any case, the other account does not appear to have been used to evade a block or to cause disruption, so let's just put that issue aside for now.

I did a cursory glance at each of your contrib histories, and I do not see any evidence of stalking or harassment. Regarding your complaint about deleting the comments from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez, Mdsummermsw is technically correct on this one. It is okay to archive old conversations on talk pages, but except for abusive or off-topic comments, it is generally frowned upon to remove discussions altogether. Those conversations stand as a record of the discussion and can be helpful for other users who are contributing to the article, so that they know what has already been discussed, etc.

That said, if Mdsummermsw agreed to let you remove the comments in question from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez, would you consider the matter resolved? While deleting conversations from talk pages is generally frowned upon, it is not unheard of, and if that will solve this problem I think that would be acceptable (if Mdsummermsw agrees, of course). --Jaysweet (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. No more disemvoweling from me, I find it obnoxious as heck so I'd never want to do it again anyway. As for the user issue, you can believe whatever you'd like, but I am telling you that I am NOT and never have been user L8ear08. I have no idea what that user is about or doing (copycatting for kicks?) but it has nothing to do with me. Now as for the discussion pages, I would love that to be the resolution...for us to remove our interactions (or at least my own), but up until now Mdsummermsw has been completely uncooperative on that front and continues on about it hence my feeling of being stalked and harassed. If they would agree, that would be great. LBear08 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Again, I see no evidence of stalking or harassment, and from a strict policy standpoint, Mdsummermsw is correct about not removing the discussion from the talk page. However, if it will make all the involved parties happy, I see no problem with making an exception to the standard policy and removing the conversation in question from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez. I have contacted Mdsummermsw and we will see if she is amenable to this solution. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm considering it. While considering it, I have again reverted LBear08's edits to the archive. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. Well? LBear08 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – referred to AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has been difficult, disruptive, and agressive in many cases. This includes deletion debates and talk page discussions. He also pushes his own point-of-view as fact that everyone should follow. Plus, he chooses to ignore policies he doesn't agree with. Also, this essay: User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy has been quoted by him in various deletion debates. He acts as if it's something people must follow, but it's an editor's opinion and the tag at the top of it clearly states: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Also note: I was told to stay away from Le Grand, however it's a bit hard to do, when we edit and post in the same deletion debates. I don't see why I should personally stop editing many places, just because he started to take an interest in them. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Weapons... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mammoth Tank (2nd nomination) are great recent examples of his poor attitude. He is anti-deletion, which would be fine in any other case. However he's pushing it to the extreme, and choosing to ignore all rules just to attempt to keep just about every article he has interest in. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion would be relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While my viewpoints are the opposite to LGR's, I think he is rather courteous and is certainly not worthy of a WQA report. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I feel that the discussion in the VGProj Guidelines talk page has been crossing over into tendentious editing, but I have not seen evidence of him breaking any civility policies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I'd have to say I am finding it hard to see this thread as anything other than harassment [User_talk:Randomran#What_do_you_think.3F] as per [Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/RobJ1981#Future_Note this]. I am not uninvolved so recuse myself form action. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it easy to take that at face value. RobJ1981 contacted me because he wanted to put in a wikiquette alert, and now I'm participating in good faith. Randomran (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-wikiquette problem

I cannot say this is a civility or wikiquette issue either. The only thing I can say is that RobJ1981 contacted me to add my comment, and so I'll offer it here even if it is not the appropriate forum. Le Grand has repeatedly dragged AFD debates off topic. The two most common off topic discussions is whether deletion should ever be used except for articles created in bad faith, and whether the notability requirement has enough consensus to actually be a valid requirement.

These aren't wikiquette issues, and I'm not sure an administrator should be concerned with them. But they are vexatious and make it difficult for other AFD participants to have an on-topic discussion. I frequently try to correct him and put him back on topic, but it ultimately just derails the discussion further. I'm sure Le Grand just thinks he's having a logical discussion about whether to delete, but more often than not it becomes an off topic debate about fundamental wikipedia policy that should take place at actual policy pages like WP:N, WP:deletion policy, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and so on.

I honestly don't know if these disruptions constitute a violation of wikiquette. But I know that they are disruptive, even if these disruptions are grounded in Le Grand's good faith beliefs that the notability requirement is unjust and his strong belief against deletion even when articles breach fundamental policy, except for articles made in bad faith. While these are beliefs held in good faith, they are as disruptive as an American communist arguing against the constitutional right to property every chance he gets (or, if you prefer, a Soviet democrat arguing for democratic elections every chance he gets). He's entitled to his opinion, but his repeated choice to use the wrong forum is extremely disruptive for the dozens of editors who do agree with fundamental policy, and the hundreds more who are trying to learn and understand it. Randomran (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I too certainly can't act on this--as a friend of GRC though not always a supporter. GRC has opened a discussion at AN/I, [24], and that will be the place to continue the discussion. But it does look as if Rob has tried & may have succeeded in driving GRC off WP because he does not want to follow the injunction to stay away from him. And Im puzzled that Rr thinks AfD is not the place to discuss questions about keeping articles. DGG (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my complaint. I have had many AFD disagreements. But Le Grand has caused disruptions by going off topic:

• to explain that the notability requirement is invalid and should be ignored
• that deletion is only acceptable for articles made in bad faith, not for articles that are non-notable or based on unreliable sources

These are disruptive because they (1) mislead others about fundamental policy and (2) drag a debate about an individual article into a debate about fundamental policy such as WP:N, WP:SPS, or WP:RS. I know his lack of respect for policy is grounded in good faith, but it does not change that it is disruptive. (And has nothing to do with RobJ1981.) Randomran (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• As much as I wish to walk away, I have to say that calling disagreements "disruptions" is not merely uncalled for, but an unfortunate way of disagreeing with editors, if not insulting. Defending articles in AfDs that a good deal of editors created and edited in good faith, and that as the article traffic statistics indicate thousands of readers check monthly, is hardly "disruptive," especially because I have been consistent with closers plenty of times as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and as admins who can see deleted contribs know, when I argue to keep articles, I usually make some effort to find sources and improve the articles as well. Should we call your delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattrick (2nd nomination) and defense of it even though it closed as a keep "disruptive" and against policies? Should your argument of "Strong delete and merge" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Mesa Research Facility, which closed as no consensus, be considered a "disruptive" refusal to abide by the GFDL per Wikipedia:Merge and delete? What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space trading and combat simulation games? You nominated it and it closed as keep, so does that make it a "disruptive" nomination? Because you made multiple edits to it, is that "unconstructive" participation or "harassment" of those who disagreed with you in the discussion? How about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Block kuzushi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand strategy game, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escape the room, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First-person adventure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical realism, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenogears Perfect Works? Those closed as keep or merge, so does that mean you keep nominating articles for deletion or argue to delete articles in defiance of policies and consensus? Should I take you to Wikiquette because you generally do not notify the creators of articles that they are nominated for deletion, because it is not "efficient"? What if I chastised your for not using edit summaries? The truth is I strongly disagree with you in many AfDs and you strongly disagree with me, but in some cases, they have closed as you argued and in some cases they have closed as I argued. Does that mean either of us is acting in bad faith or disruptively, not necessarily. Plus, if you really do not enjoy discussing with me, then why reply to me over and over as well? Discussions work two ways and I could not continue to discuss with someone if they just stop discussing with me. But that shouldn't matter as AfDs are a discussion and not a vote and I have any intent there it's to encourage editors to actually work through the issues concerning the article rather than to just make a list of deletes and keeps, which just looks like a vote and not a discussion. My hope was that by discussing with you we would come to some understanding and maybe even find a middle ground in which we could work together in a friendly fashion. I have tried that approach with others on the deletionist side of things and I usually engage editors in discussion when I respect them enough that I think it is worth discussing with them. I am deeply disheartened by what I see above as I thought maybe we would reach a point of understanding and end up finding somewhere we could agree and help each other out. I hate to say "never," so maybe that hope still remains even if I do think it necessary to leave for an idefinite, maybe permanent amount of time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not every disagreement that we have had has been disruptive. Far from it: people are allowed to be wrong and go against the grain on an AFD. But on several occasions, you have gone off topic of the AFD itself and began trashing the deletion process in general, and you've ignored my (misguided) efforts to get you back on topic. Regardless, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this discussion anyway, since your disruptions are in good faith and cannot be considered a wikiquette issue. Randomran (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, please do not mischaracterize things as "disruptions" when under the same rubric that term could be applied to your own edits. In other words, either neither of us are disruptive or we both are. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying something once is an opinion. Saying something wrong is a mistake. But going off topic over and over even after repeated warnings cannot be seen as mere opinion or mistake. It is a disruption. I've been wrong and I've made mistakes, but I haven't been disruptive... with the possible exception of when I've been dragged into your disruptions, and I take my share of responsibility for that. Randomran (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what you do in those discussions as well and again, so what? We are supposed to discuss. We will move into much more proactive and constructive territory if we avoid the false claim of calling anyone "disruptive". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with disagreement, which I do quite often. My issue is the off topic information about abstract deletion policy that has repeatedly derailed AFD discussions about specific articles. Off topic information is disruptive, even if done in good faith. And this discussion is the furthest thing from productive. This complaint has already been dismissed as outside the scope of wikiquette, and I have no plans on initiating any further complaint against you. I really doubt you'll be able to stay away from wikipedia anyway. Randomran (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussions are hardly derailed. Anyway, if my health does not improve and if I am harassed on and off wiki, I think I will have no choice but to stay away. It's not because I want to, but because I have seen someone fixate on me for nearly a year to the point of trying to inspire dissent about me on IRC and emails and given some of what others have experienced on this project, such signs of escalation are a real concern as to spiraling into a realm that is outside wiki and simply unacceptable, especially when I see cyrptic comments made against me like "... if he truely wants to be left alone." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Whatever happened to AGF? This is just a bunch of AFD discussions gone bad. You'll be back. I'd put money on it. Randomran (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly all I want, i.e. people to indeed assume good faith and to not take discussions in AfD as anything more than discussion. My health is always a who knows, so, we'll see there, but it is important that if I do ever return after tonight, I know it is worthwhile and that disagreements are not going to escalate into something for which I have to be concerned beyond Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See you on the AFDs in a few days. Randomran (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I explained the non-cryptic remark at ANI already. I have the right to discuss things off wiki with people. If you must know: I didn't want to discuss things, as I knew certain things I said would get twisted around. And guess what? They did, with many of your comments in ANI (as well as here). I don't think there is any policy saying "talk about Wikipedia on Wikipedia only". Calm down, and stop assuming bad faith. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is merit in this report, this still does not fall under WQA - take it to AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Bedford

Please see the medcab case. Xavexgoem (from medcab) referred me here as he was unsure the issue fit within the scope of medcab. I have sought a third opinion and the advice of numerous users and this is my last recourse before RfC/U. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Broooooooce (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to add my support for this alert. Its clear that admin Bedford has been violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV. He as also thrown around allegations of vandalism and stalking. This is particularly disturbing and certainly warrants community attention. Bstone (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, you've attacked me on my talk page, lament lament lament on IvoShandor's talk page and continued vile and conspiracy against me at Ivo's and Ruhrfisch's page, even after Ivo had what could be called a temper tantrum. Then, you not just started being active at DYK after this broohaha, a place that I frequently maintain, but became highly active, and started critquing articles when you had no lue of the main rules. And over what? A practice I have engaged in since I've come to Wikipedia three years ago and nobody, repeat nobody, saw a big deal in, even through almost all my work regarding the War of Northern Aggression has been highly visible. Plus, just now you keep adding to a MedCab that has already been closed.--Bedford ^Pray 05:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My additions are placed on that page simply because that is what I have linked here. I had a photo featured on DYK before I ever met you and my decision to seek out new places to be active on here is hardly some sort of evidence to a conspiracy against you. Just because no one has suggested your use of the term was NPOV before does not make it untrue. I have not "attacked" you anywhere. I challenge you to find any instance where I have been less than civil with you.

Furthermore, before I made an error based on an unposted rule at DYK, I had put the OK stamp on other nominations you had made (secretly, I hoped that this would be taken as a gesture of good will). After my unintentional mistake, you said that I needed to learn to read, that I needed to go back to school, you insinuated that my intelligence wasn't of a caliber to make determinations as to the eligibility of DYK nominations, you've questioned my areas of knowledge, my pride in my heritage, you have applied sinister intentions to a plethora of my recent actions without basis, you have accused me of vandalism and even stalking. What gives you the right? What have I done to deserve this aside from ask you to explain your reasoning in the NPOV debate and make an honest mistake on the DYK page (which I apologized for even after being ridiculed for something I had no way of knowing in the first place)? Broooooooce (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Steven Chayer article and user Cquan

My discussion with him over the article Steven Chayer has been kind and level-headed. He is condescending and rude and wants to be an Administrative Editor.

Drewhamilton (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)