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

Move of Swedish-speaking Finns

User:Podomi moved the page Swedish-speaking Finns to Finland's Swedes violating the move procedure. The move was done without consensus, while the former location was reached after extensive move discussion which resulted in consensus (in Octorber 2006). Talk page gives a good overview of the conflict.--MPorciusCato (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User: ThuranX Use of a swear word that begins with an "F" and rymes with "Duck"

Uncivil communication [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you can say "fuck" here; Wikipedia isn't censored. Secondly, I don't personally think that WTF (the form of words used in the diff above) is all that uncivil. I'd hope ThuranX would avoid such figures of speech in future (perhaps using "what on earth" instead) just as I hope you notify them of this thread. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with comment about "fuck," but the 'Shut the hell up already' seems uncivil to me. Gerardw (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned with ThuranX's implication that Jojhutton is racist without any evidence being provided. I agree with the sentiment on the page that Jojhutton took the argument way too far, but ThuranX should be cautioned about his statements, both his "shut the hell up already" and his implication that Jojhutton is racist. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuck is in the suburbs of civility, strong, open to being taken wrong, rarely needed, but when used as a modifier like that, no need for admin action. The bit about the sheets is a blatant personal attack and I hope ThuranX will take it back. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with either. Jojhutton is insistent that we point out that he's not really a black president because he swore the oath wrong. It's racist, and I called him on it. Obnoxious racism deserves ridicule, and I sarcastically gave that. As for 'shut the hell up', that too was long overdue. His response to overwhelming consensus NOT to include was to call the entire group that replied a conspiracy against the truth, among other insults he kept hurling. He needed a trout slapping, and I gave it. Note that I wasn't the only one who found him to be bigoted, or ridiculously obnoxious there. In order to relieve the pressures of being the police of a Nanny State, I have helped you out by striking the 'horrible' blunt speech used against a bigoted partisan hack. Go write some articles. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you've redacted it. Jojhutton didn't even edit the article. Racist and/or original research talk page comments like those can get very nettlesome very quickly, as these did, but personal attacks aren't the way to deal with them. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the personal attacks have to stop. I looked at every diff and comment Jojhutton made on that thread, and he never mentioned anything about him being black. Where is the diff? It is against Wikipedia policy to make personal attacks, like that noted above and the one you just made here, without strong supporting evidence. There was no racism evident in that thread, which makes your posts, not his, worthy of censure. Did he argue the case to death? Yes. Did he refuse to accept consensus? Yes. Did he edit war or try to force the article into his own viewpoint? No. Attacks are not OK, and striking out a statement while saying he is a "bigoted partisan hack" shows he is not the one in need of a trout smacking. Theseeker4 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that tensions could escalate here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to all who have participated in this discussion. I would like to point out that my insistance on the talk page to continue arguing was not for arguments sake. It was because, like Thuranx, many did not seem to understand what exactly I was trying to point out. Almost everyone continued to argue very valid points, but the incorrect way. Its like if I was arguing on point A, and someone rebutted on Point B. It wasn't making sense to me, that is why I continued to try and rephrase the question, hoping that someone might actually make a rebutal on the actual point I was trying to argue. All I got were illogical statments and accusations of racism.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FurryMUCK? --NE2 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"All I got were illogical statments and accusations of racism." That's a rather sweeping statement, considering how many editors responded in that thread. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The post was very far from civil, and this is user who has a history of not playing well with others. IronDuke 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IP address 70.23.234.194

Clearly stirring up anti-semitic statements on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Jews and more importantly, see this diff on Talk:Zoophilia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=265770955. I think this IP address should be blocked. Sposer (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Anything further should be brought to ANI as this is an informal board, and for a block to be instituted, administrators need to be notified. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Theseeker4 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He has already added "Jewish American" to the David Berkowitz article. I suspect he is going to try and find articles on every heinous Jew in history, and make sure the fact that the person is/was Jewish is highlighted front and center. These are obviously more defendable, but part of a pattern. I will keep track and notify anything overboard. I forgot how to report on ANI however. Thanks. Sposer (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The editing behaviour isn't really a civility issue nor is necessarily against any policy, if the info is correct and verifiable. --neon white talk 05:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at another edit[[2]] he's made, and note the only American Jewish person he retags is serial killer David Berkowitz. Why not John Francis Daley, for example? It seems to be Anti-Semitic POV pushing. Gerardw (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What i meant was that the talk page comments are obviously incivil but adding the tag to the 'David Berkowitz' is a good edit. His motivation may not be pleasant but it's not disruptive to add what appears to be correct tags to articles. --neon white talk 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you need help reporting someone let us know, right now as long as he heeds the warning, I don't think administrator notification is necessary, but if he keeps skirting the line too closely, bringing it up on ANI may be best even if he is not worth a block just yet; admins at least will watch him. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Garden variety troll. Very worth blocking now, certainly if edits continue. IronDuke 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hapsala

I believe this complaint is

Resolved

as an admin has has acted to fix the problem. Thanks!Doright (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are nine issues. (1) Impolite, (2) [WP:Civil], (3) [WP:Attack], removal by User:Hapsala of unresolved disputes from (4) article and (5) user talk pages, (6) choosing a strategy of reverting instead of engaging in talk, plus gratuitous accusations of (7) trolling wikistalking, (8) sockpuppetry, and (9) WP:Nonsense in User:Hapsala's edit summaries are the issues. Please see the following sections at THIS link since they may be deleted by Hapsala from the current user talk page:

   * 14.0  Please do not Remove Unresolved Disputes from Article Talk pages
   * 14.1 [WP:Civil]
   * 14.2 [WP:Attack]
   * 14.3 Notice of Wikiquette ALERT - Do not Remove
   * 14.4 Disputed Edits are not Minor

Doright (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The links and sections I provide above are not merely proof that I warned the user against certain behaviors they contain the diffs exhibiting the behavior. Context counts. For example, if you click above and go to the very first link and click on it you are presented with a diff that says: Hi Hapsala, Please do not Remove Unresolved Disputes from Article Talk pages [Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict]. Please see this. Thanks, Doright (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When you click on that diff you are taken to the diff that says: Hapsala, Please stop reverting the archive bot setting as you did HERE without first addressing the above identified issues associated with such short deletion intervals. And please stop marking the edit as minor. There is nothing minor about removing content, ongoing discussions and unresolved disputes from the talk page. Thank you.Doright (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear editors seeking to assist in this matter, obviously, you would then have to click that HERE link.

Dear editors, by setting the bot value to 9 hours all talk section that have not received comment for the last 9 hours are removed from that Article Talk page. This results in disputes that have not been resolved being removed while people sleep. It further prevents other editors that are not on here 24/7 from participating in the discussion. It is highly disruptive. It serves those that don't want changes to be made to the article. Context counts. Sincerely, Doright (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to help if you have less than 1 year WP experience or equivalent. :)

Hapsala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added to make viewing information more convenientTheseeker4 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, pardon me? You're choosing who can and cannot assist in trying to resolve only civility issues between editors? I think you'd better rethink that concept here as it is in and of itself rather uncivil towards Wikiquette volunteers. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I sure wish I had read THIS Nomination for Deletion of this page before requesting assistance here. It provides a warning about the kind of "help" one may receive on this page. I'm sorry that you were personally offended. Please accept my apology. However, stating my preference that only experienced editors attempt to help is hardly [WP:Uncivil]. Nor is politely letting an editor know that I would prefer they did not try to help me. That is quite different from "choosing" which implies I think I have any control over what you or anyone else does here. Clearly, this is a Wiki and anyone with an internet connection can do pretty much anything. In light of the opinions expressed by other editors in this page's WP:DELETE nomination, it seems downright prudent to be cautious about getting involved with a "helper." Since, I'm sure you can take it as well as you give it, you may also want to consider reviewing the tone of your own communication.

• " It's simply a process time sink with little good coming from the page. The project would be better served by directing users who have issues with a users incivility to WP:AN, which is more than capable of handling a few extra threads, and has better coverage from experienced admins/users who will be able to offer a better evaluation of situations. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)".
• WQA varies between useless and actively harmful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• If you read the thread here 1 you will see why I feel the page should be deleted. Especially: I apologize for thinking that this forum was the best place to begin without making my complaint a major issue. Lacking a reasoned response, I found other ways to address my concern. Tom Butler (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• I have read and followed the going-ons of this page since I was notified of a dispute between two editors in which I was peripherally involved. In that particular case, instead of dealing with the issue . . . it became a 72-hour rant fest in which more editors were concerned with rationalizing the reasons for a ... editor's incivility rather than addressing the issue of incivility itself. Take some time to peruse some of the recent archives and you will see that the Wikiquette Alerts page is extremely inefficient and largely ineffective.

Doright (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, can you provide links to the specific actions that hapsala took that you consider uncivil? I see the two removals of your warnings, and while the edit summaries border on incivility, a user has every right to remove whatever they want (with a couple exceptions) from their user talk pages, including warning and notification templates. It also is not vandalism to do so. What other attacks and incivil remarks has this user made? Thanks. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker4, I'm concerned we may not be off to a great start. I did not say anything about vandalism so there was no reason for you to introduce it. If based upon the links I provided on Hapasala's talk page you do not see a problem for you to address, I see no need to introduce any further evidence beyond that already provided and I would suggest that perhaps another editor may see where they can be of assistance. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Doright (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism was my word, sorry if it seemed I was putting it in your mouth, but it is unnecessary to warn users about removing content from their own talk page, as that is specifically allowed. That said, how is asking for clarification of the specific cases of incivility an unreasonable request? I have reviewed what you provided and see a dispute, with yourself and several other editors, of how long a period of inactivity needs to occur before the bot should archive discussions. That does not sound like a civility issue to me. I also don't understand why you have taken a dismissive tone in response to my request for clarification and my notifying you of wikipedia policy. Do you believe providing actual diffs to the instances of incivility would not help other editors either? The links and sections you provide above are proof that you warned the user against certain behavior. Even your link that you provided to the user is a link to another one of your statements. You need to provide evidence in the form of diffs of the actual behavior you are complaining about if you want anyone to help you. Theseeker4 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker4, I know Vandalism was your word. It did not seem that you were putting words into my mouth. What you did do is introduce a straw-man that was not helpful. My tone was not dismissive. I was politely yet quite clearly telling you I did not want your help in this matter. You could have responded by merely saying, You're Welcome, when I thanked you for your time and I suggested someone else help me and then left me alone. However, you did not. Now, it does seem to me along with your incomplete analysis and apparent lack of experience, there is a risk of creating additional and unnecessary controversy and complexity, and that the project will be better served if you moved on to helping other editors. So, let me try again a little more emphatically. Please accept my sincere thanks. Thank you for your time and have a nice day and now please stop. Respectfully, Doright (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The links and sections I provide above are not merely proof that I warned the user against certain behavior they actually contain the diffs exhibiting the behavior in question. Context counts. Doright (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, do not remove responses on this page. Your handling of the complaint, the informal investigations, and your interactions with those who attempt to help resolve situations are all fully relevant to this process. They may, indeed, show a pattern of abrasiveness that may have led to civility issues. I have re-added the discussion. Please do disrupt this page again in that manner. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I trust the irony of YOUR removal of THIS reasonable accommodation and completion of the Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages by Theseeker4 involved editor (where he said about his solution was "better than restoring my comments," and I, of course agreed) will not be lost on the reader. However, Bwilkins, unlike you, I will not accuse you of disrupting this page. I will WP:Assume Good Faith and assume you thought it would be better to remove it, no matter how much I disagree with what you have done. However, I must point out that your speculation that my discussion on this page may show "a pattern of abrasiveness that may have led to civility issues" is simply poisoning the well and entirely unhelpful. I am quite confident that my interactions with other editors on this page will be viewed as suggestive of a fair, thoughtful, respectful editor that has worked to improve the project. I am so sorry I came here. However, if it helped elucidate what are apparently ongoing problems with this page, it will not be for not. Further, it may provide insight for other editors that are the recipient of your "assistance." Doright (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is some relevant background which may save other editors some work in replying to Doright's complaint. The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict talk page apparently receives a very high volume of traffic. Consequently, a bot, MiszaBot I, is used to archive it regularly (once a day, as I understand it). Apparently some editors of the page believe that if a thread has not been contributed to for some fairly small number of hours, then the bot should archive it on its next run. There has been some disagreement, however, on precisely what that number of hours should be.

When the bot was run on January 12th it was archiving threads which had not been contributed to for 4 hours. On January 14th timeshifter extended the idle time to 8 hours. On January 15th Hapsala changed it back to 4 hours. It was extended to 6 hours later on same day by Timeshifter, and then extended further to 9 hours by Hapsala on January 20th.

Thus, over the week from January 12th to January 20th, the thread archive idle time used by the bot was never greater than 9 hours. Timekeer had complained that 4 hours was too short in his edits of January 14th and 15th, but was apparently content to settle for 8 hours on the 14th, and 6 hours on the 15th. Apart from that, there appears to have been no other complaints during that period about the shortness of the thread idle time being used by the bot to archive threads. Note also that it was Hapsala who extended the time to 9 hours, the longest it had been for the whole week.

On the following day, January 21st, Doright apparently noticed that a thread to which he had wanted to make further contributions had been archived, and made this edit to the talk page, which falsely categorised the setting of the archive idle time to 9 hours as "vandalism".

Comment. To his credit, Doright later acknowledged that the accusation of vandalism had been "a poor choice of words". Nevertheless he did not opt to strike it out and replace it with something more appropriate. And even without the accusation of vandalism, the above edit would still have been unnecessarily confrontational, in my opinion. The sarcastic question, "Who is the clever editor that set the bot to delete from this page active discussions after only 9 hours of inactivity?", with which Doright opened the thread, is hardly an ideal way to go about achieving the results he was looking for.

—This is part of a comment by David J Wilson (of 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

Comment on Comment, plus added info. First, I would like to thank the editors for the obvious effort put forth. Also, I would like to bring your attention to the "nine issue" at the top of this section that was unfortunately deleted by user:Bwilkins and was therefore not present on the page when yours and other editors comments were made above here and below here. Now let's continue looking a little further under the iceberg of context that may not be immediately obvious. Part of that admittedly less than ideal statement was "Also, who deleted the POV notice from the article? The notice should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. More importantly, who can restore the deleted talk (those deleted since the 9 hour criteria was set) section back to this talk page? Doright (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC) So, significantly, at the same time ongoing disputes of a substantive nature regarding the content of the article are being swept from the talk page, the formal POV Tag on the article itself was removed. Also, note this is an extraordinarily short setting on the archive bot. Most article pages that use the bot have it set to weeks or months, but here its hours. Ask yourself what would happen if the bot was installed on this page and all text sections that had received no comments in 9 or 24 hours were automatically removed from the page? Would that be disruptive? Would that give the larger WP community an opportunity to comment? Would it serve the interests of the project. Additionally, I ask you to use your imagination about whose interest would be served by having unresolved and ongoing disputes removed from an article talk page?. Unfortunately, that context is missing. Also, please note that the immediate reply I received from an editor on the page was "I agree, after having found some talk material, and searched for other talk material that's buried somewhere in 21 pages of archive." . This is the kind of results I was looking for.

Additionally, please also note that at the same time, Hapsala was also involved in disrupting another ongoing discussion regarding article content on the article talk sub-page that was created separately for the purpose of discussing the lead to the article. But, this time it was being done manually not via the Bot. In reply to the justification for terminating this page which claimed "No unsolved issues left on this page," and "no value in discussion to add to article," I posted [[3] "[THIS] is hardly suggestive that there are "No unsolved issues left on this page". In fact the existence of an ongoing NPOV Dispute is emphasized at the above link just prior to the archiving edits. Please restore this page to so that the disruption can be mitigated. Doright (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)]" Here is a link to the page just before it was terminated. You can see at the bottom of the page there is a newly created section titled NPOV that is part of the WP:OR section. In fact, the very last edit before the termination of this page was an edit that emphasized the existence of this ongoing dispute. That is of course why I wrote, that "This is hardly suggestive that there are 'No unsolved issues left on this page."

Please note all this occurred prior to my posting to Hapsalas' user talk page. Plus, he was reverting me (I think at least a couple or a few times without engaging in the talk page discussion regarding this issue. So, I posted the problem to his user talk page and his reply was to delete it from his talk page and label my post [Wikipedia: Nonsense ]

So, then I have the situation where not only was Hapsala not engaging in the talk section created to address the problem on the article talk page, starting to edit war, manually terminating ongoing discussion pages, moving towards edit warring, declines to talk about it on his user talk page and dismisses my post as [WP:Nonsense], accusses me of (1) being a sockpuppet (2) trolling. Plus, in addition to all this, the normative behavior among the participant on the article talk page even prior to my arrival can perhaps be most delicately describe as uncivil and chaotic. Not that it excuses anything unhelpful that I may have said or done, but one can not properly judge my behavior outside the context in which it occurs. So I came to this page not to make a mountain out of a molehill about Hapsala's incivility. Rather, I came here to begin a process of correcting the ongoing chaos and violations of policy at the article and the incivility that feeds it and substitutes for the kind of discourse that serves the purposes of the project. I was merely starting with what I think should have been a readily apparent case of misconduct with regard to a key player who in my view is contributing to the problem in a very significant way. That is, by participating in both the manual termination of article talk pages containing ongoing disputes regarding both content and policy and by setting a BOT parameter to do the same. Please consider reevaluating the comments below in light of the additional information provided above. Thank you for your assistance. Doright (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

At 1030 on January 22nd Doright extended the archive idle time to 4 days, and Hapsala reverted it to 9 hours 37 minutes later. About two hours after that Doright added a subsection to the talk page requesting no further reversions without discussion, and then re-reverted the time to 4 days a little later. About 9 or 10 hours after that Hapsala reverted the time back to 9 hours with the edit summary "currently, 4d simply wont work", but without engaging in any discussion on the talk page. Twenty-five minutes later, though, he apparently decided to compromise and set the time to 24 hours.

After another 10½ hours Doright set the time to 3 days with the edit summary: "changed bot content deletion interval to 3 days as a comprimise see talk". Eight minutes later he posted this request to Hapsala's talk page.

Comment: This edit also seems to me to be unnecessarily confrontational on Doright's part. In the first place, the implied accusation that Hapsala was himself removing unresolved debates from the article's talk page doesn't appear to be accurate. In the second, Hapsala had already compromised by changing the archive idle time from 9 hours to 24 hours, so there seems to me to have been little point in Doright's dredging up these earlier requests which were still pointing to Hapsala's previous reversions to a time of 9 hours.

Two minutes later Hapsala removed Doright's request with the edit summary "Undid revision 265853329 by Doright (talk) - per WP:nonsence". This is an edit which Doright considers uncivil. I agree with him, but I would also suggest that:

• given his own unnecessarily confrontational approach to the dispute, it's pretty much a response he should have expected, and one he should have been prepared to excuse, and;
• his wisest response would have been to ignore it.

However, he did not do this, but chose instead to continue the dispute by restoring his previous comment, adding accusations of edit warring and incivility, and demanding that Hapsala leave the comment and accusations on his talk page. Hapsala responded by removing the comment some 9 hours later, with an edit summary "Undid revision 265856654 by Doright (talk) - per sockpuppet trolling". Doright considers this edit summary to be a personal attack. Again, presuming Hapsala has no solid evidence that Doright really is a sock puppent (and, as far as I know he has not provided any), I would agree that this does constitute a personal attack.

Doright made two other allegations for which I found no evidence:

• that Hapsala removed unresolved disputes from article talk pages; and
• that Hapsala had accused him of wikistalking.

The only grounds offered for the first of these two allegations appear to be that when Hapsala set the archive idle time to a low value, it caused the MiszaBot_I to archive threads that Doright still wanted to contribute to. If the allegation is indeed based on nothing more than that, then I would consider it both unwarranted and tendentious.

The second allegation is one for which Doright will need to supply more specific evidence in the form of diffs, since I didn't come across any edit or edit summary in which Hapsala accused him of wikistalking.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Doright has not demonstrated understanding of talk page policy, in that a user removing comments from their own talk page is allowed, and that removing their own and others (Theseeker4's) from a talk page (this one) is not cool. Additionally, his responses to Theseeker4 and Bwilkins do not demonstrate Civility. Doright's suggested that new editors not participate in the discussion is not consistent with the anyone can edit tenet of Wikipedia. Hapsala's editing comment is a minor incivility that would have best been ignored. Accusations of sockpuppetry are uncivil, to which extent I have left a request to cease. Gerardw (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies Doright if I missed restoring an edit. Thanks to the absolute mess caused by the removal of wide swaths of text from this page, and a number of newer posts to unrelated threads, and even replies to this thread, I did my very best to restore all issues, indeed I am quite certain that those that were specifically Civility related. Ensure that non-Wikiquette issues are taken elsewhere. I'll suggest that you WP:AGF yourself, as you can clearly see what my intent was. From my reading, it appears that Gerardw has captured the essence here. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins, it seems to me that with each post your edits progressively create more problems than they solve by reverting a [WP:Refactoring] of a discussion between two editors that had already arrived at an accomadation, by your edit deleting the extensive edit to my introduction that was subsequently not present when the other editors made their comments, by your edit poisening the well (as identified above), in addition to now an edit beating a dead horse, by making innacture claims which THIS diff shows to be false (there was no "absolute mess" created, there was no removal of a "number of newer posts to unrelated threads", there was simply the replacement of a discussion between two editors with a link to that discussion, which in my own view was much less of a "mess"), and by suggesting by innuendo that there is any evidence whatsoever that I explicitly or even implicitly questioned your good faith regarding your deletion of content from this page. In fact, I wrote (as can be seen in an above section),

" However, Bwilkins, unlike you, I will not accuse you of disrupting this page. I will WP:Assume Good Faith and assume you thought it would be better to remove it, no matter how much I disagree with what you have done. "

Having arrived at this point I will have to consider evaluating how the assumption of good may pertain to your further contributions to this thread. That is, despite some evidence that might begin to suggest the contrary, I continue to assume good faith on your part, but frankly, it may not take too much more for me to reject that hypothesis. Respectfully, Doright (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This criticism of Bwilkins's efforts to restore deleted content to the this page is completely uncalled for, in my opinion. Between Doright's unjustifiable removal of Theseeker4's response to his original complaint, and Bwilkins's attempt to restore it, there had been 5 edits to the page, one of which (by Neon white) was to an unrelated thread. If Bwilkins's statement, "Thanks to the absolute mess caused by the removal of wide swaths of text from this page, and a number of newer posts to unrelated threads, and even replies to this thread, I did my very best to restore all issues, ...", is read with a conscientious effort to understand what he was saying, it will be found to contain only one relatively minor inaccuracy—namely, it gives the impression that there had been several edits to unrelated threads rather than just one. Doright has apparently misread the statement as asserting that some posts had been removed from unrelated threads. Admittedly the statement was ambiguous and open to the misconstrual which Doright placed on it. However, even a cursory examination of this page's edit history should have been enough to show him that this was a misreading of the statement.
—This is part of a comment by David J Wilson (of 07:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

David Wilson's false, misleading and biased analysis is quite uncalled for, in my opinion. Between the omission of the fact that my edit along with Theseeker4's comprised a [WP:Refactoring] of the section along with a link to the "deleted content", and his failure to mention that I removed absolutely nothing from any other editors or sections, and David Wilson's failure to point out that it was actually Bwilkin's himself that in fact removed User:Neon white's edit from an unrelated thread, not I, and that it was while he was actually attempting to negate the refactoring completed by Theseeker4 that Bwilkin’s deleted content from other parts of the page, and that even Theseeker4 himself said, providing the link is “better than restoring [the] comments” (unfortunately, Bwilkins reverted both Theseeker4 and myself and apparently created an “absolute mess”), and his failure to point out that if there was an “absolute mess” it was created by Bwilkins’s as my edit of a contiguous span of text with no intervening edits by anyone anywhere else on the page can hardly be considered an “absolute mess,” and his failure to note that there was in fact not 5 but only 1 edit to the page following the refactoring (which Bwilkins not I, promptly deleted and then restored) should not only provide impetus for reevaluating both the inaccuracies, omissions, focus and emphasis of David Wilson's contributions to this page, but be seen as further affirmation of my thesis that "it seems to me that with each post your edits progressively create more problems than they solve." By the way, so far I have only partially addressed the first two sentence of David Wilson's edit. I will not spend my time in a seemingly endless and in my view entirely pointless exercise addressing his other statements in his current edit or elsewhere on this page. Suffice it to say, you can assume that if I was getting paid for this that I would refute most of his contributions, including but not limited to his narrative and purported evidence. My only concern has been what I see as poisoning of the well by Bwilkins and David Wilson’s incomplete, inaccurate and biased analyses and the rhetorical effect of those edits. The reason for my concern is that it makes it even more difficult to address the problem of the disruption to the article talk pages by user Hapsala. That is why I came here. Finally and obviously, only a fool would argue with "the judge" as I have done here. For that stupidity I pronounce myself guilty. However, you or going to have to pay me to waste anymore time here as I just found out that an admin has corrected the problem. Have a nice day.Doright (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When Bwilkin's decided to restore the removed content, this was the difference between the then current state of the page and the state it was in before the content was removed. In light of this, he apparently decided that the safest way to go about restoring the removed content was to revert the page to the earlier state and then redo the subsequent edits. In doing so, he apparently inadvertently missed this edit of Doright's, for which he has now apologised. Perhaps it would have been simpler for Bwilkins to have simply copied and pasted the deleted content back into the page at the appropriate place, but since I haven't examined the subsequent edits in any detail I wouldn't presume to criticise him for having chosen a different approach.

Doright is apparently concerned that if editors who based their comments on the original version of his complaint had instead had the later "heavily edited" version available to them they might have come to different conclusions. I'm afraid I can't see much justification for that concern. The only differences between the original version of the complaint and the "heavily edited" version seem to be:

• the addition of "impolite" as an extra issue (This appears to me to be redundant anyway. Isn't the issue of impoliteness already adequately covered under WP:Civil?);
• the attachment of numbers to the issues; and
• the addition of a statement informing respondents that there were nine issues.

I can assure him that my own comments, at least, would not have been influenced in any way by these changes.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, This comment by Doright has added nothing of any consequence concerning the issue of alleged misconduct by Hapsala. Most of the comment consists of arguments to try and convince WQA editors that the setting of the time parameter of the archiving bot on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict talk page is too small, and that one of the talk page's subpages was archived prematurely. It would appear from these remarks that Doright was expecting WQA to take his part in the dispute over these issues. But WQA cannot do that. If those sorts of issues cannot be resolved by negotiation among the disputants, then another avenue of dispute resolution (such as a request for comment, for instance) should be tried.

The following accusation:

"Additionally, please also note that at the same time, Hapsala was also involved in disrupting another ongoing discussion regarding article content on the article talk sub-page that was created separately for the purpose of discussing the lead to the article. But, this time it was being done manually not via the Bot."

by Doright seems to me to border on the disingenuous. The subpage in question was archived by Skäpperöd (not Hapsala) some 30 hours after the last contribution had been made to it. Hapsala's involvement consisted of nothing more than a completely appropriate reformatting of the already archived page, and an entirely unobjectionable transfer of material from one archive to another. Doright might have a legitimate gripe that Skäpperöd had archived the page prematurely, but that is not by itself a Wikiquette issue. I would suggest to Doright that a polite, conciliatory message on Skäpperöd's talk page would have been much more likely to elicit a sympathetic response than this wholly inappropriate edit to an already archived talk page.

P.S. Please do not interrupt another editor's comments with your own unless the latter are short. It is contrary to WP talk page guidelines. Although this is not specifically a talk page, it would seem to me to be common sense to adhere mostly to the same guidelines when editing it.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright added the {{resolved}} template while I was composing the above remarks. They are therefore unnecessary and I withdraw them.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright has quite clearly so badly misunderstood what I wrote (just as he did Bwilkins's earlier comment) that I see little point in attempting to clarify it. I will merely point out (again) that BWilkins did not accuse him of removing anything else from the page other than this. Nor do I believe there was anything in my comment that could be construed as implying that he had done so either, but just in case, I deny categorically that any such implication was intended.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, in view of this, this, and this, I shall reverse my withdrawal of these comments.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rude and extremely unpolite participants in discussion over serbo-croatian language

Usernames Čeha, Ivan Štambuk, Laz and Zenanarh are resorting to swearings and personal insults to anyone who disagrees with their point of view, which is by the way wrong and is stemming from "current" works" of highly politically orchestrated and designed "grammars of so-called "hrvatski" language. Their nationalistic and blatantly racist remarks, derogatory use of the noun serbian in a vide variety of variations, identifying all participants as serbs, communists and "chetnikofiles" just because other users disagree with their incorrect interpretations of grammar is destroying any serious discussion or exchange of ideas. They also openly boast of intentionally editing anything that they deem unsuitable to their personal point of view. These users should be prevented from being able to edit and should be monitored for possible use of other aliases to edit texts in order to promote their own political agendas, usually with strong racist and agressive tones.

Discussion tab under serbo-croatian language contains plenty of examples of their agressive and insulting style. Please ban from these pages, or at least disable their edit functionality so that they cannot insult and swear at other users, and change contents to promote their racist point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.23.242 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ancient Land of Bosoni

User:Ancient Land of Bosoni comments on Talk:Bosniaks has become very uncivil of late, including personal attacks. Here are a couple of examples:

• 02:37 24 January 2009: "you are a bunch of very pitiful people...", "...Please you narrow-minded thing, do not make your presence here anymore." and "But once again, and please is it not obvious, how the oldest trick of the serb and croat nationalist cooperators once more is played out with a great deal of clumsyness: to create some sort of moral and factual relativsm, that is to create confusion."
• 03:11 24 January 2009: "Wikipedia's own personal and appointed PhD. geneticist. I am glad to see that your quasi-intelligent contributions to this discussion are bringing the whole deal with wikipedia yet another distinct foul smell." and "But zenanarh, you very intelligent man, go ask mummy for a cookie now will you. "
• Article edit comment on 02:18 24 January 2009: "Revert slavo-fascist edits"

I believe this user has gotten way out of order for which there should be consequences. Ex-Yugoslav article are hard enough to edit without this type of language (I even think there is a special arbcom case relating to bad behavior in Ex-Yugoslav article, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, see Decorum and Remedies under the Final Decision section. Osli73 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Template:Gerardw/wnotifyGerardw (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree about the civility. As far as i can see, this user is not an involved party in the arbitration case. If i am wrong here and the user is then it would probably need to be dealt with there, however in this case i think a warning is very necessary. --neon white talk 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not as bad as some, but still a warning is in order. IronDuke 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Osli posted a justified warning concurrent with the Wikiquette notification. Gerardw (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Eleland (again)

Resolved

 – Taken to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Eleland; blocked for 2 weeks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

---

User has been blocked for two weeks. IronDuke 16:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User is being grossly uncivil and violating NPA. Calls edit "shit", when editor (who is an admin) complains, advises user to "fuck off". (Previous complaint here, impressive block log here). I think this user, literally, wants a ban. IronDuke 00:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm being grossly uncivil and violating NPA. Wehwalt's edits were shit. Wehwalt is on a multi-year rampage, making a total mockery of BLP. He's attributing calls for genocide to a living public figure based on a fucking Comcast personal homepage! This isn't about civility or wikipolitics, this is about gross abuse by one admin, now cynically backed up by another admin. Unbelievable. <eleland/talkedits> 00:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't mean me, do you? I'm not an admin, I only play one on AN/I. I have no opinion re Wewalt's edits, not having looked at them, but that doesn't excuse the personal attacks. And this is a recurring pattern with you, not just losing your temper the once or twice. IronDuke 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland, you're likely right on the content, based on a quick glance, but the personal attack just the focus from Wehwalt's behavior to yours. It's not going to help make Wikipedia better in any way. IronDuke, I'm curious how you happened to come up this posting on Wehwalt's talk page in the first place? Gerardw (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have W's page on my watch list. IronDuke 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gerard, your judgment is of course correct. But what do you want? The guy's an admin. He's supposed to wield the mop and instead he's throwing mud! Of COURSE I lost it! Isn't anybody going to address the underlying problem here, which is a multi-year pattern of disgusting libel against a public figure? <eleland/talkedits> 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You've documented that pretty well here, that's just the wrong spot. You should probably post at AN/I. Gerardw (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of this board, the underlying problem here is your multi-year pattern of gross incivility. There's not a legitmate workplace in the world that would stand for the behavior you have exhibited. Is there any way -- any way at all -- you could promise to stop doing that? IronDuke 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, dredging up past actions that have been dealt with isn't going to be helpful. The fact that you weren't a participant in the Wehwalt discussion and were a participant in the previous Wikiquette alert raises the question whether you have a WP:COI. There are 75,000 editors in Wikipedia -- if Eleland's behavior is consistently out of line someone else will notice and call him on it. Gerardw (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point may be moot here. I see it has been raised at AN/I [4]. For what it's worth, you're quite wrong about what WP:COI covers. It would have nothing to do with this situation. I'd also note that my previous awareness of Eleland's harsh personal attacks does not disallow me from raising the matter again. Quite the reverse, actually. But I appreciate your comments nonetheless. IronDuke 02:35, 25 January 2009 (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.

User:Chasesboys

Every time this user has the slightest disagreement with someone, they instantly resort to condescending rudeness, name calling, and a post on their own little section of the user page apparently reserved for mockery of other editors. Examples: [5][6][7][8][9] A quick scan of their talk page shows that several users, including myself, have tried to discuss civility with them, to no avail. Maybe yet another uninvolved third party could take a look and try to talk some sense... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You really are my favorite guy in the world beeblebrox, and so is kelly. I would take a spot on my userpage as a compliment. Chasesboys (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I would just like to say that I have never started an argument with anyone here at wikipedia. Whenever someone comments to me, I comment back. I believe I have that right. I never have went to someone else and just started an argument with them. I dont do that. The only people that I have ever had a disagreement with were Ward3001, and Beeblebrox. Kelly is someone who was un-informed about Rush Limbaugh so I will let that one pass. Between me and Ward we settled that issue a long time ago on John Lennon's talk page. Me and him are fine at the moment. The only person who continues to talk to me is you beeblebrox, I havent said a word to you since the Dark Crystal talk page. I really need to consider getting a restraining order, because you are really starting to creep me out here. Thank you for your time. Chasesboys (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• You don't seem to want to grasp the point here. Whether the issues in dispute are resolved or not, you have been consistently rude and condescending in your interactions with other editors. Telling another user to "get a life" or sarcastically calling them "sweetie" like they're a five year old is rude, unhelpful, and disruptive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all calling someone sweetie is not an uncivil action. I should flag you for trying to block me for saying "Sweetie" to someone that has nothing to do with you. I could easily lose my temper with you Beeblebrox but I wont. You are obviously mad about losing the argument about the Dark Crystal situation, so I wont bring that up. I will not apologize to you because I dont have to. I already apologized to Ward and that is enough for me. So farewell Beeblebrox, you have NO case against me whatsoever. Ohh and sue me for saying get a life, this is a free country I can say what I want to you. Chasesboys (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Chaseboys, Get a life,' 'sweetie, and the like are not exactly the epitome ofcivility. While the US may be described as a free country, Wikipedia is privately owned and has standards for use. Please be more civil in the future. Beeblebrox, the easiest way to deal with Chaseboys page would be not to look at it. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I had actually forgotten it was on my watchlist after out little encounter actually. Since they are so obviously not interested in even trying to grasp the concept of civility, I'll remove it. For the record Chaseboys, I never once said "block". If you took the time to at least try and understand things you might have a better time here. This page, along with WP:3O is non-binding dispute resolution. Next time you act this way, someone probably will take you to WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:LedRush, overreaction, incivility, and selective editing of User talk page to hide relevant responses

Resolved. No consensus of significant incivility Gerardw (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that User:LedRush incorrectly placed a WP:TALK warning template on User talk:Goldsztajn[10] (and thread [11]), and commented upon this fact, and his reading on policy in his talk page[12]. His response was rude, uncivil, and totally over the top[13]. When I reminded him that civility is a core policy around here[14], he reacted by further rudeness with a claim I had been uncivil in my talk page[15]. Furthermore, he deleted my response to his rude response from his talk page - giving the impression I haven't responded[16], a further example of rudeness (yes, we kinda own our talk page, but Wikiquette usually establishes that non-rude, non-NPA comments in a thread remain, unless the whole thread is archived). I responded in my talk page to his latest[17], and as I wrote this, he posted this [18] - which quite frankly makes no sense to me, but might to others - which further means my instincts were right in raising this here. I am worried, as he has blanket reverted me in Union busting without any real discussion, and his bellingerent attitude is an early sign of an edit warrior, long-time editor or not. I want to discuss in good faith our edits, and his treatment of the other user and myself are not good signs. Could someone look at this, please? --Cerejota (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

His response seems perfectly logical and appropriate. The bottom line being, don't edit other people's comments. Grsz¹¹ 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides that I'm wondering and are left in the dark about what would be so offensive in shortening Goldsztajn's user name to Gold since it's common to do so (in general) and s/he didn't answer this question even when kindly ask for an explanation [I'm "sitting on red coals" because of that]. It seems to me like making a big deal out of nothing and I just see lots of ??????? there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and why is Cerejota filing this report and not Goldsztajn [I almost wrote Goldy] :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I this is not about the "Gold" issue, but about how he responded to me.--Cerejota (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be overreaction on the part of all three parties. While LedRush is correct that Goldsztajn's editing of his comments technically violated the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, it is a guideline -- it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. and there is a Good faith argument to be made that correcting a user name falls into the exception category. Goldsztajn could have just fixed his name without the strikethrough, which called undue attention to the issue. Cerejota's posting on LedRush's talk was unnecessarily inflammatory, and begs the question of why he's getting involved. Gerardw (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I got involved because we are editing in Union busting, and I felt LedRush was being very aggressive. Why was my response "unnecessarily inflammatory"?--Cerejota (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because! No, seriously, there was no need at all for you to kick in. It shouldn't be your concern since the two parties (involved) seem to have settled it on their own.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, can we close this as resolved and unnecessary?LedRush (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Mitchazenia

This is a minor thing, and I'm not offended, but someone might want to have a talk with Mitchazenia. In my experience, he seems to take things way too personally. --NE2 16:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the instructions at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts, please notify Mitchazenia by placing a short polite message at their talk page. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to reminding filing parties to notify the subject, others can help by notifying the subject themselves - this ensures that as little time as possible is wasted in keeping a WQA open without any response. I've notified the subject in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Its who I am in real life. Its not something I can solve. I can't go into further detail because its very personal.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We value useful contributions by anyone, regardless of who they are in real life. However, for contributions to be useful they also have to follow all of the guidelines and policies, especially the civility guidelines and guidelines against personal attacks. You need to be able to deal in a civil manner with other editors on Wikipedia. Your personal issues are, as you say, personal and none of anyone's business. However, saying "its who I am in real life" and "its not something I can solve" does not give you a free pass; you still have to follow the rules of Wikipedia or eventually an admin will block you. I suggest, if you have to type something like that in the future, you type it and then walk away without saving, or type it out in a notebook application or some such, and not post anything on Wikipedia until you are calm enough to remove any uncivil or attacking comments. However you want to do it, I strongly suggest you do NOT make similar comments in the future as per the above cited Wikipedia guidelines. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Manutdglory

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Issue addressed at AN/I Gerardw (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Warned by 3 users besides me(including an admin, User:ZimZalaBim ) about civility and edit warring issues: [19] [20] [21][22]. He deletes warnings at once so it's hard to go over his talk page.
• He's trying to get me to stop editing Rick Warren since my first edit, claiming I'm biased:
  • "As someone who clearly has a similar bias (noted from your user page), I would encourage you to follow his lead and abstain from editing this article before you start another edit-war." [23]
  • "...You also have absolutely zero credibility because of your admitted bias against Warren, so attempting to "out-argue" us is ridiculous. If you continue, all you will accomplish is getting this article protected again. You're not going to "win" this - walk away from the article." [24]
  • "Well, don't do anything that would make me need to comment on you further..." [25]
• A previous case in Administrators' noticeboard/Incident: [26] Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In context, and assuming good faith, Manutdglory's comments can be interpreted as referring to the Phooenix's content. The AN/I referenced portrayed Manutdglory is a better light than the other party, and neither was blocked. The posting here and an article RFC[[27]] appears to be forum shopping. Please continue discussion on the merits content dispute on the article talk page. I'm leaving a comment on Manutdglory encouraging extra civil behavior. Gerardw (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rick_Warren Gerardw (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. My issue is that each time I make an argument on the talk page, Manutdglory replies to me and his replies have nothing to do with my arguments but instead he suggests I have no credibility and should stop editing the article (eg: "You're not going to "win" this - walk away from the article." ) Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the same behavior exhibited by Manutdglory on all previous occasions concerning the Rick Warren article as well as other articles where there would be contention about factuality, neutrality, and bias. This behavior is then followed by canvassing. It's a clear-cut example of somebody "babysitting" an article for fear that it might not portray the subject in a positive light, leading to a total piece of puffery. Teledildonix314 ^talk 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By "previous occasions", you mean when your behavior caused the Warren article to be completely protected Teledildo? Manutdglory (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Manutdglory for 24 hours for repeated incivility towards his fellow editors. He has been repeatedly warned as to this type of behaviour and today alone I count at least three breaches against that warning. I am not sure if that resolves this matter and thus closes the thread - but I note for the record that I am prepared to block as required in regards to this situation (as I have detailed at previous ANI's) if that is the only way to gain and maintain peace at this part/s of the project.--VS ^talk 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kangarugh22

Kangarugh22 (talk · contribs) has blown up at Collectonian (talk · contribs) over Collectonian's tagging of Asklepios (manga) and subsequent nomination for deletion.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] I believe other editors need to step in to calm the situation before it gets out-of-hand. --Farix (Talk) 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Kangarugh22 is pushing the envelope. However, it seems to me Collectonian is continually pushing the envelope herself. From Talk:Asklepios (manga)

• I realize you are a newer editor so try reading WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOS-AM before declaring it has a valid amount of plot. No one is "authorized" but I am a very experienced editor, (please see WP:EXPERT)
• No, I'm not belitting you, but that you don't seem to understand the basic tags (sounds belittling to me)
• ~checks page and laughs to see what part you got that... (not nice to laughing at other editors)

At [[37]] Get over yourself

From User_talk:Kangarugh22#Warning I could care less about you, (yeah, me too, but no need to write it down) and At least you acknowledge that you should know those guidelines and policies, so why not actually go learn them and follow them(A little on the condescending side, perhaps?)

I'm not intending to imply that any of the above is a horrendous breach of WP:Civil, just that escalating tension has not been entirely one-sided.

With regards to the content issue, the consensus seems to be with Collectonian. I recommend she choose to just walk away, not feel compelled to reply on the article talk page and refrain from additional posts on Kangarugh22's talk. The more strictly future discussion focuses just on content and the more neutrality it's stated the less likely the issue is to escalate. Additionally, I recommend that while I'm sure the community appreciates the work Kangarugh22 put into the article, part of WP:Consensus is sometimes things just don't go the way an individual wants and accepting that is part of what being a Wikipedian is all about. Gerardw (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, I could care less about you is a direct reply to a comment he posted on my talk page claiming implying I was just bothering him because it amused me or something. He also mentioned specifically "constant links to Wiki standards that I should know about" hence my saying that he acknowledge he should know them (and my asking that maybe he actual read them since nothing he's said implies that he has).[38] His very first message regarding the article was a targetted remark at me complaining about the article tags[39] and calling them idiotic and immediately claiming I had something against the manga. Sorry if I found the direct attack to be annoying and found it hard to be patient, though I did attempt (and no, I didn't intend to sound belitting, and I don't find "but that you don't seem to understand the basic tags" to be belitting at all. If I don't understand something or am misunderstanding something basic like that, I'd certainly rather have someone say so instead of just letting me live in ignorance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)