Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eman007 (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 15 October 2010 (→‎Abuse by Users Paul.h & Binksternet in San Francisco Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


    Active alerts

    Guipuscoa

    Resolved

    Please not the above are not all related to User:Guipuscoa but it's a complex problem and I'm not entirely sure as yet where to take it. The issue is as follows, there has been an increasing rash of people who crusade in Basque related articles. The two main issues are as follows:

    • Attempts to replace the agreed consensus name of the province Gipuzkoa with Guipuscoa (a form that was decided against, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basque). There are various editors involved, though mostly IP editors.
    • Attempts to airbrush out any references to Basque ethnicity. Everyone who has ever worked on a Basque related article knows it's an issue that gets both sides of the argument inflamed but for the most part, it has been found an agreeable compromise to use formulations such as Spanish Basque explorer - most of these are fairly stable and while not everyone is having their own way, are agreeable to most parties.

    The problem is it's not a single page that's affected or a single editor who's involved but an increasing number of them. On some other pages that might not be a massive issue as there are many watchers but Basque articles tend to be less well watched and on occassion, it's hard not to fall prey to 3RR as most of them (mainly the IPs) never respond to messages or (such as Guipuscoa) aren't entirely open to rational arguments, instead resorting to accusations of rampant nationalism (such as [1], [2]). Which is funny, as I'm not even Basque... Dealing with the issue in hand obviously is high on the agenda but beyond that, is there a way of resolving this long term as it's costing me a lot of time that I could spend doing better things on Wikipedia. Apologies if this is the wrong page but after having spent 30 minutes looking at all the conflict resolution pages, I'm still not sure which one fits this problem. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The most awfull of this situation is that Akerbeltz and ñaki LL are acusing me of manipulation and sabotage when my work in wikipedia is revert his sabotage and political manipulation, they are talking about "it has been found an agreeable compromise to use formulations such as Spanish Basque explorer - most of these are fairly stable and while not everyone is having their own way, are agreeable to most parties" and there is not True at all, there is not such a compromise, because it oes not exist basque spanish, only spanish, basqueland is not a state and in wiki, they don´t tolere this. It´s just a attemp in favour of basque nationalism and agaisnt Spain as sovereign state, in all this explorer and people, it figure their birthplace and is enougth, to pretend write basque spanish instead of spanish is a aseveration that they are not spanish, and it´s what tehy want. here I give you two examples of their bad faith: [[3]] and [[4]] In the first talk even it´s editing only to delete Spain, for him San Sebastian it´s not Spain. but this is (or we want) a serious enciclopedia, not a propaganda basque nationalism, and San Sebastian is part Spain. In this page I give you the continuos relation with Akerbeltz and IñakiLL [[5]] they both they thnk thet are the only with rigats to chane wikipedia. Please stop this vandalism!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guipuscoa (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am glad that Guipuscoa has decided to respond here. Meanwhile, I have left him a 3RR warning, since he is up to three reverts at Lope de Aguirre. The best place to continue this discussion might be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque. If either side continues to revert on the subject of Basque nationality or naming without proper discussion, admins are standing by. It is hard to find a simple solution to these nationality matters that pleases everybody, so the willingness to compromise is essential. See WP:PLACE and WP:NAME for some of the options. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Yes, I agree compromise is essential - though AFAICT we already were operating on a compromise. I'd love to hear a rational argument from Guipuscoa on the issue on any talk page. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And you really need to familiarise yourself with the way Wikipedia works, Guipuscoa. You accuse me of airbrushing out Spain with reference to a change from San Sebastián, Spain to San Sebastián. The reason I changed that is to avoid an unneccessary redirect as the San Sebastián, Spain ends up on San Sebastián anyway. By all means add Spain if you feel that it adds something for the reader. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something fishy going on that someone might want to look into this. Out of nowhere, there's suddenly a rash of single purpose accounts coming up spewing (sorry, but there's no other term for it) POV nonsense and all edit warring over pretty much the same thing:
    Is there some way of looking into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akerbeltz (talk • contribs) 2010-10-06 14:18:26 (UTC)


    I was going to report that proliferation of single-purpose accounts driving a crusade. Once again, it's easier to destroy than to create... this is turning into a nonsense, I don't think we should devote so much time to revert vandalism. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 12:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Guipuscoa has taken care of this. If there is a need for any further discussion, it should probably take place at WT:WikiProject Basque. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, can someone close this then please? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Heavydata

    Resolved
     – Heavydata agreed to change their tone and considers the matter resolved. SwarmTalk 20:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Heavydata continued to be very rude to people after I gave him a warning. I looked back at his talkpage and he has been warned before. If you even just look back at his contributions, that are talkpages, you'll see where he flames lots of people. Endofskull (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you stop following me? If people don't want to be treated rudely by me, then they shouldn't add vandalism to pages. Simple as that. I have absolutely no reason to give any vandals ANY respect. Heavydata (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following you, I'm just standing up for the people who don't need to get yelled at. Even though vandals are bad, you should politely warn them. Never, not in any situation should you yell at someone for their edit. They still deserve respect, especially if they apologize. Endofskull (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would look at Owen the Kid's talk page, you can see that he's made countless vandalism edits and has been warned several times to stop. [6]. He knows damn well what he's doing, therefore he gets zero respect from me. And by the way, you are following me. You're tracking my edits to make sure if I'm nice to people or not, which is following me. Heavydata (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, but the all-caps yelling at Owen the Kid is not civil, and more importantly just makes things worse. Figureofnine (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm following Figureofnine, more or less by chance, and I agree completely: Heavydata, both the tone and the content of some of your messages are unacceptable. To IP 173.79.0.63, you said "Get a life kiddie, seriously", and that is quite uncivil. From your talk page, I gather that you have difficulties communicating courteously with other editors, whether they are vandals or not--and that really shouldn't matter anyway. WP is not a free-speech zone in which you can cuss at those whom you think deserve it. Please tone it back, considerably. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, we don't always disagree. ;) Figureofnine (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On a more substantitve note. Heavydata: my point about vandals is that your approach tends to backfire. These are kids playing with daddy's computer, or the puter at school, and a rude approach is not going to work. Better to just be firm and not raise your voice, as you would be with any small child. Figureofnine (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well here's why I'm mean to people. I used to be polite to vandals in the past. I gave them the normal warnings and such. But many of them flat out ignored them and continued to vandalize pages, or make bad edits and not even tell me why they were making them in the first place. When I raised my tone, they stopped. So I figure I could stop this nonsense quicker if I just raise my tone immediately. Look at that Owen guy, he had SEVERAL polite warnings about vandalism and he's still doing it even after months. It flat out feels to me that nobody cares about these Johnny Test articles except me. Yes I know it's a show that many people hate the show with a passion for whatever reason (so it's an obvious target for vandalism), but I'm an adult and I enjoy it for some reason, so I don't know. I've stated a million times for a source when adding new episodes because people can (and have) make up fake episodes, yet not ONCE has ANYONE except me added a source for a new episode or airdate. I'm just asking for a url from a reliable source, such as CN's schedule page or toonzone or whatever. I'll never understand the internet and why it's incapable to do the most simplest things. And by the way, I stopped swearing months ago. Heavydata (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to be rude but "And by the way, I stopped swearing months ago" isn't true, because on your second reply, it has cussing. Anyways, being uncivil doesn't help at all. If someone doesn't listen to you, you're gonna want to report them, and they'll get banned. Endofskull (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <--If you actually think that yelling at people helps, this may not be the place to you. Again, I urge you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, vandals or not. Use the template, don't add any commentary, leave it to the administrators--it's that simple. Doing more is usually counterproductive--and rude behavior to rude people is still rude behavior. I think some of us would want to hear from you that will not yell, cuss, or shout at other editors; that would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't consider "Damn" a swear word, but I was saying worse words months ago. And by the way, if you check Drmies's userpage and scroll all the way down, you can see "the F-word" in an image on his page. If you look through his talk page history you can find many instances where he uses "the F-word" as well, like here [7]. So why is he allowed to use profanity but not me? But OK yeah I'll try to keep my little commentaries out. If I could just get some help so I wouldn't have to babysit these articles every single day and revert almost every single edit that wasn't mine then maybe it would be a little less stressful. But like I said, the show is a silly kids show and many teenagers/adults don't like it at all, so finding someone that can help might be hard. Heavydata (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally understand your frustration with vandals, and occasionally I try to do vandal fighting myself and come away feeling annoyed. However, and if you use Twinkle this becomes obvious, there are escalating templates that you can use for vandals. If they continue to vandalize and ignore a final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV with the push of a button. I think that you're wasting valuable emotional energy getting mad at unknown children, and I must also gently point out that being uncivil is a violation of WP:NPA, even when the targets are vandals. As for "babysitting" articles that are frequently vandalized, it's not necessary. The pages can be semiprotected, also through Twinkle, at the push of a button to make an automated request to WP:RPP. Please don't become emotionally invested in vandal fighting. It's not worth it. Thanks. Figureofnine (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know I shouldn't get frustrated since its just a silly kids show, but that Owen guy vandalized the page while it was protected and I had to request semi protection for the page SIX times. I've been having to deal with this nonsense for over a year. I'll give that twinkle a try,
    And regarding your comment you left on my page Drmies, I agree that the F-bomb is not the same as "Get a life kiddie, seriously". I was referring to the fact that Endofskull gives me a hard time for using words like "Damn" (Like in my second paragraph here) and "Crap" yet other people can use profanity as much as they want with no problem. And that wasn't the only instance of profanity I found on Drmies' page (just use search function under the archive list). For me, I have absolutely no problem with profanity, Drmies can swear like crazy on his user and talk page all he wants, I honestly don't care. But this is solely directed towards EndofSkull: Why can't I say "He knows damn well" when he can say "Stephin fucking Colbert"? Heavydata (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It really depends on the context. If you feel that somebody is uncivil, you can always come here. There is a pretty high degree of incivility tolerated on the 'pedia. Sometimes it's best to just cool it, no matter what other people are doing, just for your own sake, not theirs. Figureofnine (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Heavydata, that's really irrelevant. We're talking about you. Anyways, just please stop being mean and rude to people, even vandals! Endofskull (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it's relevant, because I don't understand the logic behind these unwritten profanity laws. Part of the reason I was reported in the first place was my profanity. I just want to know, OK? Secondly I already said I'd stop being "Rude and mean", I'm just trying to get a straight answer on this profanity issue. Heavydata (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well I just addressed because you "stopped cussing". So anyways, does everyone think this problem is solved? Endofskull (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this discussion has pretty much run its course. Figureofnine (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no it's not over. If you looked at his talk page, it's a personal attack, and it's saying he can edit anything he wants. Endofskull (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It's over. I said I'd stop with my little commentaries and try other methods. What more do you want from me?Heavydata (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Endofskull, he hasn't posted on his talk page since March. He has made a pledge to cease personal attacks, if I understand him correctly. I see no purpose in further discussion. Figureofnine (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, wait, wait. I meant user page. Click his user page. You see, he isn't stopping, even after saying (pledging!) he would! Endofskull (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see from the log that it was deleted as an attack page. I don't have access to the deleted version so I don't know what it says. I still think we've done all that can be done here. If there are further issues, I suggest raising it at AN/I. This is really for informal mediation not sanctions. Figureofnine (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Endofskull, you're claiming I'm being really rude to people. YOU'RE being really rude to me for accusing me of things after I said I'd stop. So why don't YOU stop being rude to me? It's people like you that caused me to be rude in the first place, you just don't listen! So at this point, you're only making things worse. The last edit to my userpage was in MARCH, and now it's deleted because it was created by a vandal. Maybe I should report you here next for harassing me. IT'S OVER, MOVE ON. Heavydata (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait wait. This is not over. Right after Heavydata said he'd stop, he made an attack page. I'm going to get some evidence from the user who deleted his user page. I've made a report at Adminstrators' Noticeboard, since I saw what Figureofnine said. Here's the report. Endofskull (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ivan Štambuk

    I would like to report the rude and nationalistic conduct of User:Ivan Štambuk who without provocation said the following about me on the discussion page for Serbo-Croatian: [8] Croatian nationalist Vodomar (a diaspora Croat - these are the worst) recruited from Croatian Wikipedia repeatedly demonstrates exceptional ignorance and a propensity to fabricate history. . I was only disputing the facts that are on the ground with what was written in the article, and in any way was causing grief. I respect whatever beliefs a certain user has, and any debate is an intellectual exercise, robust debates are fine as well. However this is uncalled for. Please look into this issue, as this has gone too far. Vodomar (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    also his insults towards Kubura here here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.155.254 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jenab6

    Jenab6 continues to use the talk page as a forum and has made some unacceptable comments.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] It would be appreciated if an admin could give him a friendlier notice than I am capable of and provide the Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement. Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In that case you might need to read {{uw-chat1}}, {{uw-chat2}}, {{uw-chat3}} and {{uw-chat4}}. Each time a user uses a talk page as a forum you issue a warning using the templates I've just listed. You use {{uw-chat1}} for the first time. If the user repeats after the first warning you use {{uw-chat2}}. If the user repeats after the second warning you use {{uw-chat3}}. If the user repeats after the third warning you use {{uw-chat4}}. If the user repeats after the fourth warning you report the user at WP:ANI, and provided you have followed the warning procedure correctly they will be blocked from editing for a period of time. Make sure you have firm grounds for issuing any warnings, it has to be clear to an uninvolved editor that the user is using talk pages as a forum. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Race and intelligence is subject to discretionary sanctions per here - a request for enforcement can be made at WP:AE. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit to Talk:Race and intelligence was back in May, and the edit to Talk:Donald Boström was a year ago. The only recent edits were to Talk:MV Mavi Marmara, and only the one from August was out of line. This is a very low-volume editor, not the sort it is reasonable to make "forum" complaints about. I can't see any justification for taking any action at all at this point. Cptnono, is there some background to this that I am missing? Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No background. The guy is continuously using the talk page as a forum and making some pretty inflammatory comments. But if an admin won't give a formal warning and provide the template then nevermind. Good to see that we can disregard guidelines. I'll keep it in mind.Cptnono (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pschemp

    Resolved
     – Filer agrees that this can be marked as resolved now. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pschemp left a note on Foxonline's talk page[16], which I spotted and felt was overly aggressive. I raised this with Pschemp[17], but my post was deleted without response[18]. In case this was an accident, I posted again[19], but my post was again deleted[20], and Pschemp asked me to "stop harassing" them[21].

    I'd drop it, were it not for (as it seems to me) Pschemp using their admin status to threaten another editor. As it was, the accusation of harassment threw me—I don't think I acted out of hand in any way—so I took a couple of days away from the issue. Coming back to it, I still think there is an issue I'd like to resolve, namely whether the level of warning given to Foxonline was appropriate. Since I've been accused of harassment, I wanted to bring the discussion here for third-party involvement, rather than continuing alone.

    As a side-note, I'll gladly accept advice and constructive criticism on how to better handle such situations in future, from editors involved or uninvolved. I'll suggest that's done on my talk page to avoid derailing this conversation, though, although feel free to overrule that wish. While I currently don't think I erred, I accept I may not be blameless here.

    -- me_and 20:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Which part of the message did you feel was overly aggressive? Netalarmtalk 20:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The line "If you persist I will report you, as I am an administrator." Firstly as, as far as I could tell, Foxonline had received no previous warnings for their behaviour, so jumping straight to threatening them with being reported seemed somewhat hasty. Secondly "as I am an administrator" felt to me to be irrelevant (admins AFAIK have no greater powers in this situation than any other editor) and to be using adminship as a threatening weapon; "I'm bigger and more important than you, therefore you must do what I say". me_and 20:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: To me, the most concerning part of this is Pschemp seemingly using their status as an administrator to threaten another editor. Adminship is the community placing trust in a user, and this feels to me to be abusing that trust. Mistakes happen; the resolution I'd expected and desired when making the first comment to Pschemp had been for them to say "yes, I overreacted there, sorry", or "actually, I think I was justified there". I certainly didn't expect to be accused of harassment; that flies in the face of how I see myself.
    I guess, to me, the greater issue here is that everyone given privileges on Wikipedia (including the basic privilege of editing) should be answerable on and responsible for how they use those privileges. Pschemp has used their privileges in a way that I found questionable, but since they would not answer a question posed to them directly on the matter, I have brought the issue here for comment.
    --me_and 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is some constructive advice on how to do better in the future: don't hound people. You made your point by posting your message. It is a legitimate point, and you made it, and by deleting it, Pschemp acknowledged seeing it. That was enough. There was no need to re-post the message, and certainly no need to file this report. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I guess I was aware my actions—particularly this report—could come across as "hounding", but I wanted to try to get an explicit response from Pschemp, namely an explanation to me of their reaction, or some sort of note to Foxonline acknowledging overreaction.
    I'd like the agreement of another editor before I'll accept that I should just drop this. I would still like some response and engagement from Pschemp, but if other editors agree I should just drop it, I'll request this discussion be closed and apologise to Pschemp for my own overreaction.
    --me_and 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was inclining towards agreement with Looie on the re-posting of the warning, because deleting messages from your own talk page is an acknowledgement of having read them, and nobody is forced to reply to messages here, even when ignoring them might be seen as a little discourteous. FWIW, Foxonline's edits were unconstructive and Pschemp was correct to revert them, though threatening to exercise admin privileges to win a minor content dispute with a possibly good-faith and confused newbie does seem like overkill to me too. However, unless I am missing the totally obvious (which is possible), Pschemp is not an administrator on en.wikipedia (see Category:Wikipedia administrators) and should not be claiming to be one in order to win an argument over content, even when his/her version is more suitable. Perhaps this is why s/he has sought not to engage with you on the topic of whether or not that message to Foxonline was appropriate? Karenjc 10:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The page you linked to is (I believe) generated from people categorising their own user pages, and so may not be accurate. The userlist does have Pschemp as an admin. me_and 10:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah right, my bad, I was indeed missing the totally obvious. Sorry, and thank you for the correction. IMO, telling a newbie to stop making unnecessary changes "...or I will report you as I am an administrator" is still not the best way to tackle them. We have an escalating system of warnings that any editor or admin should employ against repeated unconstructive editing (as opposed to major vandalism) before a report is made to WP:AIV. Instead, Foxonline may well have gone away with the misapprehension that if you cross a Wikipedia admin in a content dispute they may use special privileges to request sanctions against you, which is unfortunate. Still, we do all express ourselves badly on here from time to time. Since Pschemp is within his/her rights not to talk to you and Foxonline seems to have stopped making the unhelpful edits, perhaps it's time to hope your point was taken and leave it at that? Karenjc 11:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall. Thank you. me_and 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can this be closed? While I maintain I feel Pschemp's response to Foxonline was disproportionate, my response to Pschemp was also, and the former is certainly no excuse for the latter. I'm going to write a short apology to Pschemp shortly. me_and 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keristrasza

    We had disagreements about his 2RR on the page that had no consensus on the content. However, that page, Croatian language, is not in question here.
    I gave him this warning [22], he removed it with whole discussion afterwards [23] (aren't talkpages archived, not deleted?), I restored it, then another user appeared and removed it [24].
    I haven't insisted on rerestoring. There was short discussion on my talkpage: his message [25], my answer [26]. Things would probably end right after his answer.
    But, hee used rude language in the answer[27].
    "your "warning" was bullshit", "That others have also reverted your trash", "the pathetic nature of your "warning". He has to avoid such words. I don't want that my answering on my or his talkpage incites bigger fire.
    He, as a "reviewer to pending changes", has to show less temper when getting criticism. My warning was friendly. Possibly he had good intentions, but I still find his action at that case as wrong. Anyway, no reason for him to use rude language.
    Will someone else post him a notification on his talkpage, since he expliticly wrote on my talkpage "in future I shall simply remove your edits from my talk page without bothering to reply" [28].
    Simply: I don't want that someone talks to me that way. Kubura (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Any user is allowed to remove anything from their talk page with or without archiving it, except for a few rare circumstances (and this ain't one of them). While his language could definitely be toned down, none of those were personal attacks (except possibly the second example). You probably shouldn't have left a user who has been here for over a year a template and I also find it highly alarming that you left the user a 3RR warning FOUR? DAYS after it happened (also, two reverts does not break 3RR, four reverts does). While the user could stand to be more civil, I think, in this case, their frustration was justified (though, like I said, the language needs to be cleaned up and they shouldn't have whipped out the DICK thing at the end). I think it would be best to follow his request to leave his page alone. If content needs to be discussed, do so at the article talk page or, if it's serious, leave a note on an admin's talk page. --132 01:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have alerted the user to this discussion. --132 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HOUND. Keristrasza (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand? Is this an ongoing issue with Kubura? --132 23:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is in reaction to my notification, WP:HOUND has no merit. If your actions are being discussed here, you are required to be notified, just like at WP:ANI. --132 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kubura has been hounding me (and a few others) since 6 October - you should take a look at his contributions Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since that date and you will see nothing but a series of complaints and abuses of process against any and every editor from Talk:Croatian language who is not a part of his clique from the Croatian wiki. Keristrasza (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is long-term abuse, I would suggest taking it to WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U to get a wider audience. --132 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kubura_-_hounding.2C_sock_puppetry.2C_disruptive_editing.2C_personal_attacks. Keristrasza (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lsorin

    Resolved
     – Lsorin apologized. SwarmTalk 23:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In this pair of talk page entries, User:Lsorin called first me then another editor ignorant. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a native speaker of English, but still I'm wondering why the term ignorance is insulting Binksternet and Romaniantruths? How can you call the the editors which reply only to the questions they choose, skipping(ignoring) questions which are relevant to the subject like the consensus proposal or jet engine definition?--Lsorin (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The term 'ignorance' (being "destitute of knowledge or education") generally has negative connotations. If you tell someone they're ignorant, by definition, you're may just be saying they "don't know something", but in using that specific word it can come across as insulting. SwarmTalk 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the above is true, than I apologize publicly.--Lsorin (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true, and it's also true the distinction is a small and tricky one for a non-native speaker. What Lsorin seems to have mean was "your ignoring of the facts", not '"your ignorance of the facts". The first implies they were aware of the facts but chose to disregard them, the second that they were unaware of the facts. As Swarm points out, characterising someone as ignorant is likely to be taken as an insult in English, even if insult was not intended. Karenjc 09:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me just note that in French "je l'ignore" is, or at least used to be, a perfectly normal way of saying: "I don't know". They just happen to have a verb that means not knowing, and the French word ignorance doesn't a priori have the strong connotations the English word does. It's totally plausible to me that Lsorin meant the word in this harmless sense if they are a native speaker of a Romance language, for example. There has been some unfortunate escalation between Lsorin and Binksternet, but I would hope that this will stop once we have found a solution to a certain problem in which they both have a point but neither seems to be completely right. Hans Adler 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ishxanaberd

    Resolved
     – article protected for a week, Quantum666 warned against edit-warring. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is making insulting edit summaries and comments at the talk page. [29],[30],[31],[32]. I asked him to read WP:PERSONAL but it doesn't work. Quantum666 (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but, having looked at all of the differences you provided, Ishxanaberd does not appear to have made any Wikiquette violations. He has been civil and to the point. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean that saying "you are trolling" and "you are engaged in disruptive editing" is OK? Can I say such things at your talk page? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have protected the article for a week (it seemed to be stable with the exception of the edit-warring by Quantum666), and warned Quantum666 not to continue this behavior. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the notion that the article was stable is a good reason to protect the page or warn the editor Quantum666 for actually trying to improve the article. If the article seems stable to you, it does not mean it was correct for all that stable time, on contrary the mistakes have been overlooked and now when one editor noticed them and tried to improve the article, he gets punished for that. Before warning, please take a look at the changes he made and disputed on the talk page. He removed the name Shushi refered to by Armenians to Shusha used by the entire world, which is the correct version. Then he changed the name Gandzak, again, refered to only by Armenians to Ganja, the correct version used by the entire world. Same for Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabakh. Please investigate before rushing to conclusions.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to work this out by discussing the issue on the article's talk page, calmly and with reference to reliable sources. You will not be able to solve this problem by reverting until you get your way. Looie496 (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in full agreement with you, but that's exactly what Quantum666 did - discuss on the talk page, which the other editor prefered not to do. Instead he reverted to the wrong version. It's like editing some article and refering to Washington, D.C. in it as Washington (state). Anyway, I'll add a few lines there, on its talk page.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looie496, discussion means that at least two parties discuss the problems. I explained my edits twice (first time in edit summaries and the second at the discussion page - have you looked there?). The answers were: "you are trolling" and "you are engaged in disruptive editing". Well, if you think that such behavior helps Wikipedia to be improved I don't know what to say. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anastasia, as you know Azerbaijani, I suppose you're good in knowledge of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict history too. First of all, I can show you reliable sources using the Shushi [33], Gandzak [34] forms. And then, the usage of historical names is ok according to WP:NAME ([35]): "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods". So what Quantum666 is doing, is an aggressive pov-pushing in all Armenian history-related articles. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, and if you run a search for Shusha and Ganja, Azerbaijan, you will see five times as many results with correct name both for present and historical context.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "aggressive pov-pushing in all Armenian history-related articles"? Do you have any example or is it just your agressive POV-pushing? If you object to my edits you are welcome at the talk page. I am always open for discussion. What you are doing now is defending the user who destroys consensus building by avoiding discussion process. Is it because of his POV or do you really think that we shouldn't improve articles using discussion?--Quantum666 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And about inappropriate names. Having reliable sources using "your" name is not enough. We use most common and widely used names. There is consensus that such names are Shusha, Nagorno-Karabakh and Ganja (you can see the article titles and redirections for approppriate places). And yes we use historical names if we have historical context. Have I ever violated this? Give me an example please. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are examples of your aggresive pov-pushing [36][37][38][39][40] etc. Try to be more correct, especially as I answered to Anastasia, not you (your opinion is known and it has nothing common with Wiki rules I cited). Andranikpasha (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with those edits? Can you explain? Which rule was violated? And it's only your opinion about "nothing common with Wiki rules I cited". Look at the rules once more please and read my comments more carefully. I think then you will see you mistake. By the way you are avoiding answering my simple questions. Is there any problem about them? --Quantum666 (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looie496, if Quantum666 continues disruptive behavious, are any sanctions under AA2, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:POV possible to implement? Andranikpasha (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru

    QuackGuru editing and responding fairly tendentiously on this policy page. There are ongoing discussions about three separate sections - Giving equal validity, A Simple Formulation, and the inclusion of a video in the article - but QG is continuously editing and reverting the sections without discussion (despite having been asked several times to participate more in talk), and his talk page comments are consistently non-responsive, and generally amount to repetitive challenges or commands to other editors, rather than productive discussion. It's pure stonewalling, designed to disrupt consensus rather than build it, and no one in talk seems to be able to get him to interact more productively. any outside help would be appreciated. diffs follwo (just from the last couple of days - you can easily see more if you care to go back farther):

    article diffs

    • [41] - reasserting his preferred version without talk page discussion, and removing an 'under discussion' type template that pointed to the discussion
    • [42] - reasserting his preferred version without talk page discussion, and removing an 'under discussion' type template again, on the grounds that 'enough discussion' has occurred (though consensus on the talk page is actually moving away from this version).

    talk diffs

    • [43] - just for baseline; these same statements are repeated, regardless of the responses he gets from others.
    • [44]
    • [45] - bald assertion that his preferred version is better, demand for a specific explanation of the dispute tag (despite the fact that there is a couple of hundred lines above on the dispute)
    • [46] - stonewalling with more of the 'this version is best' language, plus note at the bottom how he ignores my explanation in the paragraph above to assert again that no explanation has been given.
    • [47] - again, he ignores my explanation to claim that I did not give one.
    • [48] - unexplained assertion that a revision being discussed 'gives no direction to editors', plus another statement that ignores my explanation to claim that I am unable to explain.
    • [49] - another claim that I haven't explained, followed by a fairly wild assertion (which isn't problematic in itself)
    • [50] - an assertion that there is neither consensus nor explanation for changing the section (neither of which conforms with the discussion in talk], plus the first claim about the video removal. Also, what I think is the real motivating factor here: a near-claim that he is using these policy revisions to support a conflict on a particular article page.
    • [51] - video talk: argumentative and repetitive.
    • [52] - ditto
    • [53] - another non-responsive post about the simple formulation section
    • [54] here he actually refers to an answer I gave above one of the times he claimed there were no explanations given. rather than treating my statement as a response, however, he treats it as though it were a claim I've made, and then uses it merely to reassert what he's been saying all along. then in the lowere section he's back to the video and the 'no specific problem stated' pattern
    • [55] - and again, 'you have refused to explain...'

    --Ludwigs2 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If s/he's messing around with one of WP:5P's guidelines without consensus, then maybe WP:ANI might be a better place for this post? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    well, I'll go there or RFC/U if I need to, but since QG is an established editor, I thought it best to start with low-key peer discussion. the policy sections are under discussion anyway, and when the discussion closes whatever gets done now will most likely get undone, so it's not a huge worry from a policy perspective. --Ludwigs2 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I sympathize with the concern, but I can't imagine how anything will be gained by bringing the matter here, as opposed to discussing it at WT:NPOV and taking it to ANI if it gets out of control. Note that although QG is a longtime editor, there are few editors still around who have more extensive block logs. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    QuackGuru is a good faith, well-meaning, incompetent editor. I do not think Wikipedia has a chance to address the problem at its root, so WQA is unlikely to help. What we need is sanctions that make it possible to stop him quickly and without too much disruption whenever he gets one of his idiosyncratic ideas and tries to push it through. The proper place for that is RFC/U. Hans Adler 09:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Largely agreeing with just about everything already said here, this is one of the many cases where I feel like WQA ought to be more useful than it actually is (but at least it's on the record now as an early attempt at dispute resolution). I've been present during Quack Guru's recent conduct at WP:NPOV, and it hasn't really been a civility issue, but rather incredibly tedious not-hearing-anyone-else editing. Core policies really should not be changing minute-by-minute. I'm inclined to agree with Hans about competence as being the real issue. I'll support an RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RfC/U seems the best bet to me too. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had similar interactions with QG on the Chiropractic page. I was regularly unpleasantly surprised by his prosecutorial approach and the general way that his editing made the article into much more of a battlefield than it needed to be. I say this despite the fact that he was not wrong about several issues but nonetheless chose less civil, consensus-seeking, and discursive ways to make his points. User:RexxS is a good counterpoint as a scientifically minded editor who doesn't stoop to pushing skepticism or policy without apparent regard for discussion. Please see these comments at the recent/ongoing/stalled mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/Chiropractic#Editing_environment. Like other editors in this project who promote a phenomenally strong point of view with a consistently baiting or tendentious style, QG would be an enormous asset were he not such a pain in the Wiki. Ocaasi (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback

    Feedback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been harassing me and being uncivil to me for a while now. See [56]. He edits my comment and shrinks it down so no one can see it. When I bring it up to him, he acts like it's commonplace to do that. Then see: [57], his attitude there is also poor. He's attacking people, and attacking me because I call him out on being uncivil. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that the instance of the minimized text was cleared up on RobJ1981's talk page I find it conflicting that this single incident is described by RobJ1981 as a continuous occurrence. The following excerpt from a comment by Feedback should also be noted [58] "And what really isn't needed is someone like you swaying discussion from the main topic to some side-complaint without contributing to the discussion at hand in any way whatsoever. Noticing that your first and only post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, the article, the discussion, the guideline or anything relevant whatsoever" RobJ1981 has a history of making random sporadic appearances at WT:PW (the talk page of WikiProject Professional wrestling) in various discussion topics, not to contribute to a discussion by any means but only to "police" certain comments and subjects while aggravating situations that always deviate from the original discussion. While I find enforcement of policy crucial to the integrity of the project, what RobJ1981 does is distracting, annoying, and simply not needed.--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't do anything wrong. All I did was try to calm Feedback down. He acted very uncivil and took disagreements too seriously. Getting so mad over articles really doesn't help this site at all. Also note: the above editor has had issues with me in the past, so of course anyone I disagree with is instantly an ally of his. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You were instigating the user by deliberately taking the user's comments out of context and then accusing him of being uncivil. Why don't you provide some diffs to specific remarks you perceived to be uncivil. The only diffs you have provided are a biased recollection of a minor misunderstanding between you and the user that I had to correct, and the diff to the discussion where you supposedly found evidence of misconduct. Anyone that reads that discussion in its entirety will clearly see you aggravating the situation. Finally, I'll make it clear to you that I'm only here to bring some neutrality to this alert, as I was forced to do so by that heavily weighted opening argument of yours. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right here: [59] is a great example. The last sentence wasn't needed at all in that post of his. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You refer to this sentence... "Noticing that your first and only post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, the article, the discussion, the guideline or anything relevant whatsoever, its safe to say you don't give two shits about the consensus that is being searched for here so why don't you go do something you do care about like getting blocked for harassment." where he points out that you have been involved in and blocked for harassment before? --UnquestionableTruth-- 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My take on this is that RobJ1981 is harassing Feedback rather than vice versa. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even see the discussion he posted in? He called people "meatheads", plus attacked me. That's unnecessary and shouldn't be ignored. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. I also saw what happened before that. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is one of those situations where neither side is blameless. Yes, Rob sometimes provokes people by policing discussions. Yes, Feedback's comments are at least borderline at times ([60]). With that said, what is the purpose of this discussion? It won't resolve anything, and it will just amplify the drama all around. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    With that said, note the author of this particular alert. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Noloop

    There's more background here than anyone will want to go through, I think, going back to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein and further back. User:Noloop and other editors, including me, have been involved in some disputes on articles related to Jesus' historicity for a few months; the current flashpoint is Talk:Historicity of Jesus. I think his characterization of other editors is getting out of hand.

    In a comment made yesterday, he tells me that "You need to keep your religion out of it." Just to be clear, I haven't identified myself as a member of any religion; this is an assumption that Noloop has made based on his perception of my edits. Noloop has many disparaging remarks about Christianity, including a previous edit in the same conversation: "Next, someone will object to your use of Jesus freaks as sources, and so on. Keep it respectful, please." Here, he tells another editor that "You either need to be honest or stop editing." Noloop's most recent edit, directed at me, reads in part, "Your disruptive and dishonest "discussion" has gone on for months...Again and again and again you try to use authors and publishers who explictly promote religious belief in Jesus Christ as supposedly neutral sources. Again and again it is pointed out to you that worship is virtually the definition of NOT NEUTRAL. For MONTHS you have been playing these games. Show a shred of respect and understanding for other editors the principles of Wikipedia..." I can't help but see it as ironic that an editor can call me disruptive and dishonest and at the same time ask me to "show a shred of respect and understanding," especially since Noloop continually ignores the substantive point that the sources he objects to are by and large academic experts on the topic. What I would hope is that Noloop would tone down his rhetoric, stop making assumptions about other editors' religious beliefs, and stop trying to exclude sources from the article based on religious litmus tests. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And from today: "Akhilleus, make an effort to be thoughtful, constructive, to actually listen to what others say.". --Akhilleus (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, the remark about "Jesus freaks" was a comment about language describing sources, not the sources themselves. Akhilleus dismissed a source preferred by some editors as a "random Swedish dude." I felt that was non-constructive and would lead to dismissal of his preferred sources in pejorative terms as well, e.g. as "Jesus freaks". I used the phrase as an example of what we want to avoid. His presentation of my comments, stripped of context, distorts the truth of what happened. It is precisely that kind of misrepresentation of others that leads me to call him dishonest. Noloop (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Blofeld

    Some personal abuse / not assuming good faith concerns:

    • Accused User:Edison of cruelty (among other things) [61]
    • When I responded on his talk page [62] he accused me of childishness [63]
    • Accused unnamed editors of prolonging an AfD "out of spite" [64]

    StAnselm (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's actions / alerts / investigations like these that drive people out of Wikipedia. I think it's worth reconsidering before upping the ante. Qwrk (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this comment-- there are some clear issues evidenced in the diffs above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia sometimes just looks like the real world; bureaucracy killing off initiative. I think you should weigh the the good that Blofeld brings against the "minor issues" mentioned here. Qwrk (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do as you seem fit, including wrecking up the whole place. I'm outta here. Qwrk (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How does this report help wikipedia? What is the point in wasting everybody's time when there is an enormous amount of work to be done on here? So a couple of editors can take pot shots at me because I've expressed major concerns with the way the current AFD is being conducted, reopened under peculiar circumstances and the outlook of some of the editors who commented? This report proves my point exactly that time (and belligerence between editors) is more often than not completely unnecessary. Even the confict over the original AFD would have been avoided if people can bothered to rationally discuss the article first before taking to AFD and not taking to AFD after I and another editor had spent a lot of time adding 300 references. hat's the root of this conflict, you try adding 300 references to try to improve an articles and then have somebody say they don't appreciate it/want to rid of it immediately. It is persistence like this against editors who you happen to disagree with that drives people away from the encyclopedia, you're lucky that I happen to care a great deal about what is important (the encyclopedia itself) otherwise I wouldn't have stayed here ten minutes. Everything I do on wikipedia is constructive, this is why I conflict with editors I see who appear to be the opposite and waste time/try to destroy/moan about the hard work of others that it is not quite good enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The point, I think, is that if you respond to things in an overly emotional way, it produces reactions that end up wasting your own time as well as the time of others. You yourself are really in control of whether this happens. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like relatively minor incivility, but it's still unproductive and has to stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Folks, just how do you assume good faith and "be in control" when you add 300 references to an article and then somebody AFDs while you are working hard at it when the list has been there for over a year and suddenly the delete votes start rolling in. Good timing?. Then despite your efforts to explain that the list is being sourced people like Edison still demand that the list is sourced on the spot and lack patience for you to work on it. It is exasperating to say the least so it isn't your place to sit around telling me what or what I should not say when it is a situation I'm facing, not you. Unproductive is StAnselm demanding that the AFD be reopened and reporting me here. Yes, people who I don't even know can take pot shots at me go and have fun. I'm one of the few the true productive editors this project has. In fact it is because I'm so productive that I have little time for people intent on undoing the work of others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As Blofeld knows, I'm no fan of his, but this is ridiculous. Coming straight to WQA just because someone got a little snappy? What happened to a quiet "I have a few concerns about this" discussion on the user in question's talkpage? I may have a diametrically opposed view to Blofeld on how Wikipedia ought to operate, but I don't think even his harshest critics would deny that he's put in thankless hours improving obscure but important topics for no reward. Everyone has the occasional bad day; unless you can point to a systematic problem, I really can't see what purpose this exercise is supposed to serve. – iridescent 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated vandalism and libel statements posted by user:93.97.27.62

    User:93.97.27.62 has made several counterfactual edits to posts/ vandalism involving or associated with the music producer, Carl M Cox.

    User:93.97.27.62 has since made uncivil, illfounded and libel remarks about the music producer, Carl M Cox without reason or justification.

    User:93.97.27.62 has no talk page in order to address these matters.

    Request is made for 1. Offending remarks to me permently deleted to avoid further potential litigation and 2. User:93.97.27.62 to be banned from wikipedia.

    This request shall be reviewed within the next 48 hours for a status update.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.97.27.62 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greatest_Hits_(2009_Samantha_Fox_album)&diff=prev&oldid=388087666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.195.125 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has a policy of zero tolerance for legal threats; see WP:NLT. If you want any assistance with this matter, you will have to withdraw the legal threat. If you do, I'll try to look into the issue. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Divebomb

    This editor has resulted using conduct unbecoming of an editor for no reason. Which you can see in their most resent edit regarding the content merger of the Transformer character articles. Sarujo (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Naturally, you omit the fact that the comment was in response to one of your ridiculous ideas, namely to merge several large articles into character lists, which had already been debated further up the page.
    Plus, I'm having a bad day and am therefore in a bad mood. --Divebomb (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One, it not a ridiculous idea. It's only ridiculous cause you refer it as such. Two, my statement's were not bad behavior, yours were. They're irrelevant, so don't try to paint as a villain in this equation. Three, real world problems is no excuse to pop off on other editors. Whatever happens to you in the real world should stay there. Sarujo (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well forgive me if I feel that lists are not a place to offload content that should not be moved at all. --Divebomb (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion is dually noted. What isn't is your attitude. I can see your sarcasm cog isn't malfunctioning. The idea of the incarnations being in their corresponding character lists is to allow the proper emphasis be made on them. While the main character page could have a paragraph just saying something regarding the incarnations. These types of articles should really be generic at best. If we want go in any super detail regarding one version then we use their section in a corresponding list. Plus, as the years go by, more and incarnations will be created. Making either page too lengthy in the kilo department. So how is that ridiculous? Sarujo (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, normally when we go into super detail about one version of a fictional character with many different versions we split off said section from getting too long. --Divebomb (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is the big taboo of having these incarnations placed somewhere where they can get proper nurturing? You see what has happened on the Starscream article and how the corresponding incarnation articles are. Each character getting things like infoboxes. Don't you think we owe it to place them in page that we know isn't going to be overloaded? As each series is finished so we won't see anymore new characters come out of the woodwork. Sarujo (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse by Users Paul.h & Binksternet in San Francisco Article

    San Francisco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco#Economy_second_photo. This dispute goes back to December 2009 regard a photo of San Francisco's financial district in the economy section of the San Francisco article. There was disagreement over which picture should be used and discussion and consensus was started. The discussion ended without a decision and the area was left without a photo for quite sometime until a new picture was placed there a few months ago. On October 6, according to the page's history, the user Paul h. decided to replace the photo with an original one citing that his is a "better one", ignoring the previous discussion held months before, as well as acting arbitrarily, and in my opinion deliberately inviting an edit war by his comment: "and see what happens." Although I reverted the picture back, he and another editor Binksternet continued to do so, without any kind of consensus except for what was reached between the two of them. Possibly privately Now, both editors do not and are trying not to have a discussion, although they conversely have pleaded for one, and are trying to intimidate, bully, and threatened me as an editor into forcing me to accept their decision. Binksternet acting on Paulh's behalf is now trying to silence me by first attempting to have me blocked by a 3R complaint, but was rejected. He continues to taunt me in baiting language as I quote directly from his talk page: "

    And have also rejected my requests to wait for Admin mediation: "Why don't you don't listen to me for a change and wait for an Admin to decide and the WQA to be settled, rather than continue to talk and thus keep pouring gasoline into the fire?"

    His response: "I will not wait for the cavalry, however. I feel quite justified in making my own decisions, and I know which images make more sense to me." Showing my point that he does not and is not looking for discussion, only forcing decisions that is only adequate for himself down others. Eman007 (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When a single editor is in a dispute with multiple other editors, and can't get any support from other editors, that single editor has to give way. If nobody backs you, you need to give up the fight. You are right on the verge of getting blocked for edit-warring, as you have been told. Admins do not get involved in mediating issues like this. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But as I mentioned before, and as noted on the link I presented, this was a discussion and a consensus going back months, as I did myself have support from other editors on that issue. They also themselves said that they are willing to discuss, but this never happened. Furthermore, there has not been enough time for other editors to come in and have their say and in put support. I'm also curious as your choice of word "fight". Since when is this "fighting"? You make it sound as if you're supposed to flame in order to get your edits approved? Eman007 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have support from other editors, then you don't need to revert over and over again; the other editors will help. If that takes time, then wait. Edit warring is not the solution. Looie496 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is I did wait. The history backs and supports this. I only reverted after they reverted it many times themselves and not willing to wait until other editors had their say and a conclusion from the previous discussion from back in December than other editors had been reached. As I noted and this again shows, Paul simpled acted, then got approval for his action in less than 24 hours before any of the other editors had their say. Paul is willing to wait and hold a discussion for a panorama photo on the same page, and requested the same for this dispute, but then they acted the opposite. I even suggested that someone go and take a new photo and approve that, but this was ignored. Eman007 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note User:Binksternet and User:Paul.h have not been yet been informed of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK I have left them both a note about this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I informed both of them on the discussion page of the article this morning of my intention of taking this here, and on Binksternet's talk page, as not only Binksternet acknowledged it, but he claimed he would put in his say here, to which at present he hasn't. Its all there on the San Francisco discussion page. 23:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for the note, MilborneOne. I cannot see why I am mentioned in this WQA; I have never been rude to Eman007. The first thing I did about the File:FinancialNorth.jpg image at the San Francisco article was to say on the Talk page that I preferred it for its composition. This entry of mine overruled Eman007 by a factor of three to one, including an IP editor who reverted him. Eleven hours later I reverted Eman007 with the edit summary "rv no consensus for that image", meaning that a new consensus had formed, with three holding a different opinion than he alone. Following this, I took part in talk page discussions about a panorama image, and I reverted Eman007's deletion of the FinancialNorth image one more time when he acted outside of the new consensus. In this whole process, I have not been rude with him. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Keatinge

    After a fairly lengthy, bad tempered dispute I and others were topic banned by arbcom from Gibraltar related articles. After returning to editing I have made an extra effort to edit in a civil manner. Richard has reverted each and every edit I have made, in many cases acknowledging they are well written and sourced. Tonight after I initiated an RFC, Richard has chosen to link to a bad tempered post from the past, made when he knows I was in a bad state mentally. I have a long term problem with PTSD, Richard is aware of this, he is aware that I was suffering badly when I made that post and I sincerely believe that his purpose in doing so tonight was simply to belittle and humiliate me. Diffs of offending post [65]. Justin talk 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=390965913"