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 discussions

User:Yopie

• Yopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I complain on the user Yopie because of the following:

Case 1: Impolite or rude behaviour

He has two times and in two different places called me 'Mr. Montagu'. See case 1 (contribution of 19 September 2011, 12:44) and case 2.

I believe that my engagement against gossip and slander in the article Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester has made this person believe that I am the person concerned, and this despite that both my profile page and my contributions of the latest year – and not to forget my obviously foreign English – strongly indicate that I am not the suggested.

I do not know whether this person often presents such speculations, but I am probably not the first victim in this regard.

Case 2: Disputed reversions

Both I and other users, among others Runehelmet (see Yopie's talk page of today), complain about this person's obviously irrational reversions. The tendency is that he reverts legal contributions and re-adds illegal contributions. Like Runehelmet wrote: “It seems that you are more reverting than editing. Even when I show you the sources, you still revert.”

Already in April 2011, in the article Norwegian nobility, he reverted a whole contribution – much information – because he saw that the source's name contained the word 'wiki'. He did not even ask or try to investigate. If he had done that, he would have gotten to know that the information on the website concerned (Lokalhistoriewiki.no) is not an user-edited wiki, but unedited information directly from one of Norway's most respected and serious encyclopædias.

Also today, he has in the Manchester article several times re-added a defamatory or potentially libellous sentence added by an IP user (who before has added exactly the same pre-written sentence).

It may also be interesting to study the following: While this person obviously does not care much about defamatory or potentially libellous information about other living persons, he was exceptionally quick to remove my criticism on his talk page and thereafter to write the following on my wall: (...) your recent edits to User talk:Yopie have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. This is hypocritical, and in my eyes, it says very much about the person that one here is dealing with. There does not seem to be any coherence in his thoughts and actions as a user on Wikipedia.

It would be too drastic to block him, but as you will see by studying his patterns, he has for months demonstrated the same behaviour in which unlogical reversions and rude/senseless speculations are prominent, but not exclusive, factors. I believe that something should be done to make this better.

– – – The section below was added on 22 September. – – –

Case 3: Possible abuse of functions

This user misuses warnings, block function and similar 1.) as a remedy against his opponents and 2.) as a primary way of or instead of communication with his opponents. (As known, he reverts opponents' posts on his talk page, often marking them as 'vandalism'.)

On 20 September, the day after this complaint was presented, this user reported me here for edit warring. In this process, he 1.) provided incorrect/false information and 2.) without mentioning for the decision-taker relevant information that the user just had received a complaint from the user he was reporting.

From the report:

User Yopie: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussed on talk pages of Aemn784, me and in edit summaries

Comments:

User Nmate: In my opinion, Yopie has failed to discuss edits, nevertheless, he engaged in edit warring. He told that there were discussions on the talkpages of him and Aaemn784...but, if I click on Aaemn784's talk page [X], I do not find any vestige of a debate about content, and if I click on the talk page of Yopie's edit history [X] Aaemn784's edits were reverted there with an edit summary of "identified as vandalism to last revision by Yopie"--Nmate (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User Yopie: Are you admin or editor of disputed article? With your edits like this [X] or this [X] is better if you stay silent. --Yopie (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing was 'discussed' on my talk page. Nothing was 'discussed' on his talk page. Nothing was 'discussed' in the edit summaries. That makes me wonder why he wrote that the case had been, quote, discussed on talk pages of Aemn784, me and in edit summaries.

This user's behaviour is obviously dishonest, coward-like, and, regarding Wikipedia's internal system, abusive. 'Abusive' is when functions intended for use against vandals and conflict-makers are misused as a weapon against serious contributors who even, in this particular case, claim to support themselves on the BLP guidelines.

Quote from the BLP guidelines: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

I believe that case no. 1 is solved, as this user somehow has apologised (although not to me, and that is not necessary, as this is not a case about my person, but about wikiquette and system abuse). No. 2 and 3, however, require, as far as I see it, a closer examination by administrators so that it is possible to see whether this user has patterns of behaviour as described above and which may be considered as abusive, deconstructive or in other ways not good for Wikipedia. I am not a person on whom attacks like this have any effect, but I fear that other and less experienced/secure users, who are here with good intentions and behaving well and honest, but who are so unlucky be confronted by users as described, may resign. It is in Wikipedia's interest to take a look at this. Thanks for the attention.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

– – – The section above was added on 22 September. – – –

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Quick note, users are permitted to remove messages from their talk page (with a very limited number of exceptions not applicable here), if a user removes a message/warning you have left them, you should consider it read and not re-add it. Monty₈₄₅ 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears Yopie is not participating here. I've left a request on his talk page that he stop calling Aaemn785 "Mr. Montagu." Gerardw (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It is probably because this person 'hits and hides', id est, he hides when confronted, and hits when he gets the possibility. See for example my user talk, edit of 20 September 2011, 10:55 (today). He appears to be one who uses dishonest tricks, like these warning messages, e.g. to attack, to stop or to frighten other users and opponents. I strongly advise that Wikipedia investigates his history and his patterns of behaviour, as it is obvious that he is making much trouble around the site.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Is his response okay for now? Swarm ^{u / t} 16:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid not, as the cases 2 and 3 remain standing – and are far more serious than he calling me names.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your case 2 and 3 issues are beyond the scope of what this board is intended to handle. I note that Yopie's edit warring report was upheld by an administrator and an unblock request denied.[[1]] While you could start WP:RFC/U, I strongly recommend dropping the WP:STICK and moving on. Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that giving me this stick is like giving a wrought iron to a baker, i.e. the wrong receiver. You should instead, be it, initiate a talk with Yopie and ask him whether there is any way that he perhaps may contribute to solve the reported problems. I see on your user page that you are very devoted to anti-conflict, and that is good. I am myself one who, be it, does not hesitate to apologise if he has, be it, overreacted or done something wrong. However, one must not be so 'flying in the skyes' that one ignores system abuse and other serious issues. A problem has to be solved, as it otherwise will remain and even escalate. The price for ignoring a problem causing conflict, might become even more conflict.

I hope that you actually have read and understood what I have written, and I allow myself to quote it: (...) this is not a case about my person, but about wikiquette and system abuse (...) This is not about my person, but about a user demonstrating problematic behaviour. This lack of Wikiquette is indeed relevant on Wikiquette assitance.

If this is not the correct forum, I would be glad if someone could inform me where to send a report. The user Yopie has long enough been making trouble for other users, and it has to end.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I understand why the user all the time is emptying his talk page. The list of protesting people is longer than a bad year. The present white talk page, where he though has made sure to keep the post where he says 'sorry for it', makes him appear as the most innocent angel.

Quote: “Yopie, you removed sources that meet Wikipedia's References policy. The issue has been discussed for over 10 days in the Talk, but you have not been an active participant in the discussion, yet you reverted my edits in less than an hour. Furthermore, you violated Wikipedia's policy of Good Faith. Please be more considerate to others' contributions --Hatesediting (talk) 07:34, 05 August 2011 (BST)”

This is from August 2011.

The user has also been reported for edit warring: Link

Quotes: 1.) “Both editors were already blocked in connection with the same article on 21 September, 2010 on the ground that they did not want to discuss content changes.” 2.) “(...) the edit warring has been going on for more than six months without having started a discussion between the two users on the talk page (...)”

This is from February 2011.

An example of a particular case which may be relevant, is the article Invasion, where the user has performed several reversions of other users' contributions. For example when a user added an illustrative photo, it was reverted with the explanation 'ugly pic'.

1. 14:30, 22 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (50,857 bytes) (Undid revision 449561758 by Runehelmet (talk) this picture is without additional informational value)
2. 10:57, 10 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (51,012 bytes) (Undid revision 449517223 by Runehelmet (talk)- ugly pic)
3. 06:06, 5 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Somaliweyn10 (talk): Still no sources for significance.
4. 10:23, 3 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (Undid revision 448070598 by Runehelmet (talk) use talk page)
5. 18:30, 1 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 86.80.208.136 (talk): Please, use talk page of the article! (TW))
6. 12:50, 1 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (→Other examples of historically significant invasions: per talk)
7. 15:56, 31 August 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (Undid revision 445994090 by Runehelmet (talk) sorry, but generally insignificant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaemn784 (talk • contribs)

Reverts legitime edits. Refuses being more considerate to other users' contributions. Does not want to discuss content changes. Yopie's behaviour does not seem to have changed much since 2010. It is perhaps about time.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Jaimesaid

• Jaimesaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Patagonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Plese see note of User Jaimesaid [2]. Nerêo (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment

This seems to involve a long-standing dispute that should probably be posted on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard rather than here. There you can explain and discuss the disputed edits. Also please notify User:Jaimesaid of this and any further discussion of the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Another set of eyes, please

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – vandalism, take to AIV if continues Gerardw (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• ManicPoet863 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polk City, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:N2e (edit | [[Talk:User talk:N2e|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:N2e (edit | [[Talk:User:N2e|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:ManicPoet863 is a recently created, 100%-of-existing-edits-are-vandalism, user. I have warned the user on his/her talk page, and then both my Talk page and my User page were vandalized. There have not been multiple warnings so cannot elevate the situation to Administrator attention.

I would appreciate it if another editor would put a set of eyes on this user, and warn (or whatever) is appropriate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Really no need -- if they make any further vandalism edits, take them to WP:AIV. Gerardw (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Could be. But since the editor definitely did a second batch of vandalism, on my user page and talk page, and has only been warned once, I continue to think that the best course of action would be for some disinterested editor to review the three occurences of vandalism, and issue User:ManicPoet863 a "second" warning. YMMV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the section with Sjö and me?. I have been away and now I can't find it.

RPSM (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was also being careful not to write things without thinking them thoroughly through first, and I was on the verge of writing something conciliatory, but now the thread has disappeared. Sjö wrote:

You ask if a friend could add some text to the Swedish Shechita article. Maybe I'm not the best person to ask, but my take on it is that if the person is comfortable with making the edit as his or her own, and if he or she is upfront about your involvement, then it will be no big problem. The best thing to do is to ask at the Swedish article's talk page or maybe at the Village Pump sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen.Sjö (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Sjö's suggestion is that I am permanently blocked forever from editing anything on Swedish WP. I cannot even compose a defence against the blocking I am subjected to on Swedish WP RPSM (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My problems on Swedish WP do not centre around Sjö and he throughout has been civil and, as I see it, acted in good faith. If he thinks it would help for me to respond to anything that is unclear, I am willing to do so at any time. RPSM (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack and abusive language and vandalism by User:Kwamikagami

Please make a note of this abuse by User:Kwamikagami here. He is saying "STOP BEATING YOUR MOTHER WITH A PIPE!!!". Sir, what is this nonsense. Please request a topic ban for this very low quality editor. Foodie 377 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack? I was illustrating the level of rationality Nagarjuna was displaying in his(?) arguments, when he demanded that I "introduce my socks". (Usually people ask "have you stopped beating your wife?", but I don't know if he's a married man.)

Also, you got the quote wrong. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

While kwami's comment may have not been the most judicious, in the context in which is was made it was far below the threshold which requires intervention. Gerardw (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better and clearer if Kwamikagami had asked:

Have you stopped beating your mother with a pipe?

Because Kwamikagami made a mistake and phrased it wrongly, Foodie377 misunderstood his point, and put in a complaint here.

The phrase is to some extent idiomatic. However, I would have thought that people from far away lands should be able to understand it. The phrase does not mean what it literally says. Instead it means: please do not accuse me of things that I am not doing.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes or to be precise it's an illustration of a loaded question in the classic phrase 'have you stopped beating your wife' to which saying both yes and no accepts the premise.Straw Cat (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack, false accusation and edit warring by Kwamikagami

Kwamikagami has engaged in an edit war with me and accused me of all sorts such as "racism" and "bigotry". This person has not been penalised for this. I thought it was reasonable to expect a higher level of standard from an Administrator like Kwami. Here he is referring to me as a racist and bigot: Here [3] and here [4].

He deleted my edits which have been sourced with notable sources and replaced them with his own as in here: [5] and in the Serer people article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsier (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

He is referring to your contributions, such as I will not have the language and history of my people poisoned as it has been done for centuries.[[6]]. This is not considered incivil. Gerardw (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry this comment was made at the same time as Gerardw's.)

Let us start with User:Tamsier's behaviour:

• [7] and [8] where he used the words 'poisoned' and 'desecrated' to refer to mentioning 'Fula' in the Serer language page or mentioning 'Serer' in the Fula language page.
• [9] he refers to "scholars whose comments... are far less than noble mainly influenced by the Muslim Mafias of Senegal".
• [10] where he referred to another editor (User:Halaqah) who appeared to agree with Kwamikagami on some points as Kwamikagami's 'fellow Muslim'
• [11] where he accused Kwamikagami of distorting the Serer language to promote a Fula agenda.
• [12] where he admits that he does not assume good faith when dealing with Kwamikagami, and where he appears to be suggesting that Kwamikagami is abusing of his privileges as an Admin, of seriously disrupting Wikipedia, and of consistently exercising poor judgment. In it he threatens to have Kwamikagami's Admin status revoked.

I wish that Kwamikagami had not called Tamsier a paranoid bigot in reply to Tamsier's abusive remarks.[13] But his comment about Tamsier making racist comments about the Fula and bigoted comments about Muslims was probably justified.

Tamsier, if you go up to Mike Tyson and start hitting him, you have only yourself to blame if he hits you back.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Kwami's comments, while arguably not the epitome of civility, are well within the range of reasonable behavior given the provocation with which they were faced, and personally I don't feel any criticism or action against them is warranted. As well documented by Toddy1 above, Tamsiers' behavior is in need of improvement. Gerardw (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that both Toddy1 and Kwamikagami just read my statements and assumed a lot. I challenge anyone to prove where I have directly said "the Fula language is a desecration or a poison". Such remarks where made in reference to the edit warring Kwami was doing and now Halaqah which is still going on and has now escalated to the Serer people and Serer Religion articles. As evident in the links, I have mentioned couple of times the relatedness of the Serer and Fula languages. I cannot be held accountable when when people take statements out of context and read what they want to read. My remarks where directed at what Kwami was doing to the articles and the kind of game he was playing between the Serer language and Fula language articles. The Muslim Mafia of Senegal is the Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal. They are among the most powerful in Senegal and control information. Since there is a big problem between them and those who adhere to Serer Religion for nearly 150 years, it is vital that they are mention. Sources:

• Elisa Daggs. All Africa: All its political entities of independent or other status. Hasting House, 1970. ISBN 0803803362
• Issa Laye Thiaw. "La Religiosité de Seereer, Avant et Pendant leur Islamisation". Éthiopiques no: 54, Revue semestrielle de Culture Négro-Africaine. Nouvelle série, volume 7, 2e Semestre 1991

Toddy1 also made another error regarding the "good faith" comment. Here is my direct quote:

:"You also brought in Halaqah a fellow Muslim to back up what you were doing. I originally assumed good faith until your behaviour in the relevant articles and other articles became apparent."

This demonstrates that, I initially assumed good faith. However, according to Wiki's policy, you can seaze to assume good faith when it becomes apparent that a person(s) is not acting accordingly. In light of the fact that, Kwami was and still is engage in edit wars with me in reference to all Serer related articles, and Halaqah's own account and edits, who started with the Serer people article after the incident and then moved to the Serer Religion article and is making his way down to all Serer related articles - adding "dubious dicuss" and other templates and disregarding the sources cited in the article. Here [14], [15] and [16]. I can perhaps understand an editor engaging in edit war but not from an administrator regardless of whether they are acting in the capacity of administrator or not. Once they have the administrator tag on their talk page, one expects a higher level of standard. I do not have the time to be engaged in edit wars especially with an Administrator who has the power to call the troops to his aid. Personally, I'm not bothered by it and just edit as much as I can. I have learned that fast. However, what I am worried about is the damage being done to the articles for not apparent reason other than to engage in war with me. Further, I find it hard to believe that an Adminstrator with all their status can use such language on Wiki and is allowed to get away with it. Very strange. Tamsier (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamsier, two uninvolved editors have reviewed the situation, and independently concluded that your behaviour was at fault.

The best thing to do, would be to say that you are sorry, that you feel very deeply about the issues... then try to work with the other editors as best you can. Try to resolve issues with them on the talk page, and accept that some of the time the consensus will not be as you wish it. The use of good sources helps a lot. Some of the time, you need to accept defeat. (The rest of us have to put up with these annoyances too.)

Please read Wikipedia:Just drop it. Good luck.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, nobody invited me a Muslim to this. Nice to know Kwamikagami is Muslim and we are apparent in some editing conspiracy. Elisa Daggs not even in print. Edit the article not the chip on your shoulder. Or the Islamic fear. I have issued with this Tamsier editor and am on the verge of reporting him/her for Wikipedia:Advocacy and an agenda of anti-Islamic racist propaganda and copy editing across multiply pages. racist edits and POV pushing is evident from most edits.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Halaqah - Never ever used that tone again when addressing me. Indeed you are the one with a chip on your shoulder and your Islamic propagander that you have been pushing for long enough is evident for all to see. If you lack the brain cells or intellect to refer to cited sources that is your problem not mine. Never again use such arrogance when referring to me. I careless who your friends are in Wiki. I hope that is clear.

It is shocking that everyone saw Halaqah's tone which has been here since yesterday yet not a single person Administrator or Editor intervened and told this person such language is uncall for. I now await anyone who dare to try and tell me off about my tone above.

@ Toddy1 - Not in a million years. If the fault was mine, I would have, but since certain people have friends here and can do whatever they wish without repercussions, never. Kwami didn't even have to defend himself, you did all the work for him. Tamsier (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamsier, two editors have given you their advice. You're welcome to take it or not but in my opinion it's unlikely that further posting here will having any positive effect. Gerardw (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Halaqah's behaviour and edit war is unacceptable.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – edit dispute, try RFC, DRN, et. al. Gerardw (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely any action will be taken against this Halaqah after my previous report experience on this page but I shall report it anyway. This person has persued all my edits including removing my sources and edits as well as templates I've placed on articles and will not stop until made to stop.

• [17] Under religion, islam and Serer religion - deleted my edits which has been thoroughly sourced as well as the actual citation of the author “Fatou Camara” which she referred to as my opinion.
• [18] Deleted the citation and references from authors regarding Islam which she referred to as pure Islamophobia.
• [19] – Removed sourced *Almoravid Islamisation content and expressed their own opinion without sources.

Tamsier (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be editorial disagreement, not a wikiquette issue. You've taken a good first step in discussing on the talk page. If you're unable to come to consensus, consider WP:RFC, WP:3RD, or WP:DRN. Gerardw (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor is all over the place doing this with other editors as well, not just me. As evidence take a quick look at their contribution to wikipedia. Just a quick look and see what they have been busy doing, who they have attacked,. The rest of us edit the articles, based on policy. We try our best. We make mistakes, but usually we fight over the quality. This crusade against me and other editors has to stop and i will soon request the user be blocked for a series of disruptive editing (see their log and talk page) which is just interrupting our ability to do our job as seasoned wiki editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Lionelt -- Wikihounding and canvassing to attack me

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Please continue discussion at WP:ANI Gerardw (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I find this type of behavior completely inappropriate. User:Lionelt is on the opposite side of a disagreement with me on Talk:Militant atheism, and I, along with several others, have raised concerns about him and another user canvassing for support at the RfC on that page - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Does_this_rise_to_the_level_of_canvassing.3F. Now it appears he is digging through my edit history (see WP:HOUND) to find other people I may have had disagreements with in the past, and canvassing for support against me, as shown int he first diff I posted above. Can someone please explain to him that this is unacceptable. I am hesitant to take this to AN/I because I don't think its at that level but if anyone thinks it belongs there instead please let me know.Griswaldo (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1. It is clearly not "wikihounding" (an attemot to force a person off Wikipedia in any improper manner) so let's take that off the table. 2. The issue of CANVASS initially raised was ill chosen where the posts were to projects and not to individual editors. If you wish to rewrite WP:CANVASS that would be needed to make the judgements you seek. 3. If he CANVASSes in order to make an RfC/U appear to be "frontloaded" as to opinions, then that would, indeed, be a major problem (WP:False consensus). The post you cite, however, is not even close to CANVASS in my opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, what else should I call it? He's not simply posting a relevant topic to Wikiproject in that diff at all. He's posting to a thread in which I am in a disagrement with a user, and saying "hey look this editor is having problems with these other people, hint hint." What does Lionelt's post have to do with the thread he posted to? Indeed what does it have to do with Wikiproject:Judaism at all? OK so maybe I chose poorly when it comes to describing what he did, but can you please consider what he did instead of nitpicking about what I called it? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(E/C) As an uninvolved party, I don't see how you can call this "digging through edit history"; the disagreement with Orangemike is easily read if somebody decides to scroll up on your talk page, and Lionelt may have come to Nealdowntome123's talk page the exact same way as you did. I'm assuming good faith on Lionelt's part, yes, but I think you need stronger evidence to accuse somebody of harassment. Furthermore, that's not hounding, and the canvassing situation has already been dealt with on ANI (so there's no reason to discuss it here). m.o.p 15:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Please do not call yourself "uninvovled" given our recent history and my vocal disagreements about how you've handled matters specifically relating to this entry and some of these same editors. 2) You "assume good faith" on Lionelt's part when he posts a comment at Wikiproject Judaism that has nothing to do with the scope of the project or the thread he posted in, but consists entirely of a comment about me as an editor. Seriously? Not to mention that this is a project he does not edit. He clearly went there after discovering the disagreement I had with Debresser either on my talk page or in my edit history. Like I said to Collect, I'm fine with the idea that I've mislabeled what he did, but I'm having a really hard time understanding how you think it is appropriate or in "good faith." Please explain that further.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved because my role is to mediate, not voice opinions. Whether or not others agree with what I say is not up to me. As for Lionelt's edit, I never said it was acceptable, and I never said it was good faith - I said I was assuming good faith when interpreting his intent and judging that Lionelt is not hounding you. Also, please don't put words in my mouth, because I never said Lionelt's edits were appropriate (and, to the contrary, will take them up with that editor in time). m.o.p 16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You said, and quote, "I'm assuming good faith on Lionelt's part." So what do you consider them if not appropriate? I see no comments about them being inappropriate just this assumption of good faith. So how about you actually comment then on the edits that I raised questions about? Isn't that what one does when a concern is raised?Griswaldo (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

See my above reply: "I was assuming good faith when interpreting his intent". I did not say his editing was good faith. m.o.p 16:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to continue the discussion regarding ANI behavior at ANI. Gerardw (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no one is objecting I will move the whole conversation to ANI.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User "Wee Curry Monster" refuses to talk

• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Criticism of the UN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. This is one of my first contributions in this Wikipedia (though I have, some time ago, contributed to a different Wikipedia), so, even though I read the policies about disputes solving, I apologise in advance if there were better places to present this one.

I did one edition in the article Falkland Islands and the user above-mentioned deleted it, leaving but a link to a Wiki policy as explanation. After analysing it, and with the knowledge I had from my previous experience, I concluded his "arguments", if I may call a link to a policy so, were inadequate. I tried, thus, reaching this user by posting on his talk page a message I deemed polite and concise.

Shortly after, I checked the article Criticism of the UN, were I had also contributed, and found that the same user had deleted my contribution there too leaving this time two links to wiki policies. Again, I read these policies, but concluded my contributions were respecting their principles.

I went back to his user talk page to check for an answer before leaving a new meessage, but he had deleted my first commentary there too, this time without even a monosyllabic or cryptic reason... which I didn't miss, anyway.

I don't know how to use a template, so I will be leaving now a personal message to this user warning him about this post.

Thank you very much. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We have ways of making him talk. Though that was a reasonable message you left on his page. I would say it is rather rude to ignore and delete it like that. Let me check the edits first though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 23:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but calling the reign of Peron a dictatorship is a bit POV I'm afraid. Even if it is the truth. It's kind of like how we don't call Osama a terrorist, helps maintain NPOV. As for the second, well, I don't mean to offend, but it's not very notable that the Argentine delegation concurred (not saying Argentina's not a major force, but all the same not a notable event); I don't think it goes against NPOV, but it is a bit newsy given that it's something recent that probably won't have lasting impact. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

XD, if everything else fails I'll use the suggested technics. XD.

Now, seriously. I certainly agree that, aside from the fact that we may or may not consider Peron or his government a dictatorship, it would not be appropriate to call it that way, simply because he was elected democratically.

The point is that he died in 1973, few years, or months, can't remember, after his third term in presidency began. And what followed for seven years in Argentina was a dictatorship known as National Reorganisation Process, during which Leopoldo Galtieri was named de facto president, in 1982. It is a dictatorship by all means, but if you feel like investigating a bit, well, it is very interesting, and terrible too, that's for sure.

Now regarding the other article, well, I disagree with you. Not because I think Argentinian's participation is more important than that of other countries, but because the criticism of a memeber of the UN towards the existance of permanent Council members, should be regarded as relevant in the context of UN criticism, regardless of a member's size, population, etc.

On the other hand, I admit it is new information, but we are talking about the statement of a UN member's delegation in the General Assembly of the UN, so I don't think it should be regarded as temporary news, at least that's not what reading the policy section suggests. You can also see a statement by a Canadian embassador being cited in the same section of that article.

Well, thank you very much for your answer. What do you say about my contributions. And about this user, shall we make him talk? Haha, peace 190.195.39.223 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC) PS: Some data is wrong, I said the dictatorship began in 1973, but it was 1976, the idea is the same, though. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)