Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

---

Inflamatory Comments

Nifboy is making inflammatory edit summaries:

• [1]
• [2]174.3.111.148 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are not inflammatory edit summaries. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To give a bit of background on this dispute:

• User:174.3.111.148 (henceforth 174.xx) edits Touhou Project, converting it to table format and making a few other edits. I revert him; he reverts back.
• At some point during the discussion (see his talk and mine) I point him towards Wikipedia:When to use tables, a guideline page: 174.xx edits it to his liking without any discussion. I revert him; he reverts back.
• I head to WT:VG#Series article - table or prose? for a third opinion. Other editors start reverting 174.xx's edits on both pages; he reverts back.
• At some point WP:CALM is lost between him and I; offense is taken at me referring to 174.xx as "an IP".
• 174.xx opens a AN3 thread about me and the other editor reverting him on Wikipedia:When to use tables, which is refused. 174.xx is explicitly warned against reverting against consensus, which he ignores.

I was actually thinking of opening a thread here myself, hoping to get a neutral third opinion. Nifboy (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Continue as you have been doing Nifboy, just be civil and WP:RBI - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, what do you mean by RBI?? I hope you meant WP:BRD, or something similar. 174.xx isn't a vandal, and implying that he/she is one is only going to make the situation worse. I agree Nifboy has done nothing at all wrong, and 174.xx needs to gain consensus before making big changes to that guideline. But they seem to be editing in good faith, and suggesting that they be reverted, blocked and ignored isn't going to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps good faith edit warring. When it gets to that point there is no point in trying to talk to the editor. If you look at the edit summaries you can see that the editor is mad because their template is not being used. Therefore edit warring in an "I am right" way. RBI. Eventually they'll come around. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's like having my own personal pair of consciouses. Nifboy (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm probably misreading your tone here. I'm not trying to be your conscience, nor do I see how my comments could be interpreted that way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By "conscience" I mean something akin to a Shoulder angel. That's just how the conversation played out in my head. Nifboy (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny; that's what I thought when reading it at first too, but I'm confident that it was an unintended effect too. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not the best person to listen to but I would not waste my time until the editor tries to talk instead of argue. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of the problem: He argues, but he does it fervently and not quite coherently. After repeated attempts on Talk:Touhou Project#Page Layout, I still can't discern his argument beyond 4twenty42o's interpretation of "I'm mad that my table isn't being used". Nifboy (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see this edit. He blatantly, willingly, and knowingly discriminates with intent to be unconstructive.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Anon, when you post edit diffs, why force editors to click the link to read what is said? Post the sentence:

   "The sociological repercussions of registering vs. editing as an IP are by now well known to all parties; a kind of "namism", if you will."
   Unfortunately, posting this way is common.

2. While this edit diff is an unnecessary personal comment, I don't think it rises to the personal attack level. The edit diffs at the beginning (After I was forced to click them) do not appear to be personal attacks either.
3. As an anon editor with few supporters to back you up, you will get little relief here, especially for something that is so borderline.
4. Writing: "He blatantly, willingly, and knowingly discriminates with intent to be unconstructive" does not help your case, silently let the copy and pasted edit difference speak for itself. As much as you want it too, making sweeping generalizations like this does not strengthen the edit difference.
   Anon, to assure that the debate you are having with nifboy does not become personal and expands, I strongly suggest you keep the conversation strictly on the talk page of the article.
   Delete all conversations between the two of you on your talk page (which is allowed). In the future, if nifboy posts on your talk page, remove the comment and politely tell nifboy in your edit summary to discuss it on the article talk page. Ikip (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You do understand this is the same has racism?174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is patent nonsense. The anon IP is in the wrong, this WQA filing is frivolous, and the editor should be taken to AN/I & blocked if s/he keeps this up. Eusebeus (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, it is becoming sillier the more it drags out; comparing Nifboy's comments to "racism" is only one step removed from Godwin's Law]. I've seen no comments or edits from Nifboy of any significant concern. 174.x needs to drop his complaints about Nifboy, and focus on making a better, more understandable case for his edits, on the policy and article talk pages. If he cannot convince others, he needs to accept that and move on. We're to the point now where further edit warring or disruption should be met with a block; you need to be able to accept multiple, unanimous neutral parties telling you you're wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't see the discrimination.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no discrimination here. I see no racism here. I I haven't the foggiest what your or Nifboy's nationality is. I haven't any impression of what race person is discriminating against what race person. I don't see that colour of skin has come into this at all. I see no basis for any such allegation. I believe that Nifboy has acted appropriatly. I don't believe this complaint has any good basis. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying he is being racist. I am saying he is discriminating. Racism is a form of discrimination.174.3.111.148 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discrimination here either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Bzuk

Resolved

 – Editors agreed to disengage, further problems will be taken to ANI --Taelus (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd appreciate comment upon the following exchange.

I made minor tweaks at Boulton Paul Defiant - typos, poor word choices, a couple of unclear sentences - all of which were reverted. [3]

The editor, noticing he had reverted a typo, then made this single edit again himself. After trying another clarification, reverted without comment, I remonstrated with the editor on his talk page. The editor refused to discuss his edits, responding with incivility on my talk page User talk:Redheylin#Boulton Paul Defiant and blanking my requests for co-operation, explanation and civility;

[4]

While my questions are blunt they are not uncivil or accusatory. Having more or less claimed ownership of the page on my talk page ("I used some of your edits, others not, that's the Wiki way") the editor's next post there claimed "Besides the incoherent rambling and lack of focus of your comments, note I could care less about the issue" (I imagine there ought to be a "not" in there somewhere, but the editor refuses to discuss). Clearly this type of editing is liable to discourage contribution to, according to the editor, some 6,000 articles. It seems to me that such a number cannot adequately be maintained by any single person without the incivility attendant upon ill-considered, unnecessary and undesirable reverts and the refusal to annotate them or to seek consensus. Redheylin (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. This is a content issue that the editor seems wholly unable to appreciate, as all edits came accompanied by edit comments. See the extensive commentary that is found on both editor's talk pages. I have no interest in dealing with exchanges with this editor over what is a minor style edit. FWiW, the accusations of ownership, incivility and lack of response are belied by the edit record. Bzuk (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

The problem as far as I can see it is of vocabulary and grammar. The people reading or editing wikipedia have a variety of backgrounds, what one person may think of as well phrased and a reasonable level can be near meaningless to another. I have found communicating with some people very difficult even though I try to write simply and they obviously have English as a first language. The articles are formed by consensus; that may make them read rather like tabloid newspaper stories but reaching the widest audience is a reasonable aim. Dmcq (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• From what I have read of this incident, there is no real right or wrong here, as User:Dmcq said, different readers/editors will have different views of what is good phrasing. I advise both editors involved here to disengage and remember to assume good faith of each other. Neither of you are vandals, you are both attempting to improve Wikipedia, and just happen to have different views here. Consider taking this to the article talk page to attempt to gain concensus over which version should be used if you feel strongly about the wording. Happy editing to you both, --Taelus (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I fully concur that there is much more to do that be involved in "spats" and I am moving on, "to the ramparts, vandals ascendent!" Good day to all! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Note: this is not a report of a minor style difference; it is a report of a breach of etiquette. The editor's comment here, "absolute nonsense..the editor seems unable", is also rude and dismissive without the detail necessary for resolution or constructive co-operation. The statement that all reverts were accompanied by explanatory comments is untrue. [5] If the problem is a minor one, a "difference of opinion as to good vocabulary and phrasing" then the question arises, why is such hostility required and what happens when this editor is challenged on a matter of substance? Editing indeed is a matter of consensus, and the record shows that I have attempted, and Bzuk has spurned such consensus. There is no difficulty in communication: this is a serious breach of etiquette: posting it here rather than as an "incident" is an act of mercy, my complaint stands unaddressed.Redheylin (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to attempt to build concensus on the talk page to ensure clarity, and I believe that there is nothing more you can gain from this WQA filing. User:Bzuk has agreed to disengage and move on. As long as both of you assume good faith of each other in the future, then all is well. There is little else that this filing will achieve, if you seek to report it as an incident then you should do so, although I doubt any more will be said at ANI than has been said here. Disengage as User:Bzuk has and attempt to build concensus on the talk page. If this problem of incivility continues after you have both disengaged, then take it to ANI. As long as you have concensus on the talk page, then your version will be accepted. --Taelus (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Taelus; to "disengage" from ones own breach of guidelines and "move on" from abuse, having got ones way, is rather easy. You appear to be saying that everything will be OK so long as I do not attempt to edit any page in which Bzuk has any interest without permission. I'd appreciate a clarification of your comments, particularly the reasons for your advice that ANI is unlikely to accept this matter constitutes "an incident". Redheylin (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

btw - It's "consensus" - though you are of course free to say this is a difference of opinion, call me an idiot and then "move on" with your misspelling intact. Redheylin (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

...ouch. I suggest you take this to WP:ANI if you want abuse to be examined and dealt with. This venue only offers advice and third opinions to diffuse and advise situations, as it is not an administrator board. I do suggest you assume good faith of those attempting to aid you in the dispute resolution process as well though. I will clarify by saying I am not suggesting that anyone "gets their own way" with abuse, I merely think the scenario would benefit from disengaging and cooling down. As I said, if it continues, take it to ANI. Finally, my spelling in no way detracts from what I stated. This isn't an article page, as long as you understand me then it is fine. Also, please avoid putting words into my mouth, I am not the sort that would go around branding others idiots. --Taelus (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, if you wish to take this a step up to the "incident" level, rather than the "seeking advice" level, then all we can do here is refer you to ANI. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has a right to get their edits in. I saw no bad grammar. The better words were not better as far as I'm concerned. For instance for me and many others 'anticipated having' conveys that action was taken whereas 'expected' does not. I'm sure many people would see no difference. As this is wikipedia I would probably go with the simpler language. However I can easily imagine someone quite reasonably reverting the changes as bad by their lights. Some people get narked when their perfectly good english is marked as bad grammar and poor choice of words, especially if that is written in their talk page. Even so no bad language was used. No insults were issued. I see no etiquette problem and think this should be closed. Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way you may get past peoples' personal defences better by saying things like 'better word' rather than 'wrong word'. The first is your opinion, the second passes judgement. Dmcq (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

fair point, dmcq, at the end there, though I'd already been reverted once then. Re. the rest, you're correct, "anticipate" means to act before due time, or to forestall. It's often used as a synonym for "expect", may even appear in dictionaries with this use, generally marked loose or idiomatic - perhaps the dictionaries are just sparing our feelings, because that's not the true meaning: "expect" here is a better word since at the time no action had been taken. If it said "the govt expected a certain type of attack and anticipated it by designing...."... but it does not. If the two are as good as each other, though, why revert?

As far as grammar goes - well, it fades imperceptibly into style. Take the sentence; "the miner hit the farmer and he was a bad man". It is grammatically correct but who is bad? Where clauses are poorly related there's ambiguity that may be imperceptible to the writer. I myself often realise I have written a clunky sentence and certainly do not object if someone fixes it before I do. I write and thank them - look at my talk page and contributions if you like. "what one person may think of as well phrased and a reasonable level can be near meaningless to another." that is exactly what I am thinking! The idea is to make it clear to everyone.

Please note I have made no allegation of bad faith - I simply write to people saying "do you know what this looks like? Please tell me it is not." Again you can find the good guys on my talk page saying "sorry, it really is not, I've met you half way." Look at the two immediately above Bzuk. This is what I'd do, and I think you too. And the rest.... look at Bzuk! I do think the comments on my talk-page are insulting and disruptive, as it happens. That's why I am here.

Taelus, you took a pretty stroppy comment of mine in good part with just the right amount of challenge in your tone. I am glad to find that you were not thinking of calling me an idiot. I also do not think you are an idiot. Isn't this cosy? No "incoherent rambling and lack of focus", no "nonsense, you can't read"? You're a wikipedian, squire. I have no idea, though, which 6,000 pages our fellow editor considers himself obliged to revert changes to without checking them and therefore cannot guarantee to "disengage" without ceasing to edit - so I guess, as you say, it's straight to the ANI next time, since the definition of "ownership" is pretty clear. CU Redheylin (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a good look at the history of the article. There are very few reverts and there is a number of contributors. That indicates WP:OWN isn't applicable. Dmcq (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Vaughan_Pratt

Could someone look into this, I fear this is getting out of control. In mostly chronological order:

• Talk:Solar greenhouse#Smell test: "Village constable": [6] and [7]. "Troll": [8]. Then it gets out of control (scroll down to end of comment): [9]
• Talk:Low-emissivity#Radiation and greenhouses: Spreading to another talk page: [10].
• User_talk:David Eppstein#Yet another self-styled expert: And another users talk page: [11].

Hopefully I don't have to point out that the accusations are untrue and that someone has time to help out here before this escalates further.
—Apis (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like at base it it a content dispute which is getting a little heated. Perhaps they should ask a few questions at the Science reference desk and they might be able to get an informed third opinion on the dispute which might help resolve it. Personally I feel the article has problems so I think I better stay out of anything further on COI grounds. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, here we go again: "William, I appreciate your openness and blunt style, which is more to my taste than that of Apis, who conducts his aggressive reverts behind a mask of anonymity [...]" [12] and on it goes. Now William seems to be the main target again though.

Yes there is a content dispute but that is not solvable as long as this goes on. I don't like the idea that some people solve disputes by bullying away other editors they don't agree with. If everyone mange to stay civil a rfc of some sort might be a solution.
—Apis (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to put a notice on Vaughan_Pratt's talk page as far as I can see so I've done so. Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this dispute to my attention, Dmcq. So what exactly is Apis's complaint here? That my language is overly sharp for his taste? It's a fair request, and I have no objection to softening my tone to suit his taste.

I encounter a wide range of editors, many operating under their real names, many under pseudonyms. The very few that I end up in long arguments with (I won't try to allocate blame for those debates) have invariably been ones operating under pseudonyms (the dispute Connolley and I have been having concerning his recent aggressively argued revert hasn't yet become long and I certainly hope it doesn't). Every such argumentative anonymous editor has struck me as appallingly ignorant of the material they pretend expertise in.

I recognize that Wikipedia feels it encourages greater quantity of content by permitting editors the luxury of anonymity, but it does so at the expense both of quality and of the time of editors who have to deal with those who have no obvious qualifications yet dig their heels in when approached and who indulge in aggressive reverting behavior such as Apis. Not only does Apis have no visible technical presence in the real world, he has virtually no presence on Wikipedia either according to his talk page. While not wishing to discourage new recruits (my advisor Don Knuth tried correcting some egregious errors in Wikipedia articles in his area and threw in the towel after being repeatedly reverted), one does need to consider the possibility that badly behaved editors can redeem themselves simply by starting afresh under a new pseudonym. This option is not available to those operating under their true name.

I am sorry to see your time being taken up in this way by Apis, who seems to be under the impression that when he finds himself unable to defend his position on his own he has to go to you to get himself heard. What he doesn't realize is that you are no more fair-minded than me in that regard (just my opinion) and that he is unlikely to strengthen the technical content of his arguments by coming running to you in this way. Nor will it help in toning down my stridency, since he can accomplish that on his own simply by being more polite to me than me to him (which he does, at least superficially) and behaving himself in more substantive matters such as reverting, which currently he doesn't. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I did put up a notice I think? [13].

I can take heated arguments and even insults directed to my face, but the spreading of lies and slander to other editors is not something I'm going to accept. One has to draw the line somewhere. Apparently the idea is to bully other editors away from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with Pratt. I can't begin to imagine how many he has successfully made leave Wikipedia. :(

I Posted here so that someone uninvolved could take a look at the situation. I don't feel there is much I can do to solve it myself without making things worse.
—Apis (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

the spreading of lies and slander to other editors is not something I'm going to accept. One has to draw the line somewhere. Apparently the idea is to bully other editors away from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with Pratt. I can't begin to imagine how many he has successfully made leave Wikipedia. Those who haven't yet seen Maxwell's delightful poem at [14] may appreciate having their attention drawn to it. Its allusion to reflected radiation is particularly apropos of the subject matter in dispute (if that's what's being disputed here). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice your message on the page, I think the standard message needs to be designed to stand out more if both I and Vaughan Pratt missed it. The remarks on both sides have become less than courteous about each other but haven't descended into the depths that are the norm for blocks or whatever. You feel you are being bullied and I am sorry about that. What is it that would convince you that you were being treated fairly even when all your edits are rejected? Both sides have to accept the possibility that they may not be totally correct in content disputes. The easiest way of doing that is to find more facts or a better expert. Slogging it out and traking it to WQA without the willingness to check the facts sounds like arguments about the number of teeth in a horses mouth. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I probably should point out that the above accusations and insinuations (such as "aggressive reverting behaviour" etc) are lies as well, (so that no one mistakes silence with agreement).
—Apis (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out that I have never reverted or rejected an edit to an article made by Apis, I have merely challenged him on talk pages about them. His complaint here is not with any interference with his edits but with what he feels are inappropriately strong challenges to his edits in talk pages aimed at driving him away from Wikipedia. Like Dmcq I'm sorry he feels that way. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also at the end of the day even with expert knowledge wikipedia insists on verifiability not truth. If there is a dispute in the reliable sources and you can't come to some agreement that one lot are fringe then the dispute should be reported. You will of course have weight problems so that's why you want some other opinion or facts as well. Dmcq (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I and Connolley are trying to keep unsourced bogus statements about the greenhouse effect out of the article. And I tried to keep similar statements out of the low-e article (GE is a high-e effect). We are not the ones who want to include anything. There is already plenty of sources supporting this view in the article and on the global warming article. Sternly referring to sources always leads to endless debate about the validity of the source, bogus sources, misinterpretation of sources, synthesis and so on. This is a common tactic by cranks, something you unfortunately get experience with on the global warming related pages. It's always better if you can agree by explaining the issue better, thereby everyone wins by gaining a better understanding. Of course, if that fails, you have to start arguing about sources. But again, this is not about the content issue and I don't want to start this argument here, that is what the article talk page is about.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

All my edits are not being rejected! What makes you think that? One edit I have made on low-e has been reverted and it's being discussed, which went fine until Pratt started spreading lies and insinuating that I am an "anti-global-warming crank". He is also saying I revert other peoples edits all the time (maybe it is socks and vandals he means?). And he insinuates that I don't understand fundamental physics by making up things he then says I have claimed. (see poisoning the well).

This is what I am bothered by. I don't want people to believe these things. I don't think most people will take the trouble to read through the discussions, history and archives, it's too much work. And it obviously worked in his first attempt.

People seems to be very impressed by Pratts achievements in computer science, which indeed seems impressive. But that does not make him an expert on meteorology or thermodynamics, nor does it make what he claims about other editors (anonymous or not) true.

On the solar greenhouse page, where this started, I happened to agree with Connolley who has a lot of experience in this field. I also commented that if Pratt had issues with Connolleys editing (which he was making personal attacks against as well) he should take it to his talkpage instead. I know Connolley is experienced in dealing with that kind of nonsense. Then things went gradually overboard.

It is difficult to stay courteous when you are being called crank, self-styled expert, having no technical expertise, anonymous coward, time sink, that all anonymous editors are an encumbrance to Wikipedia, only there to fill in "unimportant subjects", or that I claim things I do not, and so on.

Once again, that is why I brought the issue here, so that someone uninvolved could help out, because I am not perfect, and can only take a limited amount of abuse before giving up. Or is this supposed to end in a shouting match so that one or both of us can be blocked? I don't see how we can continue constructively while that goes on.

This is not about the content issue which likely will be easy to solve, but rather wp:npa and wp:civ, and the problems of working constructively when editors fail to follow these basic guidelines.
—Apis (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed most of his concerns previously and should not need to repeat them here. If my tone was more uncivil than his then I'm appalled and am truly very sorry! Clearly I've hurt his feelings and would be happy to make amends as appropriate.

Regarding But that does not make [Pratt] an expert on meteorology or thermodynamics, where to begin? Neither the current content of the Solar greenhouse article nor my exploration of the physics of greenhouses at the article's talk page brings up either subject beyond the very elementary climate-control role of greenhouses. In the case of thermodynamics, its irrelevance to anything written so far should be immediately apparent to those acquainted with its scope; does this include Apis? Apis further seems to assume that a scientist trained in area T who has also contributed to areas U, V, W, and X must therefore have no expertise in area T, a line of reasoning I don't follow.

I'll be happy to respond to new (i.e. other) complaints lodged here about my behavior but not to old ones, otherwise I'd never get any editing done. (Who's being driven away from what, exactly?) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as it stops (as it seems to have done now), and doesn't happen again, I'm happy. Thanks.
—Apis (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And I shall try to be more courteous in the future as well.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading is that both of you are right but talk about different things and don't understand each other. It is permissible to change whole paragraphs if it is felt that would appreciably improve content but then it is reasonable to revert and then discussion should start on the talk page. I have now read through the talk pages and article and my feelings are that there is very little talk about the purpose of a solar greenhouse or what it is supposed to do. Looking on the web about them the ones I saw seemed to be straightfoward greenhouses with heat storage for the night and nothing like the cloche in the picture. The whole article seemed to be some spin off about the difference between greenhouse warming and how greenhouses work and not about the title. The references at the end seem unintegrated and there is a reference to a spreadsheet within the article that doesn't show its provinance or reliability. Personally I feel the whole article should be deleted, there might be a small amount plus some references that can go into greenhouse, which incidentally I saw no link to. How would you feel about my proposing it for deletion and that would remove the argument? Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a radical suggestion, I'm not sure what I think of it, but it might be for the best. The article is not very good and the fork seems unfortunate and appears to have been meant to separate the technical description from the greenhouse article itself. It would be better to suggest this on the article talk page itself. But I suppose nominating for deletion directly is ok, since that will lead to subsequent discussion as well.
—Apis (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after reading the article again, I think you are right.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly for that, which is what I was trying to hint delicately at with my question wondering why Wikipedia needed two articles, Greenhouse and Solar greenhouse. The only rationale that made any sense to me at all was that the latter was about how they worked. Now that I've finally (after how many years?) been able to reconcile, at least to my own satisfaction if no one else's, the "obvious" theoretical prediction with Wood's empirical observation (see my current view), what needs to be said about how greenhouses stay warm involves no arcane radiation theory and should fit in at most two or three sentences and therefore have no need to be spun off from the Greenhouse article.

Well that seems to be consensus - I'll do that then. I wondered if you'd both turn on me but I considered that possibility as having you both agreeing with each other and working together as well :) Dmcq (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What, you'd give away a trick of the trade, just like that?  :) The sacrifice method of aligning sparring parties. Well, now that that cat's out of the bag I guess it's ok to write a Wikipedia article about it then. :) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Laz17

Could someone look into this, I'm having problem with this rude user? [15][16][17] he also admited stalking me [18]. That guy is also full of words of some unexistent fraud and we have one (long) discussion about ethnic maps of BiH [19]. Is there something to be done? At least I would like that he starts behaving civil and stops stalking me. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also have a problem with Ceha.

1) He is a very problematic user, for his fraudulent mapping alone. He created a miserable map of bosnia and herzegovina that has no source. He refused to cooperate with me when I wanted to delete several of his problematic maps. Well, some of them were deleted, but we the job remained unfinished because his other fraud was still left. So, after a pause we got a mediator called "Direktor" to help mediate the discussion in hope of getting a solution. Ceha was infuriated. He could not stand that I was still at his wrong map that had no source. Immediately he started to prolong the discussion by talking how we do not agree on the same source - yet we had agreed upon the same source. Imagine that! In the end, to try to keep his awful map, he decided to update it. Then he updated it again. And again. And there are still countless mistakes on it. For this he is very angry at me. To quote what mediator Direktor said about his map, "That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased".

2) Ceha has recently edited on the central bosnia canton page. What he did was, as usual, try to expand the croatian presence there, like he did with the maps. He bumped up the population statistics from about 131 thousand croats to 135 thousand croats. This is significant. Sensing nationalist bigotry and uncyclopediatic behavior, I automatically undid his edit. He was pissed off at me. He fumed and let off a lot of steam. Then he removed the other population data that was there before his editing. He attacked me. He was so angry. And then, he got a source, and what do you know - he returned that number of 131 croats. For this mistake he did not apologize like an honest person would. Instead he attacked me more and accuses me of following him. He is a very problematic user. His only response to increasing the croats in the data was that he was the one who put the initial data there in the first place - how does that make his fauduelent increase from 131k to 135 any more acceptable, and what does that have to do with the problem? It has nothing to do with anything - that is the kind of games that he plays, writing irrelevant information.

(LAz17 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

Also, this user reports me here without letting me know. Of course I am going to look at his contributions to see where else is he talking slander and libel behind my back. (LAz17 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

User:FkpCascais

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Case handled and resolved at ANI. --Taelus (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I want to report an uncivil behavior that occured on 11 November. On that day User:FkpCascais posted a very insulting note on User:Avala's talk page. That note was in Serbian, but I translated it on English. This is that note:

Fuck the King who never learned to speak Serbian (I live abroad for 30 years, all my life, and I didn't forgot to speak Serbian), and monarchic family wich instead of Greater Serbia made some shit of Yugoslavia, only because they (House of Karadjordjevic) can said that they are Kings of Serbs and also of Croats and of Slovenes. They shall not be my Kings anymore. I studied in Spain, so if you want I can reply to you... FkpCascais (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)User:FkpCascais, and for my part in that, I was blocked from editing for 48h by User:Rettetast. I aknowledge that it was my mistake to enter into edit war instead to report User:FkpCascais in the first place, so I am doing that now. I think that he also should be blocked from editing for his part in this issue. With many thanks, yours truly --Иван Богданов (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed WP:ANI#User:FkpCascais--should he be blocked? and the consensus was that he should not be blocled. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Macai

I have some questions about this user's ability – willingness? – to collaborate productively on US "culture war" type topics. He's repeatedly inserted the word "feminazi" into SCUM manifesto and ploughed through all objections, he's removed information on Karl Marx's theories from Communism because it is "pro-communist POV," he's "retaliated" against perceived Wikipedia attacks on FOX News by changing a section title in Slate (magazine) from "Editorial stance" to "Liberal Bias." And this is outright trolling: [20], [21] EvanHarper (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Macai, looking at your contribution page, I see the last 50 edits don't meet WP:NPOV. Most of them are, in fact, better suited for Conservapedia. There's no word for this beyond "Unacceptable." This pattern absolutely MUST change. --King Öomie 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by Stargnoc/Jayhammers

This editor tried, quite unsuccessfully, to start a RFA about me. He has posted a personal attack in this diff: [22]. Note that there is "another" editor in the discussion, Jayhammers, which Stargnoc admitted during the RFA is another account he operates. Attempts to address this comment with the editor are pointless. He has made it very clear that he has no interest in discussing things with me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would advise you to gain consensus using talk pages for edits to the article, as suggested on the talk page you provided the diff for by another editor. If there is consensus, then you can quite happily insert your content into the article and the other user will be unable to revert without discussion. I will advise User:Stargnoc to assume good faith of other editors, and inform them not to make personal attacks, however as this is linked into a content dispute I think the most conflict-free resolution would be to gain consensus and then act upon it. If consensus is gained, then this will hopefully resolve the issue. If the editor continues harrassing you over it during or after the concensus building, or goes against concensus with reverts, I suggest filing a report at ANI to avoid an edit war. Hope this helps, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• I do wish to clarify that I also recommend all editors involved assume good faith of each other, and avoid personal attacks. The best route of solution would be to gain concensus on a talk page with calm discussion, removing any problem material for now. Whilst this may be a slightly slow process, it will involve the least conflict. (Sorry, would have clarified more quickly, but got server errors for the last 20 minutes.) --Taelus (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't a question of how edits should be handled. That is addressed elsewhere. The simple fact here is that this editor made a blatant personal attack and has, under two accounts, said that the only solution is if I'm not allowed to edit on the topic. If that is his position, no amount of assuming good faith on my part will matter. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In that case, you may want to file a report at ANI, as taking "action" on other users is outside the scope of Wikiquette Alerts. This noticeboard functions as the first step in the dispute resolution process, and can only provide advice of how to avoid/calm conflicts, and offer neutral points of view into the relevant topics. If you are seeking action to be taken on the user threatening you, then you will want to escalate this to ANI, as it would seem you are already past the point of attempting to resolve the issue through handling edits. Best of luck, --Taelus (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1964 Cumberland B-52 crash

Please could an admin take a look at 74.5.112.42 (talk · contribs) whose very first edit to this article has been to start a naming dispute and content fork. His edit summaries include disparaging remarks about other editors who have worked on the article. Kindly note too that he did not at any point attempt to engage in any discussion before replacing the article with a redirect to a new article that he created. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for requests for admin intervention, it is an early and voluntary step in dispute resolution. If you need an admin, WP:ANI is the place to ask. In either case, it is obligatory to notify the editor that you have filed a complaint about them. Looie496 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I landed here at the suggestion of another administrator. Have posted the notification to the other editor - sorry I missed this. Would like to pursue voluntary co-operation from the other party before going to WP:ANI. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel

I have repeatedly asked this editor to explain and support his side of the argument regarding the Mark Levin article. He has become increasingly hostile and despite repeated requests to explain his position regarding a particular edit he has refused to do so and instead repeatedly violated WP:EQ, becoming more sarcastic and hostile as time has gone on. He has rejected repeated attempts at compromise *[23] and simply resorted to repeated attacks on other editors' good faith reasonings and understandings of WP policy. If you take a look at Talk it should become immediately apparent however if you wish specific examples please take a look at *[24], *[25], *[26], *[27], *[28], *[29], *[30], and particularly *[31]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvenue (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I have repeatedly explained my edits and positions to all editors on that article, no one else has a similar complaint or is mystified about what my position or reasoning is. Malvenue neglects that he has given far more than he has gotten from me and has committed egregious violations of BLP and 3RR on this article while condescendingly lecturing others to follow policy. All I have done is failed to turn the other cheek in response to his behavior. I would love for someone else to argue with him for a while to give me a break - my report about him at BLPN has been largely ignored - so if some other kind hearted editor with more tolerance for this would be willing to get between us I would be grateful. Gamaliel (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a basic edit war to me. Malvenue, as a practical matter, if you'd quit deleting the sourced criticisms of this "right-wing talk show host", then there would be no edit war. It takes (at least) two to have an edit war. If you would stop, then the edit war would automatically stop.

It is my recollection of the timing on this event that after observing the discussion page and seeing a rather obvious concensus regarding criticism of the subject, I removed the criticism in question, citing my reasoning. From my point of view I was removing a quote that defied the consensus on the discussion page. Gamaliel immediately reverted it claiming vandalism. This went back and forth several times until I left the criticism in place and added a Levin reference to Frum to balance the criticism attempting to satisfy Gamaliel while balancing the criticism. Again Gamaliel removed it in its entirety. A third party attempted some compromise wording on the Levin quote which I found satisfactory but once again Gamaliel removed it in its entirety. It seemed obvious to everyone that the only thing that would satisfy Gamaliel was to have it his way and only his way. An attempt at mediation resulted in no participation by Gamaliel at all, while I repeatedly stated my basis for the removal of the quotation and requested his reasoning for including it. His only response was a series of sarcastic insults, complaints that I was WP:SIA, questions about my judgement, pretty blatant violations of WP:AGF and a basic refusal to attempt to reach any sort of consensus. If you review the discussion that occurred after the initial edit war I believe you will see the majority of the issues I am referring to. It is not my intent to continue a fight replying here, I want to explain why I did what I did, that I did not simply delete content for no reason. Regardless, the extended antagonistic responses from Gamaliel were uncalled for. Malvenue (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you are winning friends and influencing people, but I think that this dispute has substantially exceeded the scope of this board. I suggest that all involved editors answer the six points raised by User:Ericsean at #Mediation, and quit talking about each other. "Focus on the content, not the contributor" means "Answer those six questions, and stop complaining about what the other guy is, or isn't, saying". You need to talk about the content, not about the behavior of editors in the dispute.

BTW, I don't think that BLP requires that criticism of a talk show host be sourced to someone that is writing about the critic's writings; I believe that the existence of multiple instances of criticism is generally accepted as proof that the criticism exists. (Yes, even in biographies of living people.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Polargeo and Atmoz

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

On Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, a number of uncivil and needlessly personal comments are being made. Atmoz essentially executes a complete character assassination against me while Polargeo threatens to "treat me the same way". This is not what I expect out of Wikipedia talk pages:

• [32]
• [33]

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you don't expect this treatment, the way you behave. If I went about WP:wikilawyering the way you do I would expect other editors to just ignore me :). ScienceApologist seems to spend most of his time wasting other peoples time on talkpages and at ANI and now here. Sorry. Polargeo (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seriously? Check my contributions: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite your... troubled history, looking through your contributions to this particular page, nothing jumps out at me as inappropriate, let alone POV-pushing. Unless Polargoe or Atmoz have a specific diff to point to, I think it's wise to steer this discussion towards THEIR behavior. A user's past history is not an excuse to blow them off when they're actually trying to start a discussion. There's a bit of cried wolf here, to be sure, but too much, I fear. --King Öomie 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. I document the ongoing behavior issues below. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We have been trying to get this list into shape. It had just been through the 4th AfD (although it is down as being the 3rd - results 3 keep and last one no consensus because they had a real go at it this time). The AfD result was reviewed here for no real reason because it was a solid decision. After tons of discussion on the talkpage Nealparr and I were finding some middle ground. Then Ronz and ScienceApologist come in with deletion questions and musings about whether we should have this list at all. A waste of our time. People have been bashing this list from every conceivable angle including BLP Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. I think you need to put ScienceApologists contribution into the context of the talkpage. It is unconstructive and a waste of our time to revist AfD questions rather than try to improve the article, I regard SA as having been disruptive in this respect. If we choose not to deal with Apologist we don't expect to be reported like naughty schoolboys. Polargeo (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I do not think the defense of, "I didn't like what he was saying on the talkpage" excuses incivility. Now, I explicitly did not frame my arguments as deletion questions, but even if I had, that does not justify treating me without civility. The rationale you seem to be offering for your rudeness is that you are attempting to scare myself and Ronz away from the page. That's wholly contradictory to the way we are supposed to do things at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This WP:wikilawyering about incivility with you and Ronz being the judge and jury of what is incivil is not constructive. Polargeo (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Careful. Ride that wikilawyering link too hard, and it might break. --King Öomie 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I won't use the link anymore. But I am fed up with being reverted and reported etc. etc. over the most minor things. With SA and Ronz acting as self appointed policemen of these wikirules as they perceive them. Inevitably these rules always get used in their favour. Polargeo (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Atmoz

• Extremely rude personal attack: [34]
• Reinserted after an attempted removal from the talk page: [35]
• Yawns about this report: [36]

• Comment- users have every right to to remove talkpage messages. I personally do with with semi-automated posts that I've received (save for the Signpost). --King Öomie 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. My concern was not with his removal of the message but was with the edit summary. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Gotcha. Can't see the edit summary when previewing with Popups =P --King Öomie 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Extends his personal attack to "anyone who hangs out on FTN": [37]
• Refuses Ronz's invitation to discuss his personal attacks here: [38]
• Claims that Ronz edited his comment, even though he simply moved his comment to a new section: [39]

Polargeo

• Removes an archive of a discussion that violates WP:TALK and makes a claim that I've somehow created a "fork": [40]
• Threatens to "treat me" in the same way Atmoz does: [41]
• Calls me "silly" tells me to "grow up" and "get some clue pretty quickly": [42]
• Whacks me with a trout: [43].
• Declares Ronz and myself to be causing "disruption": [44]
• Calls us "childish": [45]
• Accuses me of having bad behavior: [46]
• I just whacked him with another trout :) [47]

See what I mean about how ridiculous SA is. Please add this diff to your list. I get pretty annoyed when I am reported for absolutely nothing and then get diffs of my understandable response to this nonsense posted above. It is like an I'm telling my mummy of you attitude. The trout clearly had no effect Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you two are basically ganging up to insult this user as though he was an SPA troll (which STILL isn't okay). This kind of gleeful poking is entirely inappropriate. --King Öomie 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm sorry. I will not poke him anymore and I will respond rationally and calmly to any relevent points or not at all. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm clenching my AGF gland here, but that almost sounds like a sarcastic way of saying "I'm not going to change my behavior at all, because I'm already doing all that". --King Öomie 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I said I will not poke him. I was reported for next to nothing, that is one mother of a poke at me. It got me annoyed. It is not how I do things. In my book that is very poor. I will as I said respond rationally to SA or not respond at all as the case may be. That is basically what we do on wikipedia. I will not ignore anything he posts on the basis that it is him. And anyway I only said that I may treat him like Atmoz does if he continued along his thread, I have never said that I had got to that point. However, this report sent me to the edge of it. Polargeo (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can get Atmoz to make the same assurance as you just did, this can be marked resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz is now actively refusing being involved here. --King Öomie 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

ScienceApologist is a troll. He makes a sport of baiting users and then attacking them when they indicate that they don't like it. In the last AfD, I made the mistake of voting against him. His response was to start a Scibaby witch hunt. When he lost his AfD, he tried to find another way to destroy the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Both Polargeo and Atmoz have bent over backwards to be civil to this troll. Reporting them here is just more bad behavior on the part of ScienceApologist. Q Science (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It warms the heart to see WP:CIVIL upheld so valiantly. --King Öomie 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention AGF and WP:NPA--SKATER ^Speak. 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

After browsing through this and old discussions (supposedly irrelevant troubled history aside), I share Q Sciences assessment of the situation. Although we might be clenching our AGF glands here as well, it does seem like a reasonable conclusion. It might be unfair to ponder over SA's motives however, and a more productive solution would be to request that ScienceApologist consider how his editing could be perceived in light of previous discussions.
—Apis (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Back on 30 October I tried to deal directly with lots of stuff ScienceApologist kept attacking the article with [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]

I did not report SAs original incivility to me, because that is not the sort of nonsense I do over such minor things.

Then just as we started to make some progress SA came in with more diversions. To which I responded [58][59][60][61]. When Atmoz finally came up with the idea of ignoring SA I made the following extremely mild comment for which I was reported. [62]. I think the troll assessment extremely accurate. On this talkpage I have had to deal with being accused of sockpupettry and trolling. I have had comments of mine posted in from other users talkpages and then other comments of mine reverted out by Ronz based on some Utopian ideal he has about Wikipedia which he enforces with warning templates and a superior attitude. Everything else I have said has been latterly and in response to this silliness, I now know I shouldn’t have taken SA’s bait and fallen into his trap. I will know better next time I encounter him. The best way to deal with SA may be ignoring him. But for the sake of peace I will rise above this and deal with anything sensible he contributes. Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Q Science wrote, "Both Polargeo and Atmoz have bent over backwards to be civil" I think it would be helpful if someone could provide diffs or the like to demonstrate this. While SA's behavior is a matter of record, it is not an excuse for others' incivility toward SA and certainly not toward anyone else. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

err Ronz I just did provide the diffs. If you look at them in the context of the discussion you will find they are all dealing with SA. Polargeo (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Q Science should clarify his own statements, especially given that they appear to be quite incivil without further clarification and evidence.

The diffs provided above by Polargeo do not demonstrate what Q Science claims. I see no evidence in them of any restraint in the face of inappropriate behavior. It looks like some very minor behavioral problems by everyone involved, until recently when Polargeo and Atmoz became more and more agressive as demonstrated by the diffs from SA. Again, the arguments appear to be that incivility toward SA and others is acceptable because of SA's behavior elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assesment. Ronz has been in conflict with me and is certainly coming into this discussion from a completely non-neutral viewpoint. The diffs should be assessed by neutral eyes. Polargeo (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I could just have easily reported SA and Ronz for their actions. What has annoyed me is the pettiness in bringing this non-issue here. Polargeo (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wuhwuzdat

Stuck

 – User:Wuhwuzdat requested close, implying that attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wuhwuzdat first posted an improper CSD tag (G1) on the article Jamesin. I then removed the notice and nominated the article for PROD instead. I then went to User:Wuhwuzdat'a talk page where it says "IF YOU ARE HERE TO TELL ME THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH ONE OF MY CSD'S DO NOT FEEL FREE TO POST HERE", which I ignored and posted a friendly notification about improper CSD nominations, supplying a link to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion instead. This user has now removed my notice (which, yes, I understand they have the right to do, however, I posted the notice as a help to them). And just a few seconds ago User:Wuhwuzdat re-CSD'd the article Jamesin... again. I feel that this user is quite a bit BITEY.  IShadowed  ✰  17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct quote (copied and pasted directly from my talk page) is If you are here to tell me you changed or declined a speedy delete tag that you disagreed with, feel free to NOT leave me a note. I respect your opinion, experience, and judgment on this matter.. The misquote above is quite different in tone, and I would STRONGLY suggest that the user above refrain from such loose paraphrasing when quoting other users. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this WQA. --Taelus (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ishadowed followed this by issuing an entirely inappropriate warning template to my talk page. Perhaps it would be best if he respected the judgement of other editors, in the matter of totally inappropriate pages and their CSD tagging. WuhWuzDat

User:Wuhwuzdat, Yes, I am not afraid to acknowledge that I accidentally posted an incorrect warning on your talk pager, and I do apologize for that. However, marking a perfectly coherent article as CSD criteria G1 for patent nonsense and gibberish is not correct, nor is writing "Dear new page patroller get a clue" as you did on User talk:Wuhwuzdat. Thank you  IShadowed  ✰  18:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When the articles subject is based on defining a non-word, the article is based on gibberish, and I will tag it as such. As for "Get a clue", your incorrect warning clearly indicated to me, that in this case, you needed one. The comment I included with the talkback template on your page only barely scratched the surface of the confusion, outrage, and raised blood pressure that templating caused here. Please check the content of any template, before using it. The continual (3x? 4x?) edit conflicts on my talk page, caused by your lack of previewing and proofreading your edits, did nothing to help the situation. WuhWuzDat 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see also WP:Don't template the regulars. WuhWuzDat 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not policy. See also, WP:Do template the regulars. As well, users really aren't permitted to set rules beyond Wikipedia standard on their talkpages. Perhaps your caveat of CSD infallibility should instead link to WP:Why was my page deleted?- but it certainly shouldn't preclude the possibility of being called out on mistakes. --King Öomie 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Those essays are not policy either. My talk page contains no "caveat of CSD infallibility", only a notice that, if you happen to disagree with one of my taggings,, I don't necessarily need to hear about it. If you actually read the rules on my talk page, you will see that I am only enforcing the talk page guidelines, and good talk page formatting etiquette. This came about after quite a few editors spliced comments on new subjects into discussions on unrelated topics (causing much refactoring to move them to new headings), and many unsigned comments, resulting in having to search through the history to find out who said what, and topics that the archiving bot would refuse to archive. My talk page WILL remain in a logical, chronological order, and it will remain in bot-archivable form, with all post signed by their contributors. Is it too much to ask visitors to my talk page to not leave the place a shambles when they leave? WuhWuzDat 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility#Dispute resolution states that the first step to take when in disagreement with a user is to take the matter to their talk page, the comment at the top of your talk page could therefore be said to be hindering dispute resolution, furthermore the comment seems to show that you are unwillingly to receive constructive criticism, and improve from it. Please forgive me if I am wrong in this interpretation.

You seem to be saying above that the main reason for the comment at the top of your page is to prevent people messing up the formatting of your page, may I suggest that if that is the case then you could remove the comment and replace it with a short tutorial on how to use user talk pages? Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re your first comment: More WP:OR on your part.

Re your second comment: It works well as is (It works, Don't fix it!), with one recent exception of an admin impersonating a newbie, and deliberately violating good talk page etiquette and my posted page rules to make a point. Gee there's a bear trap, what happens if I put my foot in it?. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wuhwuzdat, I hold my opinion that you tagged incorrectly. Also, there are less bitey ways of dealing with users than saying Get a clue. In this situation, I never felt outrage, raised blood pressure or confusion and I am sorry if I caused you these however I still believe that your tagging, although in good faith, was incorrect.  IShadowed  ✰  18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat, I think you need to look at G1 again: Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. Note that it doesn't say that G1 applies to pages attempting to define a non-existent word, therefore IShadowed's original comment to you was completely justified. At this point you should have either let the prod go ahead or contest it, what you should not have done is tried to replace the prod with a SD template. IShadowed then made a mistake by templating you, although it is not against policy to template users, it could be construed as a lack of respect or civility, however, I beg that you take note of the fact that IShadowed has apologised for the template.
However, I digress, the issue here is not really the definition G1 or whether you were justified in removing the prod. The issue is your conduct in response to IShadowed comments, when IShadowed first contacted you the correct response would have been to thank him/her for his/her edit, take another look at G1, and move on. although by policy you were allowed to remove the section from your talk page, it really shows that you refuse to take the information on board.
IShadowed then made a mistake by templating you, IShadowed in future you should always leave a polite and personal message, templates are often construed as a slight to experienced users. Wuhwuzdat, despite this your response to the template was uncalled for, derogatory comments never solve any issue, what you should have done is listened to IShadowed's comment with an open mind and thought about whether maybe he/she had a point. Even if you still disagreed with IShadowed you should have explained your reasoning for this to them in a polite and civil way, not by making personal attacks.
Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact: I never removed the PROD. I don't believe that anyone above has claimed that I did either. It may help in the future to check facts like this before including them in your debate. Your reasoning as to my removal of the original comment was also blatant Original Research. Only one person (myself) knows why I removed that comment, and NONE of you are him. WuhWuzDat 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologise sincerely, as I am not an administrator I cannot view deleted articles, I based that "fact" on what IShadowed said above: "And just a few seconds ago User:Wuhwuzdat re-CSD'd the article Jamesin... again", sorry if I was incorrect, however, it doesn't really matter, as I said previously the issue here is not over the "definition G1 or whether you were justified in removing the prod. The issue is your conduct in response to IShadowed comments" (PS, I would regard SD-tagging an article with a prod as good as replacing the prod).

In that case, could you please explain why you removed the comment? Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to enjoy your own conjecture and theories as to why people do what they do, I will leave you to theorize on your own. Enjoy the Land of OR. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So be it, if you refuse to attempt to resolve the situation then there is nothing that can be done, I don't enjoy making up theories as to why people do things, what I enjoy is seeing issues where people are upset being resolved so that all parties walk away feeling that matters have been amended as best they can, in this case you are showing no will to resolve the issue, which means that things will only get worse if the disscussion continues. And so I will leave it as it stands. I wish you the best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the text of the deleted article was this:

Jamesin - an adjective describing an individual who is unusually kind and thoughtful. This slang term was derived in the early 21st century as a testament to the overwhelming kindness of the late James Johnson

I think this could be A1. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the subject of the article is quite clearly the word itself. If anything, I'd say G3. --King Öomie 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That text certainly does not meet the standards at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. If the editor so frequently receives complaints or messages attempting to educate him (or her) on this point that s/he feels the need for a blanket disclaimer, then I think that's a sign that the editor needs to figure out what CSD G1 (e.g.) is supposed to cover. "Silly boy blue ba doop a doop fly me to the moon" is a CSD G1 candidate; sentences that are both intelligible and grammatically correct never qualify under G1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat seems to have received eight or ten essentially identical messages about incorrect CSD tags just from the CSD Helper script in the last six months or so (e.g., [63][64][65][66]), as well as other non-template/non-script messages. This failure rate seems excessive to me, but I don't actually know how it compares to the average CSD patroller. If you tagged enough articles, then even a 1% failure rate would produce many messages. I can understand not wanting to be bothered with routine messages, but he might want to find a more gracious solution. Wikipedia won't keep good editors if minor irritations (like an unwanted notice) turn into personalized disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page "rules"

Stuck

 – User:Wuhwuzdat requested close, implying that attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In a somewhat unrelated note to the main filing here, I think that it is advisable that User:Wuhwuzdat should revise the rules they have set on their own talk page, specifically if they are working in CSD and other areas that will have alot of contact with new users. Being unable to question a CSD tag without being told they are "violating rules" is a good way to drive away new contributors, as several other users have pointed out in different venues. Whilst I respect your choice to remove notices from your talk page at will, I would recommend that you at least point the users in the direction of a few policies by replying on their talk page when you do so, or direct them to another user for help. You could even simply tell them to use {{helpme}} in your edit summary when removing comments, anything which would provide help for new users and avoid biting them with accusations of "violating talk page rules". --Taelus (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do us all a favor, and actually READ THE RULES, before suggesting that I change them. There is nothing there that would prevent anyone from "questioning a CSD tag".

I am now leaving this conversation, as this discussion seems to be taking place among a group of people, many of whom post comments or conjecture, without knowing FACTS, and most of whom seem to believe in the utter fallacy of a "perfect place" where nobodys feeling ever get hurt. I'm quite sorry to inform you of the fact that sort of place only exists on the "Barney Show", with its insipid purple host and theme song. This is REALITY people! WuhWuzDat 07:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but, you are expecting a new user to get everything completely correct, otherwise you will simply ignore them and delete their comment. This is not really realistic. Additionally, whilst there is no perfect place in the world, why should that stop us from aiming towards it in the long-term as a desirable goal? --Taelus (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Example diff, fortunately another user contacted the person in question. My point is that users such as that create an article on their first day, get a speedy tag, come ask you for help, and you remove their post for "violating rules". This is not going to encourage the user to seek discussions in future with anyone, and will discourage them from editing. --Taelus (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See my mention above of "An admin impersonating a newbie". WuhWuzDat 15:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some further examples are: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73].

Some of these are extremely worrying Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Example 1, user was blocked for spamming. Example 2, vandalism only account, BLOCKED. Example 3, COI editor. Example 4, user on rant, my only previous connection to this editor was voting "delete, per nom" at an AfD for an article he created. Example 5, POV edit warrior, blocked 3 times for various incivilities, was previously told that he was unwelcome at my talk page. Example 6, the only edit of a blocked sockpuppet, complaining about an article deleted as vandalism. <sarcasm>Gee, what an amazing bunch of charming, intelligent, polite people come to my page!</sarcasm> WuhWuzDat 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

...And the whole thing about blanking, then moving the User talk page[74], presumably to obscure the history? —Sladen (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

More WP:OR, this page seems to thrive on it. WuhWuzDat 07:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to articles. Users doing their own research into a dispute is sort of required, as otherwise how can we ever gain diffs, or an understanding of the situation? Just saying... --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The skills needed to trawl through and clean up all the new edits and pages are probably rather a lot different from those needed to talk to a new editor. Perhaps we should have a way of directing people to a new editor help line as well as the patroller? It would also give patrollers a way of passing on what they might see sometimes as a waste of time. I guess the help line for new editors would also have to cope with all the 'BUT THE EARTH IS FLAT, TRUTH' but they might be better at doing that. Dmcq (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the most intelligent comment anyone has posted on this topic yet. WuhWuzDat 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WWD, even beyond the original complaint, you've been rather uncivil just in this thread. I'm seeing a common thread with you only explaining yourself with harsh, condescending language. --King Öomie 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What does WWD stand for please? Sorry I see - User:Wuhwuzdat Dmcq (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest closure now, this is outside of WQA's scope, and User:Wuhwuzdat seems unwilling to continue to participate in the process: diff --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mobile historian

Resolved

 – User:Mobile historian indef blocked. --Taelus (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been engaged in something of a minor content dispute with this user. Details here [75], a little more of it in this soon to be rejected arbitration request here [76]. User has been escalating attacks on his talk page (full discussion here [77]). After he earlier today refered to me as "fetid" "vain," a "peon" and a "little friend who started getting his hands dirty [78] I asked him to strike the comments and desist or else I'd bring the matter here [79]. He responded "Sorry can't do that 'coz I'm still too numbed by your shameful, disgusting and shocking language and behaviour."[80]. I'd like him to desist. If you look at the longer thread on his talk page and the arb page both linked above, you'll see him describing my edits as "vandalism" me as "talking faeces" and suffering from either "plain ignorance or green eyed envy." I'd just like him to be told to stop with the continuous ad hominems, and have the next step explained to him by others if he doesn't (the civility policy has been pointed out to him on a number of occasions already).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to ANI, an immediate block is warranted here. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He is indef blocked as the sock of a banned user now.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mobile_historian was the ANI link, for archiving purposes. --Taelus (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User Nmate

User:Nmate is not assuming good faith [81], accuse me to third parties of wikistalking [82], and reverted sourced info without any explanation [83]. He threatened me with ban [84] and ArbComm [85].

I´m interested in Central European history for many years, as can be seen here [86], so we meet in some articles, and he acted with uncivility, reverted anything by me. He stalked me, as can be seen [87] (for explanation, I´m member of WikiProject Micronations and this is his only edit in article) He was banned many times [88] for disruptive editing and personal attacks. As can be seen in his talk page User_talk:Nmate, he have problems with others users for his disruptive editing. I try to settle problems on his talk page, but my post was deleted.

For his disruptive behavior, probably the best example is here [89] and compare his statement with his edits [90] and [91]. --Yopie (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yopie is a real expert on assuming good faith. Yes, what he is doing is wikihounding. He is following me and Hobartimus to the articles which he never edited before [92], [93], [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] and reverting. Plus he is calling content dispute vandalism [99] [100] and posting false vandalism warnings on Hobartimus' talk page as well as on mine which are personal attacks of course.[101] [102] --Nmate (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for finding interesting edit of your friend Hobartimus [103]. For explanation - Slovak Uprising is about uprising in 1848, redirect is to Slovak National Uprising in 1944. This can be called "deletion of article without AfD", or "vandalism".

• For his recent incivility [104] Citation: "Dear Yopie,Regardless your sources, none of Hungarian wants to accept your proposed changes". Clear nationalistic POV, no comment needed. --Yopie (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what I did wasn't uncivil. I just told Yopie that no consensus about his proposed changes because they are highly disputed by Hungarian editors. However, the above comment is a personal attack by Yopie.--Nmate (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have encountered Nmate several times, I do second Yopie's complaint. Nmate calls legitimate edit review and/or occasional reversions 'hounding' repeatedly, although the policy accounts for such actions and describes only activities with apparent aim to harass the user as inappropriate.

Moreover, he frequently engages in edit warring without providing any explanation at all (as epitomised here [105]).

His edits are blatantly nationalistic in nature, he openly subscribes to fringe theories [106] and edits and aims to edit articles accordingly [107], even though the information is well-sourced he resorts to repeated blanking [108]. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And of course you are the best person to decide whose edits are blatantly nationalistic in nature. [109] --Nmate (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nmate accused two innocent users about sockpupeting User talk:Oficeri and [110] and stalked these users.--Yopie (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yopie's following, hounding (formerly known as wikistalking) of other editors can be well documented. On request I can provide several examples of highly problematic edits including sudden appearance in topics he never edited before immediately reverting others as his first edit. Other problems include, false description of good faith edits as vandalism, abuse of an automated edit tool twinkle among others ([111]). But the biggest problem is following others around into articles which never before interested Yopie. In this way this thread is a good opportunity to state that this practice will need to stop sooner or later one way or another.

There is reason to suspect that Yopie's reason here is to continue his following around and causing distress. And I present as evidence the above post by Yopie in the Revision as of 17:18, 19 November 2009 in this post Yopie writes

"Nmate accused two innocent users about sockpupeting User talk:Oficeri and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Modrajedobra#Are_you_MarkBA_.3F and stalked these users.".

In reality one of the mentioned users, Modrajedobra is blocked indefinitely for not other, than sockpuppeting [112]. Presenting such obviously false information in an attempt to defame a fellow editor, really reveals a lot. The information is openly available and incredibly easy to check, for any obvious and easily verifiable falsehoods. I suggest first we verify all information first, else we could be mislead in a way like this. Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I not checked Modrajedobra, my fault and sorry. But accusation of Oficeri and massive reverts of his edits by Nmate is proven.--Yopie (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, I have never been stalked Oficeri. He almost exclusively edited only

one article which is on my watchlist. And that was why I accused Oficeri of sockpuppetry because he was always editing just the same article. However, this case is already very outdated.--Nmate (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:HP1740-B

User is persistently uncivil towards me, but also in completely unrelated edit summaries and talk page discussions. He has been warned about this in the past (e.g. here[113], but behaviour is, after a relatively quiet period, again moving in the wrong direction. This is a very impolite edit summary. And this is rather blatant PA against me. Fram (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)