Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Papa November (talk | contribs) at 11:08, 21 June 2009 (→‎Frei Hans: Added another accusation diff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to wikiquette assistance
    Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks.
    • Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s).
    • No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead.
    		 Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

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


    Active alerts

    Can a Admin call a user a asshole?

    Resolved
     – For now, this is resolved. Admin has apologized for the insult. Unitanode 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    This is not a good image for Wikipedia [1]. Honestly I am not mad because the insult its behind a computer but what should I do? Thank you --Taulant23 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No admin should call anyone an asshole, and they need to say sorry. They were not using their admin tools but they are representative of authority here and as Jimbo explained.. they are expected to be above the guidlines ...and this asshole comment fails WP:CIVIL which is a core principle of Wikipedia . (Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Thank you Off2riorob for trying to help.

    We are debating about Illyrian-Albanian continuity.[2] Most of the users are bringing a lot of sources [3] and we can still not use them. That’s wrong (in my opinion) but honestly I don't feel I did anything inappropriate to be called like that.We need to find a common languange when we edit articles in here. He wants to use Genetics and I am saying let's use linguistic, books and other sources.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC

    The usage of this and that and sources are another thing. You are not an Asshole . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[citation needed][reply]
    As I said before, he hides behind a computer to insult me, because he is not capable in face to face, so he chooses to try to make up for it by being a bully in Wikipedia.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More ad hominem attacks.
    Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word. Misrepresenting that I said something unsupported as a straw man, and then responding basically with 'Lol! God you're an idiot', is the kind of behavior I expect from UFO nuts and conspiracy theorists when they have no substantial argument for their POV. I certainly don't appreciate personal attacks like that on my talk page.
    As for the topic at hand, I know basically nothing about it, and was trying to stop an edit war over apparently unfounded claims that Albanians are the "direct" descendants of the Illyrians. AFAIK, as reasonable as that idea may be, the evidence is so poor as to make any claim subjective, and we can hardly make definitive claims, as several editors have been insisting we do. The only evidence I know of is linguistic and geographical, which AFAIK are ambiguous and insubstantive, resp. We should probably say something in the lede, as the idea was (once) popular, and redirect the reader to the article that covers the topic in detail (origins of the Albanians), but shouldn't assume a conclusion to that debate in the Illyrian article, especially when it is largely peripheral to the topic. kwami (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the dispute just between the two of you? Would a third opinion be helpful? Or is there a uninvolved veteran editor that you would both trust to mediate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of saying I am sorry Taulant you keep insulting me. Maybe you got tired yesterday and I was feeling bad I reported you (don't forget I said I love you man/I respect you and your work) but when you keep still insulting me than I am mad. So plz since you are in California, let’s meet somewhere I am in LA.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict] If your words were sincere, then I do owe you an apology. I took "I love you man" to be sarcastic—a continuation of 'Lol, you've made my day by being such an idiot.' From my POV, you've continued the insult by calling me a bully above, when it was you who made the personal attack, or at least what sounded like a personal attack, on my talk page. But perhaps I've completely misread you? If that's the case, I feel like a fool, and, as I said, owe you an apology. The only times I've heard people use words like that on wikipedia were edit warriors when they wanted to insult someone but were afraid of getting in trouble if they said anything directly. kwami (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After various edit conflicts
    Taulant did you actually called him idiot(which user rejects), you shouldn't do that much too.(not if he didn't say of course) But idiot (by a new user) is better than swearing (by an admin)
    If you are much insistent another admin will talk about him not to repeat such behaviour. But I doubt the forced apology part (he actually admitted he was wrong in the meantime I am writing by some indirect way), and since no editor has any right to do that, you shouldn't worry about that part, most possibly he can't swear you again. But you may also not focus on the 1 time swearing much, if it is not repeated, since discussions may waste a lot of your editing time, if you are more focused on developing the article context.
    The user asked for some guidance for dispute resolution that requires expertise. Can anyone help him further on the issue. Kasaalan (talk)

    I did not call him names plz check here [[4]]. He is insulting me again.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As regards the unnecessary rude name calling.. we are almost there,kwami has said.. my language was inappropriate..so if Taulant23 is happy with that simple statement then its a better feeling and we can move on.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    See above (edit conflict). If Taulant has been sincere, then I evidently misread him, and I apologize. But I have not continued to insult him here. (BTW, I don't understand why one insult is "swearing" and bad, but another is "insulting" and okay.) kwami (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No apologies and move on?? What kind of admin calls editors asshole?? What kind of admin does not even say I am sorry man??

    plus, really who insults you behind a pc?? OK let's move on and let's block Taulant in 3 days so he can shut his mouth. Thank you guys.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've apologized three times now, on various pages. But now you're insulting everyone here by suggesting they'd block you for complaining, while claiming I'm still insulting you. This is the kind of behaviour that made me think you were being insincere in the first place. kwami (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with kwami over this. He has retracted his comment and that is fine, so please step away from the dead horse Taulant23 . (Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Kwami, please erase your insult and please understand, nor me or you would like to be called asswhole specially as a act of bullying in Wikipedia.
    • Off2riorob, got the message I am taking a break. Wiki needs people like you. Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with admin for some parts. First "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word." is not an actual apology. First half is yes, second half is actually solidifying the previous insult. Second, admin claims user called him an idiot, which user denies and apparently an interpretation or misread of the user's "Doesn't all of mankind originate from Africa? Kwami Love you man lol" comment since admin didn't proved user called him an idiot yet. I don't like sarcasm much either like the admin, but if no "idiot" word is added to that sarcasm by the user, it is fully acceptable. Also user acts a bit over emotional, yet has a point I cannot ignore. If an apology will be made, it should be full hearted, not "my language was inappropriate (I shouldn't say it) but you actually acted like one" or "if I was misread then I feel like a fool". "If"s and "but"s in apologies weakens them a lot. This is no good orientation for a new user. New users get easily frustrated over such disputes, while admins have to deal with lots of hard cases each day, so may got angry easily. The user may even be a teenager, so we shouldn't go hard on him or over the admin. Both parties has some point and if both parties take a step to each other, the case may be fully closed. Kasaalan (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I am an outsider on kwami-Taulant dispute (although I have been editing the page itself and banned for it), but really, calling someone asshole, is not just a clear case of insult, but a behavior that should be used by no editor (of course admins should be more carefull then other editors). An apology would be enough if the editor did not know WP:Wikiquette, but it is unnaceptable for an administrator, for this website.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone may get off rule time to time. The most important part is making them aware they are doing mistake, and avoid future ones. You have a point, but a full public apology from the user may possibly solve the case, we shouldn't go hard on admin either for a single mistake (even it is serious). Yet a sincere full public and talk page apology under every related discussion is preferable for a full solution. Of course they can still harshly debate over their unsolved conflict over text dispute. Kasaalan (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not appropriate for anyone to call anyone an "asshole", as it's a violation of WP:CIVIL. However, let me quote: "hmmm where that came from?? well since it is behind a computer I will let it go.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)". You "let it go" and then filed both an ANI and WQA report, which does not quite sound like "letting it go". You also need to get off the whole swearing thing - Wikipedia is not censored, and articles like WP:DICK and WP:FUCK clearly use swearing. This does not mean it's ok to call someone a rude name, but the use of swearing is (whether right or not) somewhat acceptable. Kwami has been admonished, he knows he's done wrong - he's not going to lose admin over it, so what else do you want other than a little more WP:DEADHORSE?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    uninvolved here, but i took his "let it go" to mean he wasn't going to engage in a back and forth insult match with the admin on that talk page. taking it to the noticeboards should be encouraged in cases like this. i also agree that there has only been a backhanded apology by the admin involved, as well as not being able to find an instance where kwami was called an idiot first (pls provide a diff or retract this). i also agree that admins should model policy for other users. he should be formally warned and apologize unreservedly (without saying, in effect, 'it was inappropriate but you really are an asshole') as would be required of any non-admin editor in a similar situation.untwirl(talk) 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been resolved and if no one objects then I will mark it as such. The admin has more or less apologised and the complainant has more or less accepted. In my opinion adhering to WP:CIVIL is the only chance for any kind of Debate on wikipedia. Comment on the article and not the editor. Swearing is allowed and we are (almost) all adults, but personal insults are not allowed. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Accusing a new user will not help, accusing admin will not help either. However the admin just said, "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word" we cannot kid ourselves that was nowhere near an apology (not even more or less). I don't even know who both user are or their edits except their discussion. But if the admin will not apologize, at least he should first strike all of his insulting comments before the case closed. User was right on one thing, admin double insulted him here, at least strike of the relevant texts are necessary, and if admin does not I won't take any action about the admin, but I will be offended as an editor too, since it indicates injustice. Also I won't like to discuss this case any further since my point is very clear. Kasaalan (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    In my opinion, kwami did what he thought the power of only an admin can do…I am sure he knew he cannot get in trouble that’s why I got that pathetic insult. I did not do anything wrong but in reality I was giving a simple friendly advice,keep genetics away from Balkan people,we never find the common languange that way.-BWilkins, I have been in many arguments even with vandals but I would never call someone behind a pc an asshole (it shows a weak character, my honest opinion). I am willing to let it go, plus what else can I do? Besides, it’s not my reputation in line here or to the average user who helps in here but to the admins who abuse with their power.

    My questions to the other admins would be, if I was to call an admin asshole what will have been my consequences?Thank you --Taulant23 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    @ Let me just remind Adminship is not a big deal and that they are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. In this case the admin not just did insult Taulant, but he also did not remove the insultion from his talk page and he did not apologize by saying that "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word." (which means that I should not say Taulant is an asshole, but he is an asshole), a second insult in just few minuts difference. So, if Taulant, would even say WP:DICK to an admin he would be banned for incivility (because he is not an admin - who for some in here is a big deal - ), but kwami is an admin (big deal?) and so he shall be aloud to sayt whatever he likes here? Kwami has still done nothing to apologize, even when he "says that has done", he has continued insulting (as per above), which is just another non-admin-wise action by kwami (see WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.") So, is it a big deal to be an admin?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not involved in that topic, but amdins can be humans to and react like himans sometimes too. However, on such situations, a block or ban by the admin. would be more appropriate than just a 'bad word' that can trigger major wiki-conflict. On the other hand, Taulant's discussion page lead is characteristic for its unencyclopedity (Achilles Albanian hut? what;s that timetravel?). In my opinion it;s better to block someone than to call him asshole.Alexikoua (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexikoua, ban or blocked by the admin, apparently you don't know what we are talking about.There was no reason to ban no one. As for Achilles costume and picture this is not the right place, way off topic.You are more than welcome to leave a message in my talk page.--Taulant23 (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Yes, yes, calling someone a nasty name is a violation of WP:CIVIL and is to be regretted. However, editors do not get to hide behind WP:CIVIL in passive-aggressive displays, which is the case here with Taulant23 (talk · contribs). If someone waltzes over to an editor's talk page and posts a deliberate piece of snide sarcasm, they should not be surprised if they get a reaction. If you, Taulant, cannot be civil yourself - and your comment is unequivocally neither civil nor helpful - then expect to be called out on it. Frankly, this page too often attracts variations on "I poked the bear and then it attacked me" from self-styled, wide-eyed faux-ingenus. We need to take a stronger line against this kind of stuff. So bottom line: if you behave like a dick, don't be surprised when other editors observe as much. Eusebeus (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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:Stevenmitchell

    Stale
     – User has edited in the last few days, but seems to be ignoring this thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user keeps blanking a redirect that has been in place for four years, claiming that at some point in the unexplained future, he's going to put content there. When I suggested that that is probably not the best action to take, this was his reply. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently I'm not the first person to be the target of Stevenmitchell's lack of self-editing. See [5], User_talk:Adamfinmo#Nice_Job_on_Dot-Com_Bubble_List_Removal, [6], [7] and [8]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WTWAG just alerted me to this after I'd paid him a compliment. I've had run-ins with users like this in the past. The last one was enough to drive me away from the site for nearly two years. Reasoning and apologies didn't work and I absolutely, positively do not want to see this happen to a fine user like Who Then. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The remark you linked certainly fits the description of a personal attack, what with the implication that you have a psychological problem, and is obviously not acceptable. Neither is blanking a page because you're planning to do something else with it later, for that matter. The other diffs provided show that this user does not grasp that sarcasm is rarely helpful in solving content disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    incivilty and personal attack

    Resolved
     – Both sides were made aware long ago. Nothing to even warn about here. Continued discussion is unhelpful
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    This editor has escalated uncivil comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Fitzgerald#your_incivilty_and_personal_attack We have been involved in a discussion at [[9]] and [[10]] as well as at [[11]]. I have tried to let things drop and stick to the discussion. I have also learned a lot about reliable sources, copyrights and plagiarism so that in the future much of the conflict can be avoided. I do not however feel that I deserve the insults and rude comments that have been directed at me. -Crunchy Numbers (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's put those in sequential order, and add one to get the complete picture: [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. Oh, and in line with that last discussion, you'll want these diffs where CN followed me around to delete perfectly reasonable edits from other articles totally unrelated to our dispute, apparently because he was annoyed at me: [17], [18] and [19].

    If you look at these discussions, I think you'll find a certain amount of sarcasm on my part, prompted by CN's inability to let go of his quest to delete links to a perfectly innocent and helpful little website. As he continues and refuses to hear what people are telling him, my sarcasm gets more pointed, but I don't think it ever crosses the boundary into incivility. I've repeatedly told CN that all he needs to do is stop and there's no problem between us (I don't know him from Adam's off ox), but he apparently has trouble letting go, and saw fit to take this additional step. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just read through the discussions, in order, and I take back one thing: there was no sarcasm of any kind until well at the end of the discussion, when CN's apparent inability to let go of his idee fixe started to get to me. Until then, the discussion was prefectly reasonable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick glance at Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs)'s talk page shows complaints about behavior coming in at a rate of about one a day, from a variety of editors. That's way high, and suggests that a toning down of provocation might be in order. And to be clear, sarcasm does qualify as incivility -- it is often more provoking that outright insults. Anything that carries an implicit "you're stupid" message is uncivil. Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind please showing what remark was an implicit "You're stupid"? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, what was it that your quick glance picked up from my talk page? The notice of a GAR review? A discussion about whether a link is spam or not? A talk with a friend about another editor who got blocked? A discussion with another friend about image placement in an article? A discussion about an editor who later turned out to be a sockpuppet, due to my SPI report? More discussion with the same two friends about images? The notice that an image of mine was up for deletion? Because, with the exception of the complaint from Crunchy Numbers, that's what's on my talk page right now, and has been since I last archived it. So how you can "at a glance" characterize it as being chockful of civility complaints is beyond me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell you what, Looie496, since complaints have been coming in at "about the rate of one a day", please list the 28 complaints that have come in about me since May 15th. I understand that your rate is an average, so I would say that anything above 22 or so would justify your remark. If you can't provide those 22 complaints, I'll be happy to accept your withdrawal of your statement. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looie496 might be busy -- interestingly, he and Crunchy Numbers have both recently edited the articles Autism, Electric_motor and Eucharist, a rather esoteric concatenation of subjects (and even more interesting considering that while Looie has 2335 article edits, CN only has 539) -- so I'l help out. Perhaps he is referring to the complaint about my editing from User:LatinoAussie, who turned out to be a block-evading sockpuppet of User:Cazique? Or perhaps he was confused, and thought that this, where another editor called me a "stupid asshole" was a legitimate complaint about my editing.

    That's two down - only 20 more to go! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Step away from the sarcasm and the defensive attacks. Nobody here is out to get you. Hold all of your "defence" to one post. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My comment was based on User talk:Ed Fitzgerald/archives 12 June 2009, where I counted 10 complaints for a period of 10 days, based, as I wrote, on a quick viewing. If you feel that I've wildly overestimated the rate at which people complain about your actions, I won't push the point. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, let's look at a few things: WP:BRD is important, as is WP:RS. The WP:RSN is an important tool on Wikipedia - if you have a concern about reliability, and you are BOLD and remove something and then it gets reverted, for Pete's sake, don't go back to removing it - it's a once-round cycle, that leads to discussion and eventually WP:CONSENSUS. Randomly deleting things across Wikipedia is not acceptable without consensus! This appears to have been the genesis of commentary by Ed Fitzgerald. Ed - you need to know that sarcasm is generally bad, as per WP:SARCASM. It is almost always uncivil. Bad actions by one user may explain your incivility, but it never excuses it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You ought to go a little easy about relying on WP:Sarcasm which, despite its sarcastic claim at the top, is merely an essay, not Wikipedia policy. I know it's been around for quite a while, and numerous people have contributed to it and cited it, but if it's so all-fire righteous, you'd think it would be policy by now. It ain't, though, and I rather think that ArbCom's view of what does and doesn't constitute civility may differ distinctly from yours.

    Happy motoring! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed, I'm not relying on an essay: I'm relying on a consensus that sarcasm can at times be uncivil. You've been around long enough (and read WP:ANI enough) to know that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wondering who nominated Bwilkins as the Civility Police? Seriously though, I'd recommend not contributing your condescending remarks, as they don't help in the least. As for sarcasm, I'd say that your grasp on how that particular brand of humor works is quite astounding. Unitanode 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikiquette Alerts, Unitanode...the volunteers here are all trying to assist in the enforcement of WP:CIVIL andWP:NPA, or as a minimum try and diffuse situations before they need to go to WP:ANI. Every editor of Wikipedia is the "civility police". I have not stooped to condescending remarks, and I find your suggestion of such (and your belief that sarcasm being used against another editor is ok) to be a little odd. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite honestly, I don't care what you find "odd." And I find it kind of sad that you think everyone should be the civility police. Aren't there better things to do with your time? Like, say, work on articles?
    Lastly, you'll never know how deeply it wounds me that you find my acceptance of sarcasm in communication unacceptable. I will most likely weep the hot tears of despair as I vainly attempt to sleep tonight. Unitanode 02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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:IvoShandor

    Resolved
     – This level of incivility is never welcome. It has been escalated to ANI
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I nominated one of his article, Sidelight for speedy deletion because to me it didn't seem important to be its own article and should be apart of window. Anyway he started to use vulgar language "this is total bullshit" (his edit summary on sidelight). Then called me an a-hole "rmv trolling nonsense from asshole" (his edit summary on his talk page). I then told him to keep it civil or I'd report you. Then went to my talk page and said "Report me, you're still an ass. And still condescending. Find something constructive to do around here instead of monitoring material for deletion because you don't think it's tagged right. Fuck you." With the edit summary of fuck you dick. I understand that you can get pissed off, but not like this. I've gotten pissed once and only called him an ass, once, nothing worse and repeatedly calling him it.--Fire 55 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously you want some kind of apology or shoulder rub to make you feel better. You're not getting it from me. I will accept the consequences of my actions. But, frankly, it is pretty much a total dick move to tag an article created by an experienced editor for speedy deletion (deletion means deletion, not merger - as you seem to think it does) mere minutes after its creation, especially in a topic area that has literally dozens of articles on similar topics, all with devoted pages. Did I go a little overboard with the incivility? You bet. And honestly, if my vulgar language and uncivil behavior discourages destructive editors like yourself, then it is by far worth any consequences. --IvoShandor (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided a level 4 warning for NPA, and taken this to WP:ANI. ANY attempts to dissuade editors in this manner is a disruption to the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on posted apology, I'm changing this to resolved (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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:Fhue and User:NRen2k5

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – OP has made the (possibly Plaxico-esque) decision to escalate to WP:ANI
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    On the Sea Shepherd article, this editor has assumed bad faith and mirespresented/disregarded ongoing discussion when it wasn't going his way, proceeded to edit the article without consensus, edit warred, personally attacked me, and then continued to misrepresent things on the Editor Assistance page and elsewhere. "violent direct action" is misleading, [20], [21] — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    do you even know what WP:bad faith is? or are you just parroting what you heard someone say, once. Fhue (talk)
    Bad faith, to me, is failure to assume good faith, which you are a shining example of. Has there even been a single message here where you haven't antagonized me? — NRen2k5(TALK), 10:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    yep, when I simply disagree with you. Equating the two shows your lack of respect for other viewpoints -- and I don't mean WP:POV, I'm talking about rhetorical style. Tiresome allegations of bad faith are, in fact, your own failure to assume good faith. Carbonite's Law tells us, "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." It's also worth noting that you owe me a dollar. Fhue (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also given boilerplate warnings on his talkpage, but he promptly disregarded and deleted them. [22] [23] — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    NRen2k5 continues to mischaracterize his role in this dispute as the victim. It is he in fact who heightened the conflict with arrogant dismissals and petty replies in the talk pages. I called him out on his bullying at first "with a grain of salt." Later I dared to disagree with him so he practically called me a liar. That is when I said he is "just lamely trolling." He replied in kind, so to cry foul about that now is disingenuous. Fhue (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Case in point (personal attacks): "arrogant", "petty", "bullying".
    As for the trolling and projecting, I don't know what else to call accusing someone else of trolling while emoting a yawn. — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    you forgot to say 'bad faith' again. lol Fhue (talk)
    Yep, we're here because you brought it here first. You can try all you want to appear unbiased and victimized, but the record speaks for itself. Fhue (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That it does. — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Please see above. And here: [[24]] As anyone with an objective eye can see, this particular dispute has slowly boiled over from his repeated attempts to bully other contributors who dont agree with him. Even in the current Editor assistance request link above, he patronizes and dismisses. Fhue (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Case in point: further personal attacks, projection and general bad faith. — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    lol there it is. Fhue (talk)

    I have combined the tit-for-tat filings into one, and those never do turn out well. This does appear to be a long-running dispute between 2 editors. An 3rd party attempted to mediate one aspect of an article, and one party refused to change their stance...that is not collegial editing, and is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and indeed its raison d'etre. I would like to see the two of you stay off that article (and its talkpage) for a week - and stay away from each other for the same length of time. Reflect on what it means to work together, and to respect others' point of view. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, [25][26][27][28] — NRen2k5(TALK), 07:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    heh, are you still stalking this. jeez dude, get over it.
    For anyone else interested in a good read and/or summary, see my Talk page. Fhue (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    *Sigh*
    1. I am staying away - I'm not touching any pages you're working on with a ten foot pole. I'm checking if you're keeping your word. Don't get indignant because I caught you breaking it.
    2. I am not playing at trying to get the last word in. I'm trying to get my point across, but time and again you show me you still don't get it.
    3. Stalking? Seriously, what?
    4. I can't seem to respect anybody who disagrees with me? I'm not the one struggling to characterize everything I disagree with or fail to understand as a personal affront.
    5. “I gave up trying to discuss the matter in talk pages and reverted your improper edit (based on POV)” - See #4. — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Caught?" seriously, get over yourself. i agreed & thanked Mr.Bw but then I changed my mind. that's why your first "record" is a deleted response [29]. so i didnt break my word. If anyone did, it's you. "I am staying away - I'm not touching any pages.." -- can you see how wrong you are? because here you are.
     The other links you give are minor edits. Your other points are just as unfounded. I'll bet $1 you can't stay away from this page or any other with or without "a ten foot pole." Fhue (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    *Throws hands up in resignation.* — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve notified a few editors who I’ve worked with and asked them to weigh in on the issue. I believe the way I did so is within the rules (WP:CANVAS). Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. [30][31][32][33][34] — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, rather than admit to having a role in this issue, then trying to resolve it together, you're going to invite some people to focus on you being right? That's quite contrary to the process here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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:Dolfrog - personal attacks

    Resolved
     – No action necessary, other than assisting User:Dolfrog in better understanding WP policy regarding his editing. Unitanode 15:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    This user is making repeated disparaging and bad faith statements about my and other editors' capacity to judge a disputed issue. [35][36][37][38][39][40]. He has continued despite personal attack warnings up to level 4 (see User talk:Dolfrog#Personal attacks and User_talk:Dolfrog#Personal attacks 2). Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If the other editors would take the time to read the supporing documented research that support my case rahter than just air their own uniformed opinions then all would be fine.
    The research can befound on the Research articles of ther dyslexia project, which all of these editors have so far chose to ignore, or refuse to discuss.
    So they are infact making parsonal attacks against my integrety and research abilities by ignoring the documented research in favour of their ill informed opinions.
    I also have a communication disability Auditory Processing Disorder which some are aware of and seem to wish to take advantage.
    dolfrog (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eight, maybe nine editors, have told you now that we do not put Category:Dyslexia on articles not directly about dyslexia. The research is completely irrelevant to that decision, so quit dissing us for not being au fait with it.
    which some are aware of and seem to wish to take advantage
    Assume good faith, please. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto, Gordonofcartoon. I see Dolfrog as a hard working and useful contributor that should be commended for their efforts. Everyone is new here at some stage and don't bite the newbies comes to mind. AF\\GF, AFG\\\AGF, please. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The research is key to forming opinions and only fools ignore it. So you are choosing to ignosre scientific fact in favour of your own andn the opinos of others who are ignorate of all the relvent facts. Until ypou can begin to have a constructive debate you are arte only acting in bad faith. You do not call views different to your own personal atacks, when you do the same to others and say that you mist always be right. dolfrog (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As discussion is taking place where it first should have, I'm putting this as stale, for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the stale after this user continued same tendentious trend on my talk page[41] and after reviewing the editor's recent edit summaries. There is a tendentious and NPA problem here that should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dolfrog, insulting other editors is a losing approach. Even if you are right, it won't work. You have to make a decision about whether it is better to be righteous and banned or to suppress your urge to tell everybody how stupid they are for the sake of accomplishing something here. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And "being right" is less important than supplying reliable sources for claims you make or categories you add. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to explain how he can make his content case in a less contentious manner, but I'm not sure he understands the policies involved. I still think that most -- if not all -- of his "attacks" have been fairly innocuous, and not worthy of a big snit or anything, but if others disagree, I'll certainly bow out here. I personally think that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are being interpreted FAR too broadly on this page, but again, I'll not fight for my interpretation of them to be applied in this case. Unitanode 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fussed about his lack of civility and sarcastic edit summaries, but the tendentiousness of his editing should be nipped in the bud, as it affects articles. The trend shown in his edit summaries should be addressed. He's adding dyslexia cats all over the place without basing the addition on reliable sources, and then gets snitty when they're removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just left a comment to that effect at the related RfC. If he doesn't get the message soon, he may well be blocked for WP:3RR, if nothing else. Unitanode 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I agree that he is not being blatantly incivil, but his attitude regarding "if you are not an expert you have no right to discuss the issue with me" is not acceptable. Likewise, his "the consensus is wrong" attitude directly stated in one of his recent edit summaries will lead to further disruption unless he recognizes that Wikipedia is not limited to experts in a given subject area, whether that is a good thing or not. He simply needs to accept that Wikipedia guidelines and policies trump the opinion of a minority of editors, even if those editors are experts in the field. As has been requested of Dolfrog on talk pages, if he provides citations the information he wants to include is welcome, but no one is obligated to bow down to his "I'm an expert and you are not so I don't have to listed to anyone else" attitude. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the "expert" issue is spurious anyway. From his talk page: "Dolfrog is the internet name used by an individual who has a great interest in Auditory Processing Disorder. Dolfrog has been trying to promote a greater understanding of APD to help his children who have this condition." This editor needs to understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, tone done the tendentiousness, and take a deep breath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the dolfrog on the internet and the dolfrog here one in the same. To get a bettter understanding of APD I have had to clarify the issues which surround dyslexia, much to my own dismay, as there appears to be a dyslexia industry out there intnet on blocking research and prevent progress so that they can continue to sell there products.

    There must be other editors out there I know more about dyslexia then me and if so I wish they would help re-orginse the Dyslexia prjoct and realted issues so that i can get back to working on my APD interests. All I amtrying to do is to make the dyslexia artilcles reflect the scientific research and not the skewed oponions of program providors, all the program can help at least one group, but no program can help all dyslexics and the same applies to APD.

    I find WIKI the most frustrating of place to work in a very alien environment with it strnage code, and wierd ways of behaving. If some one want to help me work aroun d my communication problems fine, but so far not many have bothered. dolfrog (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See this is exactly the type of frustration that WP needs to avoid. Dolfrog clearly is trying to help, and just needs to understand that they need to focus on content, not on who is adding the content, as well as the appropriate location for discussion, which is on the relevant article talk pages, not on a user talk page. I would suggest seeing if someone is willing to mentor User:dolfrog to assist them with learning the ropes. I am told they have been editing since 2005, but I can see that they only received a welcome message on their talk page today. Several edits have indicated frustration in trying to find out how to "spin the spider web" of Wikipedia. Note: I see that User:GTBacchus has offered to help them. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One for everyone to perhaps be aware of. If someone has dyslexia or a similar condition, our habit of leaving a slew of letters scattered through our communication will be absolutely baffling, because WP:NPA WP:V WP:RS WP:CIVIL and all the rest of them may just not compute - they may all look similar, and of course they don't mean anything, they are just codes and the kind of thought processes that people with a dyslexia type condition can have makes it hard to decipher codes (this is based on personal experience, not research, so may not apply in all cases, but hey guys, sometimes you have to spell things out not just use the shorthand).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    civility issues for User:Rebecca

    Stale
     – It seems unlikely that User:Rebecca is going to respond to this thread. Unitanode 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebecca (talk · contribs) continues to call me either "twit" or "troll" on the basis of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Conservative Group. Whilst we may disagree on notability of the subject, there is no reason to continue name calling as per [42], [43], [44]. despite notifying this user twice of incivil behavior: [45]. I am placing this report to at least put on record for others to comment on. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I say drag her back onto the wp:AC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    what's AC? LibStar (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Click on the link to find out. Majorly talk 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it surprising that someone who has been on AC acts like this. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we have a link to the previous arb com case? --neon white talk 14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no previous ArbCom case. I think the point being made is that Rebecca was formerly a member of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Jack Merridew was joking that the behaviour being complained of was something ArbCom badly needed on board. (This is neither a comment on the alleged behaviour nor an endorsement of the comment) Orderinchaos 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, and incorrect, original research. See Brad's more insightful comment. Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3 diffs that show incivility over the course of a single discussion does not make the civility issue "persistent" unless you can demonstrate that she has acted in this manner other times in the recent past. I agree that the three diffs you provide are demonstrative of incivility, but since she has already been minnow-slapped I am not sure what else should be done as she has not engaged in behavior worthy of a block. I will add here, users should avoid calling names regardless of whether they become frustrated in the course of a discussion, and obviously continued and habitual incivility becomes a blockable offense if users persist after warnings, but this case is hardly an egregious example of incivility. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned that someone of that experience has been incivil several times but a friendly warning from other experiences editors would probably be a good idea. --neon white talk 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The minnow reference at the foot of her talk page was not directed at her; see WP:INDENT. Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeking a block but posted here to prevent further escalation. I am further disappointed that this behavior came from a respected committee such as AC. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may get one the way you're going. Sheesh, Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please resist from unhelpful comments such as the above. --neon white talk 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    why? LibStar (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty sure NeonWhite was talking to Jack, not to you LibStar, though correct me if I am wrong. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ed Fitzgerald

    Resolved
     – After discussion at User_talk:Jenuk1985, I'm replacing the resolved tag, and splitting the additional complaint into it's own thread. Unitanode 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    This user has made the following comment [46] at User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Regarding_your_.22WHOA.21.22 which I find rather offensive. "She, he doesn't matter. An asshole is an asshole." Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, the user has been blocked for 3 hours. Thanks anyway! Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are wikistalking the contributions of Ed Fitzgerald, and have admitted as much. Somehow, you got a block-happy admin to block him, but that doesn't relieve you from the burden of your own unclean hands. Unitanode 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Errr, do you wish to get your facts straight regarding wikistalking? Please could you point to a specific part of WP:STALK which I have violated? Using an editors contributions history to revert controversial edits is in no way wikistalking, and I strongly suggest you think before making such serious allegations. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The facts are what they are. You admitted to going through his contribs and mass-reverting them. I strongly suggest you wash your own hands before lecturing others. Unitanode 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you read the policy on hounding, checking another person's edits to see if they have made the same type of "bad" or "non-consensus" edits elsewhere is NOT hounding. Unitanode, please familiarize yourself with policies before commenting on them, and be careful with your comments as some of them, such as the ones above and the comment here earlier toward Bwilkins could be considered trolling. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't troll. I looked at the contributions of both editors, and I considered what Jenuk was doing to EF to be hounding/stalking/whatever-the-wiki-term-is. Offering a viewpoint is not trolling. And in my view at least, what Jenuk did was at least as poor in form as EF saying "an asshole is an asshole." Of course, my view on what constitutes a blockable personal attack, incivility, etc. is far from the views of most people that frequent this ... unique noticeboard, which I fully acknowledge. That, however -- and fortunately -- does not preclude me from offering my $0.02 on various issues that are brought here. Unitanode 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again you have failed to specifiy exactly which part of WP:STALK I have violated? If you are going to make accusations, please at least back it up with policy. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Reply to Unitanode) You absolutely have the right to comment here, and my statement above was in no way trying to discourage you from doing so. I simply think comments like the first one to Jenuk above and this comment to Bwilkins earlier could be worded better to be less inflamatory. For example, you could have said to BW "Saying "you have been around long enough to know that" seemed to me as condescending, and I don't see how his use of sarcasm constituted incivility" which would probably be viewed as a lot less inflammatory than what you said in that diff. This is just a suggestion, and if you want to ignore me I certainly won't take offense, but I would not be surprised if your language causes more conflict than it helps to stop (which is the purpose of this board) if it is not toned down. Also, I have no opinion on Ed's edits or Jenuk's reversions, but it is simply not wikihounding to examine an editor's contributions to see if they have performed questionable actions on other pages, just as examining an editor's contributions after reverting vandalism by them or seeing a personal attack by them is also not wikihounding. Again, I am not taking a side either way regarding the actual edits made by Ed and Jenuk, but what Jenuk has done does not constitute wikihounding. I'll say once more I am not trying to stop you from contributing to this forum, I just think your comments would be more appropriate, and you would have better results, if your tone did not sound so accusatory and confrontational. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay: "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Claiming you have an "overriding reason" doesn't make your "reason" legitimate. Clearly, you and EF differ on the issue, so that would not qualify as an "overriding reason." Thus, you were hounding his edits for no good reason. Unitanode 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reverting non consensus edits is hounding now is it? Yeah, right. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You weren't "reverting non consensus edits", you were having a content dispute about "Notes" versus "References", so you went through his contributions and mass-reverted quite a few of his changes, based upon your view in the matter. That's "hounding", and this is my last post to you. I would respectfully request that you not sift through my contributions for some mass reversions to perform. Unitanode 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there is no content dispute, the user made a whole list of mass changes without adequate consensus, I have reverted them and invited him to start a discussion before making such edits again. Plain and simple, I ask in future when other people bring issues up on Wikiquette alerts, you properlly research the issue, and read up on Wikipedia policies before passing comment and making accusation, as what you say is bad for the community. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Disagreeing with your take on something doesn't make my contributions here "bad for the community." It's condescending -- and quite insulting -- of you to say so, which makes this whole exchange more than a bit ironic, as it was you who opened it by complaining that Ed had insulted you. Now, I'll give you the last word, as this really is my last post to you. Insult away. Unitanode 19:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jenuk1985, hi. At this point, it would seem that the justification for the reverts has been called into question. When that happens, it is entirely appropriate to stop reverting, and engage in discussion, widening scope as necessary, to determine the consensus view of what should be done. If you find yourself engaging in any conflict alone, it's always a good idea to seek outside opinions, and to defer to the consensus that emerges. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no more reverting, the reverting stopped long before I raised this thread. I reverted the appropriate edits, he has been left an appropriate message on his talk page on what to do now, where to get the outside opinions if he wants to make the changes on the scale he is etc. The only issue now is Unitanode making false accusations, which I feel may deserve a Wikiquette thread of its own. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Maybe they do, but I can't imagine that it would lead to any really positive result. Disengaging is probably a better idea. I'm glad the reverting is all stopped. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not sure where the idea that there is an edit war or content dispute came from to be honest, there has never been an edit war between me and Ed Fitzgerald, I think it is a case of some people not understanding the full facts. I'm just annoyed that I bring a civility issue here (which was solved shortly after I made the post), and as a result, accusations are made against me, not based on any sort of policy, just a users personal opinion. I'm sure this isn't how Wikiquette alerts is supposed to work? If I *had* done something wrong, then I'd have no issues in accepting the situation. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think it's probably just that you encountered someone having a bad day. I agree that the initial post in response to you here was inappropriate, and I think that Unitanode will calm down, and probably take something valuable from this experience. That would be the best, right?

                    As for Unitanode's position being based on policy or not, it seems clear that he thinks it is. That's also usually the case; a disagreement over precisely what policy means turns into a bitter conflict along the lines of "I'm right"/"No, you're wrong". Once we see it happening, I think the best solution is to disengage, and possibly seek outside opinion. Which is what you were doing to come here in the first place, and we appreciate that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                    • I have no intention of taking this any further, and my original reason for coming here has already been solved, so as far as I'm concerned the case is closed. All I do is defend myself if false accusations are made. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Fair enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Jenuk, he was bold over a period of time, you reverted him in one shot, he reverted you, and then you reverted him again. That's an edit war, even though you didn't approach 3RR. I'm taking no position on this: one guideline says one of you is right, another one says both of you were right (though not right to edit war about it). Find a happy medium, or stay away from each other, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Additional complaint regardng User:Ed Fitzgerald

    Ed has a lot of things besides Jenuk1985's References/Notes issue that he changes. These are inconsistent with the Manual of Style, or otherwise mass changing articles to his preferred layout. He's been asked to stop making mass changes to image sizes, manual insertion of whitespace, and now section renaming. Anyone who dares to question his layout is accused of stalking. This needs to end.

    If anyone has any doubt about it, please read his last few thousand edit summaries looking for my username, where he is "calling me out" inviting me to an edit war, while at the same time, he has followed my edit contribution history inserting his style just to irk me - but this is not stalking from Ed. Why can Ed have this double standard where people change his contrarian layouts are stalkers, but him following someone else is not? Miami33139 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the closure of this thread, as the comments raised by Miami33139 remain unresolved. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:by78

    This user left a rather hateful comment on my talk page: "Sorry if that hurts your I-am-really-an-Aryan-German-despite-the-fact-I-am-from-India ego." I did not provoke him nor did I say anything about Indians being Aryans or anything of the sort.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSMR

    Though he did not sign this comment you can see he added it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GSMR&diff=297288448&oldid=297282603 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSMR (talk • contribs) 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You actually replied to the editor about the post, and then you laughed it off, then disproved it having a racial connotation. Laughing at an attempted violation of WP:NPA is a great way to react. So, it wasn't a racist attack ... what action would you like (I have warned them about failure to use ~~~~) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He intended for me to interpret that as having a racial connotation (because he compared Indians with Germans). He has previously been warned for personal attacks, seen here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_power/Archive_11#Great_Power_status_is_determined_only_by_the_United_Nations
    "So, tell me now, do you wake up every morning and look at yourself in the mirror and keep repeating, "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie"? If so, your power of self-suggestion is strong indeed, as are the resulting delusions of granduer. By78 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)"
    As he has been warned of this before, I suggest some form of temporary punishment? I am not fully aware of what Wikipedia's policies are but would blocking him temporarily from editing be sufficient? GSMR (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you already know from the top of this page, editors in this forum are not generally able to provide blocks - our goal is to diffuse situations of civility before blocks become necessary. Links to previous incivility are always useful. You should also know that warnings are usually escalating in nature - eventually they may lead to a block. Racist commentary is always one of the worst forms of incivility. As you noted, he was previously warned for the "Eendiah..." phrase. I will go back through those warnings, and escalate accordingly. On top of that, blocks are never punishment, they are to prevent disruptions (see WP:BLOCK).(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for warning him. GSMR (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Frei Hans

    Disputed conduct
    Evidence of warnings issued to user
    Background
    • Frei Hans created the (now deleted) Telepathy and War article.
    • Verbal nominated the article for deletion.
    • The AfD discussion is archived here.
    • I nominated a copyright violating image uploaded by Frei Hans for deletion here.
    • Verbal, myself and other editors removed several sections of text from the article during the deletion discussion, which we believed to be obvious original research, synthesised opinion or wholly irrelevant to the article. We stated this repeatedly in edit summaries and throughout the deletion debate.
    • Frei Hans has requested deletion review of the image here.
    Possible resolution

    I would ask that Frei Hans does the following:

    1. Accept the definition of vandalism given at WP:VAND, and understand that content disputes and bold edits are explicitly not considered vandalism.
    2. Agree not to accuse other editors of vandalism unless their conduct is explicitly defined as such at WP:VAND
    3. Agree to follow the proper dispute resolution process if he disagrees with another editor
    4. Agree to assume good faith from other editors
    5. Agree to only make accusations of sockpuppetry at an appropriate venue, such as WP:SSP

    Any help would be greatly appreciated. Papa November (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Papa N's summary and analysis. My advice has fallen on stony ground. Verbal chat 15:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas

    Resolved
     – At the request of original poster
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Viriditas accused me at Talk:Barack_Obama's_speech_at_Cairo_University,_2009#Recent_additions_to_post-speech_section of being a meatpuppet co-coordinating edits ahead of time. The editor is completely unresponsive and refuses to use civility. They commented "we had no problems until you showed up", and ended the discussion. The Squicks (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding is probably not the best thing to do right after you file a Wikiquette alert. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain how the diff you provided is hounding, in your view? I'm not seeing it, at least at first blush. I'm not saying it's definitively not, just that I don't understand how it is at this point. Unitanode 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's easy, as he was not just wikihounding but deliberately trolling as well: The Squicks filed this report and then followed me over to Human rights in the United States, an article I was actively editing . The Squicks had never edited this article before but he showed up to make an incredibly bizarre edit involving the addition of a poorly-formatted URL to a see also link that in turn, links to a red-linked entry for Moynihan's law over at List of eponymous laws. This eponymous law turns out to be a snarky, off-topic entry that reads, "The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country." Obviously, he wanted me to revert him, but I simply ignored him. It's got nothing to do with the article, and he did it just to try and get a rise out of me. Viriditas (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm beginning to understand what you were talking about now. It's interestng to me how many unclean hands we see amongst the filers here. Unitanode 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how you can claim that two wrongs make a right. The Squicks (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my claim. What I'm saying is that when you're as guilty (or perhaps more) than the person you accuse, it damages your credibility. Unitanode 17:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point that Viriditas has accused me, without evidence, both of trolling, meatpuppeting, and deliberately sabatoging articles. Have I done the same thing or worse to them? Nope. The Squicks (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are in a content dispute with him. You used this noticeboard to threaten him during that dispute. You happened to show up at the same time as another user, and ganged up on him. While I wouldn't have responded as he did, in my view this is essentially a content dispute. It appears that you are using this noticeboard as a means of continuing that dispute, which isn't acceptable either. Unitanode 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a threat. This is a request for an editor who assumes bad faith to quit doing so, since that would make resolving a content dispute easier. The Squicks (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now accusing me of something? If so, you should know, this does not put you in any better light. I simply offered my take on the situation, and did so in a way that was both polite and to the point. You brought this complaint here. If you didn't want outside opinions, you shouldn't have asked for them. Unitanode 17:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now accusing me of something? No. Where are you getting that? I commented that "This is not a threat"- I did not start this alert to threaten anyone- and that I sincerely want to find a compromise solution with Viriditas, which will not happen unless Viriditas abandons his assumptions of bad faith. The Squicks (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appricate your outside opinion, BTW. These are why I posted here in the first place. The Squicks (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <----undent
    You clearly threatened him with bringing the issue here. This noticeboard is not for the mediation of content disputes. You should consider an RfC if that's what you're looking for. Unitanode 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since both you and Hans are agreeing with Viriditas' assumption of bad faith; I'm going to go ahead and drop this. The Squicks (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view on this is that it's a pure content dispute. Additionally, while Viriditas may well have run afoul of WP:AGF in some ways, I see no need for intervention regarding alleged personal attacks or civility issues. Things get heated sometimes during content disputes. Sometimes it's best to just let it go when the discussion gets a bit hot. Unitanode 16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to let it go. But Viriditas is now making the stupid claim that I'm "hounding" him, once again- "Evidence?!"- I've been editing pages about Human rights in Iran and related topics and checked in from there to the United States' page, which is blindingly obvious to anyone looking at my edit history. The Squicks (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any evidence for your claims? I see none. I also plainly see no shell game either. The Squicks (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the time and place to argue about what is or is not behind the suspicion that is hard to avoid when looking at the edit history. – The shell game:
    Korny O'Near: "[...]"
    Viriditas: "[points out that Korny has burden of evidence]"
    The Squicks: "I strongly disagree with Viriditas. [...]"
    Viriditas: "[...] I asked Korny a question, and for some reason you are replying for him, but avoiding the question. [...] What is also strange, is that according to your respective edit histories, neither you nor Korny have ever edited an Obama article before, but your first edit here is to add a controversy and community article probation tag? Can you explain this?"
    Korny O'Near: "You want me to "explain" the actions of some other user? Sorry, can't help you there. [...]"
    Viriditas: "That's a fun little game! I ask you a question, and The Squicks replies. Then, I ask The Squicks a question and you reply! Amazing! [...]"
    Korny O'Near: "Oh, I didn't realize that question was just directed to him/her. Wow, you must have really proven something there, good for you. [...]"
    These were transparent attempts to detract from
    • the fact that Korny had the burden of evidence for including commentary from self-published sources; and
    • the fact that there was not going to be an explanation from The Squicks for adding controversy and article probation tags as the very first edit to a talk page, right before making a splash.
    Hans Adler 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And why would I need to explain myself like that? I can't believe that you are assuming bad faith as well! I made no splash. I took one editors side in a content dispute. There's no law against that is there? And I never, ever stated that the burden of proof is not on the side asking for inclusion. Do not put words into my mouth. neither you nor Korny have ever edited an Obama article before, but your first edit here is to add a controversy and community article probation tag Is a false statement on two grounds. (a)I've edited Obama articles numerous times and (b)I add controversy and community article prohibition tages all the time whenever I see a talk page that needs them and does not have them. The Squicks (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (OUTDENT) Ok, let's all back up for a second. The Squicks ... can you please provide diff's to any edits that you claim are backing up your concern. A link to a section of a page does not help. If you have issues with diffs, please view WP:DIFF. I want to ensure that we all understand your concern. I will then ask Viriditas to do the same thing. This way we all have the same picture, and the concerns gets validly understood. Please note, The Squicks, that we will indeed look backward at issues that may have caused this discussion, based on the ABC method... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you simply read the discussion referenced, you will understand the problem better. It's a relatively clear-cut content dispute, as I see it. Unitanode 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you here to help, or harass others who are trying to help. I've read, Squick has not laid out his concern well, so I want to ensure that he has his say properly. Otherwise, we're doing the editor a major disservice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I don't know what part of my one line post to you was "harrassing", but I was simply attempting to let you know that simply reading the discussion they referenced gives a pretty clear picture of what is going on. I'm not certain why you feel antagonized by my pointing that out, but it was not intended to be in any way "harrassing." Unitanode 19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep discussions that are not directly related to assisting the problem off this page. Bickering between volunteers on this board is not helpful to facilitating communication between the parties in the uncivil exchanges. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit conflict...Hi, nothing has really happened here... take a step back guys. What is it about Obama.. It is Politics ..half of the people POV push left and half POV push right.. with a couple in the middle...At wiki the worst articles are religious and political, In the uk we have a rule .. do not talk about these things in a bar...Anyway...The squicks and Viriditas are polar opposites on this.. and the best thing the both of them can do is take a few days away from this article..I saw the speech and it was not really worth it's own page anyway.. are we to have a silly page about every pov pushing speech obama makes.. I hope not...don't bother falling out about it.. close youe eyes and think about something that you really like and go edit that article for a few days. best regards. these comment are also available to help the helpers.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    I would strike that, as based on the talkpage, no "long and deep history" of attacks exists on that page. It's recommended you not take parting potshots like this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree and I do clearly see that history. I also hardly see it as a 'potshot' rather than a statement of fact.
    But you are correct about end comments, based on what they are meant to convey, not including statements in that vein. So, I struck that. This dispute here is done. The Squicks (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done, for taking that back Squicks. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    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:Arcayne

    I've had major problems with this editor in the past and don't normally bother to report people, but this edit is particularly troublesome, both with the content (restoring Urban Dictionary as a source for a definition of a term, etc.) and the edit comment ("undo - thanks, but your input isn't really sought here. Please stay away"). This editor first started this kind of behavior years back, and it's about time he learns that that kind of behavior is unacceptable here. DreamGuy (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the edit summary was inappropriate, and I've left the user a message. I suggest now replying to his well-posed question at the talk page. If focusing on content doesn't work, then we'll try something else. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I left the message I did because I started and populated that article, and - fully aware of how his aberrant edits would be perceived - did them anyway. It goes without saying that he didn't bother to address the article discussion on this very topic. He's been advised by many administrators to simply stay away from those articles wherein I edit. I think that also covers article I start. That he and I have had major difficulties in the past is a pretty good sign to stay the hell away. It's one of the major reasons I've avoided editing in practically every article he contributes to, knowing that others will fix whatever damage he makes to an article. DG, actively pursuing contrary edits with a combative intent is baiting, and deserves being slapped with a steel-plated trout. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear that neither of you can be the good editors you are when you're around each other, so stop being around each other. Unless there is an immediate and compelling reason to step in and revert an edit, let someone else do it, no matter how bad you think the edit is or how long it takes for someone else to take notice. At the very least, any and all communication between, among and around the two of you should be completely by the book without the slightest hint of the baiting and biting that's now going on. Flowanda | Talk 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=297710619"