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

Monarchist editors ignoring capitalization rules

Monarchist editors such as G2bambino and Bastin8 routinely capitalize common nouns having to do with the monarchy in defiance of English grammar. When I recently tried to correct Commonwealth Realms they wouldn't even take the evidence of Buckingham Palace's own Web site that the word "realm" should not be capitalized in this context. I'm exasperated beyond words. Their own Queen doesn't capitalize "Commonwealth realm," but that isn't evidence enough for them. I don't know what to do. I'm outnumbered by people with an agenda. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue is currently under discussion, with many more parties involved, at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, staring at Requested move. --G2bambino 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past

Resolved

I run into this user quite frequently. It's difficult for me to list him, as he's obviously not a vandal and it appears he has the Wiki's best interests in mind. However, he is known for being stubborn, and sometimes downright abusive when he disagrees with another user.

As one example, he's taken a one-man crusade to remove "Zero Suit Samus" from the Super Smash Bros. (series) page, despite the consensus leaning to her staying on the list. He mas made many edits over the past three days to remove this information, but is careful not to remove it three times in the same day (every time he does, it's reverted quickly, and usually by a different user than before.) He claims that to remove it is in line the "no original research" rule, but the primary argument for inclusion is categorization on the game's official site.

He has also been known to yell at users, make sarcastic comments, claim other users are lying, and attempt to oust the decisions of administators when consensus doesn't appear to be going his way.

Thank you for your time, HeroicJay 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to this, he has now started harassing me (to note, I never advocated what he claimed I did in that edit.) --HeroicJay 00:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this. I see the patterns in the diffs you mentioned, and it does appear that User:A Link to the Past has been rather uncivil at times. I'd suggest leaving a note in his Talk page asking for discussion on the matter, and if he agrees, please participate in a civil discussion with suggestions on how to improve the atmosphere in those articles. If this ends up only causing more trouble, we can attempt to intervene for mediation, or we can refer you to other steps in the dispute resolution process, such as informal or formal mediation.

Just as a note, I don't believe that LTTP was attempting to harass you when he posted to your Talk page recently. His approach did seem very direct, but I didn't see anything in it that seemed to indicate a desire to harass you. Having exchanged with him myself, I believe he was honestly interested in discussing the matter, and that your response to him might have been a little hostile (though I don't think you violated any policies either). Not sure what I can suggest to change that situation at this point, though.

If we can be of any more help, let us know. Thanks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever had a personal...skirmish...with him, but I HAVE noticed him popping up a LOT in disputes, often about naming things, and usually on the low end of consensus if anyone agrees with him at all -- and almost always takes the stance that his opinion is correct and noone else is wrong. I had looked through his talk page a bit (before I saw this page) and saw he's been blocked for being diruptive, 3RR, etc. a number of times. I've also noted him making some weird edits (like removing Wikiproject templates from pages even after they are added back) that, again, seem to be geared toward him wanting things done his way no matter what. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are stalking me to dig up dirt on me, huh? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Link, the diffs that were posted in the original alert do show a disruptive pattern. The purpose of this page is to bring disruptive behavior to the attention of non-admin people who are willing to try to resolve disputes and give neutral advice. We'll help if we can, but keep in mind that if other editors feel you are continuing to be disruptive after this WQA has been given time to settle, they will be referred to stronger forms of dispute resolution, including formal mediation, Request for Comment on User, the Admin Noticeboard, and/or binding arbitration. This is not a warning from me, per se - just some advice. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

HeroicJay was quite difficult in that discussion. Everytime I made the slightest attempt to make the point that just because Zero Suit Samus is filed under the Characters cat (the ONLY place she could have been filed), it doesn't mean that she is considered by the developers to be as much of a character in the game as Mario or Link. Whenever I brought up the point that they've filed updates under odd categories before (such as calling a description of control types and naming "Game Modes") he called it irrelevant. It gets very annoying when someone refuses to acknowledge a quality argument that shows the smashbros. site useful in this argument, as it doesn't clearly group her as a playable character, but rather chooses to file her under the only applicable category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you over the topic here, and I'm not discussing it any further here either. I brought up that one example as an example, and additionally the most recent one, but I've witnessed or participated in disagreements with you before. Anyone who wants to see that argument should look on the appropriate page rather than take either one of our words alone. --HeroicJay 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is far more than my bad attitude, it's the way you irritatingly attempted to denounced my arguments at several intervals. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not much to say except that he's ignored messages that I've sent him on his Talk page frequently. When I raised this with him, he says that he's at liberty to respond whenever he wants (although I doubt he would have ever responded). He seems to respond swiftly when there's an argument against him though — it's a shame that he doesn't bother when things are on amicable terms. His work covers a lot of the WP:CVG; it's just a shame that it's so hard to communicate with a major contributor. A little trivial, I know. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivial and harassing. All you're doing is following me around for the purpose of whining that I didn't respond to something that I wasn't invigorated into participating with at the moment. Seriously, stop. I'm less inclined to discuss ANYTHING with you after you've systematically fought and complained about my not responding to your post. I respond to criticisms because people directly criticizing me or discussing something controversial is about infinitely of higher priority than moving an article. Now STOP. You'll probably then complain about my response to you, but I won't care. I choose to reply whenever I want, and I expect to NOT be harassed for doing so. Just like ANY Wikipedian. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

←The most important key in situations like this is to not take things personally. Some editors like to talk about their work and some don't. Some are gruff and some are pleasant. There are - of course - times when it really is necessary to discuss edits. If the edits seems to go against consensus, or are questionable according to the core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV, then you can follow the method of WP:BRD, and WP:CONSENSUS. If you find yourself in a situation like that, discuss it on the article talk page. At that point if an editor refuses to respond to the discussion, there could be a problem - but it might not be incivility, it might be disruptive editing, ie WP:DISRUPT.

At this time though, it doesn't seem that is happening. If it is, please provide specific diffs to show disruptive editing. Otherwise, if it's just a situation where User:A Link to the Past does not like to discuss edits on his talk page, that's frustrating but it's not necessarily a policy violation.

I suggest that you focus on the content of the edits. If you don't agree with his edits, discuss on the article talk page, not his user talk page. If he does not respond, you can revert the edits you don't consense. If he reverts them back again, then ask again to discuss on the article talk page. Also, discuss with other editors, and ask them to help with the edits, per consensus. Eventually, if he edits against consensus, you might need further WP:DISPUTE resolution procedures.

If as you say, he is continually skirting the 3RR rule, that can also be considered disruptive. An editor that makes three reverts to the same topic every day, with multiple editors doing the opposing reverts could be considered to be violating 3RR even if technically it's not in one day. If it happens several days in a row and there is consensus against the 3 daily reversions, then it would be appropriate to report that at WP:AN/3RR. If you do report it there though, have your diffs and examples very carefully organized, and include comments from the multiple consensus editors making the complaint so that it's clear it's not just a two person edit war.

But if he is not editing disruptively and just happens to not like to talk about stuff on his talk page, well maybe that's just how he is and it could be best to let it go. Focus on the content, not the editor. Have a thick skin, let the annoying edit summary comments bounce off. If they become seriously rude or extreme, or if the editing becomes disruptive, then let us know and we can try to help. For now though, don't let it get you down. If I've missed something important, please let me know. --Parzival418 _Hello 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I like to respond to messages on my talk page. But I am NOT able to do so in a speedy manner, and I am NOT able to respond to messages that easily, especially when I'm not THAT interested in the subject.
2. I shouldn't even be editing under the circumstances that I do - that is, I recall most of these disputes beginning earlier in the day, and on a hot Summer day too, so I was probably cranky and hot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you understand yourself well... :), we all have times like that, editing when we're tired or cranky, but at times like that we need to be extra aware of how we come across. Try to watch out for actions that others might see as edit warring, in other words, if you revert the same edit more than a couple times, then please take the time to discuss the issue - either on your own talk page or the article talk page, wherever you prefer. If you do it on your own page, at least inform the other editor(s) so they know where to discuss it with you.

In your edit summaries, it would be helpful if you consider how others will feel when they read your comments. They may not realize how fast you're editing and that those comments are just toss-offs... some may take those comments personally even if you don't intend it that way.

I think we can consider this WQA report closed, unless anyone has anything further to add. If anyone wants to continue this process, please include a specific description of what outcome you want to achieve since at this time, it's hard to see what else we can do unless there is a specific goal. One thing that may help is that if A Link to the Past appears uncivil in a discussion, you can ask him to please reply more respectufully. Mutual respect is always helpful in collaboarations, especially when everyone involved is particularly interested in a topic. And remember, don't take any of it personally, it's just words.

If no-one adds anything, we'll change the work-in-progress tag to resolved in a few days and then this section will automatically be archived after a while. Best wishes to all. --Parzival418 _Hello 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Parziva1418. I think this should be done. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock's disruptive editing pattern

Work in progress; comments welcome

Note: This issue was archived without any attempt at resolution. I have restored it back here with hope that someone will try to come to a consensus on this issue. Thanks, Caknuck 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite pleas from several editors, User:Soxrock persists using a highly disruptive method of editing articles that, while technically not against any specific policy, is disruptive and detrimental to the database as a whole. Specifically, the editor in question has been making rather minor changes to articles (typically dealing with sports statistics) as a series of several dozen tiny edits instead of one or two large edits. Several editors, including myself, have urged Soxrock to stop this primarily through the use of the "Show preview" button. We have explained that his editing style has major negative impacts on the project's servers: the server load and bandwidth required to update the pages for every single edit he submits, the clogging up of edit summaries and the wasted extra storage space required for the thousands of intermediate pages he leaves in his wake. None of this has dissuaded him from this pattern.

For specific examples of this behavior, please see the following diffs:

1. [1] — List of managers for the Cincinnati Reds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 218 consecutive edits over the course of 27 1/2 hours.
2. [2] — 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 47 consecutive edits over the course of 14 hours.
3. [3] — 1961 American Football League Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 250 edits (plus 5 edits from another editor who was trying to demonstrate how to accomplish the same amount of work with only a handful of edits) over the course of two days.

These are only the most egregious examples from the past week.

When confronted about this disruptive behavior, Soxrock has been alternatingly duplicitous — by saying he will change his ways (see here and here)— and indignant (as with here).

For some reason, this only seems to be problem that has surfaced in the last two months. Per my comments here, I think that Soxrock has a bad case of editcountitis. (See here for Soxrock's edit count and edit summary usage.) What we need to impress upon him is that in the long run, he is doing more harm than good as far as the project goes.

Thanks, Caknuck 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(←)I think the reason no-one responded when you posted this previously is that it does not seem to be an issue of civility or editing disputes. Now all the information is almost a month old, so it does not seem like a situation needing immediate attention. Considering that Wikipedia has millions of articles and something like 75,000 editors, plus high-speed editing bots doing maintenance and cleanup, I don't think his edit count is significantly burdening the servers.

What is it that's bothering you about this? Is he violating WP:CIVIL and causing trouble to you personally, or to another editor in particular? Is he inserting material in the articles that does not conform to WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS, or WP:NPOV? If any of that is happening, please provide some specific examples so we can take a look.

But if he's just editing fast, why is that bad? Think about how many edits bots make every day, where they add things like tag dates and other minor corrections to templatges. Those must create many times more pages than the editor you are reporting. If you think I'm wrong about that, you could post a request at the Village Pump (Technical) and I'm sure you'd get a quick reply to the tech question. If his edits are vandalism, that's different and would be an important issue. If so, we can refer you to where to report that.

Also, I reviewed his talk page and he seems to have productive and civil editing relationships. Please clarify what you're looking for here. I don't mean to make light of your report, I just don't understand why you see this as a problem. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even get this all. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil comments after editing Politico-media complex

Stuck

User:Dsmith1usa and I are in a little dispute over at Politico-media complex and the user has become rather aggressive and rude with these two comments [4], [5] after I removed some of his additions which I feel are unsubstantiated in the sources provided, suffer from weasel words and border on original research and afford undue weight to one commentator. Appreciate some sort of input to keep the discussion focussed on the content. Steve block Talk 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a response in the article Talk requesting that the "The Editor known as Block" section be removed, as it's a clear violation of WP:NPA. I invited both of you to continue any discussion about your personal dispute here, and we'll attempt to mediate as best as possible, but I also advised that the personal dispute should be taken off of the article Talk and either to here or to one of your User Talk pages. Hope this helps. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It either will or it won't. It looks like it is still meandering along a diatribe path, but thanks for the input. I'm pretty much just treading through the processes, to be honest. Steve block Talk 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the discussion again, and it appears Dsmith is still making this a very personal argument there. I noted that your side of the argument has remained civil - good job! Dsmith, on the other hand, appears to be treading on thin ice with respect to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:POINT, and he seems to feel that he's entitled to warn the rest of the community about your "hypocrisy", despite what policies he might be violating by doing so. If he continues after further advice, I'll refer you both to mediation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, it's appreciated. Steve block Talk 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made several attempts to help defuse the situation on that talk page, but it is clear to me that Dsmith1usa is not interested in mediation - he has, instead, continued the dispute directly in the article talk page and has resorted to violating WP:NPA even after several warnings. I can't do anything more in this situation - I left him a warning in his User Talk page with a specific diff that violated the policy. Depending on his response to the warning, I would refer you to either a more formal mediation step, Request For Comment on User, or the Admin Noticeboard. (I noticed that you yourself are an admin, and I applaud your effort to work this out through the normal channels rather than taking this into your own hands.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Dsmith has made a number of very wordy (to the point of being almost unreadable) comments in my own Talk page criticizing my attempts to facilitate discussion. Among other things, he has (or at least I think he has) stated that WP's Consensus policy is flawed, and he has referred to a number of people as "Wikipedia Equestrians" - I took his manner to mean the typical "aristocracy/tyranny of the majority" argument that frequently comes up in one-against-many situations. In any event, I maintain that he does not appear to be willing to work constructively in this situation, and he apparently refuses to do anything about the personal attacks that still exist in the article Talk. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by user Fyslee

Stale

Please help. Fyslee keeps inserting personal attacks on me in article discussion pages. I have placed a series of NPA warning templates and he has either ignored or removed the templates and replaced them with more personal attacks.

• My removal - Here I am removing a post where he is demonstrating a personal grudge he has against me because I didn't take his side on his ArbCom.
• Here he makes more comments, some of which are fine, but most of which are personal attacks on me. I removed the personal attacks here and here.
• Fyslee restored the comments here and then I re-removed them [6]
• Please note that all along, I have been placing warning templates on Fyslee's take page - [7], [8], and [9].
• Fyslee ignored these templates by continuing to post and restore personal attacks on me. He also removed these warning templates and replaced them with more personal attacks.
• As I am typing this, Fyslee placed another attack on my talk page. Well, this one seems a little more congenial - as if he is offering me advice - but I think it is clear that his intention here is to enflame. Please review the result of Fyslee's RfA and note that he has a history of personal attacks.

I am not going to presume to suggest a remedy, but please note that Fyslee has been warned many times about this kind of behavior both prior to and after his RfA. I would like to see this behavior end as I feel he adds a level of combativeness to already tense talk pages which makes it impossible to resolve any content disputes. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Levine. After reviewing your diffs and the RfA, I believe that this situation is probably being inflamed from both sides. I haven't done an in-depth review of the article in question, so I can't make any judgements or comments on whose edits are POV or what not. But to my eye (and without knowing a large amount of the history here), I'd say that you both have some valid points and are both kind of at each other's throats in this matter. So I have a little advice for you, and I will attempt to give some advice to him as well:

• • First, regardless of WP:NPA, it is generally not a good idea to remove or edit other users' comments on Talk pages when a dispute arises. This only tends to aggravate the situation, and from Fyslee's point of view, you are likely partially invalidating his points. I'm not endorsing his statements directed at you, but I believe a more appropriate way to respond to them is to address the content only, and to politely ask the other editor to remove the personal statements from his comments and leave them out of the discussion in the future.
  • Second, remember that when editors address one another directly on each other's talk pages, some are much more direct and blunt than others. I personally feel that Fyslee's recent comment to you on your Talk page is borderline on WP:CIVIL - he has some decent points in his message, but he also appears to be rejecting your attempts to notify him of his behavior. I don't think there's much more you can do in that particular situation other than to respond politely to him.
  • Third, if a content dispute continues over whether his or your version of the Stephen Barrett article should stay (and which one violates WP:NPOV), I would refer to the results of any previous arbitration (and request enforcement if applicable and appropriate), or go through the Article RfC process, formal mediation, or arbitration as a last resort.

It is all too easy for editors to confuse criticism of one another's content with personal attacks on the editor's character or the validity of his comments. I'd advise both of you to remember that you each have different points of view on this matter, and while you may not agree with each other, both of your POVs are valid. That does not mean that they are both necessarily correct or in compliance with policies and guidelines, but they are worth considering and discussing, and it is up to the broader community to come to consensus as to what should be in the article, as well as to ensure that policies are being obeyed. I will advise Fyslee that his statements toward you have been, in my opinion, unnecessarily harsh and personal, and that your point of view is no less valid than his. I hope that will help to settle things. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It should go without saying (to those who are familiar with Levine2112's tactics) that he is having these same problems with other editors as well (they react to his provocations and baiting) and his feigned innocense and feigned civility is an old pattern which those who edit alongside him see through. His contentiousness and continual revert warring and (unpunished) 4rr violations are tiring and we aren't superhuman. His tactics have obviously irritated some of us and instead of accepting our advice and the opportunity to "see himself as others see him," he starts bombing us with warning templates, which is itself an attack which only inflames the situation. I too am tired of the situation.

As a strong supporter of a banned user, he was earlier exposed during an RfArb as a poor researcher who tried to mislead the ArbComs with false and carelessly researched linkspamming charges against me. His charges were totally picked apart (but he didn't get punished for it), yet he still tries to attack me and bait me. Now, instead of trying to defuse the situation by talking calmly to us, he misuses our talk pages and this board. If he considers himself man enough to dish it out, then he should be able to take care of things himself. I only discovered his provocative warnings on my user page at a late date, so to speak, and found them quite disrespectful, yet I didn't bomb his talk page with disrespectful attacks in the form of warning templates, which should be reserved for newbies and not used on other experienced editors. Such actions are his way of baiting and inflaming others and he's done it before. I prefer to tell him to his face and I have left a message explaining how I feel about his actions. It is an explanation, but of course he will interpret it as an attack. Adults should be able to talk together honestly.

He apparently has no idea how strongly his treatment of others affects them. Because we know him after a couple years, we can see straight through his seemingly civil way of twisting and wording things, but we aren't fooled. Others may be, but we know him too well.

I have not restored his last deletions. If he will be more careful and respectful in how he treats me and refers to me I will certainly be more careful in how I respond to him. I didn't start this and have no intention of finishing it either. I only responded after repeated provocations and this is not my best hour. I shouldn't have taken the bait and will be more careful in the future. After a couple years of this, it's hard to really know what he means sometimes, since the pattern og baiting and false politeness has been established for so long. If he is changing tactics and would like to start assuming good faith for once, I'd like to do the same.

I have just read KieferSkunk comments above and find them very useful and wise. I will try to do my best to improve my interactions with Levine2112. Thanks. -- Fyslee/talk 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your words and wisdom here. KieferSkunk. Thanks. I sincerely this helps improve all of our experiences here a Wikipedia. (I regret however that Fyslee's comments above are patently untrue and continue to enflame the situation.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, accusations and defenses are probably not going to help the matter any more. I'm not going to be able to review each of your histories to validate each other's claims, but I'd advise you both to step back and take some time off from the articles in which you both are participating. Go back in with a cool head after a couple of days or so, discuss the issues neutrally, and see what comes of the discussions then. Again, also consider using Article RFC if you're still unable to work it out or if you have trouble getting other editors involved to discuss the matter. Thanks, and good luck. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I regret that Levine2112 fails to assume good faith and accept that I have expressed things as I see them and that's my POV. I am not attempting to mislead anyone. That's just the way I see things and he needs to accept that his actions and long-standing pattern of editing and way of referring to myself and other users with opposing POV has caused feelings in other persons that he may not have intended, and apparently does not understand. That indicates he needs to be more sensitive, and..... so do I! I am not perfect nor any saint.

I accept the advice above and will try to defuse the situation as best I can. -- Fyslee/talk 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It does need to be noted that Levine is a bit tag happy and, seemingly, rather than resolving any issues, would rather take offense at almost any comment. But rather than actually being offended, he seems more interested in generating enough warnings to then come here as a victim. It should be noted that he has (on his talk page) expressed a liking to this sort of behaviour, of which I find very disappointing as it only suggests that he is editing to be disruptive (trolling), which leads to other editors (myself included) being frustrated, commenting, and having Levine slap a NPA tag on our talk pages. This is happening with a group of editors, and it does need to be asked, why does a group of editors have problems with a single editor that he feels he needs to continually ask "NPA". I would suggest that his behaviour needs to be examined. Shot info 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Has a Checkuser request User RFC (use this before going to Checkuser) been filed for this situation? If not, you may want to consider doing so. That would be a good way to deal with the situation if the consensus among the article editors is that Levine's behavior is out of line. Flame-baiting is definitely not acceptable behavior, but WQA is not really the place to assess if this is what he or anyone else is doing. All we can do here is to help resolve disputes, but it seems that this situation may be beyond the scope of WQA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, there has been some discussion about the formal process, but I (for one) do not prefer this path after being dragged into the ArbCom described by Fyslee above (and I wasn't even involved). So I am cautious about the formal processes. Nevertheless, a RfC has been discussed and I think you might be correct in recommended this. Thanks for your time. Shot info 23:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Shot info has also been personally attacking in conjunction with Fyslee. In fact I was almost going to report him here with Fyslee, but I thought Shot info had ceased this behavior. Apparently I was wrong. Please see here for the warning templates I have placed on Shot info's talk page and fromt here you can see what remarks of his I was responding too. Again, I am not presuming to propose a remedy here. I just wish this kind of incivility would stop. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Even just before Shot info posted here, you can see how he even uses edit summaries in an attempt to enflame me. [10] This needs to stop. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sighhh, it just never stops... Shot info 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Levine, it doesn't look to me like Shot's comment (which you posted a diff for) or the edit summary was a personal attack against you at all. This is starting to look like a many-to-one situation here, in which other editors believe you are flame-baiting and trolling, getting them to respond in an uncivil manner, and then reporting them for policy violations. I'm seeing more evidence of that now that I look back in the histories. Nobody here is blameless, but I think you should step back (as I mentioned earlier) and consider a change in your tactics.

NPA templates in user talk pages should be used with care. Please do not overuse them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary of recent actions: I followed up on Shot Info's Talk page and provided some guidance on the apparently overused NPA templates there. Brief argument ensued there in which both Shot Info and I asked Levine2112 to disengage. No further discussion occurred there. I also have not seen any new arguments between Levine and Fyslee. I have not been following the original article(s) where the arguments started, but last I saw, it appeared that all parties had disengaged from arguing with one another. Perhaps we're back to where we should be now. I'll give this a couple more days before marking as Resolved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stale: There have been no additional comments on this WQA in close to two weeks now. I have not been monitoring the individual users, so I don't know if there are any additional issues that pertain to this alert. I'm marking as Stale, but if anyone involved in the case has any additional information, you are more than welcome to add it here. I'll change the status as appropriate, if necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from DreamGuy

Repeated incvility toward multiple other users from DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). A quick look at his edit summary should show a number of them. Here are some examples: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]

Reported by IPSOS (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For whatever my opinion's worth, both of you could use a dose of WP:AGF. The two of you have clearly had a number of policy disagreements, but I think the real problem here is that both of you are convinced - without evidence that I have seen -that the other is acting in bad faith. If the two of you intend to continue editing the same articles, I'd suggest making use of WP:RFC in order to have some further light shed on the policy disagreements themselves. As for WP:CIVIL, I don't think most of the edit summaries to which you link violate the policy, although the wording is often slightly more belligerent than necessary (a by-product, in my view, of the lack of assumption of good faith that seems to pervade your wiki-relationship).

Good luck! Sarcasticidealist 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also took a look at these diffs, and I'm not convinced that this was the right response. Sarcasticidealist seems to assume that all the diffs came from encounters with the reporting user: they did not, but show a broad pattern of aggressiveness with multiple users. Here's a sampling of edit comments on user talk pages demonstrating the larger problem here:

1. 18:12, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:70.53.254.98 (←Created page with '==Spam== Do not bother trying to sneak spam links into the body of articles or into templates, as those edits will just be reverted on site. Before editing here yo...') (top)
2. 18:02, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Calling somebody a liar is a personal attack - not if it's true... who are all these nobodies showing up planting false warnings? geez, it's like they got together and planned it) (top)
3. 02:30, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (response to person trying to not take credit for the edits he/she clearly made which were inaccurate)
4. 01:02, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (untrue.... it's been well established that editors are free to remove harassing comments and to warn people to ; certain editors -- yourself included -- have firmly demonstrated ill will)
5. 00:56, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Please assume good faith -you're banned from this talk page, and you are purposefully leaving comments you know to be harassing and false warnings, go away or you will be blocked)
6. 00:48, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→WP:LAYOUT - false warning from harasser... LAYOUT supported my edits until some peoplpe took it upon themselves to edit that page to be wrong)
7. 23:42, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (removing whole section, as it's been nothing but an excuse for editors with harassment on their mind to complain and whine and try to work me up... go read policy and comma rules, save everyone's time)
8. 23:19, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Comma in Adobe Photoshop - response to attacks by harassing editor)
9. 22:48, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Comma in Adobe Photoshop - explaning... and would the banned editor stop causing edit conflicts... nobody asked you, and you know you are banned, so go away)
10. 18:28, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→FYI - yet another lie from the harassing problem editor who was told never to post here again)
11. 00:41, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them)
12. 20:57, 25 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dicklyon (False warnings, and harassment, AGAIN)
13. 20:52, 25 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Final vandalism warning - removing false vandalism warning... read the freaking vandalism policy already, and stop putting nonsense here solely to try to bully me)

GlassFET 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. I opened a case on DreamGuy on WP:AN/I a few days ago, too, not for the incivility so much but for the disruptive editing against consensus and the lying edit summaries when he does. It would be good if some admin who is not involved would take a look there and propose a resolution; too many people seem to be involved with him, so nobody makes a decision about what to do, if anything. Dicklyon 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:jebbrady (and puppet?) versus WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, etc.

Work in progress; comments welcome

Even without a specific example for each charge, this list of particulars is unfortunately long. However, this is at least the third attempt an editor has made to get an effective intervention in this situation before getting tired and moving on. A comprehensive intervention seems to be the only way the Herbert W. Armstrong biography will ever be permitted to contain basic biographical data for more than fifteen minutes. These are the problems with Jebbrady at Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong and the article's history page:

• He may be in violation of WP:SOCK, as apparently one individual uses two identities, user:jebbrady and an anonymous identity located at 69.115.162.235. (This is being reported to Wiki's sockpuppet investigators).
• He has apparently been blocked for misbehavior regarding this article before, see User_talk:Jebbrady, but still has not conformed with Wikiquette in any of the discussions on the article's talk page. The Armstrong talk page also shows that someone sought the third-party opinion option, which has had no impact on him at all.
• He has violated WP:OWN by demonstrating vigorous ownership of Herbert W. Armstrong and related articles on Armstrong's associates and splinter churches. See the article's history page and then see the edit/contrib histories for both identities in the links given in the sockpuppet bullet above. He also asserts the right to control what sources editors are permitted to use: "As a history grad, I know how citations can and are abused. I'm not accepting the use of web sources--I'm sorry".
• He violates WP:NPOV when he repeatedly deletes even innocuous material (e.g., that HWA was married twice and had four children, cited to a mainstream source; that the divorce was a difficult one, cited to four sources, including TIME magazine). See the most recent example. He permits no material at all from sources of which he disapproves, ranging from mainstream news outlets to webpages or books critical of the subject of this biographical article. He refuses to allow even an internal wikilink to a fuller explanation of one of Armstrong's key beliefs, Anglo-Israelism, see diff. His determined censorship over a period of months deprives Wiki users of the most basic, routine family info about the biographical subject, much less the significant controversies and schisms in which Armstrong was involved.
• He violates WP:VERIFY by deleting sourced material without explanation, while failing to replace, augment, or contrast it with sourced material to the contrary.
• His violations of WP:NPA are too numerous to recite; please see anywhere on Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong. Aside from imputing dire motives to everyone he's interacted with on the talk page, there's another problem. According to the NPA policy, "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored." His statement "If any Wikipedia editor cares to debate here the appropriatenes of relying on Time magazine when it comes to American religious groups (read "Christians"), the Bible, or social issues, they'll get their clock cleaned." in his response to Wiki admin Andre is almost certainly not meant as an actual physical threat. However, it demonstrates the level of perspective and maturity he brings to the discussion. The legal threats he makes re a church group suing for libel are apparently directed at Wikipedia itself rather than at individual editors, but are meant to silence and intimidate. See, e.g., here and here.
• More than once, he has violated WP:SKILL by asserting that other editors are incompetent, unscholarly (search the talk page for "sholarly" and "sholarship"), and unprofessional (search the talk page for "unprofessinal"), etc., because he disagrees with their choice of sources or their attempt to include any POV from any source not entirely congruent with his own. He repeatedly cites his undergraduate degree in history as the reason he knows best, and as the reason he has the expertise to overrule all other contributors.
• He routinely violates WP:EQ. He often fails to sign his Talk page comments, does not bother with the indentation protocols, and more than once, has put his entire lengthy comments in bold to dominate the discussion. He does not provide edit summaries on any of his edits.
• His violations of WP:GF are demonstrated by his attacks on every person who has responded to anything he has said on the Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong page. Please note his declaration that courtesy is proof of bad faith. He made a similar accusation on that page in December of 2006 against User:RelHistBuff.
• He violates WP:CIVIL by being sarcastic, denigrating, overwhelmingly prolix and tangential, and sometimes perverse, as in his accusations that courtesy is a sly ruse. He responded this week to an admin's one-sentence affirmation of TIME Magazine as a mainstream source with a with a nine-line diatribe concluding with a threat.

I don't know how to resolve conflicts with someone with a multiple-incident record of conflict resolution failures and an abiding belief that the use of courtesy is a nefarious bad-faith strategy. Help. Lisasmall 13:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for completeness, the previous block that you can see a discussion of on User_talk:Jebbrady can be seen in the block log of a different IP account, 67.80.157.45 (talk · contribs · logs). There are also some warnings still visible in the Talk page of that IP. This account is in addition to the IP mentioned above, 69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs · logs). EdJohnston 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Update ten days after filing this WP:WQA:

• on the sockpuppet situation, see two admin interventions on User_talk:Jebbrady. The second intervention occurred after I told the admin handling the situation that Jebbrady had added yet another IP address, evading the block the admin put on one of the IP sockpuppets. Since I thought Jebbrady was making at least some effort towards identifying himself, I asked the admin if he could handle it informally instead of leveling additional formal charges, and the admin kindly did so.
• However, even after two warnings from the admin handling the sockpuppet report, Jebbrady still will not cooperate with the tilde signature protocol, and is manually typing in a "sig." While this cures the identity problem, it continues to aggravate the user history problem for anyone working on this WP:WQA by spreading his activity over multiple IP's plus his regular account named Jebbrady. He will not log in consistently, which would provide a comprehensive, coherent record of his contribs and deletions no matter what IP he is using.
• on the WP:EQ issue above, he's still having problems with signatures and still does not provide edit summaries (see Edit Summary Tool). However, he has agreed to use the colon-indentation protocol on talk pages, and to stop using bold for his entire posts. If he adheres to this agreement, it's improvement.
• on the WP:CIVIL issues, they seem to be staying the same or getting worse, still repeatedly engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT after an admin has told him, twice, that TIME magazine is a reliable source, and lapsing into WIKI:LAWYER more frequently than before. He continues to assume bad faith, use provocative and insulting language, and issue what he calls "challenges." Also, despite correction from EdJohnston and a request from me, he continues to try to spread the conflict to individual user pages instead of keeping it on the article page.

This situation is not resolved yet, but EdJohnston has been working on it, and other Wikipedians have contributed too; thank you, please keep trying. This case is still active and should not be archived yet. -- Lisasmall 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to additional comments to this Wikiquette alert. I have had horrendous problems with this user. I originally had a fairly neutral version of this article which I was working on in October 2006. User jebbrady started editing it at the end of that month. I tried to reason with him but he could only bring in his POV, continuing to revert all my suggested changes. In December, as seen in the article's talk page, I asked for a third opinion to resolve the dispute amicably. Even with the support of the third opinion, User:Amatulic (see the diff here), jebbrady refused to cooperate. I decided to not take it up any further and let him keep the article in its current degenerate state. This is a terrible weakness in Wikipedia. A controversial article on a well known topic has the possibility of getting something resolved. Something less well known is left in a terrible state in the hands of a POV warrior who has a lot of free time on his hands. I would like to get this article out of the "ownership" of jebbrady and back under the control of Wikipedia editors in general. Some kind of intervention is requested. --RelHistBuff 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update after 10 more days: WP:CIVIL is still a major issue. Editors who provided cited material were chided for not citing existing text (that he put in) instead. When an editor condensed his references to multiple points in the same chapter to a single <ref name> tag followed by other references to the same, he accused him of deleting his cited material. He repeatedly puts down a user who has chosen not to sign up for an account, calling him a "masked marauder" on one occasion. Also, I'm not "allowed" to summarize his multi-screen screeds into something that's actually readable: he reverted me twice, taking out parts of someone else's comment in the process, before he was told by EdJohnston that I could summarize if I wanted to.

As far as formatting issues go, he'll put in a pretty-much-random number of comments to indent his text, and he signs at the top and bottom. If he signs as an anon, he may come back days later and re-sign as Jebbrady, changing the timestamp radically. He recently moved a talk page section that he felt had gotten lost in the middle of the page, and changed the timestamps on it.

I have asked him to set the preference that reminds him about missing edit summaries: he apparently hasn't bothered, and he doesn't seem to be using the preview button, either, which leads to long chunks of Jebbrady (or one of his IPs) in the edit history.

This is starting to look like RFC territory to me.--SarekOfVulcan 13:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that he's still using two different IP addresses, 69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs) and 208.253.158.36 (talk · contribs), in addition to his registered account. 24.6.65.83 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tezza1 disruptive editing pattern

User:Tezza1 persists using disruptive editing Railpage Australia. The user is strongly anti the subject of the article, has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in an AfD. The AfD decision having been keep, the user engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedic content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedic content. Further actions include repeatedly adding and restoring unencyclopedic content, demands not to remove unencyclopedic content, accusations of COI for anybody adding new information to the article, threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added, unilateral reverts of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version, agenda pushing, WP:POINT and listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected. The Null Device 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Null. I am looking over the edit history and am responding to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1. I see clear evidence of numerous policy violations by this user, as well as possible sockpuppetry. I believe that, for the most part, you and the other editors in that article have remained civil and have kept the discussion on topic, and for that you should be commended. I did leave a note in the Talk page against one set of comments that stepped over the line with respect to WP:NPA, but otherwise, I agree with your assertion about Tezza1's disruptive patterns.

If the RFC/U against Tezza1 fails to resolve the conflict, your next step may be to take this to Arbitration. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it sounds like you all have taken reasonable steps to resolve this issue already, and they haven't worked thus far.

Good luck, and let me know if I may be of any further assistance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, It's a content dispute about a commercially owned site passing itself off as something else.I've only said it should be encyclopedic. As it stands parts of the article could be considered as spam WP:SPAM. As for the user The Null Device, he is only a recent participant (from 23rd July) in editing this article [22], no doubt because I submitted the article for independent Peer Review on the 19th July as his flood of edits occurred after 23rd of July which I consider was a blocking strategy. My complaints about this users editing "flood" and report to the COI noticeboard, probably explains why he posted his complaint here. This user has yet to follow the first three steps of the dispute resolution guidelines [23]Tezza1 13:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to respond to this point by point:

1. There is a longer history between you and other editors on that page than has involved Null Device - this is true. However, it appears that Null Device is simply continuing the dispute resolution process against you that was taken up by previous editors - therefore, he is not required to go through other methods first. Plus, WQA is actually listed as one of the first dispute resolution methods anyway, so I need to ask, what's the problem with what he's doing?
2. COI is a serious allegation - almost as serious as harassment and libel. As such, you need to have significant proof that a person is in a conflict-of-interest situation when you go to report them to the COI noticeboard. Given what I was able to see in the situation, you've leveled this accusation against quite a few people in the Railpage article, and that seriously detracts from our ability to assume that you're editing in good faith.
3. As has been pointed out multiple times, whether a site is owned by a commercial company has no bearing on the site's own profitability status. Non-profit organizations are very frequently owned and overseen by commercial companies, but that does not automatically make them for-profit, commercial organizations. I don't know the specifics about Railpage Australia, so I can't speak to this particular situation from a content standpoint.
4. It appears that there is a strong consensus among other WP editors there, and you appear to be consistently rejecting that consensus, resorting to WP:NPA and accusations of WP:COI in an attempt to discredit those editors. I would strongly advise that you stop going along that route.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Null Device has been a participant since March, not 23 July.[24][25] The article is not considered WP:SPAM as it has been nominated for {{db-spam}} on several occasions (including by Tezza1[26]) and this was rejected by administrators. His actions display many of the characteristics of problem editors. The COI accusation against the regular editors of a page he actively campaigned to get deleted is bordering on harassment. This seems like a campaign to discredit not just the regular editors but anybody who doesn't agree with him, including Wikipedia itself. He did not take the RFC seriously, described the dispute process as "BS"[27] and did not accept the offer of mediation. Thin Arthur 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I have to repeat yet again that the so-called "flood" of edits were collectively a series of collaborative bold edits taking into the account the collective opinions expressed in the then most recent AfD debate and on the talk page. Tezza1 then unilaterally reverted these reliably sourced changes. To quote WP:TE, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption."[28] That is the basis of this WQA. The Null Device 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment In response to KieferSkunk coments.

1. Maybe someone can jump into recent discussion and lead the dispute resolution process. I'm not an Wikipedia expert in this, but one administrator has said this was premature and other had the The Null Device withdraw [29][30].
2. Yes COI is a serious allegation, but recent edits and discussion about technical details is more than a passing interest in the article. It's more than "the average man in the street would know" or be of interest to.[31][32]
3. True, many commercial organizations have "non profit" ventures. But the difference here is that it is usually the norm to set up an separate transparent structure such as a trust and register for non profit status under Federal and State Government laws. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [33]. An example of a commercial organisation setting up a non-profit venture is Ronald McDonald Charities [34] - interesting to note they have an "written like an advertisement" tag in their article (03 Aug). I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [35]. To this date they have not. Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [36] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [37] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[38]. ALL this discussion, just for ONE box [[39]]in the top right hand corner of the article!!!!
4. I consider the number of active "contributors" in the Railpage article could be counted on one hand.

Tezza1 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot respond directly to point #3, as it involves more detailed information about Railpage Australia than I have handy. But I'll respond to the Wikiquette issues:

2: There is a difference between being well-informed and having a conflict of interest. Let me give you another example: I am heavily involved in WikiProject Video games, and I have made a lot of edits of a highly technical nature to many of the game articles within that project. I have what you can call much more than a "passing interest" and "street-level knowledge" about many of those games and the machines they run on. However, that does not automatically mean I have a Conflict of Interest in those articles, as I do not work for any of the companies that made those games (I did work as a tester on Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, so there's POSSIBLY a remote COI there, but not within the scope of WP's policies), and furthermore I have no vested interest in publishing any specialized content that only I would know about.

The editors you've accused of COI on the Talk page have all had reasonable explanations about their involvement with Railpage - namely, they are members on the Railpage forums and/or they've volunteered some of their time with the organization; they found technical details straight from the Railpage site itself or from other publicly accessible sources (in other words, the information they put up was NOT insider info); and they have made it clear that they are not intimately involved with the organization's inner workings.

4: The number of currently active contributors to the article does not have any direct bearing on the state of consensus. Looking through the history of the Railpage Australia article and related articles, I've seen more than a dozen different people contribute, and it appeared until fairly recently that they had reached a consensus on much of the article content there. Now, just because a consensus exists doesn't mean it can't be changed - WP:CON is very clear on this point. But when a consensus exists, the onus is on you to change it through meaningful, fair and balanced discussion, and what I've observed from you, Tezza1, is a tendency to simply reject the consensus and attempt to discredit the other editors, rather than to discuss the matter in a civil and fact-based manner. In effect, you have put yourself in a possible position of Conflict of Interest, but more to the point, you have made it difficult for discussion to take place there.

Again, I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were willing to comment on "commerciality" before, so why can't you make a comment now? Yes, you are correct, that I reject the "consensus" on the main point (commercial) even though I disagree strongly with some elements (not all!!) of the article, If you look at the recent history I have refrained from editing content in the actual article. The purpose of the discussion page is the discuss and debate!!!! Arguments against the consensus should be allowed even if people don't agree with a POV. As long as its non defamatory, and backed up by creditable online references, it should be allowed. Even the editing war back in March 2007 was about an incident was supported by documentary evidence (newspapers and the Railpage Forum itself), I did not originally post that information on Wikipedia, but I supported and argued its inclusion. Look at my comments on the discussion page, have I not put references and links to support my arguments?. On a closing note, to use a legalistic term, I have stepped out of the "arena" in the Railpage article, KieferSkunk, based on some comments made, you unintentionally seem to be descending into it.Tezza1 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing commerciality from a general standpoint, and simply pointing out what other editors had already said in the article. However, I am not qualified to make a judgement about whether Railpage Australia IS commercial or not. That's the distinction. And I am purposefully limiting my comments to discussing the manner in which you pursued the discussion, not the content of the discussion itself. That's all I am attempting to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged article ownership and personal attacks by User:Chrisjnelson as posted by User:Jmfangio

Stuck

 – Recommend posting an WP:RFC (Request for Comments) - see notes below

User has failed to respect the desire to discuss. He has engaged in personal attacks here and on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive. He has also aserted WP:OWN on throughout the Infobox talk page. Repeated requests for polite discussion have been ignored even with fair warning that the behavior is doing nothing but aggrivating me. The majority of the content is at the infobox talk page. Most of it is in sequential order. Both user's talk pages (that is mine and his) show signs of this as well. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I probably did make some things that would be considered personal attacks a few days back (where the profanity is). I was pretty pissed. If I have to be reprimanded for that, I'll completely understand. As for this business about ownership, I've done nothing of the kind. Given those kind of unsubstantiated claims, as well as the fact that Jmfangio was told he violated WP:3RR by an admin and still claims he did not, I question his knowledge of Wikipedia policy. And when it comes to "refusal to discuss", that's simply not true. Without dragging you into the specifics, which you can see for yourself on the infobox's talk page if you're interested, I'll tell you that Jmfangio is simply mistaken on one subject. I have proven myself and my related edits to be factually correct, and have since said I will not discuss the issue further because of this. I have done all the discussing on the issue that is necessary, and it's not my fault if he has failed to grasp it.

Like I said earlier, I'll definitely understand if I'm reprimanded for any personal attacks a few days back. I shouldn't have said some of those things and let the emotions get the best of me. That stuff is pretty much over and won't happen again, but if you want me to take some time off I can do that.►Chris Nelson 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither editor has bathed himself in glory on this matter. I have tried to provide perspective as a WP:3O and have witnessed enough intransigence to suggest that at minimum both individuals need to take a break as they have dug in their respective heels and hardened their positions. In no particular order, there have been violations relating to incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, and article ownership. The editors have effectively trammeled over informal 3rd party efforts to assist and a recent RFM was not accepted by one of the parties. Jddphd 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE Would someone who is willing to take action please get involved. This is spiraling out of control. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

←Jmfangio, after reviewing the discussions, and considering that the efforts of Jddphd and WP:3O were not well received, it does not look like we can be of assistance here with any kind of direct intervention. It's up to you and the others to stop taking things personally and discuss the content, not the editors.If the editors continue to engage each other on personal issues, no progress can be made. Chris Nelson has already apologized and that's a good start, it would be good to see an apology from you as well. Try to be extra polite to each other - beyond the politeness you would normally need, so that way, it's really clear to everyone that the discussions are done with mutual respect.

Also, it seems like there might not be enough editors working on this to form a consensus that can get past the edit warring. When there are more editors, it's easier to make a consensus because you don't have to convince any one person to change their minds, all you need is to read and follow WP:CONSENSUS.

My suggestion is to file an WP:RFC to attract more editors and seek consensus. Carefully format a description of what the dispute is about, on the template talk page, then post the link at WP:RFC (more on that follows). You could also invite editors on the talk pages of related Wikiprojects. What you need is enough editors discussing the particular question, in an organized fashion, so you can develop a clear consensus. Then ask the administrator that protected the page to review the RFC consensus and unprotect the page so the edits can be made in accordance with that consensus.

Go to WP:RFC and look at how other requests are formatted. Some are messy and some are well-done. Look for good examples and copy the way they are set up. Make sure to have separate sections for the involved editors to make their initial statements, a section for supporting references, per WP:V, and provide sub-sections for uninvolved editors to enter their comments after they review the situation. Make the link on the WP:RFC page go directly to the correct section of the talk page so visiting editors don't get distracted by all the other discussions. And, most important: when you set up the WP:RFC - absolutely avoid any discussion of editors' behavior. The Request for Comments is about the content of the template, not about the way the editors are interacting. If you go off into that stuff, it will just get messy again and you won't find the results you want. Focus on the content, don't talk about editors, be extra polite, format a clear RFC,... invite other editors to bring their comments, and then - respect and implement the consensus decision. Good luck! --Parsifal _Hello 05:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV article ownership, warning removal, and incivility

Resolved

 – AfD in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who story chronology

VitasV started an article (Doctor Who story chronology) which I felt had no potential to be anything other than an exceedingly long list that was already adequately covered elsewhere (it would include *all* the episodes and books)), so I prodded it. He replied somewhat less than politely on my talk page and also seems unclear on the concept of article ownership; when I went back to his talk page I found that my prodwarning had been removed, and a check in the history showed that he's removed other warnings and comments from other users. Not sure what to do in this case. Thanks! --Jamoche 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. After looking over the situation, it is somewhat apparent to me that the actions of this user is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Assuming good faith, I think the only reason this user removed the template was because he was convinced that his new article's existence was justified. I'm not going to comment either way on that, because such is not this section's place. As for the comments seen in your talk page, they qualify (possibly) as borderline incivility, almost not even worth noting. I'm going to warn this user nonetheless. If uncivil comments persist, please let me know. Again, the matter of the template removal alone is not something that can be solved here. Re-instate the template, and if this activity persists, contact the Administrator Noticeboard.The Kensington Blonde _Talk 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur in general with The Kensington Blonde's comments above, but I'd like to add a technical comment on article deletion procedure. According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts, if a {{PROD}} tag is removed even by the original author, then the PROD is considered to be contested and the next procedure would be to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but not to restore the PROD tag.

Another point to consider is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who has an ongoing discussion about this and other Doctor Who articles, including this one by User:VitasV. In that discussion, he's shown some additional incivility, but the editors there are teaching him about that and it looks like he'll get the idea. He's quite young according to his user page, and it seems he just needs to learn how to communicate better. He does not seem disruptive or tendentious, just inexperienced. I'm going to post a welcome message on his page and direct him to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User.

If you want to list the article for deletion, it might be good to discuss it at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Doctor Who first to see if the project editors support your idea since they are already familiar with the page. Just a suggestion. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Parzival, and sorry I reccommended going to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm still not very familiar with deletion policy, mainly because I don't have much interest in being involved in it.The Kensington Blonde _Talk 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've noticed you've responded to several WQA reports, and I'd like you to know your help is much appreciated. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gregbard incivility and ownership

Resolved

I am an outsider to the ongoing debate among some philosophy-oriented users. As a frequenter of AfD, I found myself distressed at the language used by Gregbard at here under his 'keep' vote. It appears that this user has made some very valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but I wanted to voice my concerns about etiquette over this page under his 'keep' vote that I would prefer not to repeat. The edit summary for this edit is also hostile and expresses ownership. I understand that this user is angry, and feels attacked and ganged up upon, so it may be a two way street. Edits such as this one suggest sarcasm and superiority, and must hurt the morale of other well-meaning contributors. Surely this type of talk should be discouraged, so I was hoping to get comments and suggestions here. (Postscript: Is this a slight in philosophical circles? I'm assuming that since it was reverted, there's a chance it is, and would then be modest scale vandalism of a userpage.) Thanks for your input, peace and wikilove, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The user seems somewhat uncivil, but so far it's relatively minor. I advise just ignoring it for now. At least one of the people he's addressing is an administrator who edits mathematical logic articles, so if he continues on that path he'll probably get himself in trouble on his own. Also, the bigger problem is not the lack of civility but the creation of multiple hoax articles. That's already being discussed at the AfD and if that pattern continues, again, he'll make trouble for himself.

So for now, just let it be and don't take his comments personally if he addresses you. If it gets worse, let us know. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 incivility

Resolved

I would like some outsiders to view and comment on the recent edits of User:Mbz1, particularly here where she seems to have started off, and User_talk:Cacophony. She has been excessively abusive and disruptive IMO, particularly towards User:Cacophony. I would try reprimand her on her talk page, but as you can see she also has it in for me as well. Thanks, --Fir0002 06:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 has posted a notice on her page that she is leaving Wikipedia, and she seems to feel she has been chased away by User:Cacophony and User:Fir0002. I am not taking sides, just reporting what I saw on her page. For now, I recommend just letting this go, since she has stated she is leaving.

She might return, and if she does and you see new problems, you're welcome to post them here. Regarding the past problems, I do see that she has been somewhat gruff, but since it's not continuing, there's nothing to be done.

Also, a user has the right to blank their own talk page (WP:USER). Many times other users have undone her blanking of her own page or her archive pages, which she appears to have felt was a form of harrassment towards her, ie, adding fuel to the fire. I am not saying it was harrassment, but I am saying that if someone blanks their own user talk page, that is their right, so please don't undo that edit. The discussions are still in the history if you need to retrieve examples to show problems.

I suggest that if she returns, try using extra politeness and see if you can work with her productively. Don't take her comments personally, just focus on the content. If that doesn't help and she causes disruptions, you are welcome to file a new report. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, she says on her talkpage that she has left however she is still editing (as you'd be able to see from her edits). Please check User_talk:Cacophony where she says that she has only left Wikipedia in terms of no longer uploading any photos. She is still being abusive towards Cacophony --Fir0002 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the resolved template and kept this report open. I've reviewed the communications and I agree it's a frustrating situation. Sometimes it may require multiple editors to revert disruptive editing from one user. Unless the problem is extreme and ongoing, it can be a slow plodding process to overcome the disruptions, but they can be overcome. If 3RR is violated, then that can be reported separately at WP:AN/3RR, but if that's not happening, it could be that the best solution is to try and let the unpleasant comments go by and focus more on getting other editors together so the consensus can solve the problem. One disruptive editor alone against a consensus can't stop improvements, though it can take step by step WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS processes to get through the disruption. Aside from all that, and considering everything you've seen from her, what is it that you would consider to be a positive result from your report here? --Parsifal _Hello 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Primarily I would like someone not previously connected with this problem (ie not me or cacophony) to give Mbz1 a reprimand or warning so that she will stop being so disruptive. I think, and obviously this is just my opinion, that she has got the idea that Cacophony and myself are wrongly harassing her, and she is in the right/being victimized in this situation. I think a few words from another editor may help the situation. --Fir0002 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • So I had a right to blank my talk page after all. It is good to know! Yes it is a harassment, when somebody was (and is) watching everything I was doing and undid it right away(not only with my talk page). I fealt a hunted and absolutely alone. I asked User:Cacophony to have a pitty on me and stop harassing me. It did not help. And right now I deleted my talk page again and it is back there by user User:Cacophony. So how else should I call it, but a harrasment? --Mbz1 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
          • • • By the way about my so called "incivility" at the sample fir0002 listed here. Agree I should have been more civil, but I do have a mitigating circumstance (I have not started uncivil behavior first). One user called me "a pain", other user blaimed me "in vandalism", yet one more user(fir0002) advised me to use eyeglasses and made a comment about my spelling.--Mbz1 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Comment . Tensions are high, each of the editors is on the defensive about their own behavior and at the same time has done or written things that have upset the others, probably without intending that result. Go back to the basics and start from WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If someone writes something that feels like a personal attack, figure maybe that's just how that person talks. Decide to ignore the insult, and be extra polite, turning the conversation away from personal comments and back to the content issue.

Use the "just let it go" philosophy. What matters is what content ends up in the articles. The debates that lead to those results will fade away. Low-scale misunderstandings get in the way of productive editing and just plain make things feel bad. You can stop that by not taking it personally - "just let it go."

• Incivility in the debate at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Giraffe08 melbourne zoo

That's happening, and now on both sides. I'm not going to say "who started it," and it really doesn't matter. Tthe answer is: everyone please just stop doing that. Focus your comments only on the content, not on the editors.

What to do when someone makes an uncivil comment to you in a discussion? Extra politeness. Defuse. If you feel annoyed, wait a few minutes before you reply. Often it can help to point out the incivility in a respectful way, and ask the user to stick to the topic. Make that short, then get right back to the topic yourself. Ignore whatever the editor said about you as a person. If everyone does this, after a while the person making insults will probably get bored and stop doing it.

Not every comment needs a reply. In a poll like a Featured Photo page, what matters is the consensus, not that every comment by one editor has a rebuttal. After rebutting a couple of a person's comments, you can just enter say something like - well I guess we disagree, let's see what the others have to say about it. Or you can just leave it unanswered. The consensus will determine the outcome. The most important thing for that is to make sure there are enough editors on the page to make a consensus and avoid a two-person edit war.

• Inappropriate editing of User:Mbz1's user talk page by other users

Per WP:USER, editors have the right to delete content from their user talk pages. The guideline recommends archiving, but does not require it. The history will keep all the conversations anyway. Users also have the right to ask other users not to modify their user pages. When Mbz1 blanks her page or removes her archive links, it is not appropriate for other users to unblank her page or restore her archives.

Consider how it feels to a user when they have blanked their talk page and someone else comes in and reverts their change to their own page. Something like that can really inflame tensions in an already difficult situation. Don't revert others' changes to their own talk page. (The one exception to that is if they edit your comments to change the meaning of what you wrote, that would be a different issue I am not addressing here).

• Mbz1 - apparently misleading and uncivil good-bye message

Mbz1, as I wrote above, you do have the right to blank your user talk page, and you have the right to delete your archive links if you wish. However, the "good-bye" message you left on your page when you blanked it is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It could be seen by some as a Wikipedia:Attack page, in that you are accusing other editors of certain policy violations, without providing evidence or filing any kind of formal report.

It's disingenuous to say that you are leaving Wikipedia, and then continue editing. If you want to blank your page and continue editing, please do. If you want to blank your page and leave a good-bye message and leave, please do. But do not leave an attack page, and do not say you are leaving if you actually are continuing to edit Wikipedia. If you do leave Wikipedia and you leave an attack on your pages, the attacked users, or others, would have grounds for editing your page to remove the personal attacks.

• Mutual respect is the key. Don't take things personally, stay calm, respond to uncivil personal comments with extra politeness. Comment only on content and not on editors.

I hope my comments are helpful. --Parsifal _Hello 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, your comments were helpful in some way to me. Like I said I was alone and did not know how to fight the harassment. I do not know how to file reports as well as fir0002 does. I'm still not sure how come that at least 4 users suddenly became so interested in my talk page that they restored it contest even at 2 a.m. sometimes. It was something very sinister in that. I wish I knew how they communicate between themselves in conspiracy to give me a hard time. You helped. You were right, when you said they were adding fuel to the fire by restoring my talk page (and by removing all my edits). I felt like I have no power over anything, even my own pictures and my own talk page.They saw my reaction on that, yet they continued to do it to make their point. I've deleted some messages at my my talk page (including "good-bye" message) but left some others . I'll see what happens and, if my talk page would stay like I want it to be for a day or so I would consider that I've won a very small victory and the matter is resolved.By the way, when I said I was living Wikipedia, I meant that I'll stop uploading my pictures and I did. I've never meant I will stop to vote for FP nominations. I was just so desperate and upset by all this, that I could have missed something in my "good-bye" message(not in purpose). Thanks,Parsifal.--Mbz1 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

I'd like to add that in my opion, if somebody was reported against like I was, that person should be notified because in my opinion everybody has a right to respond.--Mbz1 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

That's a good point, separately from all the rest of this discussion. I will add that to the instructions for when users file a report on this page. --Parsifal _Hello 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Parsifal, I really wish I found that page earlier. I also like to make one more point (hopefully) the last one for that discussion. You called the restoring of my talk page "Inappropriate editing" I would have agreed, if it was done once or twice, or even 5 times, but it was done at least 25 times for the last 2 - 3 days, and after I literally begged them, to have a pitty on me and to stop doing this. I'm sorry,but I would never agree it was "Inappropriate editing". It was a harassment and a very bad one: harassment of an old , sick and alone by young , healthy and many. Oh, and by the way while I was writing that message user User:Cacophony has done it again (for the 26 time). Would you help me,Parsifal please? Thanks.--Mbz1 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Mbz1: I would advise against continuing in the direction you're going with your requests, as they are starting to look more like self-entitlement and possibly issues related to WP:POINT and WP:NPA. We are not in a position to "take pity" on WP editors, but rather to provide neutral and balanced advice. If you feel that other users are continuing to harass you despite repeated requests to stop, you are welcome to post a notice at the Administrator Noticeboard, which can deal with specific policy violations. (I cannot advise at this time as to which specific noticeboard you should post to, but someone there should be able to help you.)

Parsifal: I'm not trying to hijack your work here - just noticed a pattern that appears to be at cross-purposes with the WQA page in general. Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(No problem at all, your comments are most welcome. --Parsifal _Hello 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I don't find anything on Wikipedia:User page that authorizes a user to blank his/her talk page and I disagree with the notion that this is acceptable behavior. Short of personal attacks or libel, there is no good reason to remove other people's comments. It is very disrespectiful towards other editors to remove their comments without archiving. Wikipedia:Vandalism states "The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking...", so I'm inclined to treat usertalk page blanking as vandalism that should be reverted. If you could provide me a link to a page that authorizes blanking usertalk pages I would appreciate it. Thanks, Cacophony 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, WP:USER is a guideline, not an official policy. It does mention that users are essentially free to do what they want with their user spaces, so long as they don't violate user-conduct policies such as WP:NPA and posting libelous statements, etc. It also mentions in particular that a user can remove warnings from their page, and that is taken as a sign that they have read those warnings. Nothing specific has been written about blanking their pages, so it probably falls under the more general "this is my userspace, and I can do what I want with it" category. Additionally, the guideline says that users have the right to request that other users not edit their User and User Talk pages - that would include reverting blanking.

Please also keep in mind that you can get in trouble for WP:3RR on user talk pages, just as in article pages - it's just as much an edit war there as in non-user spaces.

That said, the page is just a guideline - none of this is set in stone. In some cases, user-talk blanking may be deemed inappropriate by an administrator. Just as I said to Mbz1, you are also welcome to seek help at the Admin Noticeboard if you feel she is violating policies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk beat me to it. In my view, blanking your own talk page is reasonable; and off-hand I cannot think of any good reason to deny someone this basic level of control over their user space. You should not revert such a change. In my opinion, you have the onus backwards. The WP:USER guideline establishes a presumption in favour of the user to manage their user space as they see fit. The vandalism guideline does not override this presumption, because it explicitly states that blanking is sometimes appropriate. Although blanking your own talk page is not mentioned explicitly, you should accept that this is a clear case where the presumtion that the user is acting in good faith to manage their talk space should apply. Let it go. You don't have any good basis to insist on your material remaining in another user's talk space. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Duae_Quartunciae--Mbz1 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

←I concur with Duae_Quartunciae and KieferSkunk. Take a look at WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, which includes these points:

• As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit.
• Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
• In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission.
• Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests.
• Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

And here WP:TALK#Editing comments:

• On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded uncivil.

I've also never heard the word "vandalism" used to describe a user making changes to their own userspace pages. The section you quoted from Wikipedia:Vandalism does not generally apply to userspace, other than to someone blanking someone else's userpage. That would be considered Userspace vandalism. On that same page, there is a description of Discussion page vandalism which states the following:

• Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own,... is generally considered vandalism.

That section specifically omits blanking of comments of others, from one's personal user talk page, from the definition of vandalism. She can blank her personal talk page if she wishes to. There are some users that blank their talk pages regularly, just to keep them clear out of preference. The history is still present if you need to retrieve something to show a pattern of uncivil comments or any other use.

Aside from whether or not it is formally allowed by policy, it's also just plain bad manners to revert someone's edits in their own userspace. No offense intended, but what's the big deal if she wants to blank her user talk page? Why not just stay completely away from her talk page? Don't add fuel to the fire. On the Featured Photo debate page, it's not just you and her, there will be a consensus to decide about the photo. Let the consensus do its work, and stop focusing on one other editor.

User:Mbz1, you should also stop focusing on the other editors. Don't talk about your personal problems or how any other editor might be making them worse. This is an encyclopedia project, not a social network. Direct your comments and edits only towards the content of the articles or photos, and limit your dialog with other editors only to that which will benefit the results by making the articles better. Read and understand WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and especially WP:CONSENSUS. Blank your user talk page if you wish, but do not post any attack comments there. You have previously used the titles of the links to your talk page archives as a place for personal attacks naming other editors - that also is not acceptable and you should rename those links, or remove them, but do not use them to summarize your attack comments.

If you still feel you are being harassed, that could become a serious matter, so let us know and we can advise you. But accusing someone of harassment is also a serious matter and is not acceptable, unless it is accompanied by evidence, so do not use that word casually.

Everyone involved in this dispute should stop watching each other so closely, don't take things personally, and make some great Wikipedia articles. OK? --Parsifal _Hello 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Parsifal. I'm not sure what other words to use ,but being harassed against, to describe how I felt about them restoring my talk page, all the time(and my user page once), yet I'm willing to let go on it of course, if they will never ever restore the comments on my talk page that I wish to delete.Thanks for everything.--Mbz1 04:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Well it looks like this has proceeded satisfactorily. Mbz seems to have settled down and the PA against Cacophony have been retracted (although I'm by no means claiming a miracle cure as her recent comments on the Fog bow talk page show!). I still strongly dislike the fact that Mbz is either blanking or selectively deleting comments which she doesn't like, but I see and acknowledge that apparently she has the right to do so. So as far as I'm concerned this matter is resolved. Thanks for your time everyone! --Fir0002 06:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have missed on it, but because it is staying for the record I guess I need to clarify one point. I tried really hard to retract so called PA against cacophony few tims for the last day or so, but for some unkonown to me reason cacophony was bringing it right back every time I retracted it. I was about to give up, but then I retracted it one more time and suddenly cacophony settled down and stopped bringing it back. I also like to thank fir0002 personally for filing that report against me. It brought me real and much needed help. --Mbz1 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Thanks to both of you for your replies; it's good to know our efforts have made a difference. Best wishes... --Parsifal _Hello 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential conduct issues on Talk:American Family Association

I'd like some neutral review of the user conduct on Talk:American Family Association, including my own. There's a content dispute there at the moment which has been dogged by a lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and possibly WP:OWN issues. Basically I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at the discussion (ignoring the content issues) and make some suggestions to involved editors who could benefit from an explanation of how things are done in Wikipedia. I deliberately name no names, except to explicitly include myself in the review, so that neutral parties approach with an open mind. Start at this point in the discussion: [40] and go back for perspective if necessary.

Thanks, Orpheus 09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility on Talk: Radio North Sea International

Resolved

Some seemingly umprompted personal attacks on editors in the last three sections of this talk page [[41]]. At least one editor -RICHARD GEOFFREY ASHTON - seems to have no Wikipedia history other than these attacks, hence - as far as I can see - some concern about sock puppets. Advice? I am not sure how to go about talking to this editor, or Konalgia911. Thanks. KD Tries Again 15:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)KD

There is no question that both of the above-named users are violating WP:CIVIL. From what I can see, you have managed to continue adhering to it in the face of their violations, for which you should be commended - it's not always an easy task.

If you suspect that either editor is a sockpuppet, you should file a report at WP:SSP if you have not already. That could solve part of your problem. For any non-sockpuppet violators of civility, I will try, as a hitherto uninvolved third party, to impress on them that their behaviour is not acceptable in the Wikipedia community. Hopefully that will help. If not, we'll have to take it from there.

I hope this was helpful. Please don't hesitate to respond here to what I have said. Sarcasticidealist 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. One of the other editors, who appears to have worked on the article in good faith, made an accusation of sock puppetry. I'll keep an eye on that.KD Tries Again 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)KD

They seem to be confirmed socks. I'll mark this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Turtlescrubber on Ron Paul

Work in progress; comments welcome

Repeated incivility, personal attacks, and sarcasm. Most recently, accusations of "... loves to edit war" in an edit summary -- of a revert. Could someone please encourage Turtlescrubber to maintain civility? As the subject of the attacks, I doubt any further comments of mine would be taken at face value. ←Ben^B4 07:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I wish I knew about this page earlier. Ben has driven me, and many other editors to our wits ends on the Ron Paul article. Even a cursory glance at the the talk page should show the incivility and confrontational manner of this editor. User ignores comments, is uncivil, accuses editors of pov pushing and partisanship and shows a dogged determination not to compromise. Any compromise comes with the sweat of other editors pulling teeth on the talk page and in the article for days. Honestly, it's hard to stay civil after the umpteenth time of trying to calm down edit wars or produce new compromise versions. Really, I would love to remain civil but here is just an example of my trying to reach out to him on his talk page.

This is me asking for his input[42] This is me responding to his personal attack [43] Here is me upset about getting no response and further attacks [44] User has never responded to any of those inquires and has just minutes ago, asked me what personal attack? He never read my comments on his talk page? Other editors on the page are also fed up, as shown by comments like this, [45] This, [46]this, this section is nice [47] [48] or this [49] All from different users within the past 10 days. I could easily dig up 10 more. Here is a very recent threat he made against another user [50] Please read over the talk page and see where our frustration is coming from. It's not just me but everyone on the talk page thats throwing their hands up in frustration. Turtlescrubber 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be an editor on the Ron Paul page; I came across this page for the first time and saw this notice and felt I had to comment. BenB4 has accused many other editors (almost every one working on the article actually) of being on various campaign committees, has said that no consensus can happen when every other editor disagrees with him and he is the only dissent, and he has done this on personal talk pages as well as the article's talk page and in his edit descriptions within the history of the article. I ask that the commentary going on at the Ron Paul talk page be reviewed because many editors have indeed "been driven to their wits' end" as Turtlescrubber describes and a few dedicated editors seem to have left working on the article because of it. I have never seen any editor act this way and I have been around for a while.--Gloriamarie 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been some violation of WP:CIVIL on both sides of this dispute. I also think that there has been a distinct lack of assumption of good faith, which has both caused and exacerbated the civility issues. I hope that both sides would agree that frustration occasionally got the better of them and their word choices were inappropriate, and I won't spend any more time on the civility/agf questions unless somebody takes issue with my comments and asks for justification.

At this point, I would suggest trying to draft a paragraph on the newsletter issue that is sufficiently bare bones that none of the involved parties takes issue with any part of it, and work from there on a sentence by sentence (or clause by clause or word by word, where necessary) basis. It will be slow going, and it will require considerable compromise on both sides. However, considerable compromise is.

I would encourage any of the involved parties to comment here on my advice, let me know if it was helpful, and let me know if I have missed anything glaringly obvious (I do that sometimes). Sarcasticidealist 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if you check the talk page. A draft paragraph on the newsletter issue was the first thing I tried. I contacted other users and left messages on their talk page asking for input. That is where all this had lead because of some initial rejections, by one user, of any compromise. Also, this is not a partisan issue. Gloriamarie who posted above is probably more or less my idealogical opposite (thats the feeling I get anyway), however it is easy to work with her as she is open to discussion and compromise and always civil to other users. While I am not always quite as civil, I am open to discussion and compromise. Almost every single editor on the page is reasonable and open to compromise and discussion, except for one. Turtlescrubber 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I started following the dispute too far down. After having read your draft (I presume you refer to this, I have to agree that what you wrote was a good basis to work off of. If User:BenB4 wants to include more information above and beyond the basic consensus version you drafted, that's something that could be hashed out from there. It does appear from my vantage point that, civility and assumptions of good faith aside, this process would move forward best of User:BenB4 would agree to start with a minimalist consensus version and then build on it as consensus could be achieved.

Of course, I'm talking only about process here; I make no comment about the content disputes. Sarcasticidealist 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at Wikipedia:Relevance

Resolved

 – Alert withdrawn by original poster.

User:Kevin Murray has reverted this active proposal with the comment "There is no consensus and virtually no support for this proposal. Since it replaces an exisiting page it is not proper to mark it as rejected. If you can show a consensus repost."

The proposal (hosted at User:Father Goose/Relevance until this dispute is resolved) is specific to the subject of relevance and belongs at Wikipedia:Relevance if it belongs anywhere. It replaced a short, essentially placeholder page ([51]) six weeks ago, and no one raised an objection to its placement there, not even Mr. Murray himself: [52].

However, Mr. Murray has been antagonistic toward the proposal, and his statement above wilfully ignores five users who have expressed support for the guideline, who outnumber those who have dissented. At this point he is trying to enforce his views by shutting down continuing discussion and work on the proposal. While Mr. Murray is free to express his dissent, it seems he is trying to disrupt continuing work on the proposal by wiping it out. May I ask for some assistance in this matter?--Father Goose 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute regarding James Solomon AfD

I've recently become more active on wikipedia, commenting on various AfDs, engaging in discussion and trolling Random Article to find articles for improvement. Results have been pretty good so far, but after finding the article James Solomon, and nominating it for deletion, I apparently offended User:Mikkalai. As is seen on the AfD page, I am apparently guilty of 'militant ignorance'. The user in question then removed two Copy to Wiktionary tags I had placed on the articles Vervelles and Guige. While it seems minimal as to vandalism, I would like to stop this problem short before it explodes.

Thank you, Ravenmasterq 02:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'd say User:Mikkalai's comments on the AfD crossed a little over the WP:CIVIL line, I'd be tempted to suggest that you just ignore the incivility unless it persists - the user in question seems to have a long history of constructive edits, and if such a user slips up and crosses the line in rare instances I think it's best for the project to just let it slide (it would be nice if he'd acknowledge the slip up and apologize, though). If the behaviour persists or causes you to feel unwelcome in the community, then action is certainly called for, but it doesn't seem like too big a deal at this point. If it is a big deal to you, I'd be quite prepared to give the user a mild rebuke on his talk page, but I'd rather just ignore it unless it becomes a real problem.

As for the removal of the transwiki tags, I don't think it qualifies as vandalism. He apparently disagreed that the articles should have been transwiki'd, and behaved accordingly (although he should have left an edit summary explaining his disagreement). If you still want to transwiki them, I'd suggest that you say as much in the articles' talk pages and leave a note on Mikkilai's talk page inviting him to discuss the issue there. If he declines to discuss the issue with you after a few days, re-add the tags; if he removes them while refusing to discuss the issue in the talk page, that's a much clearer breach of Wikiquette.

Please let me know if you have found this helpful and whether there is anything else I can do. Sarcasticidealist 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• The only problem I have with the removal of the tags is that they seemed to be targeted towards me personally; those pages grab little traffic and it seemed to be an edit out of spite.Ravenmasterq 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, Mikkalai would be in violation of WP:HARRASS, although I'm sure you'll agree that two transwiki tags are pretty flimsy evidence of such a violation. The only advice I can give you on that front is to keep monitoring the situation and, if you feel that he is "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor", then bring that up here. Sarcasticidealist 03:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

but this sort of thing can escalate very fast, and I'd really suggest you try to see if it dies down first. it's much less pleasant to deal with once a fight breaks out. DGG (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of trolling

• [53]. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment to which you object was "apologies for feeding the troll". The earlier comment was actually the one that started the tiff, with an accusation of "forum-shopping".

In my opinion (since you are evidently asking) is that the person at fault here is the one who started out with accusations, rather than assuming good faith; and then compounding the problems by going straight to a wikiquette alert when they got what was actually a very mild reproof in response. I'd be inclined to offer some gentle wisdom, but at this point I just can't resist saying... apologies for feeding the troll. :-) Seriously, mate, you badly need to cool it. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Text of Rfc altered to make an accusation

An Rfc on an article filed a while ago has been changed by Green108 to make an accusation. 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fansite Feud

Resolved

I watch the page Charlie Hunnam - i wrote the majority of the article. Every other day someone edits the external links they either delete one fansite and keep the other, add both or delete the one thats kept and put in the other. Its getting very annoying and i have no idea what to do about it. Sometimes its an IP address which changes, sometimes its an IP that i recognise and more recently its a username. Having the edits showing up on my watchlist every day or so is a pain and i actually had issues with both the webmasters in the past (not wiki related) and i know that its them doing the editing after i traced IPs and recognised usernames and because i've had issues with them in the past i don't want to personally get involved again but the continual editing of this page is so very annoying and i was kind of hoping someone could come in and help. I tried to do something about it but neither of them seem aware of the talk page etc. Just hoping this is the right place to ask for a little help. Princesskirsty 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like this might constitute a violation on the part of User:Charliefanuk of WP:EL ("Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."). If he is the site's webmaster, that's likely also a WP:SPAM violation. I'll post a note on his talk page briefly explaining these policies and asking him to adhere to them. If the problems persist, we can look at other measures (possibly including page protection or partial protection?); in the meantime, though, I don't think it's reached the point that the amount of reversion required is totally unreasonable.

Let me say as well that I think you've handled this very well. Your edit summaries in the article are especially detailed, which I certainly appreciated as somebody who was visiting the article's history page for the first time. Sarcasticidealist 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem does seem to be continuing, but from anonymous users. I've deleted the fansite links and left a note on the talk page explaining this decision. I'm also now monitoring the page, so I'm happy to do necessary reversions quickly, and if any single user or IP is continually problematic, we can initiate action to rectify the problem. Sarcasticidealist 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well i traced one IP address and i KNOW that its the webmaster of the site that ends .com.ar and the webmaster of the .org is the charliefanuk person. i know that they're friends and their edits are making absolutely no sense to me at all. But i am very greatful for your intervention because i know that if i would make too much of an impact they would go after me via their websites and emails like they've done in the past (and continue to do if they're in the mood). So thank you so much for watching the page, i really appreciate it. If you look at their contributions you'll see that they do similar edits to the pages that are related to Hunnam - his films and tv shows, its really getting out of hand. Thanks again!! Princesskirsty 17:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't think the level of edits that these people are making has gotten totally out of hand yet, so I think that, sadly, we have to accept the kind of reverts that currently need to be done as the kind of regular maintenance that high-profile articles need. Hopefully, when they see that their edits are quickly reverted and that they're not getting a rise out of people, they'll get bored and go away. If they instead decide to ramp up their efforts, we'll have to look at either blocking their IPs or semi-protecting the page. As for the associated articles, if you want to provide me with a list of them I'd be happy to start watching them too. Sarcasticidealist 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, there is Beast of Bataan, Green Street, Cold Mountain, Abandon, Undeclared, Young Americans, Queer as Folk, Whatever Happened to Harold Smith? and Byker Grove. They even did it on his ex-wife's page Katharine Towne but i think someone watches it because it wasn't there for long and it was a while ago. I lost track and got really confused. Thanks again for helping out, this has been driving me up the wall. Princesskirsty 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism has increased in frequency enough that I can't revert it all and stay within WP:3RR, so I've requested partial protection. Hopefully it will be granted. Sarcasticidealist 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that it got protection, i hope this helps the issue. Maybe they'll get the point because i don't think they see it at all Princesskirsty 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons article needs unbiased helper

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – ongoing edit war; POV-pushing; stalled consensual process; good faith efforts by some of the editors -- situation is complicated, more editors welcome. Eventually there should be an RFC for the article.

The Morgellons article is unbearable and abusive to any editors who don't believe that Morgellons is DOP. Herd of Swine keep deleting cited material from the country's leading authority to further his own agenda. He abuses everyone who disagrees with him. It's a nightmare to try to make the Morgellons article have a neutral point of view. The editors gang up on anyone who does not assume that it is delusional -- despite the fact that the CDC has called it an debilitating, emerging public health concern which warrants a multi million dollar investigation. People are dying of this disease and efforts via wikipedia to trivialize the disease HURT SICK CHILDREN AND ADULTS. It is morally reprehensible, and incredibly distructive. Anyone who tries to make the article balance is abused -- there entries destroyed without discussion -- weasel words added. Herd and his cohorts are wiki-bullies. Someone needs to monitor that site or eliminate the whole article. Please intervene and have an unbiased arbitrator help!! People have begged for this over and over, and nothing has been done to correct the situation. Pez1103 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page where the problem is happening, and point out specific examples so we can find what you are asking us to look at. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pez1103. I've had a look at the page, and it strikes me that all parties are pretty frustrated with the way things are going. I do find it positive that both sides are making extensive use of the talk page; it makes it much easier to assume good faith than if edits were unilateral and unexplained.

I must say that I find that User:Herd of Swine is making numerous attempts to try new leads, justify them, and invite debate over them. Your rejections of his proposals are, unfortunately, sometimes a little perfunctory (I speak especially of your response to his proposal here, where you say of his proposal only that "it's terrible" and that it "ignores the most significant facts in the article").

If you want to resolve the content dispute, I would advise any and all of the following courses of action:

• clearly articulate your objections to User:Herd of Swine's proposed leads
• start proposing alternative leads of your own. It seems pretty obvious that the lead you currently favour isn't going to achieve consensus, so start modifying it and proposing alternatives.
• make use of WP:RFC

It goes without saying that all parties should be extremely careful to adhere to WP:CIVIL, even if it means being unnaturally and obsequiously polite to one another.

I hope this has been helpful, and please let me know if you have any other questions or you wish to take exception to something I have said. Sarcasticidealist 07:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

User keeps inserting large amounts of original research and musing at length about "possible methods" of male humans becoming pregnant. 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not OR.This is speculation from experts.Everything is sourced.--88.82.46.208 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I'm having trouble following this, in no small part because none of the involved parties seem to have registered usernames. More over, from what I can tell User:88.82.46.208 seems to currently be engaged in removing large sections of material from the article (rightly or wrongly; I make no judgment), but the same IP seems to be defending the inclusion of the contentious material above.

From what I can tell, your bigger problem is a content dispute; what Wikiquette breaches there have been - some violation of WP:CIVIL, and behaviour coming dangerously close to revert-warring - have been secondary to the real problem, which is that there seems to be a fundamental different as to what content is worthy of inclusion in the article. I see that you made use of the WP:THIRD tool, which is good, but there didn't seem to be much attempt to build on what came from there. You might also try posting a WP:RFC, as was suggested on the talk page.

Basically - and this isn't going to come as news to you - you need to resolve your content dispute. From what I can tell, all concerned editors are (mostly) aiming for civility and discussing changes, so your problem doesn't strike me as being fundamentally one of Wikiquette (even the initial posting here complained of violations of WP:OR, which are content violations). If involved parties would consider it helpful, I'm prepared to do a deeper read of the content issues in the article and comment on the article's talk page as a third party.

Besides that, I'd strongly encourage all of you to register user names; it makes following these discussions so much easier. Sarcasticidealist 07:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivility on Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega

Despite being asked to assume good faith, Kephera975 persists in making insinuations that I have a conflict of interest, when I have already disclosed that I do not. This is interfering with actually discussing the issues involved, as this user is using this rhetoric without actually discussing the current issues which I've brought up. IPSOS (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the editor in question to refrain from unsubstantiated COI accusations. I will continue to monitor the situation. Sarcasticidealist 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple disputes involving B9 hummingbird hovering

User:B9 hummingbird hovering has been warned numerous times over the past several months by multiple editors about WP:OR, WP:V, and personal attacks, but continues to have frequent conflict, often inserting the same contested material on multiple articles. I am requesting some independent opinion on this matter.

Here is a current example of conflict-oriented editing on Mantra involving a content dispute over a book by Bucknell & Stuart-Fox (1986):

• 2 August (5:02) User:B9 hummingbird hovering inserts the Bucknell et. al. book into the References section, but it is not used in any footnote or otherwise mentioned: [54]
• 2 August (5:04) Since WP:LAYOUT calls for the References section to contain only works cited in Notes, I remove the uncited book: [55]
• 2 August (9:27): Book is reinserted, this time with a quote: [56]
• 2 August (12:56) User:IPSOS removes the quote as irrelevant to the article: [57]
• 2 August (13:23) Book is reinserted: [58]
• 2 August (15:44): User:GourangaUK reverts insertion as inappropriate and requests discussion on talk page: [59]
• 3 August (1:51): Book is reinserted: [60]
• 4 August (04:50): I remove the materia as irrelevant and note that it is being inserted on multiple articlesl: [61]
• 4 August (13:18) Book is reinserted, with personal attack on me: [62]
• 4 August (13:55) User:IPSOS removes the content as irrelevant, noting lack of consensus: [63]
• 4 August (14:15) Material is reinserted: [64]
• 4 August (22:51) I remove it, categorizing it as content spam: [65]

Regarding the book involved in that conflict, B9 hummingbird hovering is inserting Bucknell et al. on mulitple articles, many with the same pattern of insertion of the book with no quotation or other citation that would justify placement in References (according to WP:LAYOUT). E.g.:

• 2 August: B9 hummingbird hovering Creates page for the book The Twilight Language: [66]
• 2 August: Five_Dhyani_Buddhas: [67]
• 2 August: Om_mani_padme_hum: [68]
• 2 August: Chakra: [69]
• 2 August: Mandala: [70]
• 3 August: Yantra: [71]
• 4 August: Mudra: [72]
• 4 August: Mantra: [73]

If you review the edit history for this user various other articles where similar conflict has taken place can be found. Any opinions on how to handle this situation? Buddhipriya 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Resolved

This admin semi-protected the article Bat, after it was vandalised twice. I felt that this was perhaps a little inappropriate, so I left a comment on his talk page.[74] At first, he replies rationally, with the comment "There looked to be a possibly coordinated vandalism attack from two IP ranges, sorry." Then I pointed out that there were only two vandalism edits, and suddenly, instead of replying to my comment, he removed it as "trolling".[75] I was shocked by this, and reinstated the comment with a question on why he thought that I was a troll.[76] He reverted it without an explanation[77] (inappropriate use of admin rollback), and again when I asked him not to do so.[78] The next thing he did was leave a comment on my talk page, that I should have been "civil" in my message. Not knowing what I did wrong, I replied asking what part of my comment he deemed to be "uncivil", and he hasn't replied since.[79] Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This appeared to be a coordinated IP attack at the time when it was protected, and has since been unprotected. Much ado about nothing, but I appreciate the concern. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If so, thank you, then it was a lot of a fuss about nothing. But if you appreciate the concern, why didn't you just reply to my comment instead of removing it as trolling? That would have solved the entire thing :-). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To the initiating user - perhaps this report would be taken more seriously if you hadn't reported the Administrator in question at as many noticeboards as you could? It really doesn't allow much hope for WP:AGF to be applied ~ Anthøny 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict), well I didn't really report him to "as many noticeboards as I could". I merely asked for the page to be unprotected, which isn't really reporting someone, and I didn't mean to file the 3RR report, as I thought that he would not rollback the comment about this WQA (it is required that you inform the editor whom the WQA concerns). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran also nominated Wikimedia Commons for deletion today. I too am having difficulty lending good faith after considering his previous block log [80] and that he created a page just hours prior to this incident at User:Melsaran/My comments which explicitly states: "When I edit your talk page, you are free to delete my comments". If he genuinely has a problem with people deleting comments they don't like, he might want to retract that statement. RFerreira 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I concur with Can't sleep, clown will eat me: Much ado about nothing. Unless someone would like to post a serious description of a problem that is currently occuring, I would like to close this report and move on. If anyone does not agree, then please remove the resolved tag and list some diffs with focused complaints and a suggestion for how the situation could be improved.

Also, it would be important to avoid using the user name of Can't sleep, clown will eat me, because every time I see that name I can't stop laughing, and that makes it hard for me to do my work. --Parsifal _Hello 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD noms by User:Southern Texas

Resolved

Possible bad faith AfD noms[81][82] of articles recently/regularly edited by Balloonman (talk · contribs) immediately after Balloonman nominated an article created by Southern Texas (talk · contribs) for deletion. Dbromage 04:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This user has "retired" from wikipedia... thus, further action is probably not necessary at this point.Balloonman 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. If issues continue to arise, please let us know. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. He claims to have retired, but just recently made the following attack post on my talk page, "I don't care what you think you anti-semitic troll. Pro-Iran and Anti-Bloomberg, I think I make my point." All because I nominated an article for deletion and believe that another article of his has an extremely POV title, State terrorism by Iran. A quick review of his edits or glance at my talk page will show somebody who lacks civility. Balloonman 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Southern Texas (talk · contribs) has also made a personal attack in the AfD discussion.[83] Dbromage [Talk] 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a user warning (level 2 of 5) on Southern Texas's Talk page and also informed him of this WQA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dromage had already told him of the WQA, but he deletes things on his page when he doesn't like what it says. He had a 3rr issue last week.Balloonman 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I reposted the content of my exchange with SouthernTexas on my talk page regarding the 3RR note I put on his board (which he then removed.) I would refer to the "First Dispute" too but he backed down after I pointed out WP:Civil and he realized that I only made three edits, not four. JasonCNJ 02:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to everyone involved in my incivilty on August 7, 2007. I am especially sorry to JasonCNJ for edit warring and not assuming good faith and to Balloonman for not assuming good faith and making personal attacks. I hope we can put this all behind us. I promise that I will remain calm and civil from now on.--Southern Texas 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate seeing that, Texas. Thank you. Balloonman, Dbromage and JasonCNJ, are you satisfied with this? If so, I'll be happy to mark this as resolved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more than fine with that, and appreciated Southern's coming to my talk page to work this out as well.Balloonman 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is resolved as far as I can tell. I also appreciate SouthernTexas' efforts at resolution, too. JasonCNJ 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I've gone ahead and closed this alert. :) Great job, guys. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mildly inappropriate behavior by User:Jeroje

The dispute stems around the use of the phrase "so called Bengali renaissance" in Oriya cuisine (which I just replaced to avoid conflict). He objected to the use of "so-called". As far as I know the only "renaissance" was an Italian one and in a totally unrelated article, being non-committal to the notioj of a Bengali renaissance is better.

Jeroje initiated a discussion in the | Oriya cuisine talk pages.

Twice he reverted edits by two other people (who share my opinion?). Here and Here.

What is the purpose of initiating a discussion when one is bent of having his way without supplying any argument?

Furthermore, I am the one supplying facts, only to invite comments such as (in italics):

Later part of the post I found really mis-directed.

(no justification supplied, except a blanket statement)

so you wanted to see actual "theater" in 17th century Bengal ?

(I fail to understand this)

so the article says that the recent political issues are because there were no renaissance ? I want to meet this person.

(his response to me citing a academician)

wow! "truely speaking ?" The only real renaissance happened in Europe. why do you think so because I have reference who doubts that? you seem to have read all the indian history textbooks .

(sarcasm, rudeness)

there is no counter argument to no argument

(what is the purpose of discussing, if one only provides blanket statements?)

it seems there is something disturbing you about bengal renaissance, I will suggest you make a new page which describes these counter arguments. It will be very valuable to wiki and to me in particular.

(again, contextless statement).

Now, this is only a minor issue. However, I am raising this issue here (i) to prevent further conflicts as it appears that he and I are going to contribute to similar topics, and (ii) since I made painstaking efforts to apply my reasoning behind my choice of words, supplying links, references etc., which I could have spent elsewhere if he insists on having his way from the beginning.

As a compromise, I have reworded that sentence.

Thanks.

SDas 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have an article Bengal Renaissance that appears well-sourced and authoritative. I don't see why there is any need to use the phrase 'so-called' with the Bengali Renaissance. If you are questioning whether a Bengal Renaissance really occurred, perhaps you should be making that argument on a different Talk page that the one where this dispute is happening. EdJohnston 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree... I would be put off by somebody adding words such as "so called" to a historical fact that occured in an article I wrote. I wasn't sure from the above what the problem was.Balloonman 04:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are quite some peer-reviewed papers that use "so-called" for Bengali renaissance, which happens to be more of a Bengali claim (all the references in the article Bengali Renaissance are Bengali ones too). Nevertheless, I think I have a better understanding of the source of his anger now. The current wording avoids the use of the phrase "Bengali Renaissance" altogether, which should be kept as it is. I'll try to patch things up with him.

Thanks to both of you for this valuable feedback.

SDas 15:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Belligerent behaviour from User:Gilabrand

In this edit, User:Gilabrand reverted an edit of mine, and in the comment chose to claim that I had "no authority" to make edits to that particular page. I'm a relative newbie but I'm pretty sure this isn't acceptable behaviour, or an acceptable view point for Wikipedia. Is there any kind of censuring procedure for editors who behave like this? Robert Ham 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if there is a lot more than this, I think. In this case, the most relevant guideline is probably WP:COOL. In other words, you're best to relax a bit and try to settle by example rather than by trying to get a beat up of other editors. After all, you are editing Jerusalem. You are removing it from the category Cities in Israel, for reasons mentioned in the talk page but not with any consensus. Given the lack of consensus for your changes, there is likely to be a bit of irritation expressed when you get reverted; as you undoubtedly will. The edit comment replacing it was not really appropriate, but not worth getting upset about. Relax, carry on calmly. Trying to get an official censure will make matters worse, I suspect. What you need is consensus for the changes. Just my feeling on the matter... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I did have consensus. Evidently not. Robert Ham 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wetman

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An unpleasant altercation for both parties: Wetman incorrectly warned me not to make wholesale BCE>BC changes to an article, not realising that the article in question was using a mixture of dates and not a single convention and had merely been normalised by me. I told this editor that he had made a mistake but should use whichever convention he wished if he disliked my choice. He has called my edit "intrusion" and "interference". When he began selectively deleting my posts, I objected to the unfair impression given of my actions and responded by deleting my remaining comments from his user page in order to dissociate myself. Wetman has replaced this with a summary naming me as a "problem user"[84] and when I attempt to remove the personal attack it is reinstated and I am accused of harrassment. I know I'm not blameless in this, and I would like to see an end that is acceptable to both parties but Wetman refuses to discuss the matter. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk page in question has now been archived. I left a brief comment on Wetmans talk page, which is now also archived. Before archiving, the word "problem" was removed, sort of. (I say "sort of", because it was then reused so that the original form remains plainly obvious. Since you were being a problem, Lu2o, you'd better live with it. At least it is archived. Clarification inserted, DQ, 05:59) In my view, you actually were being rather a problem there; and it was good of you to note that you are not blameless in the matter. Now that Wetman has archived the talk page and started the whole page afresh, I strongly recommend you consider the matter closed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Problem" has indeed been deleted as requested by User:Duae Quartunciae. Not "sort of". Deleted. All the User's offensive posts at my userpage have been wisely withdrawn. My orginal post about not "correcting" BCE to BC that was quickly deleted by Lo2u read as follows: BC/AD is a convention always used in Wikipedia articles on specifically Christian subjects. In non-Christian subjects, changing BCE/CE to BC/AD is a discourtesy, rather like "correcting" spelling to American practice. I'm sure you understand that whatever convention is established in an article, we simply go with it. You'll notice that no one ever "corrects" BCE to BC: why do you suppose that is? My talkpage has been archived: readers may wish to consult it. --Wetman 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Duae. And Wetman I'm grateful to you for dropping the matter. For my part I will of course follow your wise lead and remove the post from my page. Although I didn't believe that any of my posts were overly hostile in content I accept that trying to remove them after they were put back was a very bad way of handling things. At least one third party user believes I was being a problem so I apologise for that unreservedly. I hope any future encounters can be more pleasant. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC) BTW Wetman, I thought your advice about getting rid of fan cruft was truly brilliant.

Is Digital Command Control in breach of Wikipedia principles?

Stuck

Many of the links in the Digital Command Control page look on the face of it to be standard Wikipedia links but actually point to an external Wiki site www.dccwiki.com. Examples are the word Track in the intro and DCC decoder in the first section. This external site itself seems to be some unknown persons attempt to create there own DCC wiki. I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia to quite know how it has been done, but it seems wrong to me and much of the material on this external site should be in Wikipedia itself. I would welcome opinions on whether this is a breach of Wikipedia principles and what should be done about it. --St1got 08:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question but I don't have the answer. Those are inter-wiki links, similar to the ones we use to link to images on Commons and pages on Meta.

I suggest you post your question here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Someone there will either have the answer or be able to tell you the right place to find out. If you do find out about it, you might leave a note here to let us know what you learned, or post the link to your discussion at the Village Pump so we can follow-up. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done that and will let you know --St1got 09:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Malicious irony by BillCJ

BillCJ is responding to serious and honest discussions by me, on the matter of naming military aircraft articles consistently, with malicious irony. See Talk:JAS 39 Gripen. I don't believe that his comments promotes good faith, and he might need a reminder on how to be civil, even though he's been on wikipedia for a long time. I'm not a native English-speaker, so I may be oversensitive, or I may have misunderstood something. Is this kind of comments typical here? LarRan 09:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll, User:Orangemarlin, User:Jim62sch

I feel that I have been grossly insulted by a group of editors. My attempts to resolve an issue that Orangemarlin had with a new editor resulted in a series of personal attack by three editors, another has joined the chorus. The worst of it was wikilinking part of my comment to holocaust denial. This sort of thuggery should not to be allowed to continue. I am requesting that someone attempt to resolve the situation, I have no wish to continue contributing until it is. Should I supply diffs for this? Fred ☻ 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) added another Fred ☻ 12:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And in the meantime you're vandalising other editor's user talk pages by removing content, assuming personal attacks where there are none, and being utterly tendentious. Of course, we can all supply diffs to take this to another level: Wikiquette is hardly the big issue here. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I gladly and without reservation produced a long detailed copious apology on your page and on my page, which you promptly deleted. I am stunned at this continuing behavior. I do not understand...I am missing something here. Was my apology not long enough? I would be pleased to produce a much longer apology in a further attempt to placate you.--Filll 14:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Amended heading. Fred ☻ 14:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If no diffs are supplied there is nothing to investigate. EdJohnston 15:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Even with diffs I suspect you'd find this is a storm in a teacup, I think frede shouldn't be so quick to take offense. ornis (t) 15:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sufficient indication of incivility is on the talk pages of those above. Some delving into the history may be required, User:Filll has revised many comments in the meantime. User:Orangemarlin has changed my comment to insinuate that I deny the holocaust. My simple questions have been answered with aggressive statements denying there was ever a problem. The supposed apology is the history of my talk page, the much preened, but no less sarcstic, version is on his page. I would remind ConfuciusOrnis that to malign an individual, on the basis of his nationality, is bigotry. If diffs are still required after a cursory glance at the situation, I will supply them. Fred ☻ 16:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And obviously, the burden of proof if on the accuser, so feel free to provide diffs.

In fact, I demand that the diffs of the aledged offences and the diffs of the explanations to Fred be provided post haste. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

to malign an individual, on the basis of his nationality, is bigotry. Eh? Now you're just making stuff up. ornis (t) 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, if your reference to an australian, a thug, was coincidental. I made an assuption, something we should avoid. I do not make things up. Can an uninvolved party have a look at this, thanks. If there is no insults, then it is as [they] say, and I will retire. Fred ☻ 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC) & [insert] Fred ☻ 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I am not allowed to correct posts I made myself on my page for grammatical mistakes? To clarify my points? There is no secret conspiracy here. If I find my wording was unclear, I modify it, on main pages, on talk pages, and wherever. This is now inappropriate? I am not allowed to correct my own mistakes? And you do not feel my apology was appropriate? Not heartfelt enough? Would you like it longer or shorter? Would you like me to just leave Wikipedia to make you feel better? I do not think this is an appropriate response for the good of the project, given our relative contribution levels. If you prefer, you can write the apology yourself that you would like to receive from me and I will copy and post it under my name. Fair enough? How far do I have to go to make you feel better? I really am sorry. I had NO idea that me wikilinking a username in your post on Orangemarlin's page would upset you so much. I really did not intend to upset you or anyone else with this. How can I explain this?--Filll 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)