Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Sarah777

Resolved: between Matt Lewis and Sarah777 - nothing else to see here; filing party advised to move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

She reverted an unsigned comment on a talk page (which, incidentally, disagreed with her position) while that talk page was the grounds of a dispute. When I told her not to, she made it a point to ignore me, even bringing up my posting history as evidence that I was less knowledgeable. --Raijinili (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this unsigned comment? The one where she is called stupid, a rabble rousing extremist and dumb dumb dumb. What is your point? As far as I can see, she had every right to revert it. Skipper 360 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I made the comment, but Sarah thought it was an IP. I wrote two paragraphs - the second was so different it confused her into thinking the first was an unsigned attack! If she knew it was me she'd have given as good as she got. It was all over in a flash - but Raijinili has bizarrely been stalking me - that's how he got to Sarah.
He wants me to take him here myself, and nobody would believe me if I told them the reason why! He encountered me in 'Redirects for discussion' and, in passing, suggested I was lying when I said in that I was confused by Bardcom's "ad hominem" spelling mistakes! I told him to retract it, and he called me a liar again, more directly. I threatened some kind of 'resolution' and he won't let it go! I haven't had the time to open anything yet, but he keeps asking me to do it! He wants to prove I was lying in here - how, I have no idea. I was simply telling the truth. I think he is desperate to try this place out.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Having looked through the past discussion between both of you, I think you have a point. I was puzzled when he brought this up, there was no reason for it. Just a thought, could it be he was trying to get at you, knowing you made the comment to Sarah? Or am I just suspicious by nature?Skipper 360 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah noticed he has only 200 edits over something like 3 years - I think that was her only reply to him. When I looked I noticed a lot of 'battle gaming' and things like that (some kind of hybrid video type I think). I wondered if he may see a challenge in me regarding the AGF issue? He says he has evidence of me lying that goes beyond his need for AGF - perhaps he wants to test that out? All I can say is that he'd do well to have a gander at my own edit history if he thinks I'm a pushover. I don't go out to challenge people but I wouldn't say I was exactly quick to lie down! Whatever is making him tick, he certainly found Sarah though me, no question about that. But I've honestly no idea what his motives are. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
So, this Wikiquette report is resolved? I hope so. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe for one second it will continue, there was no reason to have it in the first place. Skipper 360 (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Removing someone's comment is a clear violation of etiquette. I don't see why you would think this alert was misplaced.
  • Removing comments which have value in the debate, no matter how inflammatory the precise words may be, is not a right afforded a person in a heated debate, because of its potential to make things worse.
  • Even if she thought it was an anonymous IP (which I highly doubt, given that she's been here for a while and should know what an edit history is), an IP has every right that a registered user has. How can you say that it's okay because she thought it was an anonymous IP?
  • This has nothing to do with you, Matt. Your accusation that it does would imply that I predicted that she would respond rudely to my comment on her talk page. If she hadn't, I would not have been able to make this section. It would be quite an intricate game of chess if you were my target. --Raijinili (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I still believe Sarah had the right to revert the comments, but for arguments sake let's say you were right. Whose comments did she revert? Matt Lewis's. Why don't you ask him if he is upset over his posting being removed? If his answer is no, where is the problem? Skipper 360 (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah's style isn't always the easiest to work with but this is just another insane spat an I think it should now be laid to rest.The Thunderer (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not a Wikiquette issue. You posted to her talk page to disagree with her action; she replied in her usual style, which is spiky but not uncivil. End of Story. The complaint shouldn't be here. Scolaire (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Editing other's comments can be a breach of etiquette. Full removal is a step above that. This is obviously a Wikiquette issue. --Raijinili (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
What 1, 2, 3, 4 of us are trying to tell you, Raijinili, is that we don't think it's a serious enough incident to merit any action, and that nothing more is ever going happen, so it's time for you to cut your losses and close the case. Scolaire (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with the "no action". Deleting from article Talk pages is usually a no-no. The comments that were removed, however, were abusive, tinged with a degree of ethnicism, and made no positive application to the discussion. I will also 100% disagree that this incident is one step below "full removal". There are times that standard etiquette should be breached, and this was one of them. I will also say that the slightly rude wording that Raijinili used on Sarah's Talk page was perhaps the wrong way to approach this issue. Always WP:AGF. BMW(drive) 12:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think condoning the removal is giving the wrong message here to be honest, as would approving my comments be equally the wrong message - the general thrust of which I do stand by, by the way (though I shouldn't have been so personal, it was the comparison that I felt was inappropriate). The issue here simply has to be between the editors involved - both of us could have pursued something up if we chose to (though both actions probably cancelled each other out). Chasing this up is a bit like an amateur searching through public cctv footage for possible parking crimes! Raijinili shouldn't be mislead though: If Sarah knew it was by a regular she wouldn't have deleted it. The key was she thought it was a typical topic-related troll. I was notified by someone it had gone, I put it back, and it stayed. That was it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) Note ... I was careful not to truly "condone" it. BMW(drive) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I may as well tone it down now I am looking at it again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I may have misread your "standard etiquette" line. I've amended my comment anyway - it was a bit of an over-reaction in retrospect, buts it's a personal topic for me. If I had more time at the time I'd have probably amended it when I replaced it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Behind the vicious words, he made a point, Therefore, it added value to the debate.
Also, it should not be the place of the person it is directed at to remove it, but rather by a more neutral party. --Raijinili (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If he feels his point has not been properly made, please let him pursue at this point. Vicious words did not belong either way, and from what I can see, he gets that now, and the editor understands her role was not necessarily 100% clean ... what more do you want out of this? BMW(drive) 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Close it already. There'll be another along soon. The Thunderer (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well if we can't agree that "removing unsigned abusive comments which are directed at you" is a problem, then there's nothing else to do here. --Raijinili (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Musicmogul09‎

Resolved: Blocked for disruptive editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user continues to accuse me of a conflict of interest at Talk:Ryerson University with no proof, and in his talk page history, he refers to me as a "dumbass". Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unable to determine COI as I posted on said discussion page. Diff's relating to being called a "dumbass" would be appreciated (as would copies of all seasons of That 70's Show). BMW(drive) 11:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I have found the diff on "me's" Talk page here: [[1]]. There has now finally been discussion on the Talk:Ryerson University page, that should have occurred before major deletions were performed. I have contributed to those dicussions, receieve an message on my talk page, to which I have replied. BMW(drive) 16:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:HughTheA4AndFriends

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

HughTheA4AndFriends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has an obvious conflict of interest with Hugh The A4 and friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), made an all-caps blanket threat to the entire community at his (hint: WP:OWN) article's AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh The A4 and friends. He has also proceeded to vandalize a userpage (see history). In my view, he clearly intends on continuing to be uncivil and to vandalize/disrupt Wikipedia. MuZemike (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to be a sockpuppet but I can't be certain. It appears to have stopped which is good; should he return and continue, please take it to ANI - although we deal with incivility here, we can't do much about more serious vios like threats, vandalism etc. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Manop

This user has posted comments that made me feel extremely upset. I tried to resolve the situations at hand following all and any wikipedia guidelines I was aware of and had been made aware of. this user continued in an edit war on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyver without citing any reasons for removing information. I was as polite and reasonable as possible. I listed all reasos for my edits and attempted to discuss the matter. this user has simply been extremely offensive in my view. I feel that this user is likely to treat others in this manner and cause more issues. I feel that by reacting to me in this manner, he feels like he can treat anyone however he wants and not have to answer for his actions. I feel that this will cause issues for more people in the future.

also a personal comment against me was made on this diff page - Diff these comment upset me greatly, as I am simply trying to look after wikipedia and contribute as much as i can. It made me feel like retaliating, but I felt that would just make things worse and cause problems in hte future. instead i decided that it was best to try and make sure that this user does not react in this way to others in the future.

I appreciate any assistance in this matter. Drag-5 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First, after a quick look at the article, a bunch of its history, the talk page and history, and some user page comments, I have to say this: based on what I see, the disambig page has some major errors. The word "Guyver" was obviously not made up - it has been a family name for generations (see Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#cite_note-pmid7970994-20, and even full search for Guiver. Problem is ... there's no articles about anyone named Guiver or Guyver. I would suggest that your disambiguation page should look more like this one: Palmer, with the game/movie stuff on top (with an amended/corrected description) followed by the use as a family name, with a much shorter description than originally written. However, I digress... the issue here is about etiquette. From my reading, you were pushing for the inclusion of a person's name who does not have an article (yet). The other person basically stated that "unless you're that person, there's no good reason to keep arguing the point" - so, when you kept arguing, they said "get to work (on the article) DJ Guyver". So far, no real issue here. The next issue seems to relate to what I stated above - the use as a family name issue. This is less about etiquette (although it's escalating to an edit war) and more about correcting the article. You probably both need a slight warning on WP:CIVIL, and I hope you have advised the other user that this report was filed so that they can see this too ... BMW(drive) 16:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Aradic-es

Resolved: Original complainant is satisfied with results

This user has recently made some post which I considered incivil, but I could not be completely sure. Any accusation always appeared to be hidden. I think, however, that with this post:

the user has crossed the line for civil behavior. I have tried reponding to his/her previous posts as best I could, but I have never called the user an "amateur" and/or declared myself a "universal expert". I don't think I deserve to be labeled "member of anti-diacritics squad" or part of some "hidden illegal attempt". There is a user called User:Aradic-en which has shown similar behavior, but I don't know if it is the same person.--HJensen, talk 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing an issue, based on the diff's provided. The user seems to feel his or her edits/opinions are not being heard. On top of that, is it possible that someone has been reverting their edits when they are related to accents on people's names (aka diacritical marks)? For example, we anglos tend not to type "Nenad Zimonjić", and instead use "Zimonjic". His real name includes the diacritical mark above the "c". If you go to Nenad Zimonjić you will see the diacritical mark is there on his main article page. BMW(drive) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I may just be too sensitive. I just think the tone and all the unreferenced accusations and namecalling were incivil. And the whole idea of presenting my "rhetorics" in such a grossly misleading and insulting way stroke me as being in poor taste.--HJensen, talk 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I won't try the diacritics (except for in French, because I know those :) ). Policy is here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(standard_letters_with_diacritics). Have a look for example at this NHL player's page: Dick_Tarnstrom Oh look, diacritics throughout! Oh look, a redirect from the English spelling to the Swedish spelling. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and if I read the naming conventions properly, I think that his name should have only included the diacritics in the title, and not in the rest of the article. The issue overall may involve specific uses inside articles that mention a player whose name includes a diacritic, things might become...interesting. Do we follow the standard policy for Wikilinks says that you only include a Wikilink the FIRST time you use the term, and thus would only include diacritics the first time the person's name is mentioned in the article? I would expect not, again, this is the English Wikipedia and the English eye more commonly sees the anglicized version of the name. The player's article should include diacritics, and a redirect created using the anglicized version. Anywhere else, you use the English spelling. I can completely understand the frustration when you try and use diacritics and others revert your changes. I do not believe it is "anti-diacritics", it is more "using policy". It may seem confusing to those whose first language uses diacritics, but if the rest of us edited in say ... the French Wikipedia, we would be expected to use accents! BMW(drive) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me add the short version: reverting someone's edits is unfortunate. I don't blame the editor for becoming a bit cheesed for having accents reverted. Quoting Wikiscripture can help, but make sure we quote the right ones. If we politely explain/point to policy and do not belittle someone's original language, it's a smoother process. Wikiquette is a 2 way street. Hopefully, by understanding where diacriticals fit now will make it easy for everyone. BMW(drive) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me add an even shorter version: This was about incivil behavior of an editor. Not an issue of diacritics. I have not reverted accents except for the page on Djokovic whenever I thought it was consensus. Not anywhere else! So where is my side of this so-called "two way" street of Wikiquette? I am not the one adressing others with unreferenced accusations, name`calling, misleading presentations of my behavior and other insults --HJensen, talk 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
HJensen is absolutely correct. This is not about diacritics. This is about the incivil behavior of Aradic-es. Tennis expert (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Same rhetorics again. "My behaviour is correct and others' are uncivil". --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe it is because there is a bit of truth to it. You appear to be around here just to make sour comments about others' edits. See this recent diff. It does not appear very productive, and your (singular) rhetorics often appear very mean spirited. --HJensen, talk 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) In order to understand the behaviour you have to acknowledge and admit to the source. From the posts I've seen, there were a whole whack of incivilities in both directions, whether intentional or not. The user is rightly saying so above. Personally, I hope that if the biggest issue was ABOUT diacritics, which then caused ire in both directions, the explanation way up above addresses that issue. It's now up to Aradic-es to say "thank you, that was the cause" or "no, it was not", and for both sides to admit they went a bit out of control on this one. Hinting that someone is less intelligent, or less qualified to edit because their first language is not English will cheese them off. The more that the all parties refuse to acknowledge they participated in this conflagration, the longer it will take to solve. BMW(drive) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
So, please show where I said or hinted that anyone was less intelligent, less qualified. You seem to be saying that because a lot of people are engaged in a heated debate, then it is permissable that I should be personally attacked at length as shown by the posted diff? Am I correct?--HJensen, talk 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What I said was this: if you look back at your comments, or even the comments of your group, do you see anything that might have pissed off this editor, causing him to get angry? None of his comments were crude towards you, it was obviously an angry expression of frustration at what appeared to be a group of people who were taking action against him, some of whom were being in appropriate towards him. BMW(drive) 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
a) I don't belong to any group (not that I know of) b) His comments in the diff above are grossly incivil and directed at my personally; i.e., crude towards me.--HJensen, talk 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Have you read the diff that you first provided? Take a look at it as an outsider. It's very clear to me that he uses the word "you" as a plural, and he responds exactly to the question you asked him. He identifies HOW he's being treated, and by WHOM. He very obviously sees that a group of editors (unfortunately including yourself) are taking his contributions lightly. I see no direct attack at the singular "you" except "our dear Norse PhD HJensen", if you call that an attack. He links to a discussion about diacritics that you apparantly sided against the use of them, so you are a member of the "anti-diacritics squad" ... is that an uncivil attack? Um, no ... you are a one of a group of editors that spoke out against using diacritics. BMW(drive) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have never, ever, spoken against diacritics. So member of "anti-diacritics squad" (a very nasty term, imo); absolutely not! (And I do not read the "you" as in plural; if it is meant as plural, it is of course a different matter.)--HJensen, talk 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Additional comment: Yes, I think "our dear Norse PhD HJensen" is an attack as it is obviously sarcastic in tone, and tries to make fun of my etnical background and education. Gee, had I dared to say just anything about his/her ethnic background, I would have been blocked forever.--HJensen, talk 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that this person acted without any provocation whatsoever? Are you sure that absolutely nothing you said (or the way it could have been interpreted) made him respond to your DIRECT question in an angry, matter-of-fact manner? Is there no justification for his state of mind? Were you actually a subject of attack, or were you the proverbial "messenger" that got a little shot up? Have any of you even told the user that you opened this Wikiquette file on him so that he could respond in some way by explaining OR apologizing? BMW(drive) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
My honest belief is that the person responds because the person cannot get things precisely as desired. I can of course not be sure (as in certain) that I have said "absolutely nothing" that made the person respond as reported. As for justification for another persons state of mind, I cannot come up with much. The user seems particularly angry with the fact that I cite Wikipedia policies when making arguments (I thought that was ok to do). I have been enganged in a long, and heated debate on the Novak Djokovic page about the name of that article. Maybe what made the person angry, was the fact that I argued for the name "Novak Djokovic" citing WP:UE (as mentioned, citing a policy seems to be viewed as a provocation—but I think it should not), while others argued for the native Serbian spelling, Novak Đoković, as this is viewed as correct. It has been a long discussion, but this user has not really contributed productively to the dicussion, just every once in a while made some angry outbursts. And some of them, for reasons I cannot tell, have been directed towards me. I cannot know why. Following policy, I alerted the user on the user's talk page that this Wikiquette file was opened (mentioning even before that I would do it if he/she continued with these angry condescending and borderline racist remarks, which I asked for a direct clarification of. When I got it, I filed it here).--HJensen, talk 10:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) I have read the entire section of the discussion page where the comments took place. Early in the process, the "anticipated responses" to standardizing the non-use of diacritics was brought out early. You did appear to be, based on reading, against the use of "diacritics". This would put you as part of the "anti diacritics squad" - this does not appear to be an insulting term - none of those words are considered swearing. Just before his outburst, you appear to have (hopefully) accidentally egged him on by saying "I can't make head or tails of what you are writing. I am sorry. If your post was coherent...." (emphasis added) ... phew, talk about appearing a little uncivil. I do not blame him whatsoever for being a little p'd off. You then asked him point blank questions, and when he replied, you brought him to a Wikiquette complaint. Rather than do that, I personally would have expected you to respond to his concerns. IMHO that's like asking someone "hey, can you show me how to strangle a chicken", and then calling the SPCA after they show you how. I think you would be better off answering his concerns, showing him that you take their concerns into account, yes, use policy in the right way (i.e don't cut off arguments simply by writing WP:WHATEVER, show them how they apply to the situation. Work WITH the editor to make them a BETTER editor - it's obvious they have some knowledge about the subject, use it. You know, a Flies/Honey/Vinegar kind of thing. BMW(drive) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Just for those seeing this, here is the full post of what the citation above was taken from (i.e., out of context): "You are putting up a lot of straw men here for something I really do not understand. I can't make head or tails of what you are writing. I am sorry. If your post was coherent, it could be reported as a breach of Wikiquette, as you seem to be implying that some editors are racists by proxy. But I hope I misunderstand". I am reaching out here but trying to warn that the editor is about to cross a line, but that I give him the benefit of the doubt. The next post shows he means it. "Anti diacritics squad" not an insulting term? Well, first of all, it is untrue, as I have never spoken against diacritics. I have argued in favor of WP:UE. This editor apparently want to ignore that policy. So you think I can call this editor a part of "The Balkan Army For the Annihilation of the English Laguage on the English Wikipedia" without it being incivil (none of the words are swearing)? Again, all other editors involved in the various discussions have been productive (also in discussions on the adequacy of policies or not). This editor just throws stange and angry accusations around.--HJensen, talk 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason I snipped out something that to you appeared "out of context" is because that's the portion that someone will immediately see, especially by someone for whom English is a second language. I'm not saying that they were not slightly inappropriate, but if you fail to see that they were actively spurred into that response, then I'm not sure what else can be done for you. What they said to you was (from this 3rd party perspective) not that bad to begin with, especially considering what caused them to say it. I've tried to show you the common sense approach here, but it doesn't seem to be working for you. From your original post, you were not even sure if it was uncivil. Sorry if I'm not wailing away on the other editor as it appears that you would like, but from my perspective, this is not an issue...yet. If someone else thinks otherwise, that's all well and good, and they can take over from now, if not then you've got your answer. BMW(drive) 15:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for looking at these things with fresh eyes. As indicated above, I may be overly sensitive as the namecalling has been going on for a while. But if you as a third party do not think "anti diacritics squad" is offensive, then I respect your opinion. To me it just has very unpleasant militaristic connotations. And the "Dear Norse" stuff I also found offensive in the condescending context. Does it really take a four-letter word to be incivil?--HJensen, talk 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this :

I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters

Does you really get hurt beeing called Norse ??

WP:UE says nothing about personal names . --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

a) I, of course, stand by my statement "I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters". I made it when somebody (a user User:Aradic-en) started a tirade on the article names of various Danish writers at the Djokovic talk page. b) Hurt, no. But in context, as explained above, it felt very condescending. c) We are not discussing naming policies here.--HJensen, talk 07:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

HJensen, the diff you gave, that you consider a personal attack, clearly offends (since you are offended) but it isn't a personal attack. It is Añtó| Àntó's description of the treatment he (?) thinks he has been receiving from you. Clearly you have offended him. On the other hand, ``I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters is a personal remark that IMO is inappropriate on Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please expand a bit on differences here? I made a very general comment in a debate with a different user (who in that case attacked me - by name - out from the blue in another time), and that is considered personal? I would have thought it was as a minimum irrelevant here? But when Aradic-es directs a comment towards me (by name) then it is not? I am honestly confused here. What you seems to be saying is: it is generally impossible to make a personal attack if you are just describing your feelings about a treatment you think you have received. So, whenever I think I am being offended by someone, it is fair game? --HJensen, talk 10:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Consider the difference between "I feel intimidated" (complaint) and "you are a bully" (attack). --Una Smith (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I, of course, see that these differ. My problem was that I interpreted what you wrote as if you thought that the former can excuse the latter. I would, by the way, like to know whether I have been in debate with two different users or whether they are the same user operating under different accounts (The diff presented by User:Aradic-es above was something I wrote after being provoked by a User:Aradic-en. What are policies about (potential) multiple accounts?--HJensen, talk 17:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

After being made aware of this alert, I felt I had to contribute my experience of this user. After waiting for days for a translation of a post on another user's talk page that appeared to be abusive towards Greeks (calling them "Junanci" - apparently a Slavicized version of the Turkish word for Greeks), and then being mocked by the two users in question, one telling me the inflammatory language was Croatian, the other "Macedonian", I was given this botched translation, in which he appears to be calling Greeks "shameful hypocrites". He also has a history of taunting Greeks on article talk pages, for which he received a warning on his talk page. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But what I have learned from all of the above is that as long an editor has felt offended and doesn't swear when going after you (apparently under multiple account names), then it is not breach of etiquette. So, "shameful hypocrites" is probably considered a mild and understandable reaction to a provocation around here. Had the user said "asshole" there would probably be a permanent block underway. Well, laguange is a mysterious thing, as I definitely consider the latter expression milder than the former.--HJensen, talk 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What is even more interesting is that his outburst was completely unprovoked. It was simply his way of expressing an opinion on the intricacies of Greek foreign policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Greek issue was likely unprovoked, the other was significantly provoked. However, if he wrote the Greek one moments after being provoked about something else, it could "explain" his mood... (note, I said "explain" not "excuse")BMW(drive) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
a) No, it was not "significantly provoked". The user (or users) had not been a part of the debate, but appeared out of the blue, as I have explained, and just threw around angry remarks (many directed at me personally). And the quote by me presented above (which I stand by 100%; it represents my general sentiments, as I carefully made clear) was in a response to another user—please note that, another user b) Why is it likely that the "Greek issue" was unprovoked? The user could have read the things from the sideline without participating, and then felt extremely offended. That is in all likelihood what happened. And while that does not excuse it as you note, does it explain it sufficiently such that it is not a breach of wikiquette?--HJensen, talk 18:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* As I've said before, he was provoked by the entire argument, not by you - you bore the brunt of his "anger" because you asked him very pointed questions. From what I have read, Aradic-es' comments about Greeks appears to have come out of the blue, as noted also by Kékrōps BMW(drive) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* too (yes, I find it boring also, thanks for staying put). I just wanted in the above to argue for the similarity of the user's approach in the two cases: Not to participate in a discussion, but then suddenly throwing in some harsh remarks. Sure, he was likely offended by me since I asked him/her directly to tell everybody what the purpose of the remarks actually were.--HJensen, talk 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah, Wikipedia is never boring, min venn. :-) The sigh was merely a sign of frustration that perhaps my Engelsk was failing me BMW(drive) 19:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Amid all the above I see HJensen has two concerns. One, that Aradic-es may be a sock puppet. Two, incivility by Aradic-es toward HJensen. Re the first, there is a procedure to request admins with special powers to check IP logs, to reveal sock puppets. But without a better reason than HJensen has now, I expect a request would be denied. Wikipedia users are entitled to use multiple accounts, provided they do not abuse them. Re the second, I would say that the incivility by Aradic-es is relatively mild, about on par with HJensen's own incivility, and that HJensen seems to be taking personal offense at what HJensen perceives to be hints and insinuations. Ie, HJensen finds insults when he "reads between the lines". HJensen, don't do that; it is a fast way to make yourself crazy. I suggest both Aradic-es and HJensen allow this to be water under the bridge, and in future refrain while on Wikipedia from making any personal remarks about anyone, including general remarks about classes of people. --Una Smith (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You say: "I would say that the incivility by Aradic-es is relatively mild, about on par with HJensen's own incivility". So that means I am the more incivil? I am completely baffled. Let me get a straight answer on this: Is calling somebody a "member of the anti-diacritics squad" mild? I find it both wrong, and very offensive with its military connotations. Would you therefore think it to be mild also, if I called the user "member of the anti-English language squad"? And what about adressing him/her with deliberately misspelled user names, and making sarcastic comments on my nationality and education, is that also mild? So why don't I go all the way and next time call the user: "Dear herr Arabic-as, the member of the 'Balkan Army of anti-English language' "? Is that mild too? I have a feeling that I would ont get away with this. I sense some political correctness in play here.
Actually, adressing the user like that, would fall very much into the style of the other user Aradic-en's incivil comments towards me, as can be seen here: diff1 (where he/she deliberately misspells my username and make some suggestions for article name changes in an inappropriate place), here: diff2 (where it apparently was not understood that I supported those of the suggestions that were actual move suggestions—instead I am accused of deliberately planning to violate policy), here: diff3 (where I am called a bigger catholic than the pope; but that is not serious), and here: diff4 (where he turns my general comments about some people's strong feelings for letters into assertions about phycological help). But, of course, I am only guessing that this user "Aradic-en" is the same as "Aradic-es". Hm. I am genuinly confused, as I feel that it is me that has to defend myself, as if it was me that was accused of incivility. Weird.--HJensen, talk 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
HJensen, don't worry ... I believe that if you had a real concern about sockpuppetry, you would have filed that elsewhere as required. Your focus has been on perceived incivility. I do not believe that anyone in their right mind would suggest that you were more uncivil, but as I have hopefully suggested all along, you may have had some small part in the other person's behaviour - or as a minimum, you bore the brunt of it because you asked him a series of direct questions. I have left a note on the other editor's page about retaliatory actions not working well, and behaviour overall. Try and be especially inclusive with this editor ... when they aregue a point, try something along the lines of "...based on current English Wikipedia policy, how would you suggest this be worded?" When he replies, don't pick it apart completely, but include as much of his suggestion as can be used, and explain why the rest just doesn't fit. You don't change policy on a talk page, but you can gain consensus .. and one person's belief is not consensus. BMW(drive) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks a lot for your efforts. As I said somewhere above, I may have been way to sensitive and letting myself get too annoyed with this. Ah, strike the "may". I will try my best sticking with your, obviously preferable, suggestion of being more positive (even though it sometimes takes an extra cup of coffee :-) ). I really appreciate your inputs. For me, this can be put to rest. It is off my chest, and I have, as in all situations on Wikipedia, learned something. Not so as to get the last word, but some stuff still puzzles me, but I accept that this is part of the whole process. We can't understand everything. All the best,--HJensen, talk 08:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How did I know Kekrops would spin this? Here is what actually happened. I asked Aradic if he hated Greeks as a nation, or only the hypocrites. He replied only the hypocrites. So there. And compared to the insults coming from Greek trolls in discussions related to the Republic of Macedonia, those comments were mild. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 09:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't say that at all. He said the "Junanci", his deliberately provocative neologism for Greeks, the overwhelming majority of which oppose his pro-Slavic views on Macedonia, were "hypocrites" who had stooped to a "shameful" low from the level of Socrates. If that's not ethnic vilification, I don't know what is. By the way, seeing as your Croatian "sucks", by your own admission, how can we be sure that you really know what he said? Especially given that you yourself embraced his anti-Greek slur and have an obvious interest in defending him? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If you're so confident on what he said, why were you whining for a translation in the first place? And again, this is all pretty rich considering the ethnic vilification that we've seen from you. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 09:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Because I wanted it to be clear to everyone else. And your accusation is laughable considering your recent exploits. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, you're fluent in Croatian, definitely not twisting it to make it look much worse than it is (was, since that's a stale discussion). And it's more than an accusation, since you do it time and time again, and I really don't expect you to be able to stop. Laugh all you want, it doesn't change anything. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You're disrupting the discussion here, which is about User:Aradic-es's incivility. Please stop. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've informed the others on what actually happened regarding his comments (rember, he was talking to me), so that they don't go off believing your fairy tale. There's really no need for you to reply and cause further disruption. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 10:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, his precise words according to his own translation were "it is shameful on what did they(Yunans, btw) come". I'll let others decide if that vilifies Greeks or not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Insult and racism

Hi. I posted this on admins board and they sent me here: The User:Babakexorramdin who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language in this article, and states his reason for this as "not giving ammunition to the "separatists"" has started to insult me on my talk page just because I try to adjust the fact with regard to what sources say. He supposed that I come from Afganistan and a place called Tafresh and used those names as (in his clearly racist opinion) deragatory terms for humiliating me. And continued with "shut your big mouth" and called my corrections "vandalization". All because I asked him if he speaks Persian? In other wikipedias where I'm active such an insult surely is faced with banning for a long time. I ask you to do something about this personal attack. Not doing anything about this user has boldened him to chase me in another Wikipedias and blindly reverting my edits without any reason or discussion. This is a clear case of harrasment.--ماني (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Admins, please go and check all our discussions. You will see my good will and that mani is trying hard to revert my edits without any reasons and seemingly only our of jaealousy or hatred or something. he is too confident about his knowledge, yet does not realises that there are other people who might know these things better. he does not read Ossetian or Georgian (I do) and insists that my pronounciation is not correct. Moreover everything I come up with is sources and resoned. He dooes not come up with sources or sound reasoning., He only removes. Also the sources! While I was respectful to him, he suggested that i I do not understand persian properly and that he should teaches me that. If you know the Iranian society well, this is the famous insult of Zaban-Nafaham. Who does not know language. It is an arrogant manner of adressing by the Urban Persian speakers to the rural people and the Afghan guest workers. Not surpsingly he insists on removing referrences to the regional languages of Iran. It is also noteworthy that he takes offense in being from Afghanistan. Also this shows his hidden racism. By the way tafresh is a small provincial town, but unlike what he thinks (see his discourse) the inhabitants of tafresh are educated people. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Mani, Baba... as far as I can tell (not knowing a lick of Persian) you are both a bit off-base here. the facts seems to be that (a) Persian is the sole legal language of Iran, and (b) several other languages (or are they regional dialects?) have some sort of constitutional political status. I suspect this was an important compromise in the constitution itself (trying to keep regions with different language bases from schisming), and I think that both of these facts should have some representation in the article. what you ought to be discussing is the appropriate balance to give both the respective points. the problem you are running into here is that you've ended up discussing each other more than the topic, and you're never going to resolve the question that way. so, straight out question - how are you going to compromise on this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talkcontribs)
The User:Babakexorramdin just goes on with his insults and nothing helps to stop him calling other users "childish" etc. Nobody here to do something about it?--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Mani, you have entered this complaint into a forum that tries to resolve disputes, and NOT generally punish any specific editor. You also just entered it 2 days ago after doing some forum-shopping. This is a voluntary process that allows established editors to look at your complaint with a fresh set of eyes. The goal is to help editors work together. Baba is also here to try and resolve it. Are you here looking for resolution or punishment? Are you here to work together, or against someone? Are you here to work within Wikipedia's policies, or outside? BMW(drive) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

Stuck: Accusee is retiring from wikipedia with counter-accusation against both accusor and his even more abusive confederate, Catherineyronwode, unresolved. --HrafnTalkStalk 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My complaint concerns the incivility that User:Hrafn shows to fellow editors. Here are samples of this:

  1. "Paranoid, baseless WP:SOAP. Yes the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is out to get you — time to put on your tinfoil hat" - Directed at comments by User:216.54.1.206
  2. TROLL - Directed to User:Rtc
  3. "I would (...) suggest that he takes his irrelevant intellectual masturbations elsewhere." - Directed to User:Rtc
  4. "I am getting heartily sick of your spurious removal of this template" - Directed at User:American Eagle
  5. ". . . whining notwithstanding" . . . - Directed to both User:Catherineyronwode and User:Madman2001
  6. . . . Seeing as Madman2001 seems unable to recognise wikipedia policy/guidelines if they reached out and grabbed him by the throat - Directed to User:Madman2001
  7. "Catherine's time-travelling [[WP:COPYVIO]] crusade" - Directed to User:Catherineyronwode
  8. "Bullshit" (...) "stupid" (...) "read a dictionary!" (...) "claiming persecution at the slightest criticism of your edits" (...) "develop a thicker skin" - Directed to User talk:Firefly322
  9. "baseless whining" (...) "You don't like it? Well tough! (...) - Directed to User talk:DavidOaks
  10. "Put up or shut up! - Directed to User:Rtc
  11. "As to your "trying to lift up the articles to Wikipedia standards" whine" - Directed to User:96.224.169.155
  12. stop being so clueless - Directed to User:DannyMuse, complete with an edit summary saying "get it right the first time"

As you can see, this is not a dispute with any single editor, but rather a pervasive approach in dealing with other editors. Alas, many of these editors were newbies.

Moreover, his postings are often filled with what I perceive as an inflammatory, uncivil style, with heavy use of italics, bolds, ALL CAPS, large fonts, and plenty of exclamation points!!!!

Examples of this style of posting can be seen on these talk pages:

Moreover, his tone is very confrontative, and not at all collegial. For example, he has been asked several times to be more civil:

There are plenty more examples out there, but I would hope this would be enough to establish a lack of civility. What can be done about this continuing problem? Madman (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hrafn has been pretty forthright and occasionally impolite in dealing with creationist trolls and other difficult to deal with editors, judging from a glance at these examples gathered over the last five months. I'll have a word with him. Haven't read them all, but it was helpful as it led to this amusingly impolite edit summary.[5] Of course we have to make some allowance for cultural differences between editors, and a degree of tolerance is a good thing as is encouraging politeness as much as possible. . . dave souza, talk 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this is not the right forum for this. As is evident from the diffs this is a pattern of behaviour that is not connected with a single editing dispute but seems to be a pervasisve characteristic of Hrafn's editing over a long period. I think an RFC or ANI report is a more appropriate place to seek a solution. The remedies that can be offered here are mostly in resolving disputes that are ongoing. I also think Dave Souza is probably also not the right admin to deal with this. He has explicitly taken Hrafns side in several of these disputes just as he in the above describes the poster of the complaint himself (Madman, who is a well established editor) as one of a group of "creationist trolls and other difficult to deal with editors". While impoliteness like Hrafn's may be "amusing" it is completely detrimental to a colaborative athmosphere and corrosive to a friendly editing ambience , and it should be dealt with as a problem not as light entertainment.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Be clear. The first diffs show responses to Rtc, who shows all the signs of being a creationist and a troll. Some of the other diffs show discussions with editors I've found difficult to deal with, I've no comment to make about Madman. The amusingly impolite edit summary is by Rtc, and shows him or her improperly deleting sourced information. Impoliteness is to be avoided, but some of the diffs look to me like Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade and are well within the limits of civility, in my opinion. While etiquette is an important guideline, article content policies are also important. If you don't find Rtc's comment amusing, feel free to template the user for a breach of etiquette. . dave souza, talk 16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Dave, in my reading of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade it doesn't say that you are allowed to characterise users as "whiners" or "clueless" or some of the other nasty terms used by Hrafn. It does says:
"It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks."
So, to my way of thinking, Hrafn is contravening this guideline as well.
And certainly "they deserve what they get" is a poor defence for Hrafn's actions. Madman (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I'm getting the drift of your way of thinking. Suggesting that Rtc was a troll seems pretty accurate and passes the duck test. There's nothing rude that I can see about the common saying "Put up or shut up!", but perhaps that meets with extreme sensitivity in some regions so probably best avoided. Another admin seemed to share Hrafn's opinion when he blocked Rtc for "troublemaking" following those discussions, so perhaps SPADE was appropriate there. Of course I'm all in favour of a bit of politeness and tact, and encourage everyone to apply that guidance. . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Context

Madman2001's behaviour
  • On 13 May 20008, Madman2001 first edit warred repeatedly to restore unverifiable material on New Thought, then made a strident demand that the material be allowed back in -- both in clear violation of WP:V.
  • This behaviour spread to a number of articles, and within days to this post accusing me of "vandalism" for attempting to enforce WP:V and making a demand, which had no basis in policy, that I nominate an article for WP:AFD before WP:REDIRECTing it.
  • Over the intervening months, Madman2001 has engaged in a campaign of similar behaviour: restoring unverifiable material, removing legitimate tags and making repeated strident demands that I comply with his wishes.

Incidentally, this edit, in which Madman2001 states "Egyptzo, you must include references. Anything without references may be deleted without notice." does rather make one question the consistency of his actions and demands documented above.

Specific complaints

I will note that these are complaints that Madman2001 has been cobbling together for some time (trawling through my comments dating back over a year) as part of Catherineyronwode's inaccurate WP:ATTACKPAGE, User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal‎ (for a succinct rebuttal of it, see User talk:Catherineyronwode‎#A response to Catherineyronwode's repeated and fallacious accusations).

  • 1: The commentary that I was hat-ing was a ludicrous (and completely unsubstantiated) conspiracy theory.
  • 2, 3 & 10: the editor in question was engaging in (and was almost immediately blocked for) disruption of the talkpage with a stream of improbable assertions, which they refused to substantiate.
  • 4: Each time the editor in question made a minor change to the page, they removed the notability template -- repeated and "spurious" removal.
  • 5: See "strident demands" above.
  • 6: Madman2001 had been making repeated claims that had no basis in policy, so I quoted the policy to him.
  • 7: There was prima facie evidence of WP:COPYVIO. On closer examination, there turned out to be an innocent explanation and I struck the accusation. The "time-travelling" refers to the fact that the sole source cited for the material was written before the dates given for some of that material -- a problem that is still outstanding.
  • 8: Hearsay -- no dif demonstrating that I used any of those words. If Madman2001 can't be bothered finding the dif(s) where I actually used those words, I have no way of knowing (i) if I did so, or (ii) in what context I did so.
  • 9: This was in response to a comment starting "Thanks for the legalism" when I pointed out that I was simply enforcing WP:V.
  • 11: This was in a response to an unprovoked attack that stated "Hi Mr. Hrafn. I know you are extremely aggressive, and have a very virulent agenda against Unification related subject matter."
  • 12: This was in response to an editor who was WP:EDITWARing to restore material that had (by consensus) been removed from a talkpage per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article", which the editor, in spite of being repeatedly informed of this, was WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT demanding that it be restored.

HrafnTalkStalk 17:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is the perception that you are engaged in the use of uncivil behaviour. The defence here seems to be "They deserve all that sarcasm, name-calling, and profanity". Are you saying that you were justified in your behaviour in each of these 12 postings? Madman (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Madman2001:

  1. Your claim of "all that sarcasm, name-calling, and profanity" is a gross (and thus incivil) exaggeration.
  2. Civility is contextual, particularly in the face of WP:BAITing, such as your compatriot Catherineyronwode's edit summary: "Why not do it, hrafn, instead of playing the lousy, stinking game of hostile cite-tagging?", repeated accusations, and spurious (in that they have no basis in policy) and (given your comment above to Egyptzo) hypocritical demands. One does not expect somebody to be as sunnily polite to people that are imposing on his/her good faith and insulting him/her, as (s)he is to people who have done nothing to offend.

HrafnTalkStalk 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... we have a 14-month-old fight with Rtc, a clear troublemaker, when Hrafn was a newbie. We have Hrafn calling DannyMuse "clueless" - not a big deal. Then we have Madman, Yronwode and Firefly repeatedly harassing Hrafn and crafting a clear attack page. So, we have evidence that if you attack Hrafn over and over for insisting that articles adhere to core policies, that eventually he gets short with you. Madman is coming at this with unclean hands and trying to brow-beat Hrafn. If you want to change our core policies, get consensus to do so. Don't attack the messenger. Simple enough? Guettarda (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I occasionally somewhat incivil? Probably. Am I grossly or unreasonably incivil, I would suggest not. The fact that Madman2001 had to dredge over a year of history and comments made under some quite ludicrous provocation to find even the thin (and poorly documented) pickings that he hs is a testimony to how tenuous his argument is. HrafnTalkStalk 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Hrafn, politeness always pays off, especially when you're dealing with baiting. . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does -- but I'm no more WP:PERFECT than wikipedia itself is. The question is not, I would argue, 'am I ever even slightly incivil' but rather 'am I sufficiently and sufficiently frequently incivil (given the context) that I should be censured for it'. If the answer to the latter is "yes" then I will take whatever medicine I am dished out. HrafnTalkStalk 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
A friendly, collegial environment is the best place to work. Don't seek to be civil - seek to be friendly, polite. But when you can't, do your best to be civil. Of course, civility just greases the wheels - you have the right to be treated with respect, you have to right to have reasonable requests taken reasonably. Of course, the idea that you can yell at someone for not being nice - and expect that to change anything...it's amusingly outlandish, if you think about it. Madman, Yronwode and Firefly's behaviour isn't OK. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't hold yourself to a high standard. Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, I wouldn't worry about this ridiculous attack. You have WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV on your side. The best solution to this attack is to ignore the baiting, point it out to those that need to deal with it, and continue to edit the articles in the way that you have. Really, just ignore the personal attacks. You've made your points, you shouldn't even respond to anything else here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You are not helping matters by characterising my posting as "a ridiculous attack" or by saying that WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV condone uncivil behaviour. Madman (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are saying that civil behavior condones not using RS, Verification and NPOV. I'll take the latter over the former any day. So, yes, this is definitely ridiculous. A waste of good bandwidth to be honest.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That is not what he is saying no, Mr. Marlin. He is saying that those policies can be respected and enforced while still maintaining a colegial and civil athmosphere. You are not helping Hrafn by showing the same disrescpect for fellow editors and their concerns that he is. And you are certainly not helping wikipedia either.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll sleep on it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A Proposal

I myself am not looking for a censure (else I would have posted this at WP:ANI), but rather a change in behaviour. Perhaps you can tone down the rhetoric, Hrafn, and not use hot-button words. Don't let anyone bait you (just walk away, like the essay says). Perhaps you can try to be "sunnily polite" (to use your words). I honestly don't think it will affect your performance here, and it will certainly make our environment more pleasant. Would you agree to that, Hrafn?? Madman (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvement in behaviour is a good idea all round, an aim much to be commended. Back to the mastodons? [6] . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Madman, I'm not going to undo your addition of that title, but you do realise that it's extremely offensive to the Irish? . . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it simply to "A proposal". Madman (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have undone the deletion of discussion on this page, and am re-adding my comments. From what I see, an editor resorted to sarcasm as opposed to incivility (most of the time) when provoked. If you have a close look at any response I have given in this forum, it's generally to look at your own actions before accusations. I'll have to say that one or two of Hrafn's comments are similar to ones I might have made myself to diffuse as situation. I have actually stayed out of much of this discussion, as I'm not sure I should have been laughing at Diffs. Then, I saw a comment about someone's fan club, and realized that some of those who have come to the defence are some of the editors I actually have some respect for, so I dug deeper, and that's what I see. BMW(drive) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Per NPA, "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Disparaging via satire is as offensive to many people as doing it via insults--perhaps more so--for after all anyone can produce retaliatory insults, but only clever people can produce satire. The use of derogatory editorial summary is is in my opinion behavior unsuitable for any editor and harmful to the community; if it occurs frequently, we should block to prevent its recurrence no matter how valuable the editor otherwise or how correct with respect to the underlying issues.. If any principle is clear about NPA, it is that retaliation is not an excuse. "He did it first" won't even work in Kindergarden. Sure, if the other guys are worse, they should be stopped also and all the sooner. But someone who frequently resorts to hitting back must be restrained as well, to avoid escalation. Escalation is the problem with all systems that permit retaliation. DGG (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A response to dave souza and Guettarda

dave souza and Guettarda, both of whom I respect, have suggested that I need to try harder at being civil, even under provocation. I will therefore make the attempt -- for their sakes, for the sakes of other good-fath editors, and for my own sake.

Madman2001 has neither admitted his own unreasonable demands, incivility and harassment, made any offer to attempt to do better in the future, nor offered to attempt to influence his even worse compatriot Catherineyronwode to likewise do better. I therefore regard his "proposal" as empty and one-sided, and will take no notice of it (but will solely be bound by the obligations mentioned in my first paragraph).

HrafnTalkStalk 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather odd that, while pledging to be more civil, Hrafn accuses me of "unreasonable demands, incivility, and harrassment". Harrassment is not a charge to be thrown about lightly. Nevertheless, for my part, I will pledge to continue to abstain from unreasonable demands, incivility, and (in particular) harrassment.
So, to close out this complaint, I think that Hrafn's pledge is a reasonable outcome. Thanks, Hrafn and to just about everyone else who participated. This strengthens my faith in the system. Madman (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I would note that Madman2001 has already breached (or at the very least, badly bent) his "pledge" on Metaphysical Club (New Thought), with a WP:POINT unredirect of it in an attempt to force an AfD when, by his own admission, he has no reason to believe that this topic is notable. He has already been told (both at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 45#Using a redirect as a method of deletion. and Talk:Church of Divine Science#You can't just delete an article like this, Hrafn) that WP:REDIRECTs are not "deletions" and do not require an AfD, so this would seem to be very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. HrafnTalkStalk 15:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ease up, buddy. Re-creating this article is hardly a "demand, incivility, or harrassment". Whether or not this article is notable will be discussed on the Metaphysical Club talk page and everyone is welcome to join in. See you there! Madman (talk)
Doing so with the explicit intention of forcing an AfD most certainly is -- especially when you name me in both the edit-summary to the unredirect and the explanatory comment on article talk. HrafnTalkStalk 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, you should just disengage. By doing this silly WQA, which never works, all Madman has done is gotten many individuals involved with the articles, so more of us are watching than before. Because I watched your page, because we crossed paths over a few articles, I noticed these issues. Now I'm watching these articles too. We'll help you keep it NPOV, which is the goal here, not who's feelings are hurt. Time to move on, not much to see here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Will do OM. It just is really, very frustrating when I have everybody telling me to improve and then have Madman2001 immediately carry on with the "same ol' same ol'". :/ HrafnTalkStalk 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I instead

I believe this should have been brought up in AN/I. There is already an AN/I report against hrafn, made by Firefly, to which i will be adding as soon as i post this.

I note with extreme interest that, as per the rececent MEDCAB attempt by Firefly to get hrafn to lay off of her, the same defenders of hrafan have appeared here: dave souza (always asking us to accept hrafn, rarely challenging us per se), Orangemarlin (generally brusque and dismissive), etc.

These same people have been seen at my AN/I proposal sandbox on hrafn too.

Catherineyronwode a.k.a. "64" a.k.a. "Nameless Date Stamp" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is really not a good venue for such assumptions of bad faith or for weasel-worded personal attacks. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Samuel_Webster

Stale: Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone who works hard to resolve and mediate issues on Wikipedia, I do realize that this leaves me open for attack. However, a strange dispute with User:Samuel_Webster has escalated to a point that I actually asked for page protection on my Talk page. I am loathe to submit this, as I hate to admit that I was unable to solve what seems to be such a minor issue. In fact, I waited until this morning, hoping the other editor would have "slept on it" and reconsidered their position.

I first encountered the user during an AN/I related to the spelling of Chinese Olympic venues. The editor was accused of reverting "Centre" (the IOC standard) to "Center" (the American English version) on almost all articles. It was a contentious issue. I attempted to assist, and supported the editor by pointing out that the English version of the official Beijing games website had to be used as the official English title. I used the word "sadly" in my description, because as a Canadian journalist, we generally use British English.

Not long after, the editor posted a question on my talk page, asking why I was "sad". I replied, using the phrase "Bastardization of the English Language" in quotations (showing it was not original thought). I replied advised the user in that same post that although I would be happy to help in future issues, I would not discuss additional lingustic issues. It should be noted that our sister project, Wiktionary defines bastardization as "A degradation of a language caused by the passage of time or geographical remoteness".

Three days later, I recieved a new edit full of personal attacks. I immediately reverted this change as vandalism, as I believe that being called prejudiced and racist on my own personal talk page. Although this is an issue of no personal attacks, I wanted the to flag the edit to my talk page loudly to advise the editor that they were crossing the line. They also posted the exact same post on their talk page.

Of course, I will not remove such filth from someone else's page, but I put an angry reply to being called a racist on the user's Talk page. Yes, calling someone a racist and prejudiced in writing on a public forum is a major personal attack. The user reverted that post as vandalism, however left the offensive racism commentary on their talk page, thus leaving their "attack" visible, but my "defence" was removed.

I re-added my defence, and added additional information, responding to their original accusations, asking the user to leave me alone permanently, which the editor again reverted thereby STILL leaving his personal attacks visible, but removing any chance of me defending myself.

I used Template:uw-npa1 as the editor still did not seem to understand his incivility, which was promptly reverted, and the editor decided to reciprocate, using the same template, but stating that "Please do not make refer to dialects or other aspects of culture that differ from your own as "bastardizations". This goes against WP:CIVIL".

As this specific template and the reasoning used was not valid as per WP:CIVIL, I reverted it. I then asked for 1-day page protection on my Talk page, and re-emphasized my request for the editor to leave me alone.

At this point, an editor (User:FisherQueen) with whom I have a positive relationship from past dealings intervened, and the discussion unfortunately spilled over onto their talk page. This diff on their page, followed by this one by FisherQueen on the editor's page are, I believe, key replies.

The bottom line is this: A personal attack is defined as one directed at a specific editor. Calling someone "prejudiced" and "racist", are personal attacks. Using a term that our own sister project defines as simply "a degradation of a language" is not a personal nor "cultural" attack. Continuing to have such racist comments appear on a Talk page, plus the removal of attempts to "defend" myself from such comments is merely a continuation of those personal attacks. I have asked the editor to a) remove the offensive comments against me, b) understand WP:CIVIL (and therefore understand the use of warning templates) to no avail. FisherQueen has asked the editor to remove the offensive comments, to which the editor replied a very loud no.

This incident is very close to being an RfC, and indeed, although ideally I would like to have the accusations of racism completely struck permanently from Wikipedia, I'm not going there yet.

In short, can someone please help this user understand policy and their actions. BMW(drive) 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi everyone. I try to fight prejudice wherever I see it. Since one person's prejudice is another person's matter of fact empirical view, any attempt to fight prejudice is likely to be at least as controversial as the prejudice itself.
Anti-Americanism (in a variety of forms) is rampant on Wikipedia. This is one of the prejudices I try to fight. It is so rampant it's not even "seen." People toss out hateful comments as if "everyone knows that X". There's more to bve said about this, but I have not the time.
I retract absolutely nothing that I say, and I doubt BWilkins will retract anything s/he says.
My recommendation is thus: let's drop the whole matter.
A further recommendation (to everyone): try not call a culture, or any aspect of a culture, a "bastardization." (Invoking what Wiktionary says about the meaning or meanings of the word to justify its use doesn't help matters much.)
Best wishes, Samuel Webster (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
PS For anyone who wants to investigate this issue thoroughly, please don't assume my not commenting on BWilkins' summary above means I think it's accurate. I think it's inaccurate (mainly because it's incomplete). Please do not comment without researching the matter yourself.
  • Fact 1: "Bastardization: means "A degradation of a language caused by the passage of time or geographical remoteness", no matter what dictionary you read. NO attack on any person or culture occurred.
  • Fact 2: The editor continues to refer to me as prejudiced and racist on their talk page, having removed my defence twice.
  • Fact 3: The above words as a direct attack on a specific editor are contrary to WP:CIVIL
  • Fact 4: The editor complains about non-existent anti-Americanism, and yet is not even American (European, by their own admission). Americans can defend themselves, if required - trust me, I have been romantically involved with a good number of them, and work with others daily.
  • Fact 5: The above continues, even though the editor chooses to actually ignore my family ethnic mix. BMW(drive) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
PPS A more general claim seems needed: don't assume my not commenting on any summary here, present at the time of my writing or added later, signals my agreement with it. It certainly does not. I will be extremely busy with other matters for a week or two, then will try to say more. (And a cooling off period is worthwhile, it seems to me....) Samuel Webster (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
While your disgusting claims of me being prejudiced and racist remain on your Talk page, there will not be cooling off, and I brought this to "Wikiquette" to try and resolve it peacefully. If additional actions/sanctions are required, then so be it. PS: Editors who try and help you on your talk page are not vandals, please read WP:VANDAL to better understand. BMW(drive) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We have such radically different perspectives on our exchange that I wonder whether we're even from the same planet. From my standpoint, you said something offensive (which, for reasons explained, I connect to -- though do not of course equate with -- a dangerous trend in the world). I said as much. A says X, B says Y, in response to X. You put X on both your page and mine. Then you ERASED my response on your own talk page, and added MORE on my page.
You've evinced no evidence whatsoever of believing you've done the slightest thing wrong. This, to my mind, marks you as someone I'm unlikely to be able to communicate with. Beyond that, there's much more I haven't even addressed (what you said about "meter", your bizarre claims that my not being American makes me somehow unqualified to speak about anti-Americanism, the odd claim that your racial or ethnic background means you can't be prejudiced or imperialistic).
We come from different worlds, I think we need to recognize that, and move on.
Samuel Webster (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, I used a phrase that is known WORLDWIDE to describe what happens to a language when it's removed from its origin, and you feel free to call me prejudiced and a racist? For humanity's sake man, you're named after a DICTIONARY, you should understand word meanings much better than you do. Remove the accusations of me being prejudiced and racist from your talk page, and you can go on your merry way and I will happily hope that our paths never cross again. Pointe finale BMW(drive) 16:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: "Let me get this straight...." You evince no signs of even trying to get it straight. On the contrary, you simply repeat your claims. I give up. Samuel Webster (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Webster, I'm sorry to ask, but do you even read before you post? Having read everything posted, there is only one possible solution: delete your insults. You are so far out in left field on this one. A dictionary is a valid reference. You want this to go away, stop being childish, admit that your very very wrong, and delete your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.105.24 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Zell65

This user has recently started making unfounded COI accusations, threats to monitor my activity[7], and spreading WP:OUTING rumors to other editors[8] in an attempt to discredit my arguments. I asked him not to make personal attacks, to keep the arguments focused on content, and also asked him to assume good faith [9], which I feel he has not made an effort to do.--Thrindel Talk 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

68.9.165.151

This anon editor (nonexistent user page for 68.9.165.151, talk page for user 68.9.165.151) insists on adding large amounts of irrelevant and non-significant material to Development of Windows XP. (history, most recent edit). Both I and editor Warren (talk) have repeatedly reverted the IP editor's changes, and provided reasons in the edit summaries, to no avail - IP editor's response is to repost his material. IP editor refuses to bring the discussion to the talk page and has repeatedly put insults into the edit summaries ("stfu idiot", "shut up noob", and "maybe i odnt want to, Penis Cumshot! Cum Dripping Penis!"). Jeh (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he's a sockpuppet of banned user Fantasy Game Productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh the Nerd (talkcontribs)
This anonymous editor has also caused similar disruptions at Development of Windows Vista, going as far back as April. Josh the Nerd is probably right here; this is a previously banned user who isn't particularly interested in engaging in discussion.
I did a little more research and have concluded that this user is also User:Matthew Anthony Smith. Warren -talk- 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Help requested

Resolved: Original complainant is satisfied with results

Re: WP:AN/I#NYScholar issues revisited

I am under onslaught and attack in an AN/I that was filed improperly, that is being handled improperly, and that is not being conducted properly. In the view of some posting in it (me and others), it should not have been filed at all. I would like someone who is not in any way involved in any past AN/I or current AN/I involving me to review this matter. I am not feeling well and will be offline. Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. --NYScholar (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just side-noting that my filing of the AN/I was entirely proper. A community-imposed mentorship on the above user in lieu of a ban (see here for the July discussion) was taken up by an enthusiastic user who unfortunately did not mentor the user, and then "released" them without any prior reference or subsequent notification to the community, only for the user to then resume the exact behaviour they had previously been sanctioned for. This for me is not an issue of the user's behaviour (the community had already concluded it needed modification, so that point didn't need to be debated), but simply a clear case where a community sanction had failed in both purpose and practice, and therefore the community needed to decide where to move from here - it was not in any attempt to harass, antagonise or label the user involved. Orderinchaos 10:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#Follow_up_SHORT.28er.29_section_.5BWell.2C_it_was.....5D ...Follow up SHORT(er) section (Well, it was....)]. Whatever the intention, it is misguided and has led to multiple violations of Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL by other people posting there. Despite false accusations that have been corrected by at least three Wikipedians, including another administrator, the initiator of the notice persists in considering his or her filing legitimate, when it is not. Those heaping on abuse there have taken it upon themselves to regurgitate the same arguments they did earlier, when the same conditions do not prevail. The filer insisted and apparently still insists that I and my adopter (I was mentored for three weeks by User:Ecoleetage), who both did our work in Wikipedia with utter sincerity and in utter good faith are somehow "in collusion". This occurred after Ecoleetage withdrew his nomination in an RfA and after I objected and still object to images uploaded (I believe with improper licenses and improper fair use rationales by User:Poeticbent) and after my user talk space has been vandalized by more than one anonymous IP user, who have all been blocked. I feel that some form of retribution is ongoing and that I am its victim.--NYScholar (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

I would like to draw the attention of other admins once again to the persistently uncooperative and disruptive conduct of User:JimBobUSA, who has been involved in repeated disputes about content in Yamashita's gold. For many months he has consistently refused to accept material, supported by credible references, with which he does not agree, on spurious grounds (see below). As such he is also pushing a point. His uncooperative behaviour manifests as deletions of referenced material (claiming that it is not reliable) and the frivolous use of templates such as "citation needed" and "totally disputed". I have withdrawn from editing Yamashita's gold myself, because I found it impossible to work with him.

User:JimBobUSA is expert at gaming the system and wikilawyering and has thus managed to escape a temporary ban until recently (when he and User:76.173.161.184 were both blocked under 3RR).

Please note the following:

  • while Yamashita's gold is regarded a "conspiracy theory", there are good quality, critical sources supporting ist existence. See for example, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed...[emphasis added]" (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret WW2 Japanese unit that consolidated and controlled the loot
  • User:JimBobUSA did not respond to my suggestion of mediation in a dispute on on January 14
  • his standard defence is to slur, defame and misrepresent acceptable sources, such as Gold Warriors by Sterling & Peggy Seagrave (referring to it as a "novel", which it is not) and a review of that book in London Review of Books by Chalmers Johnson, implying that Johnson is generally critical of the Seagraves. While Johnson identifies several minor factual errors, he is not generally critical of it.

Please note also the following comments in the past from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

  • "For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : [[13]]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)"
  • "This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've participated in discussions in both Yamashita's Gold and Japanese War Crimes and corraborate Grant's description of JimBob's behavior. JimBobUSA appears to be either unwilling or unable to correct his behavior so administrative corrective action is probably necessary. Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion, I am drawing attention to insidious un-Wikipedic behaviour and ask that JimBobUSA be reminded by other admins regarding general Wikiquette, such as the need for balanced content when dealing with matters of controversy, not pushing a point, the need for consensus editing, the need to accept reliable sources and the correct use of "citation needed" and "disputed" templates. Grant | Talk 06:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't he just been topic banned? His POV push on that article hits AN/I seasonally, if not more frequently. each time, people dissemble that it's a content dispute, not conduct, when it's clearly conduct, since he dismisses articles about court judgements as not being reliable because it's one person's interpretation of a ruling, then objects to the underlying ruling as being either a primary source, or misread by whoever seeks to add it. Whoever seeks to add it finds supporting references, which he goes back to argument #1 on. He either needs to accept that there is evidence that the treasure was in part looted by the dictator Marcos, that numerous courts have issued findings of fact at odds with his personal theory, and that other editors have found much which should be included, or he should recuse himself from the article, or he should leave wikipedia. The talk page is full of him ripping apart any additions by any other editor, and the above quotes, which are not a complete list, demonstrate the widely understood arguments against him. ThuranX (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI

I have recently received unwelcome attention from CENSEI (talk · contribs). After a series of uncivil and abusive comments that arose from (apparent) ideological differences, coupled with a malicious WP:AN report, this user managed to game the system and get me blocked in error for perceived edit warring. This block was later rescinded upon review. This user responded by trying to argue in favor of the block, on various talk pages, and then intimidate me on my talk page with threats to monitor my contributions. I have compiled a brief list of diffs to document the sequence of events:

I am basically seeking a bit of advice. I do not think this is serious enough to warrant filing a report at WP:ANI, but I would still like to get some idea from neutral parties how best to proceed. I am not interested in seeking sanctions - I just want this user to leave me alone and focus on articles instead of editors. Any comments are welcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edit history, the user seems to be penchant for confrontation with other editors as seen here. DockuHi 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR was legitimate. The admin who blocked (intially) and another editor, most importantly, with no connection what so ever to any of the involved parties also agreed. Scjessey’s friends are not an unbiased sample. If all Scjessey wants me to leave him alone, he should practice what he preaches. [14]. And Docku, that was a good example you posted above, especially on how an experienced and well respected longtime administrator responds to editors he disagrees with, childish name calling and stalking, after all, who am I to deny him of that fun.
If Scjessey wants me to leave him alone, then fine I will. But I will not stop watching articles that he may edit from time to time and reporting users, including him, who violate policy on those articles. If Scjessey or any other user thinks that just because they are more experienced here they are entitled to WP:IAR .. well I don’t know maybe they can, we’ll see what the outcome is here. CENSEI (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR block was lifted as a "simple mistake"[15] and the blocking editor apologized.[16] The report looks like simple retributive wikigaming by a tendentious editor who has decided to take aim at a group of "friends" (so the editor imagines) who oppose the editor's content position. Scjessey and a few others have been subject of constant administrative complaints that range from simply bogus to being clearly in bad faith. The block was for doing simple article maintenance, which 3RR is clearly not designed to punish. Under the circumstances a threat by an editor who just succeeded temporarily in a 3RR report of no merit to keep doing it is more or less harassment. Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As I stated before and not to imply wrongdoing but I don’t think that Scicer is totally neutral with respect to Scjessey. I like the way you boil down every complaint made against “Scjessey and a few others” as all mean spirited and in bad faith. Ever think that someone or many someones have had or do have legitimate beefs with “Scjessey and a few others” for their article ownership? CENSEI (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) - I came here looking for advice from neutral parties, not more incivility and intimidation from CENSEI. Now this "stalker" (for lack of a better term) is also yapping about some disagreement I have no knowledge of. One more peep out of this editor and I'm filing an AN/I report. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral parties …. Ok then what’s Wikidemon doing here? CENSEI (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The other party has full right to make some form of defence. In fact, I generally refuse to make any comments until I have been assured that the other party has at least been notified of the Wikiquette entry. Only Kangaroo Courts prevent the "defendant" from replying. BMW(drive) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't a defense, it's a misrepresentation of what happened accompanied by a renewed attack on Scjessey and also on a hapless administrator who happened to cross CENSEI's path. It shows no willingness to admit (and in fact a desire to continue and expand) whatever the civility problem was in the first place. Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Po-tay-to po-taa-to. Ironic that for all your whining about my incivility, you sure seem to be quick to call any evidence I write here lies and misrepresentations. And since you are so intent on portraying King of Heart as some hapless, willy nilly, easily misled sheep who was preyed upon by the ruthless and wolf like CENSEI, perhaps you could ask him for his input here? CENSEI (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I notified the editor immediately after creating this entry. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You "notified" me and then proceded to berate me for having the audactiy to respond to your tirade of half truths and distoritions. CENSEI (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The so-called "berating" did not occur until after you wrote your fabricated nonsense above, after I had specifically asked for guidance from neutral editors. It is now clear to me that your only desires are to be unproductive, provocative and rude. I will not waste any more time with this process, and seek assistance from administrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm ..... "fabricated nonsense" and "unproductive, provocative and rude" almost sounds uncivil ... ironic no? CENSEI (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) Ok, we get it ... the two of you dislike each other. Now, rather than continue to argue here, please let the various neutral editors go through the diff's provided ... it appears to me that both sides have had ample opportunity to provide official diffs. I have to say, Scjessey, that you haven't "helped your case" by your actions inside this forum. The goal here is to help both sides come to some form of agreement on how to move forwards. BOTH sides have to be willing to work towards that solution, because (as I believe) everyone has something valid to contribute to Wikipedia. In the meantime, I recommend that a) you stay off each other's talk pages, b) do not revert each other's edits unless it's truly vandalism, and c) stay civil. BMW(drive) 11:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, Bwilkins, that your failure to recognize that I have tried to resolve this issue in an amicable way, and your failure to notice that I had courteously notified this "problem" user, has not been any help at all. After studying CENSEI's contribs, it has become clear that I am just one of several editors who have been treated in this manner (including, amazingly, a few administrators). Please understand that CENSEI has fabricated "evidence" of my involvement in some sort of "conspiracy", maliciously tried to get me sanctioned in an AN/I report, and succeeded on getting me mistakenly blocked with a BS 3RR report. CENSEI has been rude, provocative and uncivil repeatedly, despite my pleas to be left alone. Your failure to see this is just another slap in the face, and it has convinced me that seeking help here is a complete waste of my time (indeed it has made the problem worse). Thanks for nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
All I said is to let US read the diffs, which cannot be fabricated, then let us come up with a suggestion ... no need to get snarky with us. BMW(drive) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First Glance Whew, ok, that was a fun bunch of reading. First, let me say this: you're editing a political-based article, and politics is a very emotional subject. A hockey-related board I visit recently had its moderators post this: "Politics is an emotional topic and one that has already led to disagreements on the message boards and complaints through PMs. This is a hockey message board. Please use the board for its intended uses". Politics can be hazardous to real-life relationships, let alone to the tenuous threads across the internet bit-stream. As a Canadian, I have little to do with this specific topic (and am already sick of the political adverts in the middle of Jeopardy). With regards to the 3RR report - this was a tricky one, that in my belief may have been slightly justifiable. For example, two of the reversions were removing "veteran" and "longtime" as an adjective for a specific veteran and longtime politician who was chosen as a running mate. To me, either adjective could have belonged, and there was no apparant reason to continue to remove them (this makes me at least "understand" the complaint about "article ownership". This makes the genesis of this issue a CONTENT complaint. I have also read the entire discussion about the article probation. Again: whew, what fun. What I see are a whole bunch of editors lining up and taking sides - and group dynamics at their very best/worst. Supporters of one side are posting all over, and supporters of the other side are too. So, a content complaint regressed to concerns over article ownership (the post about being a novice editor really got my hackles up), which has regressed to an all out disliking. This has led to political name-calling (suggesting the other editors are "Republicans" [which, would be a major insult to a Democrat for those who don't know]). I believe that this stuff about "threats" has been thrown in to muddy the waters: I have a few people on my watchlist too. That's not a threat, so trying to fluff a situation by adding them was really below the belt. A threat is "I'm going to revert every single edit you make", or "I'm going to hunt you down", not simply "I'm watching you(r edits)". Please note: I am not using any names in this entire post, simply because I'm not trying to single out any specific editor, nor do I think that anybody's hands are particularly clean. Remember the old physics statement: "any action will create an equal and opposite re-action". Add that to the flammability of political discourse and you have the most potent beverage you've ever tasted. Recommendation to ALL sides: remember, you are editing a political article...which, next to religion is one of the most passion-inducing topics on the planet. You do not own any article, and everyone has a right to edit according to Wikpedia standards. Think twice before adding information to a political article, and think three times before removing anything that isn't obvious vandalism. When you remove information, you're just as likely to raise the adrenalin/passion of an editor as when you add information. That's enough of my philosophical rambling for now, I may have more after a 3rd coffee. BMW(drive) 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Grayghost01

Grayghost is involved in a series of content disputes over issues relating to the Civil War. Articles involved are Confederate States of America, Winchester in the American Civil War, Virginia in the American Civil War, and Great Train Raid of 1861.

On his own talk page Grayghost01 has initiated a bizarre, stalking section directly targeting me and another editor (see User talk:Grayghost01#Neo-Yankee vandalism). In these disputes Grayghost has repeatedly accused editors who disagree with him of committing vandalism. In the article Great Train Raid of 1861 he accused editor User:JimWae in edit summaries here [17] and here [18] of vandalism and even went so far as to issue inappropriate warnings on his talk page here [19] and here [20].

With respect to myself, he has issued inappropriate vandalism warnings here [21] and here [22] (where he refers to "your blog-oriented rants").

When Grayghost filed a COI complaint here, User:Bkonrad responded which generated this [23] response on his talk page.

Some specific examples of Grayghost's language:

[24] I have the view that your edits bring down the quality of this page, just as they have brought down the quality on other high-level ACW topics.

[25] I predict you have no intent to discuss or cooperate. As such, we shall leave the article the way it was, prior to your placement of trivia on the page.

[26] If you persist in what you are doing, I will persist even more strongly to claim you are intentionally being vandalistic. Vandalism, in your form, may be subtle and not spray paint ... but it has the same intent. You are purely diversionary, and have no true interest in what the history of Virginia is, nor do you care anything about the state and it's various wiki-pages on its history.

[27] What's clear is the two of you have cut swiss cheese holes in what used to be reasonably good and readable articles. The Confederate States of America article is so bad ... it's terrible, thank to you two, who have made it unbearable to read. My eyes water. It's more of a blog on the issue of Slavery than anything else. Please .... I beg you two ... go open up blog sites and blog away. You're ruining the wiki articles.

[28] Please quit editing in your self-made Pseudo-History into the wiki articles, and go do some research first.


[29] You are a master of spin. You and your partner systematically change these broad-topic pages to suit your POV.

[30] Like Milroy, you have a tact and flare for simply being intentionally provoking, and sir ... with all due respect ... you have contributed NOTHING of value whatsoever to the topic of Winchester, the history of Winchester, and it's affairs in the Civil War. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that Grayghost01 is having difficulty separating POV from a more dispassionate summary of events. The editor has stated that the CSA page should be told from the Confederate perspective, etc. I originally took a conciliatory tone with the editor, but this has failed and I regret doing so now. The stalking like format he put on his talk page was particularly troublesome. Red Harvest (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He has also brought his invective to pages he has not been editing [31] --JimWae (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • His stated aim is to tell the story of his ancestors. His edits indicate he wants to tell the story FROM their POV without bothering to acknowledge that such IS a POV. He wants to be free to state as fact that the Union "invaded" the South/CSA (NB: no country ever recognized the CSA as a separate country), and he wants to repeatedly insert into articles that several states seceded because of Lincoln's call for arms - while also removing the reason Lincoln called for troops (the attack on Fort Sumter) --JimWae (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino

Insults directed at other editors here, and in edit summaries here, here, here, here, and here.

This user is on some sort of crusade to make articles 'pretty' by removing whitespace. A long discussion here has failed to make him understand that 'removing whitespace' is a formatting issue that can only work on his computer. Despite him quoting the very same thing at me, he doesn't quite get it. He is being rude, condescending, and insulting. In fact, he has a long history (under more than one, albeit similar, username) of being blocked for uncivil behaviour, disruptive editing, and refusing to listen to other people. Prince of Canada t | c 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding: another attack here, and (yes, I understand this is technically allowed, but it's part of a pattern) removal of the personal attack warning and notification of WQA here. Prince of Canada t | c 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the last one is finally an actual "attack"! An "unsightly image move" in an edit summary is not a civility issue. A comment about near-sightedness (myopic) is not necessarily an attack either. You appear to have more of a content issue here, and a strange one at that. BMW(drive) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask for clarification here?: Which was the actual "attack"? "The last one" would imply this, wherein I said "tell me that when you're an admin." Is that the attack you're alluding to, Bwilkins? Just so I know for the future. --G2bambino (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As I see it Gambino, this "it becomes evident that all you care about is getting what you want your way. It's that "screw you" attitude that is most unbecoming and, worse, the cause of disruptive impasse" was rather uncivil. Some of the others were borderline, depending on how they were read. As this is a CONTENT issue (i.e Formatting is effectively content), can I actually ask you point blank one question? Here it is: "On the billions of computers in the world, most do not use the same screen resolution as you do. Why would you try to make pages match YOUR screen when it will mess up Wikipedia on the majority of other computers around the world? Pages should be formatted to the most common denominator, superfluous whitespace, the gratuitous use of the br command, etc should be avoided at all costs." (Ok, it was a question plus a comment) That would be like me taking a hammer to other people's cars in order that they would potentially fit in my garage (which would be a lot of work with a Hummer H1) BMW(drive) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough; that may have crossed the line between blunt and uncivil; I was merely looking for a way to get across to Prince exactly how he was coming across to me; more gentle previous attempts having seemingly been unsuccessful. As for your question: we'd first have to establish that I have "mess[ed] up Wikipedia on the majority of other computers around the world," and then affirm that I've no concern for that, only that it looks right on my screen. I can tell you, however, that that is not the case; I'm looking for a way that will make articles appear right on all screens, at least as far as the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is concerned. What's going on at Monarchy of Canada is a separate issue all-together. --G2bambino (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I should think that "another disaster", "what is your justification for this vandalism" (emphasis mine), "myopic", and "must you be so dramatic" (here) are all uncivil behaviour, and qualify as attacks.
The issue is not content. The issue is the editor in question not understanding how layout works, and indeed ignoring his own words on the subject, when I had made the same mistake he is making, before I learned better. Prince of Canada t | c 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
More incivility, and in the comment actually lying about what I am doing. This is getting ridiculous. Prince of Canada t | c 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Another [32] lie; claims I no longer wished discussion of the 'images' issue at my talk page; my actual statement was: "Do not reply on my talk page again; I do not wish to see any further personal attacks" (here), and "I wish to make this clear: STOP. POSTING. HERE. Your abuse is not welcome, your dishonesty is not welcome, you are not welcome," here.
This editor is repeatedly insulting, dishonest about what I have said and done, and does not comprehend the simplest concepts regarding how computers render webpages. Indeed, he ignores his own statements about how different computers render webpages. One can only speculate as to why.Prince of Canada t | c 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
G2bambino has a history of insulting users, engaging in edit wars and using tactics against users who do not share his opinion. --Dlatimer (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. uncivil edit summaries seem to be a trademark, as does blithely ignoring what other have to say, and that's just from the past couple of weeks. In fact, he himself agrees that attempting to debate his lack of civility is [[Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Arms images|pointless]. This indicates to me that this editor is less concerned with the health of the encyclopedia as much as he is concerned with getting his own way. I would also point out his general wikilawyering of policies, while conveniently ignoring several that apply to his own behaviour. I'm beginning to think that this belongs at RfC/U, as he is continuing his standard "I'm going to ignore everything you say until I get my way" thing at this talk page. Prince of Canada t | c 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can find insults and "attacks" from both sides of this dispute. Gavin (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? A factual statement such as "you do not understand" is an attack, now? His history and 'debate' style is a matter of public record. You might also want to look through ANI, as he's been there before; his record of incivility is well, well documented. Prince of Canada t | c 19:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
But does being blunt qualify as being uncivil? Gavin (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
When it is accompanied by accusations of vandalism, saying my edits "look like shit", and oh, all the other diffs I've posted? Why yes, yes it does. Prince of Canada t | c 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"You are an asshole" is uncivil. "Your edits look like shit" is a personal perception about a skillset, whether true or not (it should never be said, but it's not uncivil towards YOU). "You are a pathetic piece of shyte vandal" is uncivil, wheras "Your edits appear to be vandalism"...not so much. BMW(drive) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Except that what he said was "your vandalism", not 'appear to be'. Prince of Canada t | c 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this vendetta needs to be taken elsewhere. Gavin (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Montanabw

I consider this diff by User:Montanabw to be a personal attack on me. And this revert by the same editor to reflect ownership. Those are just two examples of many. I have been ignoring this behavior for ... over a year now, but perhaps I should not continue to ignore it. What do you think? --Una Smith (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Una and I seem to chronically rub each other the wrong way. Her diff, you will note, is months old. Last time we tangled, the pronunciation of chaps went to mediation. This is an ongoing, ridiculous failure to assume good faith from an individual who keeps promoting fringe theories in numerous horse articles. I appear to be the only person in WikiProject Equine who is not intimidated by her bullying tactics. I consider this an attempt at intimidation. Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And a revert of information so blatently incorrect as to nearly constitute a nonsense edit is not ownership. Sigh. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Note the edit summary. --Una Smith (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing uncivil about this edit summary. She asks you to take the discussion to the talk page, as opposed to you, who immediately revert her edit, and then post a slightly rude and very generic message on the talk page. Here's the difference I see: On the talk page, Montana has posted specifics about what she doesn't like and asked you to source them properly. You have posted a generic message telling people not to revert you with nothing backing up your position. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above, the revert and its edit summary are an example of Montanabw's ownership. Reverting a user's contribution with an "is NOT" and instruction to take it to the discussion page, as Montanabw did here, is ownership. Civil behavior on Montanabw's part would have been to leave my contribution in the article and begin a discussion herself on the talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw writes I appear to be the only person in WikiProject Equine who is not intimidated by her bullying tactics. Let's invite WikiProject Equine here. I posted the link here. --Una Smith (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did notify Montanabw; she deleted my notice here. --Una Smith (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it is giving me high blood pressure. How about we go to our own talk pages and negotiate a truce before this thing escalates further? Montanabw(talk) 06:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tossing in my two cents here, after seeing the posting on the Equine project page...

I have worked with Montana quite a bit in the past on various horse-related articles. I have found her to be a knowledgable and competent editor with a good base in both writing skills and WP policy. She is the one who first welcomed me into Wikipedia, and is generally the one I go to when I have a specific question about an equine article. While she can sometimes be a little outspoken in her comments, I have never found her to be uncivil, and in fact quite the opposite. In her dealings with me, she has always been willing to change her mind when presented with solid sources that contradict her, and is always willing to help newcomers who show that they are willing to learn.

Now, on to her dealings with Una... I have watched their ongoing conflict over the past several months (although honestly I thought it had settled down recently, to my joy), but have never joined in. Honestly, the constant battling that they were doing was enough to give anyone high blood pressure, and I didn't feel like getting into the fight. In what I saw, it always seemed to me that when both sides provided solid sources, the conflict tended to de-escalate. While Montana always asked for specific sources (albiet sometimes with a few editorializing, somewhat off-topic comments), Una often countered with accusations of bad faith, incivility, and few, if any, reliable, verifiable sources to back up her commentary. This is just what I've seen from watching around the edges of this ongoing fight. Dana boomer (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Copying and pasting comment by another user from the project talk page on this subject: Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is the appropriate place for this conversation, but I looked at the diff and I don't see anything uncivil or intimidating by User:Montanabw. Montanabw seems to be extremely knowledgeable (much more than I) in all things horse related and I have yet to see an incorrect edit in the areas I have been to. - Epousesquecido (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: Struck first sentence because this probably is the correct place. Thank you Dana. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say I am puzzled by Una Smith's posting on this page. The talk page post she describes as "an attack" does not, to my mind, read as such. In the course of a talk page dispute about terminology, Montanabw mentions previous conflicts and disagreements with Una, admits her own shortcomings, and points out the advantages of having a neutral party involved in discussion. ("All I want to do at this point is have neutral people babysit these articles where we are both editing because it keeps things from getting personal and we both behave better with adult supervision.") The edit summary to Fiador is not impolite, either: Montanabw merely reverts an uncited edit (with a suggestion it was discussed on talk page) , as is the approved practice on WP. Following Una's reversion, Montanabw did not engage in an edit war, but added a fact tag, so that the matter could be resolved. It is also ludicrous for Una to state that she has "been ignoring this behavior for ... over a year now": as she admits herself, she has sought mediation for disputes in the past. This is no one-sided dispute; Una has not always responded with all due "Wikiquette" to Montanabw.

I must also add my own testimony to those offered above. I have every respect for Montanabw, for her intelligent and critical editing, her hard work, and her willingness to help other editors. That may read as merely the loyal praise of a friend, but our wiki-friendship has arisen out of just those attributes of Monatanabw's: as a complete stranger, and non-expert on equine matters, I challenged her edits at Horses in warfare regarding the size of knight's horses. Far from responding with ownership, dismissal or rudeness, she engaged in discussion, read my contrary references with interest, rewrote her sections to reflect the new information, and collaborated with me on a new article which presented the matter in more depth. Moreover, Montanabw was unstinting in time and energy, guiding me (as a relative newbie) through the whole process. (Without her mentoring, I would not be the productive wikiholic I am today!) While it may be true that she, like most people, has the occasional flash of annoyance or ill-temper, I can state quite confidently that she is not one to use intimidation or to issue personal attacks, and far from pushing her own POV, actively engages in research and discussions to ensure factual accuracy in articles, backed up with good citations. Gwinva (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I sought mediation to resolve a content dispute, which was resolved. Here, I address an altogether different matter: incivility. Particularly, a pattern of making personally directed remarks on talk pages and in edit summaries. --Una Smith (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, I sent Una a message on her talk page suggesting that we just work out a truce between us. I'd prefer to work this out there. Montanabw(talk) 04:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This belongs here. Montanabw tries to pretend this is merely a personal conflict, but her incivil behaviors affect others, as her edit summaries and diffs plainly show. She has been warned already about ownership, here. --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In case the problem isn't obvious to everyone, here is what it is like for me to be on the receiving end of her personally directed edits. I substituted an image with the neutral edit summary change lead image. Were I to behave like Montanabw so often does, I might have indulged myself and written an edit summary like this: Replaced presumably well intentioned but grossly inadequate (poor resolution, poor clarity, poor composition, poor lighting, poor conformation) photo with a superior one. You really shouldn't use your own photos, that is COI and OR. --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RECOMMENDATION: This argument has simply become a spillover from somewhere else (talk pages, project page, etc.) The idea of the Wikiqette forum is to try and get non-involved, 3rd party editors to view the situation with a fresh set of eyes and make suggestions. IMHO, by posting about this Wikiquette issue in the project forum itself, you have simply changed locales for discussion, and therefore completely obliterated the goal of the Wikiquette forum. In fact, it appears that perhaps the project page itself may have been the best place to try and resolve this issue. Always try and resolve issues at the lowest level: the article Talk page itself, directly between users, within a project, and then finally within Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution Process (like here). I have seen one editor clearly state "let's take this to our talk pages and work this out". Good idea. I recommend that you go back to square one on this and try and figure out how to work TOGETHER on these articles. Everyone has something to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as it's done within the rules. If you ignore someone's desire to try and work it out, then all you're doing is becoming the source of the issue instead. BMW(drive) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Bwilkins. This is a long-standing issue, as you say. As you say, I should have come here a year ago, when it was new. But I was relatively new here too, and didn't know what to do. She has proposed a truce with me once before. Montanabw's truce amounts to this: if I check with her before making non-trivial changes to any of the hundreds of pages she says she watches, she won't have to smack me down. Those terms are unacceptable; all editors are entitled to edit Wikipedia without first obtaining permission from Montanabw. Incivility is incivility, and Montanabw's habitual incivility and ownership get her into content disputes with many, many editors. But Montanabw's content disputes escalate into ugly personal fights because she will not refrain from making inappropriate personally directed remarks. (Many of Montanabw's friendly remarks are just as inappropriate as the hostile ones, because they are patronizing.) In the couple of days since her latest "truce offering" with me, Montanabw has begun attacking another editor, ThW5, User talk:ThW5#Horses here. And she has edited heavily Crupper and Rump (croup), two articles I created this week (so not already on her watchlist). I welcome her edits, even though I have to use {{inuse}} to prevent continual edit conflicts. Montanabw gets hostile, and shows it, when others do the same to "her" articles. I am considering escalating this to an RfC. Maybe a block would help her cool down. In the past I have warned her that I may do this; such warning she has called a personal attack on her. Another option would be community bans on each of the articles where she goes overboard. Montanabw can be a very productive and effective editor when in a good mood, but her bad moods are frequent and extremely toxic, and I think Montanabw does Wikipedia more harm than good. --Una Smith (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that on the talk page of ThW5, Montana first posted a very civil message discussing the difference in naming of a specific breed. She was then told that her edits were "vandalism", her "English grammar is very poor", she had made "idiotic mistakes", and she wrote "utter nonsense". After none of this did she personally attack the other editor. In fact, she asked them repeatedly to cease their personal attacks, without attacking them back personally. Una, I wish you would see that you are really one of a minority, who takes everything that Montana says as insulting or patronizing. I also wish you would see that Montana is obviously someone with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, who wishes to see all edits that are made backed up by reliable, verifiable sources.
"You are not providing adequate sources for your materials in the article, and your English grammar is very poor. Thus, in an attempt to clarify some very bad writing, I had to rewrite some of your material, and if doing so made it less accurate, then the proper thing to do is to discuss it here, which you did, or to explain it better, BUT NOT to accuse other good-faith editors of vandalizing articles. That is extremely rude. Some of the previous material comes from breed registry pages, and if you do not agree, then simply place the [citation needed] tag by the things you question and we can sort things out in a civilized manner."
This quote was entirely written by Montana herself, changing the breed's history section so that you have correct English sentences which tell falsehoods, as Montana did is vandalism of the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia. She did not provide any proper sources herself. I refuse to let comments made by somebody completely ignorant about the horse breeding situation in the Northern Netherlands in the late 19th century be attributed to me.--ThW5 (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Honestly, Montana copyedits the major edits that I make to many of the breed articles and other horse articles with the same thoroughness (and the same lengthy edit summaries) that she does to everyone elses. I don't see this (and I never have, in my 9 months of editing) as insulting or patronizing. I see it as editors working together to create the best articles that Wikipedia can offer. If you would like to see some of the articles that Montana has helped to edit, check out Thoroughbred, which has made FA, Horses in warfare, which just survived a GAR with flying colors, and Horse, which is going to GAN fairly soon. I rarely, if ever, see you working in cooperation with other WP: Equine editors to improve major articles such as these. Instead, I see you warring with Montana on everything that you can find, and then posting attacks on pages such as this and making threats to get her blocked, rather than trying her proposal to take things to the talk pages. Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this by my wife, Epousesquecido. I've given this a skim, so I might be missing something here, but the impression I've formed is that this WQ appears to be misplaced. I don't see any major issues with Montanabw's behavior in the references that Una Smith has given. There may be a past history there, perhaps, but the best thing to do with past history is ForgiveAndForget. Instead, what I see is rather more concerning, that Una Smith appears to be forum shopping. I found the exchange on User_talk:ThW5#Horses particularly telling. ThWS seems to be a relatively new editor who hasn't yet embraced our norms of civility, collegiality, and working together without attacking each other, and Montanabw seems to be trying very hard to work with that new editor, in the face of some rather heated comments directed at her. She manages to make her points politely even in the face of statements like "You made the history section tell utter nonsense. That is vandalizing, in my opinion". (... utter nonsense is rather unhelpful, and characterizing honest differences of opinion about content and approach as vandalism is also rather unhelpful) After some back and forth, Una Smith appears and tosses in "... she pretends not to understand why her behavior is not acceptable, yet here she is giving you the "what for". Isn't that interesting?" which is wrong on several levels. Civility blocks do not work so even if there was a problem here with Montanabw, blocking would not be the right approach. While there's always merit in all parties doing some self examination, I think it's Una Smith that perhaps would most benefit from that. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Montana does not know enough about the history of Frisian horses to have a serious opinion. The Frisian was being crossbred out of existence in the period concerned because the mares were served by the fashionable heavy warmbloods, as they were the mares breeders had. Projecting modern reasons to crossbreed with Frisian horses into that era shows a lack of understanding of a magnitude I simply cannot deal with. I use to write about the history of Frisian horses outside Wikipedia, I had no problem with the spelling thing Montana informed me about, but what she had done in the history section, was changing a very mediocre text to an extremely wrong one. In doing so, she wrote a nonsensical text instead of a mediocre, but somewhat informing one, if that is NOT vandalism, what is? --ThW5 (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • To use a horse word here ... WHOA!! Did you honestly just say "Montana does not know enough about the history of Frisian horses to have a serious opinion?? In every single link and diff I have followed regarding this discussion, that was the most uncivil piece of writing I have seen. As I get past my shock, let me say that I believe you had a proper opportunity to WP:AGF regarding the edit on Frisian's that you are discussing. It is quite possible that the unintended consequence of Montana attempting to error-correct the entry was some confusion/confuddlement of the information at hand. That's not vandalism, and it's not uncivil, it's (when using AGF) human error. Have you never tried to fix something, only to find you created a new issue? BMW(drive) 11:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please. I am feeling very intimidated by Una's accusations. I simply am not capable of defending all of her accusations on a case-by case basis, particularly long-resolved stuff from a year ago. Let me try to briefly explain how I think this got started. My primary concern now and in the past is that, whatever her strengths are (and apparently she is a capable editor of medical articles), Una has a tendency to promote fringe theories or perhaps novel theories in many of her horse article edits and in the nature of her fact tagging. Not to say that she isn't sometimes correct in pointing out something that needs work or is poorly stated, and of course she has the right to fact tag anything she wants, within reason, but she seems to take particular umbrage at me when I try to explain what I edited and why I edited it, whether on a talk page, an edit summary or in hidden text. It feels very personal. Like I have said, I think we simply seem to rub each other the wrong way, and sometimes I admit I have been angry with her. But other times, her cruelty has had me crying on the keyboard and ready to quit wikipedia forever. I feel I am on trial for something I didn't do. My frustration is that instead of simply asking me to explain something more clearly, she argues vehemently for an approach that almost presents a novel theory or original research. I don't know what to do. I can't get her to discuss anything with me directly, I can't seem to convince her that I want to negotiate in good faith. Any attempt to defend myself seems to be twisted out of context and turned into something it's not. I appreciate the comments of others here (Thank you) and I feel bad that others have been dragged into something that should be settled quietly between the individuals involved. Montanabw(talk) 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Galidakis

Resolved: Untranslated comments that originator believed might be offensive can no longer be found as article and related discussion page has been deleted

BMW(drive) 14:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have kindly requested from this user that he deletes his biography which violates Wikipedia guidelines. This user has responded using extremely foul language ("paliomounara") and nicknames to which I am not accustomed [33]. I can understand the distress caused when another contributor requests the deletion of one's work but surely there are better responses than foul language.--Tedblack (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, but I looked on both of your talk pages, the talk page for Ioannis_Galidakis and that article's AfD. On all of those pages it appears to me that the two of you are treating one another with respect. Again, perhaps I missed something. The only exception is the sentence in what appears to be Greek. As I don't speak Greek, I am unsure of what it says. Aside from that, I am having trouble finding the issue. Perhaps you could clarify? Lazulilasher (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently "paliomounara" is extremely foul language. I would not know. I wonder, however, if User:Galidakis will be coming back. Madman (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on breaking it down. "mounara" based on my research can mean "very sexy woman" ... see "you very sexy... ise mounara". The article in question is in AfD. It actually appears to me that the original AUTHOR first asked for his article to be deleted, and somebody said "no", or am I reading the history wrong? He's actually thinking you for starting the AfD. As far as the talk page, consider that the phrase "bravo evi!eleiwses alla ta kataferes!" is a congratulationatory phrase, this seems to say the same thing: he's thanking you. BMW(drive) 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to User:Bwilkins (and I assume you are not Greek) if he was to thank a Greek man to his face by calling him "paliomounara" he would get a beating; I am not sure what would be the reaction from a "very sexy woman" although I can guess that her husband or brother would do the same to User:Bwilkins. We don't need foul language in Wikipedia. User:Galidakis must be cautioned.--Tedblack (talk) 15
57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, if, as you claimed earlier, you did not know what the phrase meant, why do you continue to state that it is uncivil? Why also when the user asked for a page that doesn't meet WP:BIO that he created to be deleted, why would you AfD it when it's obviously a CSD? How about you provide a valid translation for the comments that he left on his own Talk page if you don't like mine? How about you leave the bold font off your entire paragraph? You brought this concern here to this forum, you insist he be cautioned (which you have no right to do), yet cannot or will not say for sure if his words are actually uncivil BMW(drive) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:RhoLyokoWarrior

From his talk page: " I warned you, man. You now have me pissed off. THE ARTICLE WAS JUST CREATED THE OTHER FUCKING DAY. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT CODE LYOKO FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, SO LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE NOW, OR AN ADMIN WILL BE NOTIFIED." Not a very civil attitude, wouldn't you say? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note his latest comment and his user page is a borderline attack page. It's impossible to deal with editors like these. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • oh and when I tried to talk to him about it, he blanked the message and his edit summary was "you are obviously a mexican" Beeblebrox (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have placed an attack warning on his discussion page. His User page is more than borderline, it's actually purely racist...and I would hope that an admin who is reading this will act accordingly. BMW(drive) 11:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition: a quick look at his edit summaries says lots BMW(drive) 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like someone went to the admins, he's been blocked for 24 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
His user page was deleted for personal attacks, this guy will do no good to Wikipedia. Hopefully the block keeps him away, but if he does come back, ban/block might be in order. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Journaldiction

The user has been posting comments about me stating I must be an incompetent editor because of my nomination of a recent article for AFD (which needed it at the time, in my belief) and stating I must have a grudge against the subject.

User took his comments to the actual AFD here.

User made a point of bashing my editing skills as the header on his talk page here.

Thank you for your input, fellow Wikipedians.

Note: I have alerted the user of my notice to this noticeboard here. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ESanchez, as you appear to be the most recent "leader" in deleting his most-favoured article, he seems to be blaming you for its possible demise, and strangely enough I don't see his comments as fully "uncivil", more "angry". I believe that you have done the right thing: brought other editor's attention to the article, so that you are not the only "bad guy". BMW(drive) 10:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I will admit sometimes I make mistakes on SPEEDY and AFD noms, but I really think the article needs it. I won't whiplash, though. Thanks Bwi. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:RSW-red sox win

This editor is making unkind remarks based on the fact that I live in the Southeast on the Delta Air Lines Talk page in response to the fact that his hometown, Boston, has been removed from the focus cities list. The edit which has lead him to become disparaging in response has been otherwise agreed on, cited, and resolved. He refers to the fact that I show up under two IP's which is merely a matter of the location at which I happen to be online at a particular moment, indicates no underlying motive, and has not been used to violate Wikipedia rules. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you could offer in calming this gentlemen down and bringing a halt to these regional slurs. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to refer you to the edit history of Delta Air Lines as he chose to make those remarks there as well. He has now been notified of my alert and my intention be friendly in the alert interactions. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking back at the History of his talk page it seems that he has had a history of inappropriate comments and borderline vandalism to which he has simply deleted the warnings and proceeded. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, was it the word "redneck" that specifically p'd you off? You kind of goaded him into intensifying his commentary towards you... I know some folks in Nashville that are quite proud to be "rednecks", and if you live in the SE, then the term would generally not refer to you in a bad way BMW(drive) 11:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be the term and I can't speak for the handful in Nashville that enjoy it and certainly don't understand why that would be, but there are also a good many of us that believe we are just as civilized and un-redneck as Charlotte & Atlanta and I happen to be one of those. I don't live elsewhere in the SE. After all, we've been one of the hottest cities for corporate relocations with Nissan North America, Louisiana-Pacific, Oreck, etc. not to mention the many other HQ's we've already had in the health care and publishing industries. We've also had the largest skyscraper outside of NYC and Chicago proposed for our downtown area(see http://www.signaturetowernashville.com/images/image-6.jpg & http://www.signaturetowernashville.com/images/image-9.jpg ), we have a new Symphony hall(see http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/main.taf?p=4,13,4 ), TPAC(plays), 2 major league sports teams,Vanderbilt University (see http://www.vanderbilt.edu/), a major airport that is a focus city for SW and used to be hub for American that had daily flights to London(we still have service to Toronto and Cancun picked up by other airlines),the Japanese consulate to the SE, etc. etc. I could go on and on. Yes, we have country music and we are proud of that as LA is proud of their movies and music presence but that definitely does not define us as a whole and most people I know living here would not appreciate the term "redneck" and staunchly disagree with it. Does this look redneck to you? When people from the NE fail to see that we are more like St. Louis, Tampa, and Charlotte than Mayberry we see them as ignorant and apparently not having gotten out much. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. As he doesn't know you personally, is it possible he wasn't calling you personally a "redneck", but more based on your behaviour - the overly firm pushing of a slant to the article: "Fiercely independent, and frequently belligerent, people characterized as rednecks perpetuated old Celtic ideas of honor and clanship" (taken from the Wikipedia article Redneck)?? BMW(drive) 18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Redneck as we see it is mannerless, backwoods, acting as a loose canon, and speaking in an unitelligent way using poor grammar. People in the United States try to use it to pin those in the South (TN,NC,SC,GA,AL,MS, and AR) as stupid. I hope I've refuted that definition, however, by the case I made above. Obviously the jokes on him so I'm not gonna wear myself out about it. But I do believe that he was wrong and he should realize the gravity of just how wrong he was based on what I said above. It also appears from looking at his user page and talk page history as a whole that he just needs a general warning on interaction etiquette as that seems to be problem with him which also re-enforced my feeling the need to post an alert with regards to him. Thanks for your time and help in working on this by the way. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's how he was using the term from the same Wikipedia article that you quoted from which is NOT the case in Nashville and defintely not me: "Generally, there is a continuum from the stereotypical redneck (a derisive term) to the country person; yet there are differences. In contrast to country people, stereotypical rednecks tend not to attend church, or do so infrequently. They also tend to use alcohol and gamble more than their church-going neighbors. Further, "politically apathetic" may describe some members of this group. Until the late 1970s they tended toward populism and were solidly behind the Democratic party, but have supported Republicans since the Carter presidency.[citation needed] Many celebrities like Jeff Foxworthy and Larry The Cable Guy embrace the redneck label. It is used both as a term of pride and as a derogatory epithet, sometimes to paint country people and/or their lifestyle as being lower class." I hope you can see from the case I made early on that what I showed you does not fit this definition. There are stupid people everywhere, but no more here than in Boston. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Well obviously this is useless. Is there an etiquette or attack tag of some sort I can put on this guys talk page and just call it a day because I didn't come here to try and convince yet someone else that I'm not a redneck and that Nashville is a very civilized city with a majority of intelligent people. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please relax - you filed this report yesterday, the goal here is to get a 3rd party look at the situation. You don't need to convince anyone that Nashville is not all hillbillies (more offensive than rednecks), you convince people yourself by a) your patience and b) your editing. Call me a "Canuck", it's more offensive than "redneck", but I'm adult - childish name-calling no longer bugs me. "Racist" pisses me off, but not "Canuck". Give people here a chance to look at the entire situation. BMW(drive) 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added two very important items to the user's Talk page: a "Welcome" that explains the policies, etc of Wikipedia. This is something that may have helped to prevent the situation from occurring in the first place. Second, I added a first-level warning for incivility, in some ways against my better judgment. I would highly recommend that you get yourself a userid of your own - although you don't need one to edit or use Wikipedia, it shows you're taking a personal "ownership" of the project, or in my thinking, it means you're signing up for what Wikipedia means. Everyone deserves the same level of civility, but in reality, IP editors are treated somewhat "differently" when it comes to many things. I would also recommend a little patience in the future...as kids we were taught "sticks and stones..." - some names are harmless sterotypes. If they become racial in nature, or if they refer to age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc...then those names are far more harmful. Also, please do what I call WP:AIR ... meaning "Assume Ignorance of the Rules" - that's why I added the welcome message. Finally (on an unrelated noted), let me know when your Predators tickets arrive in the mail, it's pretty disgusting sad that you Nashvillians almost let your professional hockey team slip away - make sure you, and your neighbours get to a couple of games at the Sommet Center, okay? BMW(drive) 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83

Resolved: Complaining party indicated the dispute has concluded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user, in my view, squeezed a newbie out by treating him in an inappropriate way, and then refused to acknowledge or deal with the issue, despite feedback from myself and two other editors. He repeatedly removes the discussion on his own talk page. I tried to get a third opinion over a day ago, but that service seems asleep at the moment. In the meantime I rather stupidly let the issue escalate somewhat. Ctjf83 is now plastering inappropriate stuff on my own talk page and has interferred with my request for a third opinion. Here is the latest version on Ctjf83's talk page (now removed by Ctjf83). Scroll down to "Your unfortunate treatment of newbie Rhyme & Reason". --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that he has tried to drop the matter here. Have you notified him of the WQA complaint because I'm not seeing anything on his talkpage? Also, he is allowed to remove comments from his own talk page - I'm not sure what sort of third opinion you were seeking on him, but again, he is allowed to remove discussions on his talk page. --SmashvilleBONK! 23:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Hexhand and personal attacks/rudeness in an AfD

User:Hexhand is being rude and making personal attacks against me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Pilot) Fringe. His first post responding to the AfD, was a lengthy personal attack[34] with a threat to file an AN/I because I AfD "his" article. He "apologized" to another editor who chastised him for it[35], then today made a bunch of snide, condescending, and rude remarks[36][37][38]. He earlier also made vague threats on my user talk page[39] and showed the same rude attitude with an edit summary of "er, maybe I stuttered?" and again making a vague threat of how he will react to my saying the article was not notable.[40]. He's also carrying it over to other edit summaries[41]. -- [[::User:AnmaFinotera|AnmaFinotera]] ([[::User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 15:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm, let's look at it another way, shall we? I start an article about the pilot episode of a series, and less than fours after that, Collectonian removes all the material, redirecting it back to a stub of an article, with a snide edit summary, implying the article was created to prop up a bloated plot. When asked about it, he says the article isn't notable (though subsequent AfD commentary from many others seems to feel it is). After edit-warring over the redirect four times in both the series article and the pilot article, she warns he could just refer the article for AfD instead. This he did.
If I choose to have a little less respect for an editor (who has been previously blocked for edit-warring, and an extensive history of being asked to provide a bit more civility) who appears to be gaming the system to remove an article that she - and she alone - seems to feel isn't notable enough for inclusion, then so be it. The "vague threats" Collectonian refers to are requests to use the discussion page, as opposed to simply edit-warring in some misguided hope that throught he simple act of reverting, her will would somehow prevail. Edit-warring has consequences, and Collectonian was warned, as per AN/I protocol; revisiting the same edit-warring behavior would trigger a complaint. As for my so-called snide remarks, the diffs pretty much refute Collectonian's own claims. Were they actually incorrect, she might have a leg to stand on. As it is, she doesn't. AGF doesn't mean overlooking bad, uncooperative behavior.
Frankly, this forum-shopping. As DR goes, the first step would be to actually discuss matters with me, which she has not deigned to to (though she did delete my comments requesting her to stop edit warring here), calling it OWNership. Subsequent comments haven't been all that pleasant, either. She came here to get sympathy, not a resolution with me. Again, gaming the system. - Hexhand (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's get to the root of the issue: There was already an article about the topic. There's no doubt that any NEW information needs to be merged into it, and the original deleted ASAP (blank it, CSD it, as far as I'm concerned). Prior to creating an article, an editor is supposed to do a search for similar articles, so I'm surprised this one went through the way it did, but it did (on top of that, I really hope that this less-than-noteworthy (as of right now) TV show does not get separate articles for each episode). There is NO discussion whatsoever on the Talk page of the newer article, and only a couple of project templates on the other. In short, ONE editor jumped the gun by creating the article, ANOTHER editor jumped the gun in AfD'ing it. So, copy the "new" article's contents to your sandbox and GET RID OF the article ASAP. Discuss any further issues in a civil manner on the Talk page of the ORIGINAL. I say everybody drop it and move on. BMW(drive) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hexhand preferred instead of file a false 3RR report against me, so no quick close here. (and considering the pilot is still be argued as a keep in a separate AfD, its probably this unnotable series will end up with episode articles for every episode). -- [[::User:AnmaFinotera|AnmaFinotera]] ([[::User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
BWilkins is right; I didn't search as well as I should have before creating the article. BW is also correct that more talk should have occurred, but - despite repeated requests for such - none occurred, and edit-warring ensued. As for the falseness of the 3RR complaint, the last time I checked, 3RR covers just about any revert over three, unless it is undoing vandalisim or outright disruption. Collectonian has surely been here long enough to know how to avoid 3RR.
Lastly, the matter wouldn't likely be resolved by simply merging the material from the newer article in to the older one, as Collectonian has already expressed a burning desire to have the entire article deleted (despite the consensus of the AfD she closed voluntarily). It is not a single action but a pattern of behavior by Collectonian that is a bit south of acceptable - Hexhand (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No, 3RR does not cover "any revert" in combination, it covers specific reverts. Nor were those even reverts, it was cleaning up a merged article. And you yourself said "close the AfD, its been merged" so I did then you reported me for 3RR for doing so. In the real world, that's call entrapment. -- [[::User:AnmaFinotera|AnmaFinotera]] ([[::User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian ... you've been at this Wikipedia thing for awhile, and I think you're generally level headed about things. How about this: back away from this specific article for a few days, let it get merged and edited. Right now, it looks like you have a big dislike-hook on this specific article, and that's not healthy. If it's still crappy by the weekend, start cleaning it up and/or AfD it (or better yet, have someone else you trust look at it and AfD it if they feel it deserves it). Meddling in an article that you're AfDing when someone is trying to merge it is really counterproductive, and (as you can see) pi'ses people off who are trying to save it. BMW(drive) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who nominated it for AfD, so I don't see my closing it per his own merging as "meddling." The merging was done, so I closed the double AfD which was no longer valid and did a single one to allow the new merged article to be judged on its on. I have also tried cleaning up the article to at least make it better if its kept, but Hexhand is reverting all other editors attempts to edit the new merged article, including mine and those from another established editor User:LeaveSleaves (who was already working on the first version) to continue returning the article to his merged version.[42][43], including edits that improved sourcing. -- [[::User:AnmaFinotera|AnmaFinotera]] ([[::User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 16:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, wrong again. Maybe you should follow BWikins' healthy advice; if your behavior makes you feel the need to break 3RR, edit-war and initiate a wiki-alert, you are getting too hot. Trust the rest of the wiki community to fix the article. You are on record stating that the article isn't notable, and you've piled on anyone who feels differently. Two differnet AfDs for the same article is excessive, and I suspect you aren't too far gone to know that. Return to some of that level-headedness that BW was talking about earlier and calm the heck down. Maybe have a nice cup of tea. - Hexhand (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Hexhand, you should also make sure that as there are other editors who are knowledgeable on this subject (see the history of the first version of this article), please let them help with your edits as well. As I've said, it's probably about time to use the Article's Discussion page (not another editor's page) to deal with any future changes ... no matter how minor they are at this point. When an article is already at AfD, you need as many good hands helping at the same time to save it ... some of the article editors are long-standing editors, and can possibly help save the article. Don't take too much ownership if it! BMW(drive) 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Really, I wasn't even considering something I owned. I even merged my content to the other article that was created before the one I made. I thought the article deserved to remain, and I saw Collectonian's behavior as dismissive, biased and unpleasant. I've been told that Collectonian isn't usually like this, so I will attempt to mend some fences for flying off the handle at the bad behavior/lapse in judgment/whatever. - Hexhand (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Collectonian here. These rude, snike, condescending remarks need to stop. Users can make their point without resorting to such tactics, which do nothing to help build the encyclopedia. RlevseTalk 10:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems he is determined to just attack me at any and every chance he gets, for no valid reason. His latest attack[44] is getting close to my limit on taking his abuse, despite his obviously insincere tacked on "thanks" after a paragraph of insults. I'm trying like hell to remain polite, if terse at this point, and avoid responding, but this is just plain ridiculous. I've already asked for someone else from the TV project to adopt this series' articles so I can get away from him. He's also attacking here[45]. He refuses to admit he was wrong in his 3RR report - which the admin noted was not a violation at all and wasn't even a valid report. He continues his massive attacks all over the place for no reason and has demanded that I leave all of "his" articles despite my being the one who has been editing on the Fringe series articles for months. -- [[::User:AnmaFinotera|AnmaFinotera]] ([[::User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I am most certainly not. Pointing to where the only edits you tend to make in any article I am participating in are to revert (and almost always re-revert) my additions is not a personal attack. Asking you to stop beating a dead horse - mentioning things I have already apologized for at least twice - and returning to polite discussion is not a personal attack. Indeed, those apologies or attempts to med fences are either ignored, deleted or discounted. My apology was indeed sincere; the 3RR report only showed three reverts (though that is pretty much edit-warring).
I would suggest that if you think you aren't being impolite, you need to step back and take another look. You are edit-warring. You are not talking, not discussing, not seeking a consensus. You are using past mistakes to justify continuing personal attacks in discussion. I will say it again: I am sorry the 3RR report was filed; you did not revert four times. I am sorry for responding inappropriately to you, and adding to it by responding poorly when you were demonstrated bad faith and made your own personal attacks. I am sorry; can we now move on? Please?
I am asking to work with you. If you cannot, don't interact with me (which I have already suggested). Please stop reflexively revert my edits without actually reading them. BRD actually means discussing. - Hexhand (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

24.184.206.83 - anon. user

The user has been persistent in making comments about editors, not edits. He has called several people out as if they were idiots, banning people from his talk page (his right to do so?).

He's been especially (uncivil?/mean?) to me and User:LonelyBeacon. A little help? Thanks. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 23:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits of User:24.184.206.83 look good up until the beginning of September. Has a few suspected sock puppets out there, has a check user been done on him? Seems to vandalize pages and on another account claims his cousin was using the computer (who was also vandalizing pages). I noticed one of his suspected socks was recently banned, but it expired. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it has. He's just been uncivil. He's been accused of SOCKing before but don't know about them. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 01:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Once again you're talking about me in situations you barely know half about. If you want the story on the sock puppet crap, then try checking my page. And I'm attacking edittors? Yeah, one edit that called someone a "hypocrite" means every single one of my edits are personal attacks. I know losing an argument was hard, but you made it too easy for me to win. And, no, I didn't want to win. I got what I wanted, me and Lonely Beacon apologized to each other. The reason I argued with you was because you were acting like a wanna-be admin ( as evidenced by your page ) in a situation you had little knowledge of. 24.184.206.83 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's still going on (above) and here. That Ghost109 character is now talking about banning the IP. This has the smell of socks all over it. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 04:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Your sadness is very entertaining. I love how you can't respond directly yet can completely change the subject (while talking in third person to yourself) to something that I've talked about with admins months ago. Nice job. Ghost109 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Karen carpentry

Resolved: Complaining party indicated the dispute has concluded. Aryder779 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved in a dispute with this user on Talk:Grindcore#Post-punk as stylistic origin. He or she has resorted to aggressive name-calling and has entirely disregarded WP:CIVIL and WP:NOR. I admit to having made one sarcastic comment, which I've crossed out in the hopes of returning dialogue to a more productive place. Thanks for your help. Aryder779 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seethingnuclearchaos has also been quite incivil, and appears to be a sock puppet, or possibly meat puppet, for User:Karen carpentry. Thanks again. Aryder779 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you please provide "diffs", links showing the specific edits which are uncivil? If you're unfamiliar with this, here's what you do: go into the history of whatever page you're referring to and use the "Compare selected versions" button. Copy the URL of the comparison page and provide a link to that URL on this page. Thanks, Madman (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's this, and this, this, and this.
I appreciate your help. Aryder779 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The remarks you link to are quite, quite unacceptable. You might also think about going to WP:RFCU if you have reasonable grounds for suspecting sockpuppetry. IronDuke 04:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I want to tackle the sockpuppet issue at this point. Thanks for the link. Just for the record, Seethingchaos has since posted this, which is slightly toned down but remains within the pattern of incivility. Aryder779 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Although not impossible as sockpuppetry, the 199. address (claimed by Karen Carpentery) is listed at the State University of New York. The other (the 24. that appears to be seethingchaos) is on the RoadRunner networks ... you accuse someone on a talkpage of being a sock, it's a pretty big insult IMHO, they have a right to get a little bit nasty back (although not to the degree we saw...they DID however retract some of their worse comments) BMW(drive) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It's important to note that my initial mention of sockpuppetry was in response to entirely anonymous taunting I was receiving from IP addresses -- 24.90.180.54 clearly was a sock puppet for Seethingnuclearchaos. This was also subsequent, not prior, to a number of obscenities directed my way. I also think it is important that while Karen and Seething appear to be distinct individuals, I would observe their appearance in tandem and tag-team behavior as akin to meatpuppetry. I'm aware of the derogatory nature of the term, but I think it's justified given the names I've been called. Aryder779 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Things seem to have calmed down with this now, so I guess we can consider the matter resolved. I'll come back here if I have more trouble with either of these users. Thanks for your help, Madman, Iron Duke, and BMW. Aryder779 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought things had improved, but Karen just posted this. I'm getting really tired of this constant harassment. Any help that could be offered here would be much appreciated. Aryder779 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added a civility note on their talk page. Please ensure that any of your personal edits to the articles are properly referenced/cited - this should hopefully avoid conflicts. Major changes should be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, note that certain styles of music "promote" anti-establishment activities/behaviour, and often draw people who do the same (see "you're a bureaucrat"), so thick skin is needed when voluntarily facing a known possibility. BMW(drive) 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't mean to be thin-skinned, it's just that this has been quite a nuisance. BTW, I feel like aggressive Wikipedia talk page rhetoric is quite possibly the lamest imaginable form of "anti-establishment" behavior. Aryder779 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Things have gotten worse; the user has proceeded to delete information from the page, regardless of its many supporting references. All of his or her comments have continued to be ad hominem, and in some cases criticisms of the sources. All the references in question are supported by WP:Reliable sources. I've considered attempting to resolve the matter through discussion on User:Karen carpentry's talk page, but because he or she seems to be taking this so personally, I don't feel that further interaction will help matters. I'd like to move on, but I also don't feel that disruptive editing is acceptable. I'm unsure what my next step should be.
Diffs establishing the user's deletions: [46] [47] [48] [49]
Diffs recording the user's comments, which are mostly about what he or she takes to be my location and personality: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]
Thanks. Aryder779 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Aryder, I'm sorry to say that having read the entire talk page (including bits I had viewed to earlier on it), although there are slight hints of sarcasm on both sides, I fail to see overall incivility. In fact, people seem to be choosing their words very carefully. What I see as a root problem now, however, is a content dispute ... those cannot be dealt with in this forum. I think once that's dealt with, the personality discussions may lessen a bit. BMW(drive) 09:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Thanks for your time. I don't mean to cry wolf. Aryder779 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)