Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive51

User:Gibnews

Gibraltar issues are usually a hot topic because of the dispute between the UK, Gibraltar and Spain. Because of that, I think that the most appropriate way of working is keeping, to the greater extent, civility rules. However, it's difficult to stick to them when your first edition after long is reverted and qualified as "racist comment" (see here). I know it's difficult to keep calm, but it should be, at least, tried. In this specific case, Gibnews keep on removing a sourced POV, something that I dare to predict it'll be a source of problems). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This report is far, far too premature. Both User:Gibnews and User:Ecemaml have had a record of heated debates and dragging in others at this stage is uncooperative. This therefore comes across as fairly pointy. I would advise editors see WP:AGF and achieve consensus through rational discussion, thereby avoiding jumping to noticeboards and not to mention hurling accusations of POV-pushing. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely right but in one point. Removing a sourced point of view (even if we decided that such a POV does not deserve a place in the article) under the qualification of "racist comment", how cooperative is? I mean, I'm trying to defend my redaction but without entering any heated debate, but if the first action by Gibnews is accusing me of pushing racist point of views, shouldn't he be warned before the debate eventually get heated? Anyway, there are plenty of admins that can take the appropriate measures (obviously also ignoring this alert :-)) --Ecemaml (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS: in fact, an informal apology would be enough, but both of us know that it won't happen.

This appears to be more of a "content" issues more than civility. Trying to use the "racism" card where it doesn't belong is not incivility, it's calling "wolf" - in other words, this is the wrong forum for the issue. On top of that, this forum is for neutral editors (not necessarily admins) to help look at civility issues from a true 3rd party POV. It was filed this morning, and sorry that I had not had a full opportunity to reply until now. BMW(drive) 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Where should I complain then? --Ecemaml (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

Resolved

 – Complainants actions spoke loudly, and the other editor was not specifically uncivil

I've had just about enough of him. He's pissed me off to the point where I got banned for a day before, and now he's annoying be and harassing me by reverting EVERY SINGLE EDIT I MAKE. He doesn't even appear to look at them, he just says "lol its a test edit". When I ask him what the big deal is of using " instead of ' is, he refused to answer. Please give him some discipline, whether it's a short ban, a warning, or whatever. I just want him dealt with. RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RhoLyoko, first could you please provide diff's that show your point (directions at the top of this page). From the history of your edits, you've had incivility in your talk page, racism on your user page, swearing in your edit summaries, and so far have uploaded a number of improper images, tried to create articles that should never be created, and a number of editors have tried to steer you in the right direction, mainly Penguin. I would honestly expect that he/she has you on their watchlist - many editors keep an eye on "problem" editors in order to fix upcoming problems. You have been directed to [WP:CIVIL], [WP:MOS], and more policies. Now, that said, nobody likes to be followed too closely, but they have not been overly UNCIVIL with you. I would recommend that you a) take a few days to read through some of the standard Wikipedia policies on how and when to edit and create articles, b) please tone down your own incivility and c) if neither of the above are successful, ask to be adopted by a senior editor who can help you to become a better editor yourself. BMW(drive) 08:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RhoLyoko's been blocked (and declined several times) so I'd say this dispute is resolved. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:DanTD

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This is an education issue re:images and their use

Repeatedly adds Image:Which Iraqi Resistance.jpg and Image:Anti-Red China Poster.jpg even though they have been deleted 3 times for being non-free.

Has called me dense, accused me and all of these people of supporting terrorism a vandal and repeatedly adds the images back stating that they are free, after they have been deleted various times for not being free. [1]. Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing he's right about is me calling him dense, for siding with the various terrorist groups who he and others like him lionize as "The Iraqi Resistance." The images I created are as free as his userbox idolizing Joseph Stalin. Beyond that, he has the gall to accuse me of vandalizing my own page. I've seen plenty of wikipedia editor's user pages who's politics I disagree with, but I don't vandalize their pages and accuse them of vandalism for trying to restore them. ----DanTD (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

People are free to support the Iraqi resistance, this does not mean they support terrorism. Your "posters" are not free, they clearly use images which are not free to use, this point is proven by the fact, 3 different admins have deleted them. The image of Joseph Stalin, is free to use. Please provide a link to where I accused you of vandalising your userpage. As I've told you various times, the 3 different admins did not delete them over political views, they are non-free images, and aren't being used on a single article. Dzhugashvili (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does mean that they support terrorism, because the people that you claim are "the Iraqi Resistance" have murdered people who don't practice Islam in the way they see fit(or in some cases are merley not loyal to deposed dictatror Saddam Hussein), and have waged their respected holy wars outside of Iraq. The bombings of Shiite Mosques attacks on common merchants, the attacks on moderate Shiites by extremists Shiites and attacks against Jordan & Isreal prove my point. Plus, I've notice something about you Dzhugashvili; You've got a bad habit of blocking out data regarding your heroes. You've erased the millions killed by Stalin and a loss for Syria during the Six-Day War. You'd try to revive the myth that the Nazis were responsible for the Katyn massacre, despite the fact that Mikhail Gorbachev admitted it was the Soviet Union's fault, if you could. ----DanTD (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This argument doesn't belong here, or on Wikipedia for that matter. --NE2 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering Dzhugashvili's actions, I say it does. If not, then some other board dealing with such edits. ----DanTD (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with what edits? Deleting a copyright infringement? --NE2 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with the deletion of anything that's anti-communist. These particular edits would never have occured, if this kid hadn't been on a rampage against anything that was contrary to for the former and current communist party line. When I tried to explain why anyone who thinks that the terrorists in Iraq are "the Iraqi people resisting occupation" is dense, he eliminated my message, and said "I don't value your opinion." Well it's not an opinion. It's a fact. If my watchlist weren't already cluttered enough, I'd keep an eye on Dzhugashvili's edits, to make sure rhese kinds of deletions don't continue. ----DanTD (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"You've erased the millions killed by Stalin" - Well the number of people he had killed is disputed, I removed information, which was badly sourced. "and a loss for Syria during the Six-Day War." I'm not sure I would describe the political parties of Syria as "heroes", I have no knowledge or interest in Syrian politics, generally Wikipedia doesn't accept unsourced information, the 2 pieces of information I removed were unsourced since June 2007. "if this kid hadn't been on a rampage against anything that was contrary to for the former and current communist party line." - A rampage? Are you really being serious, as you've been told various times in the past, the images were not free, they weren't deleted for being anti-communist. "If my watchlist weren't already cluttered enough, I'd keep an eye on Dzhugashvili's edits," - I don't know what to suggest, try developing a hobby or an interest of some sort, outside of WIkipedia? "to make sure rhese kinds of deletions don't continue" - You want to make sure copyright infringements remain on Wikipedia?? Dzhugashvili (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You too. Wikipedia is not for political arguments. --NE2 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't make any political arguments, I just quoted what he said, and explained why his accusations are wrong. Dzhugashvili (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject here is deletion of an unfree image. It was properly deleted. --NE2 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He was also told by an admin, on his talk page, that the images are NOT free here. Also one of the images was deleted on 28 March 2007, which disproves his point that I'm nominating images for deletion, which differ from my political views, as my account was made on September 10th. Dzhugashvili (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan, even though you may have made the poster, it is a "derivative work", as you used three copyrighted, non-free photographs to create it. The poster is therefore not suitable on Wikipedia. Please do not upload it again, or you will be blocked. fish&karate 11:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This user does seem to have accepted the point that the image was deleted correctly: [2] Hut 8.5 06:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then we have both a CONTENT and CIVILITY issue. The civility surrounds the (proper) deletion of a non-free image. The civil discussion about the content should take place outside of this forum. I would recommend having a NEUTRAL editor who does a lot of work with images assist the editor in how to come up with a proper, allowable image for the same purpose. BMW(drive) 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User User:Jehochman is trying to coerce me with block threats to stop editing anonymously

Resolved

 – By unconditional agreement of all parties, discussions continued here, and were resolved here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

if I know Wikipedia rules well enough, it is my right to be an anonymous editor. Or is it not?

Can someone prevent this user from interacting with me? His is misusing his administrative privileges with these threats. Thank you.

Lakinekaki (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#Outings.2FPersonal_Attacks_by_two_editors [3] [4]... This editor has recently begun trolling about the definition of Fringe science at that talk page, apparently a continuation of old disputes. NJGW (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to mention who started with ad hominem attacks and with WP:HARASSment. BTW, thank you for calling me a troll. Any other compliments you want to give me, while you are at that? Lakinekaki (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who first called you that??? Hard to tell, but I see you've been called out on the fringe noticeboard before a couple of times. Maybe if you stopped quacking it wouldn't happen so much. NJGW (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep going, you are doing well. Do you have any more essays to quote? Lakinekaki (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please guys stop accusing eachother and let us see what's going on here?

Lakanekaki, are you editing the same topics using both your account and IPs? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I logged in today after a while because I was called a sock puppet on my user talk page, and thought it deserves a response with my signature. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, could you please ask Jehochman or anyone nicely (no bold CAPS or bad words please) to refer to WP:SSP and wait for the outcome? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It will be better if I don't interact with him. This is not the first time he is 'waving' with blocking me. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And while we are at SSP, can I also suggest several users for inspections, as they seem to appear on each other's talk pages within no time, backing up each other in discussions. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We are at WP:Etiquette :) It'd be odd if you don't want to interact with someone and still come here. Just take it easy. Just talk to him nicely and I am sure he'd not be hard on your edits. And yes, if you really believe someone is sockpuppeting, you're free to file a SSP report but remember that CU is not for fishing. Please remember, if you are innocent, you don't need to get upset. If you need any help, please refer to my talk page. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, it is so obvious, i stopped editing on july 30 as lakinekaki [5], until today (and one similar accusation on august 3). And I stated on my talk page on july 29 that I am going into 'anonymous edit mode'. So there cannot be sock puppetry as I am not using my account (unless provoked like today). So I don't even see a point in being labeled as sock puppet and threatened by block by Jehochman. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, what Jehochman said was "Please restrict yourself to a single account for further editing activities, or else blocks will be placed." Also, you have edited at least two pages in common with your named account, one on the same day and it confused people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:NOMORE. I'm sure Jehochman is just concerned because of this remark. NJGW (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You will note that that is when I switched to 'anon' mode -- july 30. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the weird part was when you came back a few days later to tell people you weren't that anon. NJGW (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird? So should I keep a list of all public IP's that I use my computer at? Lakinekaki (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

like this one 12.134.13.85 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned because Lakinekaki (talk · contribs) is using the IPs to attack and bait other editors, and accumulating quite a streak of warnings for various forms of disruption.[6][7][8][9][10][11] This sort of behavior is prohibited by the bad hand provision of our sock puppetry policy. By using multiple accounts they are not being blocked, whereas if one account did everything the user is doing with multiple accounts, it most likely would get blocked. If the user sticks to one account, either named or IP, and avoids causing further disruption, there will be no problem. And to everyone on this thread, when discussing an editor, be sure to notify them. I wasn't notified about this thread; just found it by chance. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[12] Lakinekaki (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

for example, for your quote of 'block' edit (last one), here is the context [13] Lakinekaki (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of dealing with wikipedia "editors". It is saturday night, and I am going to have some fun away from computer. Lakinekaki (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So, one user outed the user a couple of years ago...nice work Wikipedians. Because of that, the editor is very valid in a Legitimate use of Alternative accounts (from WP:SOCK)- "Segregation and security Some editors use alternative accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

• Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty.
• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area."

Stop placing anonymous IP tags on the user's page. If he truly circumvents the rules (avoiding blocks, voting, good guy/bad guy, etc) then deal with him that way when the incidents arise. BMW(drive) 12:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a legitimate use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny while violating community standards, such as this misuse of vandalism warnings against a content opponent, or this egregious breach of decorum, or this edit which amounts to taunting and threatening to violate policy. Please, Lakinekaki, choose an IP or named account and avoid switching, which may confuse other editors. We have a legitimate interest in seeing your history of contributions, warnings, and blocks (if any). Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This all started as Lakinekaki (who was questioning the definition of a term over and over without offering his own definition, or sources to support the possibility that the one in use should be questioned) first lost his cool for being called out as a Troll by a third editor [14], then immediately started editing tendentionsly [15][16], and started getting nasty [17][18]. At this point, it looks like Johachman seems to have noticed activity on the talk page and decided to step in and give some context to this anon's behaviors. For what it's worth, Lakinekaki seems to advocate total annonimity[19], which would never work in an environment like wikipedia which requires accountability to maintain the quality of the project. NJGW (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"requires accountability to maintain the quality of the project"?? I think you're in the wrong spot. Wikipedia believes anybody can edit, and nobody is required to ever create a userid. Yes,it's preferred, but not required. Contributions must be judged by their quality and verifiability, not by the username. We have millions of editors who are more destructive than many IP editors. He is not required to sign in every time he wishes to edit. Do not threaten to block someone simply because they don't sign in. You block because of disruption, whether they are signed in or not. If I see someone block because someone didn't sign in, I will be the first to file a report on that admin. Follow the rules as they are laid out, don't make up new ones. BMW(drive) 15:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do not threaten to block someone simply because they don't sign in." I'm very confused. No one ever made a statement which ammounted to that. I'm afraid you are interpreting Lakinekaki's words as truth. Please have a look at Johachman's actual statement: "Please restrict yourself to a single account for further editing activities, or else blocks will be placed. You have said that you can avoid detection by using multiple accounts.[20] No, you can't. That is not allowed." [21].

As for the question of accountability, I'm pretty sure that's what edit histories and warning templates on talk pages are all about... you make changes and are held accountable for each one of them. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I read every single link very carefully ... plus some that were not provided that gave additional background (hence my comment about someone OUTING who the editor was, very very bad). I can edit any dang article I want, whether logged in or not - that's the rules. If my edits are valid and referenced, nobody has a right to undo them, whether I'm logged in or not. I question the admin abilities of anyone who does not get the most simple concept of Wikipedia. YOU are claiming accountability to a userid, and confusing it with accountable to any type of entity. ANY IP address is tracable to a specific house at a specific time,so the accountability chain is never broken. WP:SOCK is often claimed, and usually very wrongly. "Please restrict yourself to a single account" is NOT something that ANYBODY on Wikipedia has a right to request, and the threat of blocks for doing so is EXACT in meaning to my paraphrase. BMW(drive) 16:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'...and started getting nasty...' I laughed when I read that. Anyhow, here is something every "editor" should read: On civility and Wikipedia 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that means incivility is OK as long as you're the one doing it!? Or are you suggesting that that was not the starting point of the nastiness? NJGW (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've read it, you would know. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather funny (and not in a good way) when an editor feels like they can scream this here, and then file a complaint at Wikiquette Alerts. Perhaps the editor feels emboldened by their ability to use multiple accounts to obfuscate their editing history. Yes, it is a rather clever idea to use a bunch of different accounts for making rude comments, personal attacks, and frivolous complaints. Except, that when this pattern of editing is discovered, all the accounts are normally blocked. I think it was a kindness for me to warn the editor, rather than to let them get blocked. Of course, no good deed goes unpunished... Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me repeat it with this IP: STOP FUCKING HARASSING ME. Is it still obfuscated for you, or do you understand its meaning? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC) See what I mean? You are trolling, making personal attacks, and disrupting this noticeboard. Please stop before an uninvolved administrator comes along and blocks all your accounts. Jehochman Talk 19:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the very apparent goading that made the complainant say that will stand up very well. I was hoping that Jehochman was going to quietly back away from this situation, having seen his actions that caused this, and I'm personally both surprised and ashamed. As of this point, this is no longer a civility issue, it's a complaint about an admin. I'm off to find the right place to take this, but no further issues need to be raised about civility in this forum. BMW(drive) 19:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. You are just encouraging them to post more curse words and personal attacks. That stuff is totally out of bounds and is never justified. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I suggested you look at the root cause of the ENTIRE series of incidents. Eventually you WP:OUTING someone, call them a sockpuppet, threaten them with blocks even though they're following the rules, they're bound to snap. Really, leave him alone *shrug* BMW(drive) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we please again stop for a while and review this case from the start? Meanwhile, civility is very important and the community is already reviewing that same policy if you can have a look at the policy page and its talk page. I am offering to help but I can't do that while hearing "fuck", "idiot", etc... I really can't help under those circumstances. I've already mentioned that yesterday above. This is Wikiquette alerts page and it is a shame to hear such words over here. Please stop it otherwise I'll be obliged to block for incivility regardless of the merits of this complaint/request. So please, let us work in a clean environment. Could we restart this? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest archiving this thread, and then anybody who wants to discuss the warning that I issued can meet at my talk page, the first stop in my preferred dispute resolution process. I hope that a bit of calm discussion can clear up any misunderstandings. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For me this is simple. I don't care at this stage who is right or who is wrong, but any further verbal abuse will be dealt with a removal of editing privileges. Editing Wikipedia is not a right. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 22 September 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_talk:Longchenpa Discussions in Edit Summary

Resolved

 – Closed at request of filing party.

See User_talk:Longchenpa#Please_Discuss_on_Talk_pages_and_not_in_Edit_Summary for Wikiquette issue. I would like to avoid a revert issue and discuss on talk pages. The Jetsunma Title issue may require and Third Party or RFC to address a fringe theory. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing this as WP:CIVIL? BMW(drive) 10:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's here Wikipedia:Civility#Dispute_resolution as in "other difficult communications with editors" it's difficult to communicate when issues are forked into the Edit Summary comments. see: Edit_summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes The editor is ignoring this request to be civil. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are being rude, uncivil, or impolite in edit summaries, it's a Wikiquette issue. This is not incivility, it's improper use of edit summaries. With such a wide variety of editors not using ANY edit summaries, this is more of an education of the user, hopefully. BMW(drive) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I apprecaite the education. We can close this issue now as I fear other resolutions may be required in the content dispute. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As well, although only a FEW of the edit summaries are more "discussion-like" and the majority are valid edit summaries, it appears that you and the editor are in more of a Content disagreement. Those should be properly dealt with first on the article Talk page, or in another forum if required. As a precaution, I have left a minor notice on the other editor's Talk page, but at the same time I would advise you to edit civilly as well. BMW(drive) 11:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Softlavender

Resolved

 – Between this and the AN/I, both editors have discussed/"solved" their differences over the matter

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

I have been attacked twice now first rather surreptitiously here (a little "if you're not a musician" jab) and then this one (questioning my mental health and advising others to ignore me). I am not used to reporting this kind of thing and I have no idea what to say next. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 04:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• It appears to me that you, Padilla, are equally at fault here, as you have engaged in disruptive arguments with numerous editors on the page in question. There is a clear consensus against your suggestions, yet you continue to add longer and more defensive posts. Perhaps you should take a short break from editing the article and take the time to reflect on your own involvement in escalating the debate to its current state.Smatprt (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  Pardon me but that excuses personal attacks how? I didn't know there was a limit to the number of ideas you could put forth before people were allowed to attack you. I have not engaged in disruptive arguments, arguments are not disruptive, they are conducive to free thought. If I were to have edited the article and reverted several times that I would agree is disruptive. What have I done other than try to discuss different ways of presenting information that might make for a cleaner or less redundant presentation? What statement have I made that forgives calling my mental health into question and allows others to be advised to ignore me? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 11:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing overly uncivil in the two diff's provided. The length of the explanation about the types of changes, and why they are not considered acceptable show an extreme amount of patience, and a sincere attempt to assist what is perhaps a newer editor to the project in understanding what has already been worked on as a consensus over time. I am not sure what the "are you a musician" comment was really trying to say, but I do not find it uncivil. I also believe that the "ignore" request (which was very specific as to WHAT to ignore) was borne out of the frustration of the continuance of something that had, again, reached full consensus and that the editor believed that you were failing to comprehend. HOWEVER, you have listed this complaint both here at WQA and at ANI. I am closing this one ... please do not "forum shop". BMW(drive) 12:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And the "...cause many to question your mental health." Where does that fall? Also, I'm not forum shopping. I came here like I was supposed to and was told the personal attacks in question were acceptable. Not according to WP:NPA they are not and I took the next step I knew of. If it was the wrong step then I'm sorry but I'm a bit flustered that this user seems to be getting support for attacking my mental health and no one seems to want to hold to the WP:NPA policy or even acknowledge that an attack had been made. I see other editors get warnings for saying "You're being silly" but this editor gets to make bald-faced insinuation regarding my mental health and no one even classifies it as an attack. It looks like no one can even see the words "...cause many to question your mental health." How is that possible? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Padillah ... you opened both an ANI and a WQA on the same subject. Normally when you feel someone has been uncivil to you, the first step is a) deal with it on the person's talk page. If unsuccessful, b) bring incivility to WQA. If it continues, c) take it to RfC or AN/I. Other than the warning that you brought them to WQA, I see NO attempts on their page to clarify/discuss the comments that you consider offensive. Nothing. Zero. Nada. You have missed the biggest step - "working things out together" and jumped right into "file a (actually 2) complaints". BMW(drive) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Crap. I have no excuse. I will say that if you note the times you should see that I opened the WP:AN/I complaint after the response on this one was so one-sided. Also, the WP:AN/I complaint is about the treatment here, it's not supposed to be about the original episode. Thanks for setting that out for me to see. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please note the top of this page: "If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you." You asked for a set if neutral eyes from uninvolved editors and you got it. That's usually the best time to sit back for a little while and be self-introspective, then decide your next course of action. Instead, you didn't like the answers you got from neutral parties, and rather than wait, you moved on. BMW(drive) 13:32, 23 September 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: Faethon Ghost

Resolved

 – As per discussions on both editor's Talk pages

A couple weeks ago, I was trying to revert vandalism on Tabernacle Township, New Jersey, but instead reverted an edit that had already reverted the vandalism, accidentally changing the page back to its vandalized state. User: Faethon Ghost caught this, and corrected that. He then, like any editor, warned me about it. I apologized, and pointed him towards the page's history, hoping to set things straight. He responded by insisting that I had done this on purpose. I responded to this message by providing further evidence of what really happened. Then, I looked at his history and found that he had been blocked for repeatedly vandalizing Paul Byrd. He also apparently erased all evidence of his vandalism on his talk page. I called him out on these things, though I admit my tone may have been innapropriate (I called him a hypocrite). I also added him to my Wall of Shame: a list of users on my user page that have commited vandalism, along with links to evidence of it. (Does that violate any policies?)

His response was as follows:

• Vandalised my talk page by switching out my userboxes

• Changed the title of our conversation from "Tabernacle Township: Vandalism?" to "Tabernacle Township: Vandalism by Friginator!"

• Left me an aggressive message saying things like

"You will take me off your "wall of shame" or else I will bring your vandalisms to the attention of people less reasonable than I. I suggest you cooperate."'

Note: I swear I don't know what "vandalisms" he's talking about here.

"Your efforts to appear as a non-vandal just go to show what a true vanalism lover you really are."

"Paul Byrd does have a pig nose and closely resembles a swine so that is why I made those edits. It was considered to be original research by other users which is why it was reverted."

Is this situation an example of abuse? I have no idea what to do. I've ever really been in a situation like this. The full discussion is on my talk page here. Please Help. Thank you. --Friginator 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A Wall of Shame? Even criminals can be re-integrated into society, and Wikipedia is not an opportunity to a) hang deer heads in your library or b) out sex offenders upon release from prison. I'd say take down your Wall of Shame PDQ. Agreeably, the original edit reversion issue could have been handled better from both sides, but you escalated the situation by hanging him on your Wall of Shame (a very uncivil action). I would think that you should post an apology on the talk page of EVERY editor on your Wall once you have removed it. Feel free to say "although I will continue to monitor for continued possible vandalism, I do actually look forward to your positive edits in Wikipedia" or something like that. You've even been advised that your WoS is the antecedent to the behaviour by at least one other editor, so I'm not sure why you raise a WQA with a tone of surprise...BMW(drive) 11:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Article: Automatic Link Establishment - User: Expeditionradio

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Content or AIV

Expeditionradio is reverting any edits to his/her article as vandalism. There was a FCC petition filed, docket number RM11392 regarding this issue. Expeditionradio insists on calling this petition "The Digital Stone-Age Petition" despite the negative connotations. Several people, myself included have changed it to the official name of the docket, but Expeditionradio has reverted it right back, calling our changes "vandalism".

I have politely asked him/her on the talk page to review WP:Own and WP:Vandalism. Pleas have gone unanswered and ignored. Can someone help on this item?

Manway (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's an actual civility issue here yet. Content, edit-warring, and perhaps WP:AIV, but not civility. BMW(drive) 11:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Juno11

Resolved

 – Complaining user advised.

User has made a blatantly uncivil comment on MuZemike's talk page here and to Wizardman's talk page here, here, and here. User has been given Level 2 and Level 3 warnings for personal attacks here and here.

User is engaging in incivility after an article the user was involved with was deleted per AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Many) and has vowed to recreate the article again and again, as stated in the above talk page diffs. User has also left a WP:CANVASS attempt on the AfD's talk page here.

Article is being brought here because currently only one user has attempted to warn the user about incivility and personal attacks, so an WP:RFC/U cannot be done as of yet as the two-user minimum has not been met. MuZemike (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, you're nowhere close to an RFC, so put that one out of your mind please. Second, this is a NEW USER, so please consider WP:BITE. Third, did anyone actually tell him why his attempted articles were being deleted, rather than simply templating a newbie? Fourth, have you even tried to resolve his apparent incivility on their talk page? Let's not skip steps 2-4 and go right to step 1 please. Besides, fifthly, I would call his comments "angry" and obviously is someone who has no knowledge about Wikipedia, but not completely "uncivil". I have left him a WELCOME template on his Talk page which will help show him the rules. Come back when you've completed the other steps. BMW(drive) 17:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think I hastily went to warning the user because of what I perceived to be of group of comments intended to lash out at those users who contributed to his/her article (note ownership) being deleted. I probably should have noticed that when the user did not sign his/her comments. I'll leave the situation as-is. MuZemike (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope it didn't sound too harsh! Good luck with helping the n00b's! BMW(drive) 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with incivil behaviour

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Diff's and/or official complaint not provided. WQA can be used in the future when complaint is ready

If there is a problem with userA using userB's talk page to repeatedly misrepresnt other editors and when polite requests to userB that the misrepresentation is removed are just reverted or mocked with other misrepresentation, is there a forum that this kind of incivility can be brought to? I seem to remember somewhere a policy or guideline stating that user talk pages should not be used to misrepresent other editors but I cannot find it? The misrepresentation in this case has been happening over several months. Fnagaton 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still being called a racist on someone's talk page, and nobody in this forum was willing to touch it. You might need to do an RfC, but note the RfC rules (ie: 2 editors must have warned the other editor about their actions, and proof must be provided). BMW(drive) 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to file another WQA complaint if you're still encountering problems. But if I recall correctly, the reason I didn't even look at it last time was because I was busy, and because of WP:TLDR (and I suspect a lot of others felt similarly). Something to think about anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My issue aside, can you provide specific examples of diff's that show the issue so that it can be looked into? BMW(drive) 14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha

Resolved

 – This is more of a content dispute, but civility dealt with

Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See please Talk:New Thought#Tagged.

An editor, Malcolm Schosha, is being EXCEEDINGLY uncivil and rude. Can we get someone to tell him to stop, strikethrough, cease-and-desist, etc? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You would be in a stronger position to complain if you were not edit warring on the New Thought article. But, since you have decided to do some more complaining here, it would be normal to give diffs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"You do something", "no, YOU do something", "NO, YOU do something", then "NO YOU DO SOMETHING" does not incivility make ... it's more like Grade 3 on the playground. I see that Madman stepped in and helped solve the content/tagging issue that caused you to raise this issue. BMW(drive) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BMW, perhaps you might have noticed that I was not the editor who was demanding POV additions to the article. If I knew of a reliable source that supported what ScienceApologist wanted added to the article, I would have been happy to add it. But I do not see why there should be a tag on the article because he wanted a criticisms section, but he could not be bothered to find the criticisms. Capice?

As for ScienceApologist's accusation that I am "uncivil" and "rude", that user needs to learn to distinguish between a criticism and an insult. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Psst...the way you said "Capice" made it sound condescending towards me, ok? Besides, I read very carefully. BMW(drive) 22:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It translates, from Italian, as: "do you understand?" You own reply impresses me as snide. Your previous answer [22] was not snide, just pointless. Not that I care. I was not the user who had a complaint. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh, I know enough Italian, and I know the condescending meaning when Italians use it towards English. BMW(drive) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if "capice" is "condescending" (and I think it is not), it would still be less condescending than some of your own statements above. And what is the big deal about condescension anyhow? I live with condescending remarks every day of the week from WP's abundant supply of socially dysfunctional computer-geek know-it-alls, and I don't bother to go around whining that it is upsetting me. I have no interest in a condescension witch-hunt. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't like to be a squealer, but (before this complaint goes into the archives, and/or I get booted out of WP for my big mouth) I would like to point out that this edit [23] by ScienceApologist (who made the civility complaint against me), is both incivil and possibly violates WP BLP guidelines. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, just how is that uncivil? Because he "worries about the POV of a lot of people"? BMW(drive) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I will let others figure out if "a lot of people" is a reference to some editors of that article.

It is true that I have a worry that a lot of people are half-wits. I wonder, if I had put a statement into this discussion that "I worry that lot of people are half-wits", if you would have been unhappy about that; even though I would never even think such a thought about you, much less say it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're really just stretching things. WP:NPOV is to ensure we have Neutral Point of Views, and every editor must worry about not only their own possible use of non-NPOV, but that of others. To say your concerned about it is saying nothing wrong, nor is it an attack on a contributor. WP:CIVIL is different. What I wonder myself about is why (after the complaint against you was effectively summarily dismissed) that you then continue the "argument"...? BMW(drive) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BMW wrote: What I wonder myself about is why (after the complaint against you was effectively summarily dismissed).

The complaint was of no interest to me because the possible consequences are of no importance to me. I could have just as well said nothing at all. But the point that actually interested me in this discussion was something different. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add one thing. From my experience, many editors think their POV is NPOV. That mode of thinking virtually guarantees a user who takes a "my way or no way" approach to editing. In this case, in the diff, ScienceApologist seems to say that editors who oppose his editing goals for the article (me, for example) are deluded New Thought "practitioners". But I am no more a New Thought practitioner than ScienceApologist, and only want to see a NPOV article. There are a number of other problems with the same talk page edit. For instance, the comparison ScienceApologist makes to Scientology, thereby unfairly comparing New Thought with an organization generally considered highly problematic [[24]], and which many consider a criminal organization [25]. To me these problems, and more I have not mentioned, seem pretty obvious, but I expected too much. Scusa. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That said, WQA is not the proper forum for Content Disputes, it's civility (see the top of the page). As I believe that the WQA case is complete, you should take the content dispute to the correct forum. If there's something else you wish to discuss that is not related to content of the article, or this WQA, you're welcome to post on my Talkpage and I'll try to reply. BMW(drive) 23:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Wangtopgun, Vandalyze, and me

Resolved

 – Editor Blocked for threats.

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 posted the above article to article space, in spite of the fact that it is a rambling (almost incomprehensible) and incomplete ("...more to come") Wikipedia essay about a neologism he has coined. It was nominated as nonsense, speedied by me; and when he repeated the cycle, I salted it. Now he is posting increasingly incivil remarks to my talk page ("are you a moron?" "I'm escalating this" and threats about "going to war"). Please comment. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I will add that the user is apparently a combat veteran, claims to have served as a mercenary, and has now declared on my talk page, "Let the war begin..."! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User was blocked for threatening Orangemike.

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.

...as an addition, I have added my brand new Civility Welcome Template User:Bwilkins/welcomecivil BMW(drive) 17:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Allknowingallseeing

Resolved

 – offending editor has acknowledged his warning

User:Allknowingallseeing - a "new" user who is clearly well versed in Wikipedia policy and procedure, with a strongly held interpretation of it - has engaged in a series of provocative and disparaging comments directed at other editors since one of his several deletions on the Alan Moore article was challenged: e.g. he accused one editor "you want to undermine the encyclopedia", and told him to "find a girl" (same diff). Since I objected to his reference to me as "the less illuminated JasonAQuest" he now calls me that routinely. He has called those who disagree with him "fanatical". Furthermore, he told another editor (one who had last edited this article several months previously) that I had been "wikistalking" him, with no apparent basis. He argues that these insults cannot be "personal attacks" because he doesn't know the targets personally. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First, there appears to be a content dispute that should follow WP:CONSENSUS. Discussions on the article talk page should determine the exact handling of the disputed information. The argument between the two of you seems to be based on this lack of consensus overall. Agreeably, some of the issues are uncivil, and as you noted, whenever you comment negatively about the editor as opposed to the edits, there is a problem. I placed a level 1 warning, but focus on consensus on the articles. BMW(drive) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And, the user has acknowledged his warning by removing it. BMW(drive) 11:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With the edit summary "bored to tears". -JasonAQuest (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge the warning but if I am due one certainly junior is as well, no?Allknowingallseeing (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being called "junior", either. - JasonAQuest (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge the warning but if I am due one certainly junior is as well, no?Allknowingallseeing (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been unable to find specific incidents of JasonAQuest being uncivil to other editors. Your comment above referring to him as "junior" is additional proof of the contempt in which you seem to hold him, and proof of your continued incivility. Please refrain from such in the future, thank you. BMW(drive) 11:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jobxavier

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Already in mediation cabal

This user continually engages in hate speech specially related to Religious violence in Orissa.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AReligious_violence_in_Orissa&diff=240293821&oldid=240178888

This has happened numerous times. Please check this user's contributions.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This situation is already being looked at in Mediation Cabal. It is vital for all parties to remain civil during those discussions, and allow that process to continue. Incivility during that process should be handled by the mediator(s). BMW(drive) 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

- I urge vvarkey to tell me how i offended HIM. A girl's healed face was the pic; but it was put on the Christian site the day sfter violence began. A case of miracle cure. If such pic is necessary to prove arson, we need the raped nun's pics also. However, should nt recordfree talk about the pic? -unless both are the same person. And who has been saying that i am immature??

Jobxavier (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge the comments being made by user Jobxavier [here] to be reviewed. Calling himself/herself a pious Christian and attacking my article initiation without support is extremely provocative. Please help me whether I need to complaint anywhere else. Also, I don't understand why the protection has been removed when the article is being re-written. I appreciate your help. Recordfreenow (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Article protection needs to be dealt with in WP:AIV if it's truly vandalism, or more likely in the situation in WP:ANI. Having looked at what you just provided, you're not dealing with civility, you're dealing with 2 different POV's, so the issue doesn't really belong here either. Arguing different POV as civility is not correct here, or in the link you provided. ɃMW(drive) 12:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gswarriors8

Resolved

 – user has been more than appropriately cautioned

Hello. This vandalism was followed by my revert, and then this inappropriate message on my talk page by the user was responded to with this level-2, 'no faith assumption' template on the user's talk (uw-npa2). That has resorted in the same message being reposted on my talk, and I would like to have a third party deliver the next level template rather than continuing myself, which may only antagonize the user. If possible, thanks. Brando130 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"You're a freaking Mormon" is an insult? I know a lot of Mormons who would be insulted to hear that you think it is. ɃMW(drive) 12:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did he call it an insult? It was an aggressive comment about the editor (i.e. a personal attack), and that makes it (as Brando130 put it) inappropriate. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point Jason ... you cannot come into WQA and say "I want X done" as the complainant did. My rhetorical question pretty much delivered that message, and that I was looking for additional clarification as to his full complaint. ɃMW(drive) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss your point... and I still don't see how your "rhetorical question" - which looked to me like you were misreading him or putting words into his mouth - was supposed to make it. You might want to consider simply saying what you mean next time. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) About 95% of the edit that you have called "vandalism" is possibly not actually vandalism, and may actually be valid-ish edits (if they had been sourced). Would it not have been easier to simply fix the 2 very improper portions rather than a flat out reversion? In fact, much of that page appears unsourced to me to begin with. Except for 2 of the edits, perhaps it would have been better to do an AGF revert rather than p's off another editor with a template? You ALWAYS try to resolve an issue one-on-one, and you always need to AGF yourself. Your use of the AGF template was a little out of line at that moment, and the other editor retaliated. Please, in order to prevent future problems, use discussion, rather than templating each other. I do not believe additional warnings are required - you`ve now had yours (although not on your talkpage where it should be), and you gave him one. You`re even as long as nobody provokes him. ɃMW(drive) 20:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your comments, however I do not agree. Briefly, the users addition of things like anal, REtarded people, etc. pretty much meant that the entire edit was very likely to be reverted. Rather by me, someone else, probably even by User:ClueBot & Co. That being said, I would have reverted the other portions anyway on content. (e.g. the incorrect Rameses, the unsourced POV view of the 'brutal' people, etc. - and I acknowledge that the article is not well referenced anyhow)

"Except for 2 of the edits, perhaps it would have been better to do an AGF revert rather than p's off another editor with a template?" Also, this is incorrect. I did not use a template after reverting the edit that contained vandalism. After the comment appeared on my talk page, which I found inappropriate, I left the template that asks the user to avoid commenting on contributors, and to keep comments focused on the content of the encyclopedia. That's exactly what its there for. And far from trying to piss off the editor, I came to this forum specifically to avoid antagonizing the user.

Finally, I did not come here and dictate any terms, I simply explained my situation and requested help avoiding antagonizing the editor while still explaining that users should not make personal attacks. That is certainly within the the pale of requesting "perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors"... In my opinion, "Here's the problem.. ...would like.. If possible" is not the same as "I want X done." (Is it not allowed when posting here to suggest what you think the appropriate action would be?)

At any rate thanks for looking into it, although we disagree. I think we all know its not that big of deal. Cheers. Brando130 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What I would have done after receiving the possibly inappropriate post on my talk page would be to post back on theirs asking why they did that, and what they meant ... trying to generate communication. Complete reversions are often seen as antagonistic. A template is not an invitation to communicate, it's a statement and threat, and are almost always antagonistic. I agree, of course, that some of the edits were very inappropriate, but in the theory of AGF, I looked at the entire edit history, and was willing to AGF instead of VAND. So, I don't say that we disagree, merely the antecedent could have have been handled with a different behaviour, which would possibly have led to a different consequence. BMW(drive) 11:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50

Resolved

 – User warned; problem appears to have gone away --Jaysweet (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This user called an anon user who frequently revert his edits in Template:AMD processors "idiot", "stupid" and threaten to "report to administrators" after a series of discussions, see relevant talk page. This user has a record of putting the word "Bullshit" in editing summary in the past and had been warned by another editor. --202.40.157.165 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50 later removed this section and replaced with a section accusing of "synthesis" of the anon user. Original text follows:

“ Be warned that user 202.40.157.165 has been consistently making up synthesis article that are not true, not following the manual style of editing, when citation was already given to proven wrong. The users didn't contribute anything toward the Template: AMD processors and consistently made accusal of false statement that weren't true and try to prevent from being block by using Dynamic IP. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ”

--219.77.139.158 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: He has quoted the wrong IP also, the correct IP should be 218.102.105.16 instead of 202.40.157.165. --219.77.139.158 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody forgot that this place is aimed at seeking for third-party's neutral POV on the user's conduct as he removed some of the phrases pointing towards him. So I revert his edit and reply here as a proof of his actions.

To Ramu50: Wikipedia has a little feature called edit revisions, don't think that you have removed anything which points towards you and then you are out of trouble. By removing these edits here, it will only show that you have way more problems about your user conduct, other than ones the Anon user has filed here. --203.218.111.163 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User Ramu50 had threatened to report to administrators again in the editing summary of one of his reverts made to ATI Template. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What action would you like to see taken? If you provide a diff of the offensive edit summaries, I will let Ramu50 know that those are not appropriate. As far as threating to "report to administrators", well, it's an empty threat, so I'd just ignore it.

The actual content dispute in question is a bit over my head at the moment. You might consider filing a Request for Comment at the Template talk:ATI page in order to get the actual content dispute resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I located the "idoit" (sic) and "stupid" comment, and as a result I cautioned Ramu50 about personal attacks on other editors. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has removed the warnings, as he is allowed per WP:DRC. Please let me or another uninvolved 3rd party know if the personal attacks continue. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Thumperward

Stuck

Not assuming good faith, persistent templating of me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafnir665 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See the user's edit and talk page histories. Standard templating escalation for low-level hostility (starting with a level 2 this edit, going to l3 for this and with a final given for continued uncivil edit summaries on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTFPL (2nd nomination). Templating ceased as soon as I read the request to stop it on my talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough elapsed time between request and Wikiquette posting to see if templating stopped. User is assuming bad faith, see user's talk page histories. Fafnir665 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Think everyone should take a look at Disputes instead of templating and dropping tags, suggest re-reading Accusing others of bad faith and Staying Cool rather than telling people they will be blocked, when its up to an administrators discretion, and not just the editors.Fafnir665 (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Gave warning for uncivil edit summaries but deletes insisting it is not personal/uncivil. Reverted own pages in name of objectivity. Drake P. 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

N00b query

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – With no official names/diffs or issues, this is more of a "helpme" than a civility complaint

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

Could I please be advised, is it proper for an editor, who has been deeply involved with editing and re-editing a page (and so cannot, in all fairness, be described as neutral or uninvolved) to threaten another editor with immediate Wiki-banning, simply for reverting a block roll-back, stated to be to remove BLP material, on the (stated) basis that not all of the edits rolled back were actually adding BLP material ? In short, can an involved editor (presumably with banning powers) threaten to use those powers without calling in a "neutral umpire" ? Advice please - Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, people who get to admin status are not prone to making idle or aggressive threats; if they do, they can lose their admin powers over it. if this is actually an administrator making these threats, it most likely means that you're doing something wrong or taking the wrong approach to what you're doing. I'd need to see some diffs, or at least a link to the page in question, to say more.

Most likely, though, this is just an experienced but bad-tempered editor trying to goad you into (a) leaving the article because of the threats, or (b) behaving in some way that s/he can use to get you blocked or censured. I hate it when editors stoop to that, but it is an effective trick. again, give a link to the page so that we can take a look at what's going on. bullies (if that's all it is) will usually get cowed when other people start paying attention to the page. and whatever else, keep your cool. no sense letting this stuff get to you. --Ludwigs2 08:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, while you may fancy yourself as a mind reader, you're failing to assume good faith, and thus are acting in an uncivil way. Don't do it. . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil in the way the complaint/concern was laid out above. There are no diff's to help find the source of the issue, but there's nothing uncivil in his asking. BMW(drive) 11:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the way Simon's concern is set out, though it's a breach of etiquette to raise the report without telling the user that you're reporting. My comment was about Ludwig throwing around suggestions of bullying, goading and "bad temper". Tsk. . dave souza, talk 11:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But no names were listed in the "complaint" ... it was a hypothetical question from the user, so no notification was required. As such, Ludwig's "concerns" were also hypothetical. Until someone actually came in and said "hey, that was me", we were dealing with possibilities, not a real situation. BMW(drive) 13:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Simon Cursitor, you've been given a template warning not to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, or you will be blocked. Since you were warned by Jclemens who was directly involved in editing and discussing the content in question, it would in my opinion be inappropriate for Jclemens to block you – the normal procedure would be to report such future transgressions to WP:ANI for another admin to assess the situation and carry out any appropriate blocking, which you could then appeal. All of which is unnecessary if you avoid edit warring and discuss the justification for adding material on the article talk page. Jclemens is right that the default position is to remove material thought to contravene WP:BLP policy, careful sourcing is needed to justify inclusion of such material. . . dave souza, talk 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note first that I'm not an admin--my templating other users for what I perceive to be violations of policies (BLP in this case) stems solely from the moral authority invested in any Wikipedia editor to call others to uphold our core policies. As a non-admin, any adverse action would of necessity be taken by someone else. While I have friends and collaborators who are admins, they would not strictly be "uninvolved" admins either. Thus, when I did ask for action to be taken, I brought it to WP:BLP/N, the appropriate place. Had I had admin rights, I still would not have blocked Simon for his edit, because all administrator actions should be impartial beyond reasonable question, and I fully acknowledge participating in that article. For those who are interested, this edit prompted a {{uw-blp4im}} from me for reversion of BLP material (calling a living person, Thomas Muthee, a "witch hunter and persecutor"), over my previous objections, and calling them "untruth in edit summary." Jclemens (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See above, nobody was ever accused. You've just pled guilty to no charges in what would have been merely a hypothetical situation :-) BMW(drive) 13:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is getting out of hand. Assume good faith in a hypothetical situation - merely raising a general query does not require a notice to anyone for a perceived complaint against themselves or some other person they know. Assume good faith in your reply, and automatically suggesting that another party is more likely to be at fault for "bullying" is an inappropriate response. Assume good faith in your reply and appreciate that another editor may not wish to make a big deal in their complaint and that they'll go into the details if and when they're ready. In any case, putting the cart before the horse can make mountains out of molehills as has happened here. If any user needs clarification, then we can address that separately - in this case as everything has culminated in the same thread, we can address that here too, so leave a note here if you'd like clarification. But the moral of this story is: AGF, AGF, AGF. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"the moral of this story is: AGF"? Are they still doing well? :) BMW(drive) 14:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The response to that response is "AaaGH!!!" If a hypothetical editor puts a hypothetical question on a hypothetical dispute resolution page, telling the tale of a hypothetical N00b friend who's just received the same hypothetical template warning that they have, the hypothetical answer, in short, is that an involved editor with blocking powers can use the template to warn of a future block if the hypothetical offence continues, but cannot use those powers without calling in a "neutral umpire" or risking desysopping. Banning powers rest with Arbcom, though a consensus community ban is possible in some circumstances. Any resemblance to any parsons livid or deaf is entirely coincidental. . dave souza, talk 15:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Very astute as always Dave. As hypothetical as it was, everyone knew it was based on a situation ... but without an official complaint naming names, it was still hypothetical. It may also apply to "any persons eating liver or deer". BMW(drive) 15:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for brightening my day; this was an incredibly amusing exchange. Simon, please contact me on my talk page if you have any other questions.

dave, I have to ask in all seriousness - do you consider your responses here a model of the kind of good faith you'd like me to exhibit? since you seem to think I'm doing it wrong, I'd like to know if I should imitate you in future exchanges. please let me know. --Ludwigs2 05:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, glad you found it amusing, and hope you also found it instructive. Unfortunately, Simon, getting advice from Ludwigs might get your hypothetical friend into more trouble, so caution is advised. While imitation is of course the sincerest form of flattery, note that I'm sure that all concerned acted with good intentions, but jumping to the assumption of likelyhood that "this is just an experienced but bad-tempered editor trying to goad you" is a failure of good faith and a really bad idea. Not good advice when the aim is to resolve disputes, and more likely to inflame them. And the use of "you" suggests that, like me, you failed to pay proper attention to the very valid point raised by BMW(drive) that this was all hypothetical, and not really in the right forum. So, hypothetically, do please follow my example :) . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we all hold hands in a circle and sing "Kum ba yah" now?  :-) BMW(drive) 11:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

lol - BMW, I kinda like that song.

since we have this wikiquette space, though, I'd like to use it to resolve something. Dave, you and I may take very different views on things, but I don't think that's particularly a problem. you're basically a reasonable guy, I have no problem with you personally, and I'm not given to holding grudges. but you've gotten into this unfortunate habit of jumping on me with both feet every time I say something, and that doesn't bode well for annything. Now I will admit I could have phrased my original comment better (in retrospect, I could have said 'possibly' rather than 'probably', and added some more to qualify it), but that aside, what I said was perfectly correct - there are a few editors out there who do that, and it's a good idea to recognize that possibility, take a deep breath, and relax about it. If I had known this concerned you I'd have probably approached the whole thing much differently, but... <shrug...> at any rate, I'd rather you didn't come out fighting every time you see me post. I can cope with that (most of the time) if necessary, but I'd prefer a more pleasant working environment. can we come to some kind of truce here, or not? --Ludwigs2 19:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearing 2 things up Ludwig2, because I don't think you quite understand. Firstly, what you said was not perfectly correct, nor was it mostly correct - the first paragraph was the only correct part. The second paragraph, as I've implied already, was a complete assumption of bad faith, and can act to create more heat than light - please try to use a more helpful approach - we're here to resolve disputes effectively; not to create more unfounded ones. Secondly, if you're not comfortable with going on each other's talk pages, then on this occasion, you're welcome to use mine to communicate to each other. Otherwise, if you have something to settle with another editor as your comment suggests, please utilise your user talk pages - another person's WQA is not the venue to do so. Please note the edit summary here because it was not a joke. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:49, 1 October 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 talk:Miroj

Resolved

User has had ownership and incivility problems with an article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes Benz SA codes. User has ignored a notice of ownership and responding in a rather rude matter by changing a comment previously made to an offensive comment here. I gave another user involved in the AfD notice of this user and has then accused me of "going on a crusade" here. User has then accused me of having ownership issues while at the same time blanking half my talk page in the process here. User then accuses me of "moved the content of your talk page to falsely create the impression that you were being attacked," (here) which I have no clue what he is talking about, unless it's me archiving my own talk page, which is perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia policy. MuZemike (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I have read well beyond the diffs provided (as I like to do in these cases). First, even though the userid was originally created in '07, it seems that about 90% of their edits have been in the last 5 days, which actually makes this whole thing seem a little WP:BITEy. Even the general tone of his dicussion, his editing mistakes (failure to sign comments, etc) show that this is a less-than-novice user. Regarding the deletion of a portion of your Talk page, I would even say have a little WP:AGF here. First, he didn't know WHERE to start a discussion, but at least he TRIED to have one - it even seemed mostly civil, and you engaged him well. After discussion on the AfD he was finally convinced it didn't belong, and notified you - I would suggest he might have accidentally deleted the follow-up sections on your Talk page, seeing as last time he was there, his was the last discussion. Interesting how you, yourself removed his last comments which were indeed quite conciliatory IMHO, rather than fixing the error and re-adding those comments. In terms of "incivility", he's a little sarcastic towards everything ... even SineBot. I think that conversations like the one you had might have been more useful than simple templating to a "still n00b". I have left "A Few Notes" on the user's Talk page. One final note: I fail to see where you advised the other editor that you filed a WQA complaint, as is customary. I believe this willaddress both your minor failings, and his in this matter, and hopefully will help both editors in the future. BMW(drive) 09:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I plain forgot to send notification, in which I blame myself. I'll try to read between the lines next time. MuZemike (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Mikkalai "dubious reference and deletion of my changes"

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – primarily a content dispute without consensus

User:Mikkalai wrote in the article Graph isomorphism:

"dubious reference and deletion of my changes. Please provide a reputable ref.", about:

"Regular graphs are very difficult for such testing and many of them are very important for chemistry (for example, Cyclohexane, Benzene, Cuneane, Dodecahedrane etc.), but their part among chemical compounds is small, and decreases with increasing of number of vertices<--ref>M.I.Trofimov, E.A.Smolenskii, Russian Chemical Bulletin, 2005, Vol. 54, 9, 2235. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11172-006-0105-6)<--/ref>."

Is Russian Chemical Bulletin reprinted by Springer-Verlag is not "a reputable ref."? Is it "dubious reference"? Is User:Mikkalai is expert for such statements?

See, also in Talk:Graph isomorphism: "Who the heck is this Trofimov? What's his international scientific recognition? Why his stuff deserves place in encyclopedia? `'Míkka>t 19:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)" Hope for your help!--Tim32 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Tim32, it appears that you are involved in a content dispute with one specific editor, rather than an issue of Civility (although I did note that an editor has warned both of you about being condescending). Content disputes cannot be handled here. Having viewed the recent discussion on the article Talk page, there do not appear to be enough people to determine WP:Consensus yet. The entire discussion about that reference took place yesterday between 2 editors only. I have placed potential 3RR violation warnings on BOTH parties, as edit-warring was occurring. This does not mean that your edits were WRONG, merely the method of making your point was close to a violation. If nobody joins the conversation who has significant knowledge of the subject, please check WP:Third_opinion, part of the overall WP:Resolving_disputes process. In the future, when you place a Wikiquette complaint here, you should generally politely advise the other party as well. BMW(drive) 11:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW wrote: "In the future, when you place a Wikiquette complaint here, you should generally politely advise the other party as well."

Ok! But when I wrote "Is User:Mikkalai is expert for such statements?" I meant only the following:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."WP:NOR

If I understand it correctly, this means that no Wiki-user may be an expert here, because every expert uses his/her personal unpublished facts and arguments, own opinions, etc. Is it right? Is there any more not polite words frome my side? Which words? Thanks, --Tim32 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Dear BMW! User:Mikkalai deleted your 3RR violation warning from his page! Is it right? ;) --Tim32 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, experts are welcome to assist in editing articles (as long as they're careful about WP:COI). Experts do not necessarily inject personal facts/research, but they may have additional expert knowledge/resources/sources available to them that the "average" user (or even other "experts") do not have. In addition, the other user is welcome to delete things from their talk page (although archiving is preferred) - it becomes a tacit acceptance of the warning. BMW(drive) 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok! If "experts are welcome", then may I come into the experts set? I have printed about 100 articles, the list of my articles may be uploaded (where?). Have User:Mikkalai any printed article?--Tim32 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to be an expert! BMW(drive) 11:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. May I delete your 3RR violation from my page? --Tim32 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Archiving one's talk page is always preferred, but deletion is also tacit acceptance/recognition of the "warning". :-) BMW(drive) 11:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:K. Annoyomous24

The user User:K. Annoyomous24 prevents interested volunteers from making contributions to the Wikipedia content in the fields of their professional knowledge. One of my recent edits to the article "Semantic similarity" was reverted by that user, although the edit was clearly not a test one and not a vandalism. The user claimed that the edit was not a contribution, although i am an expert in this area (for instance, Ph.D. degree in Computer science). On the talk pages, the user treats the other contributors as if he is a master and a god on this site. Could you please stop his scournful treatment of the others and his disruptive actions on the other contributors' work? 08:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 83.149.198.76

I don't see significant differences between the edits - yes, there are some, but not major. I see 2 big problems however: 1) a lack of following the Manual of Style, and 2) a failure to use edit summaries. Edit summaries do just that - they say what you changed/added. Many editors will revert fairly quickly an anonymous, un-summaried edit. Granted, the reverting editor should use an edit summary as well. Please note, when the editor reverted your edit, it was done using "AGF" ... meaning they did not consider your edit as Vandalism ... it was under the belief that you were editing in good faith. All in all, this is not civility. I would recommend that you sign up for a userid - although not required to edit, it allows you to track your edit history, create a watchlist, and shows "signing up" for what Wikipedia stands for. BMW(drive) 12:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Working environment

I feel discouraged with the current working environment on Israeli-Palesitnian articles. You can see my exasparated comment on this thread where I suggest allegations of bigotry towards Nishidani are justified - in response to his suggestion that offensive commentary towards "Torah based nationalists" are justified. I fear I've reached "wit's end" as they say and would appreciate some external perspectives. Please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 11:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As this is a rather flammable culturally-based issue, I will have to suggest that this issue be taken to WP:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard. BMW(drive) 11:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakabou, please provide specific userids of the users involved in the dispute when making a complaint - are you complaining about Nishidani or someone else? Regardless, for this case, I agree with Bwilkins that it's preferrable if you take it to the ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Procedural note for Bwilkins: a NWQA tag was inappropriate in this case. It doesn't mean that we can't direct them to another noticeboard, but the tag is for issues that don't fall under the ambit of WQA - this one does, even if it is politically/culturally/etc. motivated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As no one reviews that noticeboard it would be a waste of time to move the notice there. The problem is with the names I've mentioned on the thread, but current issue is mostly with Eleland who should be retracting a couple of his recent commentaries ("Nazi", goose-stepper", the cartoon) and Nishidani who should be doing the same ("horn-blower", "Torah based nationalism", Justifications for Eleland's behavior) as well. If not a retraction, then at least some type of promise to at least attempt to take the offensive language down a notch rather than assign ideological "deficiencies" to the people who request it of him. I would really appreciate some external perspectives. Please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you informed each of the users of this WQA complaint you've made? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I haven't went over the directions at the top of the page but I tend to think their reaction would be as though I requested a block on them. i.e. a smear campaign of sorts and the claim that I am forum shopping. To clarify, I am basically asking for external opinion here, nothing else (kinda like 3O, only not on a content related issue). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleland has also recently been through an AN/I, if I understand correctly. BMW(drive) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the current situation started when Eleland felt strongly enough about a comment that he lashed at the editor calling him "cunt" and other superlatives. When warned of this his reaction and Nisshidani's reaction were to promote their own provocative perspective which resulted in Eleland's block and quite a lot of drama on the ANI. I'm honestly not concerned that much with the ANI (resulting in with a one week block for Eleland) but more concerned for the working environment as recent commentary was exremely offensive and Nishidani seems quite apathetic to the issue in comments[26], [27], [28] and Eleland as well (in silence). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC) nother 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on why this would happen but editors who's username is not Eleland are deleting and undeleting that discussion.[29] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it's impossible to understand how the working environment at Israel-Palestine articles can "depress" anyone who lives in or loves Israel! The defenders of Israel have recently leveraged themselves into total domination. Some articles are now complete white-washes - expect to see many, many more in the months to come. Even editors with worrying indications of an actual Conflict of Interest (which they refuse to confirm or deny) are tearing out what they don't like and putting in what they do with no reference to policy.

Since WP is a cooperative project it's not easy for the passer-by to be entirely sure how much serious distortion has crept into articles, or whether they've been packed with outright falsehoods. Only if you're involved is it possible to see what's happened - which is that, somehow, a situation has been engineered whereby a twisted version of WP:CIVIL takes precedence over every one of the real policies of the project. This has just led to Eleland, an excellent editor with many thousands of thoughtful scholarly edits (and helpful TalkpPage contributions), being hounded to total distraction by a recently arrived editor who, I'm pretty sure, adds nothing to the project whatsoever.

However, there are a few clues for you how terrible things were even before the final coup - here's the story of how one editor defied 8 others (including an administrator) over the only "mandatory" policy of the project (biographies of living people). This exhausting battle lasted 19 months, even an Rfc (Jan 08), an ArbCom (Jan 08) and a final warning for forum-shopping (Feb 08) didn't stop him, there was more edit-warring over it in April 08. Even when defeated at the article the disruption continued, finally ending with a one week block when he returned to the exact same topic in May 08. Note that none of the 8 other editors are now prepared to return to an article about a highly talented and significant Palestinian spokesman, which remains in a stunted condition.

Lastly, be very, very careful what you say on this topic - defenders of Israel will have no hesitation in going to your TalkPage and accusing you of antisemitism (in summary as well as in text, so you can't delete it). Here's yesterdays example - the victim is an immensely thoughtful, patient and learned editor - but he's already been pushed to total exasperation and resignation once. Your editing career can and will be permanently blighted, if not ended by smears, no matter how good your conduct and how valuable you are to the project. PR^talk 12:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with much of this PR. I wish you wouldn't use words like 'defenders of Israel'. Were Israel attacked, I would defend it. Never confuse the defence of Israel with the defence of certain Israeli interests in expropriating illegally Palestinian land, or poving articles to give the appearance that Israel has equal claims with Palestinians over Gaza and the West Bank. They are two distinct things. Israel is a constituted state, whose existence or right to defence is not in question, neither is the right of people to 'defend' it. The I/P area is by its nature always going to be tough to edit to NPOV standards: whingeing by either side is not helpful.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I humbly defer to your vastly superior scholarship and generally better attitude. I just don't understand why so much of your valuable time is taken up by near total illiterates. (I use the last word only because you slapped me down the last time I used it - and this despite the fact I thought it was highly apposite). PR^talk 20:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:LedRush

Resolved

Edit warring ([30], about Sept 27 to 30), disregarding warnings, calling them vandalism, and deleting comments from his talk page [31] [32]. Green caterpillar (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a little unclear about these accusations here, so I'll take them one at a time:

1: Regarding edit warring, there was one person who argued against existing language that was generally agreed on by about 3 others. While none of us reverted 3 times in 24 hours, we did try to preserve the page while the discussion was going on. I offered mediation, I offered compromise, and I asked people on the USA talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States) to come over and help with the US-related question. The manner in which I introduced the issue was neutral so that they could make up their own mind. One person, Mrzaius, with whom I have had some disagreement before, went over there and agreed with my position. Without getting into the merits of the discussion, I feel that my process was polite and appropriate. I repeatedly tried to find middle ground, I tried to find out why the person wanted the language so badly so that we could get examples which more accurately reflected his belief, and when this went on for two days I asked neutral outsiders (in a neutral way) to help us work out compromise. This issue was resolved 3 or 4 days ago, and I don't know why Green Caterpillar is bringing this up now.

2: I deleted the edit warring warning from my page (which I called a possible mistake or possible vandalism...never did I call it vandalism) because I thought it was a mistake. I hadn't made any edits to the page in about 3 days so I didn't know why I was getting the warning. If you aren't allowed to remove warnings, even ones that you reasonably believe are made in error, I am sorry. I was unaware that Wikipedia had such a rule and I will revert that on my talk page.

3: I also want to question some of Green Caterpillars comments themselves. He claims that I disregarded warnings on my talk page. This is untrue in two respects. Firstly, I only received one warning. Secondly, that warning was made about 3 days after my last edit, and therefore I couldn't have ignored it.

Green Caterpillar also claims that I deleted comments (plural) from my talk page. That is untrue. I deleted one on my talk page because it was made about 3 days after my last edit and I thought it was made in error.LedRush (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Okay, but I still don't see why once someone made an edit that was disagreed with, you and someone else reverted it over and over again. Even if it wasn't 3 times in 24 hours, it was still edit warring and counterproductive. Discussion comes first.

2. Okay.

3. Okay, I'm sorry I put the extra "s"'s. They were only one.

This whole issue was just concerning me, as I was watching One-China policy (I always watch articles interesting to me), and saw a weird edit. I went to the history and found two names alternating in history with "Undid revision...", and I'm just thinking, "what is going on? edit warring!". And then I put an edit warring template, and suddenly I find it removed saying it was possible vandalism and to be more careful with my warnings, which some people have done in the past to just say "pfft. Who cares?". But anyway, I think I'm done now. Let's go write the encyclopedia now. :) Green caterpillar (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Always nicer to discuss things instead of templating people. Then again, if you notice you're reverting the same article again and again (and it's not vandalism) it's time to re-think.

2. Although you should always archive your talk page instead of delete, you may delete warnings ...it's considered tacit acceptance of the warning, so your next warning may not be a warning at all, but a block.

4 (skipping 3). This discussion should have taken place earlier ... then an WQA would not have been needed. To be honest, I see no incivility, other than a failure to talk to each other :-) BMW(drive) 11:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW: so if someone makes an unfounded warning on your page, what should you do? I don't think it's fair for me to have to keep it on the page because it is without merit, but you're telling me if I delete it people will block me instead of warning me in the future? This policy seems quite odd to me.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The warning in and of itself was valid...you were darned close to 3RR, and they let you know how close you were. I would suggest that if you get that close to a 3RR again, a block might occur, and possibly correctly. Edit warring itself can lead to a short block, even if 3RR is not violated. BMW(drive) 14:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the warning was valid (3 days late, no 3RR violation, attempts at mediation, following consensus). Regardless, could you answer my question regarding what one would do in the situation I described? I am just trying to ensure that I handle these situations according to Wiki-standards. Thanks in advance.LedRush (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) 3 days "late" is not an issue. A warning can occur any time. I clearly said that I agreed with the warning because you were ABOUT to break it, and as it was, it could have been considered as such. 3RR violations are block without warning, at 3 reverts, you need awarning. I would rather be warned (just in case I didn't actually KNOW the policy) than to be blocked for actually breaking it. Yes, you attempted mediation, but then continued to revert. WP:ANI is the incident noticeboard for admins. WP:AIV is the anti-vandalism squad. They are always good immediate places. It's also never a bad idea to have a friendly admin that you trust, to whom you can ask for assistance. I'm not saying you did anything wrong. BMW(drive) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to reply. I still hope you can answer my question about how to best handle an unwarranted warning on your talk page. Right now I am just curious on proper wikiquette on these types of issues.LedRush (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't do anything that gets you any more warnings? ;-) You are welcome to delete anything from your talk page. Personally, I would post directly under it with diff's showing that the other editor was in error. Put it in its own section called "An unfortunately improper warning". Ask the other editor why they felt your actions deserved a warning. Keep their reply in that section. Archive it. You've built up proof/evidence to support yourself. Then, leave it alone. If you ever get blocked and the admin says "you have a history", show them your evidence from your Archives. BMW(drive) 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.LedRush (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just don't it on this one ... the Edit War warning was valid, and you were close to 3RR - exactly what the warning says :-) BMW(drive) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but we are going to have to agree to disagree whether or not the warning was valid. Please feel free to attempt to refute my position on my talk page.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(oudent) If you insist, I would rather have not. But, you asked my advice for "in the future" and you used it in a situation where you had in fact been asked not to - that's pretty uncivil. The details are here: [33]. BMW(drive) 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting there. I am sorry that you feel that I have been uncivil: that was not my intent. I feel like Green Caterpillar acted improperly (by not talking with me directly, by making warnings that were obviously not needed, by making false accusations about me ignoring that warning, and by posting here instead of discussing concerns with me) and I don't want to leave the evidence of this on my talk page. I know we disagree as to whether the warning was proper or not, but I see no reason why we should be uncivil to each other. Again, I appreciate your input and did not mean to cause offense.LedRush (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He would have been wrong to not advise you of policy, which is what a Level 1 template does. He was, however fairly wrong in filing a WQA against you in this case. I think we're done here. BMW(drive) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez's conduct at Talk:Gliese 581 c and other articles.

Stuck

 – Taken to RFC on user conduct.

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

User:GabrielVelasquez is persistently attacking other editors at Talk:Gliese 581 c who disagree with his viewpoint that there is no possible way the planet can be anything other than a runaway greenhouse Venus-analogue. He has accused editors (principally myself=Icalanise, Cyclopia and J. Langton) of sockpuppetry [34] [35], or of being "damage control" for various teams of scientists (who he seems to believe want to fool the public into thinking this planet is habitable for their own nefarious purposes) [36]. Furthermore when users attempt to confront him about this he proceeds to accuse them of harassment [37]. His belligerent/paranoid attitude towards scientifically-literate editors is making the editing process on the article in question, and other articles about planets located close to the habitable zone (e.g. [38]) needlessly unpleasant. Icalanise (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm the GabrielVelazquez behaviour has been difficult and often bordering with plain harassment. He in particular accused me of being a sockpuppet of J. Langton [39] . He also has a pattern of deleting/ignoring discussions that question his behaviour on his talk page -something which he is probably entitled to do but surely not collaborative [40] [41][42]. He went as far as considering my requests for apologies of accusing me of being a sockpuppet as personal attacks... but adding violently personal attacks himself [43]. As for his behaviour on the Talk:Gliese 581 c page and others, I think other editors are more entitled than me to describe it -however the talk page itself is a bit of a smoking gun. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Discussion moved from Administrators noticeboard, where it has been ignored and archived probably because this is the right place) --Cyclopia (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a degree of restrained incivility by the user, PLUS random accusations of sockpuppetry. Rather than template the heck out of the user, I have left a lengthy, polite discussion on the user's talk page. Further discussion regarding content should involve Project Astronomy. I hope this helps BMW(drive) 12:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope it can help. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are symptoms it has not helped. User:GabrielVelasquez yesterday has deleted the polite alerts of this discussion from his talk page, dismissing it all as "cowing" by Icalanise [44] [45]. He also accused another user User:BOZ, of "distracting tactics" [46] for apparent no reason. There are also suspicious anonymous edits on the Talk:Gliese 581 c page [47]. For now, nothing seriously disruptive, but these are worrying symptoms. Let's see what happens. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is good evidence that both User:198.163.53.10 and User:205.200.236.34 are being used by User:GabrielVelasquez but for now I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he merely forgot to log in, rather than trying to use these anonymous addresses to try and give the impression of there being more support for his viewpoint. Icalanise (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the edit pattern seems to support that he just forgot to log in. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to announce that the polite discussion by Bwilkins didn't help, as evident per [48] -in fact, he now attacked Bwilkins himself. What is next step? --Cyclopia (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also yet another accusation of sockpuppetry (this time accusing me of being the same as J. Langton) [49], despite being asked to either use the actual Wikipedia process for sockpuppet reporting or to stop [50]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icalanise (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there are a dozen or so of edits demonstrating personal attacks by User:GabrielVelasquez. Me and User:Bwilkins have tried, unsuccessfully, to politely solicit User:GabrielVelasquez to a more civil behaviour. I think it's time for WP:RFC/USER. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I myself would have no objection to that. Icalanise (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, when I have five minutes I will try that. I'd like to hear User:Bwilkins opinion, since he seems to have experience in this kind of sad stuff. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GabrielVelasquez. Anyone who wants to join, on either side of the issue, is welcome. ---Cyclopia (talk) 22:45, 6 October 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: Jaakobou

When I reverted the large-scale, undiscussed edits of Jaakobou (talk · contribs) in I'm a PC, he responded by attempting to derail the DYK nomination that would have introduced the article to a wider audience of editors, by suggesting the DYK was NPOV. He acknowledges that he knew this would happen, and did so in an effort to force me to bargain with him in the article. Note that this was done without discussion, and he reverted his massive edits in yet again before being coaxed to the discussion page.
I had asked him repeatedly to remove/strike through the comments, but he has either ignored them or made them conditional to getting what he wants.
Trying to keep my cool here, but pointy, behavior to game the system is pretty uncool. Thoughts on how to address this beyond how I already have?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou:

Drama: I honestly don't know why Arcayne is so interested in drama. There were already comments from two external observers (one asked him to revert) which he ignored and now he insists that I revert a legitimate concern - "or else".

DYK accolades: Considering the volume of my contributions to the discussed article, I believe we'll both be receiving some type of DYK banner but my concerns precede any silly accolades.

Concerns: I've raised the concern that Microsoft is being made a fool out-of in a bloggish manner with words such as "lampooned" and the their official response being sandwiched between two bloggers who discuss the "irony" of their error. Arcayne contributed to my sentiments with a large revert that destroyed a couple hours' work as well as comments like "[Microsoft] ass-clowned themselves into a pickle". The concerns are still there and still need to be resolved by a community concensus.

Responsive collaboration: We've already resolved a nice amount of my concerns and now that more external editors commented, we're compromising a bit further. I agreed to have him move my concerns from the DYK to WP:3O so I fail to understand why he'd refuse this and respond by starting a WQA. I invite anyone to the talk page to help resolve the minor issues left.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC) invite. 07:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed Arcayne did take up on my suggestion and moved the concern to the 3O talk page.[51] I will ignore the "admits was meant to derail" rhetoric, but I'm not sure the DYK should pass while the article insists on hammering the "Microsoft sucks" point. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: Jaakobou, you DID try and derail an article going DYK by using extremely non-NPOV, and it's rather obvious by your statement above. You are not the determinor of DYK, your role as an editor is to help any article attain DYK, whether you 100% agree or not. If you don't like the topic, then stay away. Controvertial articles have achieved DYK on many occasions. Personally, although ironic, this "issue" proves my personal belief: Windows sucks for audio/video/graphics production, and Mac is the de facto standard for such, even in MS commercials. BMW(drive) 11:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would I derail receiving a DYK? I have absolutely no issues with the topic and did not hide any of the criticism. I do, however, see a number of issues -- mostly in the 'undue' department -- in the lead as well as the body of the article. I'm not sure on procedure for resolving such matters before the article goes public so I've made a note for others to give this issue a look within the couple days left before the article is featured. You are invited as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

From my reading the links/diffs, your "tone" was certainly coming across as an attempt to derail. You were overly assertive about certain things, including your POV, and you did try and throw some "weight" around. I know this may not be what you meant, but that's what your style of writing said. BMW(drive) 16:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume that you are correct and my initial action was 'pushy'. I've raised a compromise suggestion and made a considerable attempt to try and work on the content from there. I'd appreciate external comments on the raised concerns - I'm willing to accept consensus against me, but as of this moment, editors have supported my perspective on the issues and it is my counterpart who is ignoring them and insisting on a WQA notice when he's already taken up on my compromise suggestion to move the DYK notice to 3O. It really feels like an unnecessary discussion now that he's moved the comment. You could say (just like the accusations pointed in my direction), that he's trying to derail the attempt to portray Microsoft in a reasonable light before the DYK date arrives. Anyways, I feel everything can be solved if external opinions arrive and we both align with the consensus view. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) m.fix 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, don't get me into the content. My read on the article to begin with was to show that MS tried to lampoon the Mac ads, and failed miserably...partly because the ad was created on a Mac ...that's what makes the article AND the DYK interesting. Take that focus away, the article itself is no longer notable, and let's CSD or AfD it ASAP. BMW(drive) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The 300 Million US Dollar campaign is notable regardless of it's content. The hook, that the campaign was revealed to have used Apple computers, is both funny and interesting. The note that Microsoft responded by deleting metadata and making an official statement that various computers were used, is somewhat undue for the lead in my opinion - and the "lampooned/compounded/embarrassment" type of language insisted upon just made me further believe that the metadata detail should remain in the body and not appear on the lead. It's not a matter of removing the embarrassment, rather putting it within reasonable, encyclopedic standards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As had been pointed out to you at least twice, the Lead is not just a introduction to the article, but summary of such as well. It notes such bumps as they occur. Mistake 1 was to use Apple for commercials about how PC is better than Apple. Mistake 2 was to attempt to conceal that mistake after a press release about it made it a non-issue. If it wasn't a problem for MS to use Apples, why scrub the data in an effort to conceal it?

However, that's beside the point. Your behavior was inappropriate, because you attempted to derail the DYK. The DYK brings editors to the article of every stripe. By attempting to hostage the DYK until you got what you wanted, thereby framing a preferred-version of the article for newly-arriving editors, you gamed the system.

I thought that bringing the problem here, where you could be enlightened as to how that sort of shit doesn't play here (and specifically with me); the alternative was taking it to AN/I, where the disruptive behavior would have likely had you blocked or warned. That you asked me to remove the post for you put you within a rat whisker of me filing via ANI anyway. That you consider the pointing out of your error as drama underscores the need for the wikiquette alert. Unfortunately, the next time this sort of thing happens with you, I will bypass this venue and head right to AN/I.

You handled this situation extraordinarily poorly, Jaak. If you aren't willing to recognize how your behavior in these sorts of situations ius unacceptable, I am fairly certain that your block log will be getting ever longer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just to point out, the criticism section is longer than the rest of the article. If anything's going to derail a DYK it'd be that. Wizardman 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be more of a reason to list a well-written (if I may say so myself) new article at DYK - it attracts new editors, who can add in all those tender bits about the background, campaign, etc. The massive irony is what set off the notability magnet.

However, that is neither here nor there; that isn't what Jaak pointedly said was his reason for interrupting the DYK process. As the DYK featured on 5 October, its something of a moot point now. The WQA was submitted as part of the DR process, as usertalk page communication was ineffective in resolving the problem. The underlying issue was the willingness to game the system to get leverage on another user in article editing. In the real world, that would usually end in a trip to the dentist for reconstructive surgery. Here in Wikipedia, it means bringing the problem to a larger audience for perusal. I am happy with the latter alternative. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Olana North

Resolved

 – Both parties advised. Subject blocked as sockpuppet of banned user.

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.

---

Olana North (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in making personal attacks against me, despite having been asked not to by me and another editor; and, after being asked, has started reverting my edits. I am not aware of having previsouly interacted with this editor. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) My edits do no constitute vandalism as claimed above with the template above.

Addendum to (1) in the posting above I am "lablelled" as a "vandal" by the use of a template {{vandal}}. The claim is that I am posting personal attacks (I vigorously deny this), NOT vandalism. This is a case of the "pot calling the kettle black". I demand to see the diffs where I have committed "vandalism". Olana North (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(2) This [52] is hardly a personal attack.

(3) This is irrelevant [53] as The claimaint does not state that this is a personal attack in the edit summary.

(4) I am entitled to revert any edits that I see fit.

(5) It is not a personal attacked to revert an edit.

(6) The initial posting that I made [54] was merely a statement of what I believe to be true and has sound basis as I show here [55]

(7) The claim bought by this editor is libelous and defamatory and has no basis whatsoever. I demand an apology from this editor. Olana North (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I have no option but to contribute here, as the 'another editor' mentioned in the initial posting.

My comment on Olana's talk page was intended as a peace-making initiative. In isolation, the comment ((6), first ref) seems to be unwarranted and against the spirit of WP:AGF. However, at the time of posting I was unaware of the Administrators' discussion that is alluded to in (6) (second ref). It is clearly evident from that discussion that Pigs~ has some 'issues' with editing at WP, and that unless the reported behaviour was modified, further action might be needed. In the light of that, the comment made by Olana, while not necessarily helpful, certainly contains more than a grain of truth about it.

Regarding (2), this is a matter for Olana and myself to resolve -- I see it as a misunderstanding rather than an 'attack' -- and certainly NOT an indication that Olana is simply intent on making personal attacks against others.

Regarding (3), I 'sit on the fence'. I agree with Olana that the addition is of questionable usefulness in the context of the article, but if I had been in his position I would have placed a comment on the talk page asking for other opinions rather than simply reverting the edit when this could have been misconstrued as stalking.

My concern is that there are a few WP editors who have a tendency to not just hold strong opinions but to express them, without always considering the implications. My 'contribution' to this situation, where I was trying to avoid confrontation, has clearly back-fired big time this time round.

EdJogg (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, we seem to have a spillover from AN/I and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not going to call "forum shopping", but we do seem to have 2 brick walls firmly planted between 2 editors. To address the diffs in the complaint:

• Editors have a right to remove things from their talk page. Now, removing an award given by a friend of someone you don't like may be childish (yes Olana), but is not uncivil towards anyone.
• "Knowing your background..." is a bit needling. Even sex offenders can be reformed, although agreeably, Pigsonthewing has shown themselves to be a bit difficult to work with, history does not necessarily determine the future. Again, it's not uncivil, but certainly inflammatory.
• The near-templating of Olana regarding NPA was therefore wrong, considering the above (Don't Template the Regulars). However, above that, that post by pigs on Olana's page (if there was indeed an attempt to get resolution/have a discussion) should have been more like "Your comment made me feel X because of Y" - that would have initiated proper discussion. Because of that, I would say the near-template post bordered on incivility in itself.
• I don't quite understand why the edit was reverted ... it seemed to be sensible to me. WP:AGF says that a) the original edit might have been fine, and b) so might have the reversion.

In regard to Olana's response:

• Can you please show me a diff where you were templated as a vandal, as I have not seen it. You were also not templated using the NPA (although it was close).
• You are not entitled to "revert any edits that you see fit", you are entitled to edit other edits that are uncited, revert vandalism, or remove entries that do not add to an article. The addition of a co-ord seems to fit much of the rest of the article and is hardly "confusing". I can understand that based on the previous "fight" between the two of you, this reversion of yours may have looked malicious to the other editor. I always suggest that when you're involved in an altercation, you try not to add gas to the fire by what might be construed as malicious reversions.
• Please AGF ... as noted above, even criminals can be reformed.
• I would ask you to strike you comment above about "defamatory" and "libelous" as they are rooted in law, and could be read as a threat. You yourself need to Assume Good Faith and stand down from requests for apologies - both of you have contributed to this escalation of an issue.

So, overall, I would say that the 2 editors are both at fault for escalating this situation. Both have been thrown fuel on this fire. Both of you need to always beware of the potential consequences of your own actions, and then don't act at all surprised when that consequance actually occurs. Respect other's right to edit, and respect each other's feelings. Don't forget the Golden Rule BMW(drive) 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As seems to be the case with Wikipedia, it would rather punish an editor with a clean record than take action against a known disruptive element. Issue me with a punitive block then and lets all move on. The saying about letting "prisoners have the keys" springs to mind. Olana North (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any punishment: "Both of you need to always beware of the potential consequences of your own actions, and then don't act at all surprised when that consequance actually occurs. Respect other's right to edit, and respect each other's feelings. Don't forget the Golden Rule". Pretty sure that's pointe finale BMW(drive) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Olana North is now indefinitely blocked, as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Olana North refers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, "nice work"?? BMW(drive) 15:38, 7 October 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:Nosferamus

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Not civility ... should be placed at WP:SOCKANI or AIV

From the amount of information placed in the Marco Lupis page, it is clear that the user is Lupis itself.

It should be pointed out also that Lupis has a long list of infinite-blocked sockpuppets on the Italian Wikipedia due to presenting his family as noble, without valid sources or with copyvio. 89.96.108.150 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say this doesn't look like a civility issue, and you should visit WP:SOCK and file a sockpuppet report. BMW(drive) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He does not have sockpuppets here; I was thinking more of rules against writing bios about yourself, and about the presence on en.wiki of the info that was found to be unsourced on it.wiki, leading to Lupis being blocked and to him creating an inordinate amount of sockpuppets. 89.96.108.150 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So then it's content ...and still not civility. If the edits are vandalism, visit WP:AIV, if it's more annoyance, try WP:ANI. BMW(drive) 18:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 (talk · contribs)

User FireFly has accused me on both my talk page and his of being a troll, seamy, sordid, mean, and of disrupting a page with pointy edits. The dispute seems to be centred over my addition of an orphan tag to the J. C. Massee page, which I justified on the talk page. When questioned he repeated the accusations, and when asked to justify them or remove them he responded by saying I was "a not fair and rational editor". I think this goes a bit far. When another editor warns FireFly for his behaviour, he removes the template with the edit summary "removing other unfair and irrational comment". I originally thanked him for removing the accusations from my talk page, but he then immediately repeated and extended the personal attack on his talk page.

• Discussion on my talk page (removed by FireFly332): Please stop
• Discussion on FireFly332's talk page, including warning by 3rd party (removed by FireFly332): Uncivil accusations

Yours, Verbal chat 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin: You were perfectly justified in adding the tag, and he knows it. I suggest a short block, but I'm not an admin so my opinion doesn't count. =P Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin: In passing, Firefly322 (mistakenly) bandied the troll word about at Talk:Taede A. Smedes after I asked for the subject's notability to be established. Like Dendodge, I'm no admin so probably can't help, but I thought this might have some bearing here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving this up to a WP:RFC/U if other editors have encountered problems in the past too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it that serious? How does one go about that? It does seem there is a history of poor behaviour from his talk page (including a mediation cabal attempt) Verbal chat 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: In response to the (polite) notification of this discussion, Firefly322 says "you are doing harm to wikipedia" along with those I "associate" with, and that "[my] behavior in terms of editing is not one to be modeled"(sic). Obviously the "doing harm" comment is a further attack. It seems Firefly has had a few civility problems, and this needs to be sorted out. Verbal chat 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of the sort. No he's not perfectly justified in adding such a tag. The tag is completely unnecessary and in fact its a blight on the article that would make other editors not link to it. Verbal appears to enjoy engaging in WP:tendentious editing, espeically in articles related to religion and other edgey topics. He or she demands justification of other editors who disagree with him by purposely baits editors. I do believe that user's behavior here is WP:TROLL and that my comments in his or her case and in the context that they exist justly stand on the grounds that WP:Break all rules and that he or she and the so called "third parties" are doing harm to wikipedia. An absolute applicaiton of any rule WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, is in the words of Terry Eagleton "errant nonsense" and "unmitigated garbage." --Firefly322 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Firefly has previously edit-warred to remove made accusations of bad faith when removing article tags at J. C. Massee; perhaps there is a feeling of article ownership there. In this most recent example, I think Firefly's remarks are certainly incivil. It is good that Firefly since removed them, but unfortunate that other comments have given the impression that Firefly still believes them to be "accurate". I've left a note, by the way, about the removal of user talk page comments from User talk:Verbal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are abusing the concept of WP:OWNERSHIP. More damage to wikipedia. Not less as you might be thinking you are doing. I have not "edit warred", I think. You are mischaracterizing me. More damage to wikipedia, at least that's how I see it. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

An absolute applicaiton of any rule WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, is in the words of Terry Eagleton "errant nonsense" and "unmitigated garbage."

No - WikiLawyering is "errant nonsense". Applying WP:CIVIL, a Wikipedia policy, is all that is happening here. You are not overly civil and feel that you own the article. The tag is designed to help articles when not much links to them. Verbal is trying to assist and advance Wikipedia - you are trying to make sure everything is how you want it. </rant> Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The disucssion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup routinely calls tags snags and editors are busy trying to fix this. Verbal has snagged this article not tagged it. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, I presume that instead of accusing me of abuse and damage, your intent was to deny that you feel that you own this article. As such, I am quite willing to accept that denial at face value in the interests of having a productive discussion.

Moving on to the issue of the "orphan" tag: it is perfectly normal for articles to be tagged as orphans when "few or no articles" link to them; such tagging is intended and expected to encourage other editors to add links. Tagging an orphaned article is in no way trolling, disruptive, or damaging to Wikipedia. User:Verbal was perfectly justified in adding that tag, and User:Maunus was justified in restoring it after you removed it. By contrast, it is disruptive to remove a tag whose purpose is to assist editors in improving Wikipedia. In general, when you see a tag that you wish to remove, you should either address and resolve the issues raised by the tag (for example, by finding reliable sources or finding articles that could link to this one) or propose its removal on the article Talk page, and engage in a discussion which is civil and assumes good faith of other editors.

On that note, please remember that Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a policy, unlike Wikipedia:Break all rules, and repeated failure to adhere to it may result in you being sanctioned to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of a warning tag off of your own Talk page is tacit acceptance of that warning. So, the warning has been acknowledged. Although edit-warring is not necessarily "incivility", the nasty commentary about editors is purely uncivil. I don't see a new reason (yet) for an additional level of warning, however, additional edit warring, or incivility, I would recommend a block for disruption. I am disturbed by the attempts to "turn the tables" on others, rather than understand one's own behaviour ... especially when it's been pointed out by numerous uninvolved editors. BMW(drive) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2) Firefly, you are placing a user's suggestion as more important than a long-standing, consensus-supported template and accompanied process. The tag was correctly placed - you are the only person who disagrees. Consensus gathered, discussion over. There's no need to prolong this. If an admin wants to block for a couple of days... Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors can continue to engange in this wolf-pack WP:tendentious editing (calling snags tags) for now and try and justify it here. As I've pointed out. These tags are considered nags by other editors. Like any policy or guideline, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL can be abused in a two-way street fashion. I am a bit excited now, I can admit, but I can assure you that I am trying to act in good faith fashion. A faith in wikipedia and what matters. I believe every time a good policy or guideline comes about, a group editors try and find a way to use it in ways that it should not be. I believe that is a lot of what I am wittnessing here. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, what you're witnessing here is a group of people who have gathered consensus, considering long-standing precedent and Wikipedia policy. Let's just end this pointless debate here, or you'll probably find yourself with a block. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A good editor (when they come across an article with an Orphan tag) will rise to the challenge to de-orphan it. Orphan tags therefore serve an extremely beneficial and appreciated purpose on Wikipedia. Just because one or more editors don't understand it (and therefore don't like it) does not change the inherent benefit. BMW(drive) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out here that in my talk page comment before I placed the tag I suggested another article that could be linked to J C Massee, but I don't know if it is the right NBC. I also made a few other improvements to the article. Verbal chat 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The tag in question does not have good consensus support. Other editors consider it an annoyance and there is currently an independent proposal that it should be placed upon article talk pages rather then on the article page itself. I am among them - this tag and related activity seem to be unnecessary busywork which detract from our main purpose. In this case, we see that the tag has caused more harm than good. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this page and its primary editors show a biased selection of users related to the type of topic that they are editing on. The paged is used to zero in on editors no so much for wiki-ettique as it is to zero-in on editors who write in edgey topics by baiting them. And that editors here are going along with such a practice. These can't represent consensus, because a lot of WP:UNCIVIL commentary is ignored: Bull###..there are several other nasty-grams that I got, which I create dif links to. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left Firefly a formal warning for this incessant failure to assume good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The incivility is continuing, unfortunately, as in this edit summary [56] which now accuses me and others here of behaving inappropriately. The accusations now made on this page by Firefly against me and others need a formal response now, I feel. Is it time to ask for administrator intervention at ANI? Verbal chat 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it for now. It's understandable that Firefly might think the warning wasn't justified, and I've tried to explain my reasoning on my own Talk page. The important thing going forward is not to "argue about arguing", if you know what I mean. There is still an encyclopaedia out there, waiting to be written :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine about the warning you provided, but the continuing attacks, which escalate each time, are tiresome and slightly upsetting. Verbal chat 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Verbal, you're not doing yourself any favours right now ... meanwhile, Firefly is attacking uninvolved, neutral volunteers, which is likely going to provide him/her with a nice long rest from editing Wikipedia ... BMW(drive) 23:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl

User:TharkunColl constantly wholesale reverts whatever recent edits I make without discussion, and usually with comments designed to incite a reaction. This has been going on for some time. He objects to my editting on topics involving the term "British Isles" and he is trying to make it appear political. He rarely (hardly ever) discusses the edits, and always leaves comments such as "Reverting wholesale vandalism" or "Removing politically driven POV", etc (see recent revert comments below). I've asked him to stop several times, and posted warnings on his Talk page. While I don't believe he sock-puppets, his actions are remarkably similar to LemonMonday and Blue Bugle. Here are a number of recent reverts from today:

• European Green Party
• Cup and ring mark
• Old-time music
• Drovers' Road

There's numerous other examples going back in time (more than 6 months). Other recent reverts such as:

• Derry and Derry
• Saint David

show the same pattern, but if you go back over his edit history, they're pretty obvious.

In a nutshell, Tharky believes I am incorrectly removing the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia and accuses me of having a political or anti-British motivation. I deny this, it is simply not true. While many of my edits involve removing the term British Isles where it is being used incorrectly, they are nearly always correct. I try to be a good editor - I'm always happy to discuss my edits if someone asks, and I always try to include references where possible. My editing is completely in line with the draft task force document at WP:BISLES - which shows that my edits are not extreme or fringe (or political).

But leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the content. My objection is that Tharky reverts without trying to provide an argument or reference. He removes good verifiable references where provided. And he leaves personal attacks accusing me of political POV, etc, as edit summaries. This behaviour needs to be addressed. I'm perfectly happy to address any of his questions or concerns on an edit-by-edit basis, using references and citations, etc.

--HighKing (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend from this momment on, there should be no more restoring or removing of British Isles on any articles, 'until' the Taskforce (mentioned by HighKing) concludes. PS- I wish Tharky would participate in that Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, that's probably a sensible suggestion, and I'm happy to abide with it. But it still doesn't solve the problem of Tharky's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I did participate to start with, but the arguments are just endless - just as on the British Isles talk page. And, my I add, some of the accusations levelled against certain editors there make my rather mild comments seem as nothing by comparison. Terms like "imperialist" and "genocidal" spring to mind. ðarkuncoll 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's where those arguments can be held. That's where frustrations & emotions can be spilled. Compromises tend to follow exhaustion. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Every successive compromise breaks down when a new bunch of remarkably similar IP addresses all suddenly appear making ridiculous demands again. ðarkuncoll 19:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of "demands", we're dealing with civility. Referring to editors as "trolls" and asserting "political reasons" in permanent edit summaries is well beyond the realm of civility. BMW(drive) 19:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You've a point there Tharky, concerning IP acounts at British Isles & Republic of Ireland discussions. My participation at the Taskforce, is conditional. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing more I can add folks. I hope things work out. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Excuse me, but this is not about anon IP accounts at any article Talk page. Stick to the point here. Tharky reverts with personal comments and attacks, even to the point of removing research and references. His behaviour has gone on for long enough and to the point where a host of other editors, encouraged by his behaviour, User:LemonMonday, User:Blue Bugle and the latest User:MidnightBlueMan all leave the same nasty remarks and all revert without discussion, tag teaming and cooperating. They refuse to provide reliable references, ignore policy at will, and refuse to discuss or compromise. It is this behaviour we are discussing, not commentary by anon IP's. --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's concerns of sock-puppetry? request checkusers. PS- I'm not very good at Wikiequette reports, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the "nasty remarks" that I'm supposed to have made? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to MidnightBlue, he has not left comments that I would call "nasty", but this edit summary is still a personal comment and is done without discussion, and today you are tagteaming with User:TharkunColl on Scottish Blackface (sheep), Saint David, ]Glowworm, and Doyle. Same general behaviour though. --HighKing (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but you've got to admit, that edit was designed to get rid of British Isles in that instance. However, there was no mention of getting rid of it in the edit summary. I notice GoodDay's suggestion, and your subsequent comment above, about refraining from restoring and removing British Isles. If you refrain from removing it I would certainly refrain from restoring it, or adding it for that matter. Will others do likewise? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to pick the editor with the worst behavior in this group of tag team editors and apply either a warning or sanctions. That may have the effect of convincing the others to behave more civilly. Civility is not just polite words. It also requires polite actions: refrain from making provocative edits; refrain from repeatedly reverting the same editor. If somebody misbehaves, report them here instead of mass reverting them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Threats are unhelpful. There's no tag teaming here. Please look at what's going on under the cover to get an appreciation of the complex issues surrounding this matter. For example, have a look at the editing histories of those involved (apart from mine, there's nothing much there yet), and Talk page comments going back quite a while. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So, once again we have a content complaint that has turned uncivil, all over the use of the term "British Isles" (which is a political term, and not a geographic term - and this is the genesis of the entire issue). This is an issue that MUST be decided either by consensus on the article Talk Page, or via a project forum. Regardless, Tharkuncoll has, as I noted, been extremely uncivil in their edit summaries. This will not do on Wikipedia. We argue EDITS and not EDITORS. Unfortunately, MidnightBlueMan has joined the incivility, as much as they would like to claim to disagree (this edit [[57]] is the first one I looked at, and lo and behold, it was uncivil. Right now, I do not believe that additional diff's are necessary). MidnightBlueMan, although you are not the subject of this WQA report, I would urge you to consider your own civility in the future. Every edit that anyone does, and every Edit summary are permanent records for the world to see. Accusations and incivility (and possible therefore defamation) are therefore also permanent. Passionate editing is a good thing, being uncivil is not. If someone templates you with a personal attacks template, you should take a quick look at your own activities and see why, rather than dismiss it as "spurious". As well, sometimes it's better to discuss the issue without templates, and try and resolve the editor-to-editor issue. I have replaced the level 2 personal attacks warning on Tharkuncoll's page, as it was indeed valid. I would suggest that future similar action (or other uncivil actions such as multiple reversions of the same editor), will likely be greeted with a block. BMW(drive) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You also appear not to be looking at the underlying issues, and please look at the remarks that caused my incivility. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, your incivility is not the thrust of the issue here, merely your FUTURE civility, as I am WP:AGF. If you'd like me to look further at your comments, I will ... BMW(drive) 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is not a political term, and predates the formation of the British state by some two millennia. The problem here is some editors trying to turn it into a political issue. I shall attempt to be more circumspect in my edit summaries from now on, but shall not refrain from reverting what I consider to be incorrect or wrong-headed deletions of the term. And since it was HighKing who brought up this dispute, I would like to ask him a simple question. How come almost all your edits to Wikipedia are to remove the term British Isles? If it's not political, what is your motivation? If it's just a simple desire for accuracy as you see it, why concentrate on that particular term? You've been doing it, under your previous account, long before the task force was thought of. ðarkuncoll 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(quick note that is not intended to be inflammable: the "British Isles" are historically very limited in scope. As one noted scholar recently noted (and I paraphrase) "neo-Imperialists are prone to expand that definition to mean all of the islands belonging to the UK, contrary to its proper usage. You do not hear the phrase 'Canadian Isles', you hear 'Islands of Canada' when it comes to geography, but you only hear 'British Isles' in political or neo-Imperialist terms") BMW(drive) 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said that is simply wrong, I'm afraid. In my experience, the term is used precisely because it is neutral, and carries no implication of political ownership. ðarkuncoll 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, woe. Diverted onto the definitions of a commonly used geographical term, which in certain contexts including its beginnings in English language usage is embroiled in politics. Also intruiging is the notion that some non-blackface sheep is the most common in the country with the confusing name which for the sake of clarity we're allowed to call the RoI. Trust evidence from references will be forthcoming. But I digress. It is a highly charged topic, and all concerned should minimise raising the temperature in edit summaries. In the past I've noticed some rather dodgy summaries from TharkunColl, and it is to be hoped that he'll make every effort to avoid treading on toes, as should everyone. Failure to keep snarkiness in check undermines rather than helps making a case. . . dave souza, talk 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See dave, I did say that it was a content dispute :-) However, my reading of the "tone" of TharkunColl's reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that they are AWARE of the complaint, and of the issue ...and I anticipate future immediate improvements...am I correct in my reading? BMW(drive) 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly hope so. It is a prickly subject, and care is required to maintain a reasonable level of civility. When a source clearly says one thing but editors take issue with political implications and want to change it to something else, it's inmportant to try to avoid giving or taking offence in discussions. As you say, those concerned are clearly aware of the required standards of behaviour. . dave souza, talk 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's a geographical term, for which there is no easy substitute, but lets' not get into the content dispute.:) If there are going to be sanctions for actual edits, rather than for wikiquette, which is what this board is about, I definitely don't think one person should be singled out over another for punishment, just to make an 'example' of them. That seems very wrong. If people's edits are problematical, they should be considered on an individual editor basis only but treated fairly and equally. But wikiquette is not really about that sort of stuff, this isn't really the place to impose anything on editors for their style of editing so much as their manner of editing or something- even then wikiquette board is rarely the place people go to decide on blocks or something, it is one of the first steps in WP:DR. As to 'tag teaming'- there's no evidence any of the editors are in particular off wiki communication and organization. If they just happen to share an opinion but are operating independently, that's not tag teaming an to say so is an unpleasant accusation. It's late here so I hope you all can understand vaguely what I mean.:) Sticky Parkin 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of this type of behaviour. I lodged this complaint last May and you can see that older complaint could be a cut and paste for the current one. If you search the admin noticeboard, you'll see that Tharky is no stranger to this behaviour. I'll say again - the behaviour of reverting edits because, basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and his constant trying to attribute a political or underhanded motive to my edits has to stop. Even to the point of sanctions if the pattern doesn't change. I've reverted the current crop of articles that were reverted, and I'm happy to discuss these articles on their talk pages. Perhaps in the meantime a voluntary 1RR be imposed on all articles where editors object to the removal of the term British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are no stranger to the content dispute aspect of this report yourself, and have been warned and blocked precisely for your British Isles issues in the past. You also have different conduct issues, such as templating people with warnings if they criticize your editing. Sticky Parkin 13:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)You haven't answered my question above, as to your true motives. I suggest that it is you who should look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I shall revert your arbitrary deletions. ðarkuncoll 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well this response pretty much sums up Tharky's attitude. He has just reverted 3 more articles, no discussion or attempt to provide any kind of verifiable references. And continuing to ask for "true motives" is nasty and underhanded, and a crude attempt to avoid examining my edits or providing references. He is in breach of editing policy, as well as several other policies such as WP:AGF, etc. We've tried in the past, and he agreed to stop this behaviour, but he simply waits for a period of time and then continues to edit-war. He has also pretty much ignored this Wikiquette alert. What is the next step towards getting this editor blocked for disruption? --HighKing (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. You will notice that my edit summaries make no mention of your motives at all. This is what you complained about, right? As for AGF, it works both ways you know. ðarkuncoll 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking for "true motives" and calling my edits "arbitary deletions" here makes it clear that you are still attacking the editor and ignoring the edits. You have deleted my work and my references without regard for discussion and have offered absolutely no justification in terms of references or citations for this. You are wikistalking, and trying to disguise it by attempting to attribute a motive to my edits. To this point, you haven't even acknowledged that there is anything wrong with your behavior. You simple can't continue to revert my edits without an attempt to justify your version. --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the references you deleted. Don't revert my edits without a discussion on the Talk page to justify your version. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree totally Tharkun, your being accused of reverting, when some editors have their own agenda to remove the British Isles from Wikipedia, and constantly revert themselves then try to get others banned. very much pot calling the kettle --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rocky, many editors on WP have an agenda. Some editors even have extreme views on things. I don't, and I've always stated that my interest is accuracy. This is an encyclopedia after all. But seeing as how you and others continually try to attribute a political motive to my editing - no doubt so that the reverts can all be justified as combating some sort of republican anti-British POV pushing edits - let's meet this head on for once. Your challenge now is to now put your money where your mouth is. Either back up, with facts and diffs, your insinuation on "agenda", or withdraw your comment. Failure to do so will prove my point. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've returned - I'd recommend (starting today), a 1RR on all related articles, concerning adding/removing or altering the term British Isles (this covers both Tharky & HK); any takers? GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - it is ineffective at resolving the core issue that would result: slow edit-warring. They should continue to pursue dispute resolution, and discuss their differences (even if it's through article RFC or mediation). If they cannot stop edit-warring, then they both can be prevented from doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly i don`t have the time to lavish going through wikipedia looking for this and that. Secondly i have made a generalized comment and have not mentioned yourself in this edit, and nor any other editor for that matter, so i don`t have to back anything up. --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Res to Ncmvocalist). Seeing as the adde/remove dispute is mainly between Tharky & HK? the Mediation Cmte would seem the correct route. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

From the brief look I took, it also involves MBM. It doesn't really matter whether mediation is formal (link you've given), or informal (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) - whichever works, but regardless, all the involved editors need to agree to being subject to mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It involves more editors than that. There's also User:Blue Bugle (banned for sock puppetry) and User:LemonMonday (who was warned here and here. He has made three reverts so far today, two without an attempt at discussion - Cup and ring mark, Old time music and Drovers' road. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The best solution to this problem is for all involved editors to agree not to add or remove the term "British Isles" from any Wikipedia article until this issue can be resolved. An exception can be made in cases where a clear consensus emerges, of course. Edit warring is disruptive, regardless of the rate of edits, and if the involved editors can't restrain themselves voluntarily then other methods can be looked into. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the best solution is to adhere to existing policies for providing references, remaining civil, and discussing the edits. The problem here is that Tharky and other editors make no effort to follow these policies. Making this out to be solely a content dispute means you are condoning Tharky's (and other's) behaviour, and even giving weight to the unfounded allegations of an "agenda" on my part. That said, I'm very happy to go along with whatever the community decides *after* the issue of Tharky's behaviour has been dealt with properly. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this. I will not add, remove or otherwise modify references to the British Isles (unless obviously wrong and with agreement) provided HighKing and others also accept this proposal. LemonMonday (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In response. You were warned about this previously, most recently by Alison here, yet you've already reverted three times today - Cup and ring mark, Old time music and Drovers' road. --HighKing (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Both sides must agree, that adding/removing or alterting British Isles on Wikipedia is a powdered keg. Thus my reason for calling an end to the changes & reversions. Tharky & HK have both been giving 'advice' on this topic before. As for Tharky's conduct? he must curb is opinons & use more discussion/less reverting. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GD, your comments are in danger of turning this into a content issue, and that would suit Tharky no end as he wouldn't have to address this ongoing issue. This is not about the content. This is solely about behaviour. And if you have any reason to believe that there are problems with my behaviour, then we can address that here also. But let's not divert this discussion into an argument about content - we are already dealing with that on WP:BISLES and in other places, as you know. The issue of Tharky's and others behaviour must be dealt with once and for all. --HighKing (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I read ya. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

HighKing, you're aware that your actions are provoking disruption by another user, that these changes are contentious, and that this matter is the subject of an ongoing attempt at discussion. Until there's a resolution, then, why won't you stop? Why not make a gesture of good faith in the interests of reducing drama and disruption? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to stop making changes because I'm provoking disruption. Hang on - I don't force Tharky or any other editor to behave in a disruptive manner, so I don't accept the accusation of provoking anything. And if I behave in a disruptive manner, point it out. In effect, you are suggesting a form of censureship. You are asking me to stop editing. Let's dig further. You say that the changes are contentious. I ask why? Which edits are incorrect? Where am I pushing a POV? Where are my edits out of line with the (draft) WP:BISLES recomendations? Have I done something wrong? And I'm curious as to why you see fit to focus on my behaviour, and not address the complaint on Tharky's behaviour - your suggestion to stop editting suits Tharky's agenda and effectively condones his behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question, I am not focussing on your behaviour. My proposal was aimed at defusing the content issue which is fuelling the conduct issue, and I then replied to your response. Let me put my suggestion differently. Why not wait until the draft is no longer a draft? There is no deadline for when these changes have to be made, after all, and it's much easier to resolve content disputes (and avoid user conduct problems) when you have a policy or guideline to justify your edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be much more amenable to your suggestion if I saw that the community had an appetite to comment on and even to threaten to sanction Tharky's behaviour. If the community does not, then it condones it. As you can see, it appears to be an effective tactic for WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues. In effect, perhaps we will see other editors adopt these tactics.... --HighKing (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When WP:BISLES reaches a conclusion, you've got an excellent basis for saying that your edits are in keeping with WP guidelines, and by extension, that reverts are WP:POINT violations. Until then, I think WP:BRD is the order of the day. TharkunColl has at least agreed not to attribute any motive to you in further edit summaries. That's encouraging. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing new here - we've been here before to no avail. TharkunColl agreed not to attribute any motive yesterday, but hasn't committed to following WP:BRD, to provide references where requested, to stop reverting without discussion, etc. And from what I can see, there's no appetite among admins to point out anything erronuous with his recent continuing behaviour. And I don't need to wait for any conclusion in WP:BISLES as the basis for editting or not - they are already reasonable edits, whereas Tharky's behaviour is in breach of policy. --HighKing (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) As far as I can see - essentially what's happening is that TharkunColl is a "sore loser". He's long supported the idea that 'British Isles' is a neutral and inoffensive geographical term that's been in continuous use back to the Ancient Greeks. Unfortunately his ideas have been repeatedly demonstrated to be untrue - with extensive supporting references. Rather than following the Keynes idea of "When the facts change, I change my mind" TharkunColl is determined to insist that he was right all along and to engage in any kind of tactic to try to "win the argument". His aim in inserting (or reverting) the term 'British Isles' in articles is to try to continue a fighting a war that he has lost on the actual British Isles article page - although he did pop up recently there and delete a bunch of text and the supporting references (tsk tsk). The idea that one should assume good faith with TharkunColl became ridiculous long ago. This has become a personal obsession for him and apparently no amount of reasonable discussion (or reputable sources) will change his mind. Expect his campaign to go on. 'British Isles' will be put in where it doesn't belong, protected where it shouldn't be, and defended where it's indefensible. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's really unhelpful. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it? Why? It's how I see it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit Irish ;) dave souza, talk 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) <Scotticism>

It's definitely a bit odd that one is apparently not supposed to criticize an editor's behavior even on a page dedicated to discussing behavior. Wouldn't it be nice if the purpose of this page was only ever to alert how well editors were behaving? It would be nice, but it isn't the case. Thus, regrettably, I'm afraid that I stand by the comments. I believe they are true. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's what I believe. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind people what I've said about a plague of very similar IP addresses popping up and disruping articles and discussions. ðarkuncoll 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary Break

Comment This stupid, time-wasting non-argument is now spreading and damaging articles all over the project, and it's time it stopped. Even in the diffs presented by User:HighKing it must be obvious that the campaign has become vandalism. Removing/re-phrasing statements such as "David contrasts with the other national patron saints of the British Isles, Saints George, Andrew and Patrick ... in that he is a native of the country of which he is patron saint, " and "Derry was the last city in the British Isles to be enclosed with defensive walls, and has the only surviving complete series of city walls in the islands" and "the roots of old-time music are in the traditional musics of the British Isles (primarily English, Scottish and Irish)" and "Cup and ring marks ... are a form of prehistoric art found predominantly in the upland parts of the British Isles but also in some parts of continental Europe" needs to stop. PR^talk 10:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately inserting "Patrick" in the St. David article, just for the purpose of inserting the term "British Isles", is a deliberate ploy to incite a reaction to the point of disruption. Check the edit history, and you will find that Tharky made that change first. The motivation for this edit was nothing more than disruption, and the deliberate insertion of a term known to be controversial.

Tharky also editted the Derry article, and inserted the term without reference or discussion. When I provided a reference from the official website (which does not mention British Isles), it was quickly reverted by an account User:LemonMonday whose sole edits are reversions of mine. Even though this account ha been warned by Alison, this account continues to disrupt and reverted three of my edits yesterday.

I fail to see your point regarding the Cup and ring marks article. Perhaps you can clarify?

Overall though, I agree that Tharky's behaviour must be stopped. It is disruptive, with no regard to policies or the accuracy of articles. Reverts were made with personal and untrue comments. No attempt is made to provide references or to discuss edits. As far as Tharky is concerned, every edit is politically motivated and must therefore be reverted. That position, if it remains unchecked, must be swiftly dealt with. The current situation is highly disruptive and a big waste of time. --HighKing (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Deliberately inserting "Patrick" in the St. David article, just for the purpose of inserting the term "British Isles", is a deliberate ploy to incite a reaction to the point of disruption." Excuse me? Wasn't the whole point of your complaint here that I was ascribing motives to you? What's this then? ðarkuncoll 11:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

@ HighKing - what I'm seeing (just from the diffs you've provided!) is damage to articles caused by a campaign to force others to change their use of the English language. Even if it were based on a substantial and important point of view (and I've seen no evidence for this), other people are being put upon - in order to disrupt the editing process and impoverish articles. I knew that George is a non-national saint, I didn't know that about Andrew and I'm startled to be reminded that Patrick fits the same pattern. It's important and useful. It's time you did similar things and ceased this vandalism. PR^talk 14:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Damage to force others to change their use of the English language, or to even slightly respect a change that is already happening - as per verifiable sources? There are lots of people for whom the fact that (i) "British Isles" is offensive and (ii) that it's falling out of use for that reason, are both news. Even UK civil servants were advised not to use the term when speaking to Irish civil servants already several years ago. Important? Substantial? Oh yeah. Does TharkunColl care? Oh yeah! He's going to make the whole world see his point of view by pushing the term wherever he can across WP. PalestineRemembered can be shown the evidence, if it would make any positive difference. TharkunColl has seen the evidence lots of times. I don't see that it made a positive difference in his case. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE request opened

Since the parties are apparently not going to agree voluntarily to cut out this edit-war, I have made an ArbCom Enforcement request on WP:AE, with suggested restrictions on BOTH users. Please see [58]. SirFozzie (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)