Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive60

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

Saguamundi

This user has on several occasions taken a biographical article about a living person who has Turkish heritage, but was born and raised outside of Turkey and uses a westernized spelling of their name, and moved the article to a name using the Turkish spelling. Since all sources and the person's personal preference all reflected the original westernized spelling (as best I can determine), I reverted such changes. In each case, Saguamundi then inserted the Turkish spelling into the article (despite any connection to Turkey other than previous generations of the family) and left a talk message for me demanding that his changes be retained. Despite acceding to his wishes in each case, Saguamundi has become increasingly strident in expressing his demands. The latest such demand, in my opinion, clearly and blatantly crosses the civility line. I would ask that someone council this user on WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. I also think his edit pattern violates WP:NPOV, but lets start with the basics. As far as I can remember, some relevant pages are his and my talk and Halil Suleyman Ozerden, Mehmet Oz, Arda Ocal. (I'm assuming that the edits by 88.232.149.239 are also Saguamundi because of the identical language both used on my talk page.) Studerby (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for the content dispute, but you're correct about the CIVIL violation. I'll drop a note to the user. THF (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave Souza

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: ...if unresolved, next step in dispute resolution. Otherwise, frivolous complaint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd like to alert anyone interested in etiquette to Dave Souza's repeated, off-topic, incivil characterizations of documentation by madman2000 and myself of hrafn's incivility to editors and what appears to have been hrafn's deliberate obliteration of text that described 19th and 20th century social organizations and authors who were advocates of various spiritual beliefs. Dave Souza associates this documentation with me alone, although others contributed to it. In his hostility, he overlooks the actual impetus for the research, namely hrafn's incivility to a number of editors. His mischaracterizations of the original attempts to rein in hrafn's incivility now constitute an ongoing violation of social etiquette carried to the level of a verbal vendetta against me.

[[1]] contains some examples of recent vintage:

Dave Souza: 'So, Cat was missing the point of MEDCAB and produced a long inaccurate screed in an effort to defend her habit of producing articles without reliable sources?"

(Madman, Firefl, and i were documenting hrafn's incivility to his fellow editors; most of the articles in whose talk pages hrafn was being uncivil to editors had not been written by me.)

Dave Souza: "your assertion that it is 'unlikely there was no truth at all in her statement' is an uncivil and unsourced smear."

(Dave Souza calls Malcom Schosha "uncivil" because Malcolm thinks it "unlikely there was no truth at all" in the documentation of hrafn's incivility by madman, firefly, and me -- or, to put it another way, Dave charges Malcolm with promoting a "smear" because Malcolm disputes Dave's statement that the group-originated documentation of hrafn's incivility may have contained some truths.)

Dave Souza is being rude while banner-carrying for hrafn, an editor who is, despite his promises to act in a civil manner, still being called up on Wikiquette alerts and is still given to using loaded words like "rant" to describe the documentation produced by those (myself but one among them) who called him up on similar charges in the past.

Why is it so difficult for Dave Souza to engage in civilized discourse when charges are made that hrafn has (again) committed violations of Wikiquette?

I would like Dave Souza o apologize for his rudeness. I did nothing to deserve this latst outburst, nor did Malcolm Schoscha.

Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support block of Catherineyronwode. Verbal chat 11:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Verbal, is that your idea of a joke, or do you really mean that? I would suggest that you refactor. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This complaint is now closed. If you find a dispute cannot be resolved at WQA, then you need to go to the next step in dispute resolution. Otherwise, please read the top of the 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. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack. Further abuse of WQA by any users involved may result in blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:JHB

This user is very impolite, not just on my talk page, but others too...Zir (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs to specific, recent cases of incivility? Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"I will not tolerate my carefully thought-out writings on a subject I am close to being ruined by low quality and unknowledgeable tampering." from Zir Talk
"By your precipitate action today, without consulting me, you are now perpetuating that ignorance. Congratulations...I have read the pretty little baners on your user page, and your ridiculous section entitled 'Pet Hates', and I am not impressed by the level of your maturity...I have undone your edits, because you have by your actions supported an erroneous article and prevented improvement. I will do it again if necessary. If you feel it should be referred to a higher level then go ahead - that will be all to the good." to Schcambo in Dec 2008
"I have not yet studied the article in full, following your efforts; or seen fit to correct your indiscretions - I thought I would give you a chance to redeem yourself first. If this is the sort of result we can expect of your clean ups - God help us if you ever want to do a full review." to Ground Zero in November
I must have got his rant for the month of March...Zir (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
PS, I informed the user of this report, but in the future please make sure you inform any user you file a report about or mention in a report. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...Zir (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. However, although JHB's impolite comment on your talk page is obvious, I have been unable to find any other recent comments that are incivil. Not that I am saying a single comment is not worthy of attention, but there is a difference between how one should handle a single incivil comment and how one would deal with a user who demonstrates a pattern of incivility. Do you have any diffs available other than the post to your talk page? Thanks in advance. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've now listed one or two above, I could go on - not the way to win friends and influence people, is it?...Zir (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have posted a comment on user:JHB's talk page regarding the comment on your talk page.The Seeker 4 Talk 18:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and patience...Zir (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Another example of User:JHB's incivility is the edit summary of this edit. I left him a message about it on his talk page. —teb728 t c 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There does seem to be minor issues of incivility here but the bigger issue seems to be one of ownership ("my carefully thought-out writings", "without consulting me" etc) so i think it would be a goodc idea to explain about this and point to WP:OWN alongside any warning given. --neon white talk 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this user just needs to be pointed towards guidelines, which actually Theseeker4 has done, and hopefully JHB will understand that his behaviour is not acceptable on Wikipedia and no more will be said. If there's then an issue of article content rather than incivility, I suggest getting a third opinion. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: ...if unresolved, next step in dispute resolution. Otherwise, frivolous complaint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ostensibly defending himself against all charges of incivility, in this archived thread [[2]], was brought to mind by Malcolm Schosha of past protests aginst his incivility and twice called the previous documentation of his incivility by Madman200, Firefly, and me "Catherineyronwode's rant." In the second instance, her wrote, "I will simply regard the invocation of Catherineyronwode's rant as analogous to Godwin's Law#Corollaries and usage and consider that any credible discussion is now over."

That's pretty uncivil, i'd say. The documentation which he calls a rant contained examples of his previous incivility, such as this:

"I would (...) suggest that he takes his irrelevant intellectual masturbations elsewhere."

Now he claims that this past documentation of his past editorial incivility is "analogous to Godwin's Law."

I'm sorry, i just don't buy it. It looks to me like he still hasn't learned to interact with other editors as colleagues, but still tries to harrass them, and when his past history of editorial harrasment is mentioned, he flounces off in irrational anger, leaving, as always, Dave Souza to defend him.

Time passes, but i don't think that hrafn has greatly improved his social skills.

Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • See answer above. Verbal chat 11:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been asked for clarification: My comments in these two related threads have the same status as the original postings, ie a joke. However, like all good jokes, perhaps there is a grain of truth. Then again, it wasn't a very good joke. My meaning is that this is pointless, and that certain people should know better. Verbal chat 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Truthfully, at the time I was considering making the complaint that Catherineyronwode did make now. I decided not to, even though there had been considerable incivility in the process of the previous discussion. The fact the some regular participants to this noticeboard feel disinclined to hear more on the subject does not automatically justify closing a complaint, as was done above by Ncmvocalist. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
However, that the complaint is inane does. 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Second Verbal's view. This bizarre waste of time has gone on long enough. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thirded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fourthed. Cat seems to have the opinion that anyone who has an issue with her edits must be attacked. Time to block her. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Second", "Thirded", and "Fourthed" what? The original proposal was that Catherineyronwode should be blocked for making this complaint. Is that what you are saying? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

is an indication that any further problems will lead to a block. Per the instructions at the top of the page, WQA will not impose sanctions. However, misconduct or abuse of the dispute resolution process can lead to sanctions in another venue in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
NB: I did not initiate this complaint, and I told you on your talk page that I have no intention of pursuing the issue further at this time. As far as I can see, Catherineyronwode has had no discussion beyond the original complaint. Considering that, who are you threatening with a block, me or her? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Drama. is the link on this complaint really from july 2007? close it and move on. untwirl(talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I tried telling him that, but it seems he won't stop beating a dead horse. Now he says I'm threatening him...whatever next. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, you wrote this to me, which is on your own talk page: If you continue to assume bad faith as you did in your reply above, you may be prevented from editing. It is regrettable that it may come to this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
That is apparently a threat to have me blocked. What I had done, in fact, was disagree with you. That should not have been cause for a threat to block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This was already clarified on my talk page; this isn't a threat, nor is it my problem. Please use dispute resolution like everyone else if you want to escalate this, and stop hounding me and other uninvolved users who found problems with your behaviour. You have no evidence to demonstrate involvement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The link is from a few days ago [3], in a complaint now closed by Ncmvocalist. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
in the link to the relevant medcab case (sept 2008), the mediator specifically stated, in response to the post/rant/whatever - "Catherineyronwode, unless you've edited the article in the infobox at the top of this page, this isn't something you have any involvement in." according to mw - to rant is "1  : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2  : to scold vehemently" and a rant is "1 a: a bombastic extravagant speech." neither of these appear to constitute a personal attack. untwirl(talk) 17:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed by Eldereft.


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

AFD consensus was keep, but some editors keep deleting and redirecting instead

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: Decisions re:AfD's are not civility issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_quaternions&action=history Several people have stated the consensus was clearly keep, not delete everything, and put a redirect there. Several edits and reverts have taken place. Attempts to discuss it on the talk page, have failed to get either side to agree.

During the AFD discussion, after overwhelming majority of people thus far had said Keep, User:C S stated:

Comment on future redirect: It doesn't matter if this article is deleted or not. If it ain't deleted, I'm just going to replace the whole thing with a redirect to quaternion. Maybe there's something legitimate here that isn't already there (as indicated by G-Guy), but I don't see it. I'll take a look before deleting the whole thing though. --C S (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked about this, and got a response: [4]

Is that going against consensus? Dream Focus 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I would just like to point out that nothing has been deleted. The article has been redirected while there is a discussion on the talk page (involving editors who understand the subject) about rewriting the article. pablohablo. 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't really a WQA issue. You need to go to WP:ANI if people are re-directing the page against consensus. No incivility issues are here, so nothing for this forum to discuss. If ANI will not back up the consensus on the AFD, you will have to move to the next step in dispute resolution. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, if the AFD closed with a keep then that is the consensus, obviously consensus can change but a further afd would be required. It needs to go to WP:ANI or alternatively request full page protection which is probably what an ANI report will result in. It might also be worth pointing out the reasons for merging at WP:MERGE. A poor article not being one of them. We should always aim to cleanup article. Redirects, merges and deletions are not a solution. --neon white talk 18:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As suggested I brought it up over at ANI Thanks for the feedback. Dream Focus 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team

Could someone who knows something about India-Pakistani relations keep an eye on this talk page, please? A uncivil squabble is starting to break out, I think ... almost-instinct 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Protonk overly dismissive?

Resolved: No incivility or public attacks

I would appreciate an outside view as to whether User:Protonk is being uncivil or I'm being overly sensitive. I asked Protonk at User talk:Protonk whether he had a reason to delete a prod notice [5] and P replied "Not really" and referred to the article's "author" [6]. I questioned P's use of the word "author" (which struck me an an attempt to assert ownership by proxy) [7] using the sentence "What does "the author" mean on a wiki?" P described that as "cute", which I don't understand precisely, but is obviously a Bad Thing, as P went on to say that P has "0 patience" for it [8]. My explanation of the point I was trying to make was admittedly blunt (presumably the opposite of cute) [9] and P's response was simply "This conversation is over" [10].

I think that Protonk is falling short of the standard of civility expected of an experienced user. Am I being oversensitive? Thompson Is Right (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • In a word yes. In longer words your final message was aggressive made real assumptions of bad faith. The point of prod is that anyone can remove a prod for any reason. If you don't like it then AFD is thataway. Opening a wikiquette alert over this is, well, unbelievable. Spartaz Humbug! 14:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I had hoped to make it clear that I am not concerned about the deletion of the prod, but about what seems to me an incivil response to a civil attempt to discuss it. I admit to being provoked before making my last comment. However if the consensus is that P's comments represent an acceptable level of discourse Wikipedia then so be it. Thompson Is Right (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm guessing that Protonk didn't check the history and wrongly assumed that Elonka, who is on a wikibreak, had 'authored' the article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Protonk's response. He gave you a forthright answer to your original question, and you asked a question in response that most people would view as disingenuous, and he explained himself further. As wikiquette goes, I'm much more concerned about your misrepresentation of Protonk's original response as "Not really" when the actual response was much more substantive than that. Elonka did contribute the majority of substance to the article. The prod was further explained in his original edit summary; he simply felt that the deletion decision would be controversial enough that it should be made by AFD. THF (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing as resolved I believe the comments above show this is not uncivil - directing further comments to someone who has been more involved in the article is not a bad thing. Removing PROD's when immediate deletion would be controversial is a valid responsibility for any editor, as the next step would indeed be WP:AFD. No incivility, no public attacks. Please let me know on my talk if you have issues with this reasoning. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmcw37 and others not responding to arguments

Stale

There's been a feud on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe for some months now about whether or not the [Freedom of Mind page] on Chung Moo Doe is a reasonable source to include in the article. I've pursued a few content-centered avenues for resolving this dispute -- RS/N was more or less inconclusive, an RFC received no response, and a request for mediation was not agreed to be any of the parties that disagree with me. Discussion on the talk page has now sprawled across several sections: 1, 2, and now 3.

As I see it, one central issue preventing this disagreement from simply being resolved on the talk page is the refusal of some of the other editors to respond to my arguments (sometimes taking the form of specific statements that users aren't planning to participate in further discussion, i.e. to answer my questions). It seems to me that this is a violation of WP:EQ, specifically:

  • Do not ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
  • Concede a point when you have no response to it.

I'll limit this complaint to User:Jmcw37's behavior to avoid making things too complicated. Specific arguments which User:Jmc37 has not addressed during this discussion (while continuing to readd the source on the handful of occasions when I've removed it, and more or less ignoring me pointing out that he's not addressing my arguments or answering my questions) include:

That first question I asked at least seven or eight times.

Do the folks here agree that this behavior is a violation of WP:EQ? Subverdor (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that nobody is required to reply to any question, no matter where it's posted. There could be many reasons why they don't reply: intentional ignoring, not watchlisting the article, away from their computer ... the portions you quoted from WP:EQ would, IMHO, apply to cases where something was purposefully reverted or removed, and you deserved to know why. Purposefully excluding you from a discussion as an attempt to undermine your edits, or to drive you away would be inappropriate. So, in other words, you cannot force anyone to reply to you. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
From a cursory glance at that talk page: "I can't stress enough how unreasonable I think it is to refuse to respond to my arguments and yet still revert my edits." (Subverdor)
Whether or not his characterization is accurate, he's asserting that what's going on is the type of behavior you said it would need to escalate to before it became inappropriate. Subverdor, do you have any diffs to show more specifically what's going on? arimareiji (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at the page, I notice this as one example of what you're talking about. I agree with you about it not being a particularly reliable source, if it's an RS at all. The disclaimer of "this is what some people told us" at the top is particularly troublesome.
But I don't know what to tell you, because the unfortunate reality on Wikipedia is that if you're outnumbered - as you seem to be - you'll never get anywhere, even if you have a dozen different guidelines and policies that are explicitly on your side. I'm sorry to advise such a course of action, but honestly the best thing is probably to let it drop and count your blessings that you haven't been as vehemently opposed in other edits. Just my 2 cents. arimareiji (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, the issue is that my edits removing this source get reverted (examples here, here, and here) claiming that the source is "still under discussion" or that there is not consensus that it needs to go away. Nothing I'd describe as meaningful discussion seems to take place, though; it seems that the other editors on this article are essentially claiming veto power over changes to the article on the basis that "there isn't consensus" without feeling the need to justify a good reason for the consensus. I think the most clearly I can summarize it was how I did on the talk page some time back; search for "this is frustrating". There are (or at least were, a month or so ago) people willing to spend time talking to me about this source -- they just seem extremely reluctant to address what I'm saying.
I can understand that as a practical matter, strength of numbers is important when wrangling over edits to a topic, but certainly that's not a good argument that it's right to acquiesce to such a situation :-). The outnumbering only seems to be 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 or so here anyway. I've been encouraged in this whole effort by policy sections which seem to say that weight of numbers is not at all paramount in policy disputes (example here).
I'll list some other specific examples of what I'm talking about -- this source has got a clear factual inaccuracy right near the beginning (search the talk page for "definitely and absolutely wrong"). I've also been spending time and energy responding to a claim that the Freedom of Mind Center is the same as the Rick Ross institute (which, by the way, it isn't), and so the fact that the Scientology article references reprinted newspaper articles hosted on the Rick Ross site means that this page hosted by the Freedom of Mind Center must be reliable (search for "don't seem to be at all the same to me"). In both of those instances, after I've put time and energy into (for example) researching the Rick Ross institute and discovering that what my fellow disputant is saying seems to be more or less made up, that conversation simply petered out with my questions unaddressed while the debate continued in other, more comfortable territory.
I know it's not possible for anyone to "make" people answer my questions or talk to me :-). Continuing to debate a contentious issue, though, while tactically ignoring inconvenient questions or arguments, seems grossly unreasonable, which is why there are specific etiquette policies against it. Most of what I'm looking for here is simply another opinion or two to (hopefully) confirm my perception that what's going on here is a violation of the etiquette policy. Subverdor (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:IMatthew

This user's comments toward members of the professional wrestling project have been angry and offensive. He left the project several months ago after some members of the project opposed his RFA. Since then, he has returned several times to attack editors and criticize the project. His comments and edit summaries, including [11], [12]. He holds other editors to different standards, however, as shown here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: the whole "[redacted]" thing is nothing more than a running joke. He doesn't actually go around censoring people. J.delanoygabsadds 03:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I just want to mention that I take full responsibility for my comments in the discussion cite above, and that it is my fault for him causing him to say those certain things.--RUCӨ 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this can probably be solved quite easily if IMatthew and Truco avoided each other from now on. Truco has already taken responsibility for some of the edits, but this seems like both of you have exacerbated the situation, causing stress on both sides. A temporary avoidance of the other will solve this problem, I believe, and thus avoid the need to take this further. I hope both of you agree to do this. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayron32

Resolved: Frivolous complaint —Travistalk 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user disrupted me with a threatening warning [13], when asked why [14] gave this rationale [15], and subsequently refused to provide evidence of his explanation [16]. But he was happy to threaten me again [17], and again [18], and again [19], and again [20], and again [21]. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edit histories, 94.192.38.247's accusations appear to be factually incorrect, while his edit history shows some significant civility problems. Edward321 (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Edward. 94.192's complaint is disingenuous. He knows exactly what Jayron was warning him about. This is frivolous harassment. THF (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:KP Botany

Stale

There has recently been a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 19 where KP Botany has requested a review of one of Addbot's recent tasks. In the discussion KP Botany has accused users of using "administrator machine guns", "...[colluding to try] to gain a solid front", and "threatinging and obfruscating the discussion", as well as other uncivil edits such as this one. I would like to request an uninvolved editor to help mediate these discussions. —Nn123645 (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes a WQA is appropriate at this point in time. Relevant links are Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 19, Wikipedia:Bot_owners' noticeboard#Addbot and Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProject.2FTaskforce Spammer.. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict.


But of course, you did not include any diffs that show what these were response to and just how many editors over there are threatening to block me, telling me I'm "flipping out," "freaking out," "slandering pretty much everyone who disagrees," that I have a "grudge" against a bot, from an admin, no less.
Don't bother me with this, as long as it is less than half the story, considering the number of BAG members going after me as ferociously as possible personally instead of addressing very real concerns about the use of bots without community consensus.
As long as Wikipedia administrators are the ones who set the tone, and support the gang up and personally attack mentality, this is just more of the personal attacks.
--KP Botany (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I gave the links to the full discussions. Please stop being WP:POINTY.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
KP Botany I opened this WQA primarily for the reason that I would like to prevent this dispute from escalating. It is not a personal attack on you, nor an attempt to bury your concerns, but rather an attempt to resolve this as peacefully as possible by requesting outside input. I would also like to point out that I am not a BAG member, a full list of BAG members can be obtained at WP:BAG. —Nn123645 (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WLaccount

Resolved: thread went to ANI

WLaccount (talk · contribs) has been engaging in blatant incivility and, more particularly, calling for unwarranted bans in AFD discussions and users' talk pages as noted [22], [23], I NOMINATE GOG DODO BE BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA, I NOMINATE GOG DODO BE BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA again, [24], [25]. The pages in question are as follows: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Mortensen (actor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriss Perras Running Waters, User talk:WLaccount, and User talk:Shawnpoo. MuZemike 08:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Note – user has been warned about said conduct [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30] but to no avail. User has also removed speedy templates [31], and [32]. MuZemike 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you'd be best off at WP:ANI. —Nn123645 (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the comments, I was just giong to do that. MuZemike 08:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Well briefly looking over his contribs all I can say is he appears to be a new editor that is WP:OWNing articles. I see you and other editors who commented on the AFD posted a section on his talk page about it. As the editor appears is new and may not understand policy I think it would be a good idea to point him to the adopt-a-user and editor assistance. —Nn123645 (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a note on WLaccount's talk page regarding this. In hindsight the referral to ANI may not have been neseccary, WLaccount seems to be confused about policies and willing to change his behaviour. —Nn123645 (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ShamenWeb

Resolved: He's just been indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user seems to be obsessed with mocking User:SchuminWeb. They claim that this [33] was done by someone else using their account, but offer no explanation for [34] or [35] where they added pictures of this user with insulting captions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are claiming is a civility issue here. You've provided diffs of a user simply editing their own user page. Was this a mistake? --neon white talk 02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Editing their own user page,yes, and placing photos of another user with a similar name with insulting "fat joke" captions attached. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think perhaps you have been confused by the (seemingly deliberate) similarity in usernames. The guy in the pictures in Ben Schumin, known around here as User:SchuminWeb. The guy adding the pictures with the insulting captions is User:ShamenWeb who seems to be trying to make it appear as a coincidence by adding the Native American stuff to his user page, all the while adding back in insults directed at Schumin. Frankly, I suspect Shamen is a returning user with an ax to grind. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, having stumbled upon this report a short while ago, I agreed with the above and decided to go ahead and place a block. —Travistalk 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that is extremely premature and over the top to be honest. Has the editor been asked to remove the content as is suggested in guidelines? Has the other user objected to the use of the image? maybe he has given permission. We need to assume good faith until the editors respond. --neon white talk 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to expand my previous comment: I also examined the user's talkpage and contribution history before taking action. I did AGF, but ended up with a different conclusion and blocked, primarily, as a username vio. —Travistalk 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You can see on his talk page that I did discuss his civility issues with him, SchuminWeb left him a note asking him to change his username, so obviously he did not want to mocked on the user page, and after the last incident, given the bad faith shown by this user's actions, I gave them a "final warning" that a repeat of this behavior would be unacceptable, and he pretended not to understand what the problem was. Good faith was extended to this user, and bad acts were returned in exchange. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: Forum shopping is certainly disruptive. This is already at WP:ANI

I started a thread on data and citation manipulation to which this admin referred to as "stirring the shit", and asked me why I wouldn't "stop stirring the shit". [36][37] no comment.--Bizso (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I WAS SENT HERE FROM WP:ANI! Are you joking me?--Bizso (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Joking, no ... I answered your complaint in ANI, as did others. You were advised in ANI that future NPA/civility complaints should be in WQA, not the current one, as it was already there. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Bwilkins, your own comment was "But please, do open this at WQA so I can say the same thing"... No other comments on the ANI thread made it clear that they were suggesting that 'future' complaints belonged here, but not this current one. That said, I don't consider this a personal attack at all, or uncivil enough to discuss even on this board. --OnoremDil 12:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, you admins are all a bunch of morons, you've lost track of what's uncivil or not. Stop protecting your own kind and open your eyes... Dipsticks... 85.75.184.33 (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no admins have commented here. I will say that your comment is obviously unacceptable. Please try to stay civil. --OnoremDil 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Our resident dipstick expert is, of course, User:Walnutjk, who delights in randomly reverting half a dozen of my edits twice a day. He's as banned as banned can be. Thanks for rolling him back. Fut.Perf. 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

THF

Resolved: not in the way might have liked, but resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit is one of several which seem to be getting more aggressive "there will be heck to pay". Editor seems to think TRUTH is always with him and it's getting worse,I think. Also THF often demands self reverts or he'll report me to ANI.[38][39] Here he makes a "vandalism" accusation against me [40]Abbarocks (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The offending edit does appear to violate both WP:V and WP:NPOV (for a WP:BLP no less) in which case User:THF had every reason to revert it. If you don't want to be reported to ANI then don't break the rules. If there is a problem then you should explain it clearly with diffs and associated policy violations rather than identifying instances where you've been told off for WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. violations by a number of editors. -- samj inout 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a carry-over from the preceding WQA, and Abbarocks' attitude therein. Collect (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. As uninvolved in this episode i will comment that I have had my own problems with THF that was far less than civil and they may not realize how their online comments are felt even if they weren't intended to be overtly blunt. That's putting it lightly but I think you get the gist. To me they seem to have some ownership issues which can be helpful but may also be crossing the line. Other editors, even newbies and anons, are people too and deserve to be treated civilly and respectfully. Talking down to others generally isn't constructive and likely will escalate problems. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I trust you will be providing diffs so as we can make up our own minds? -- samj inout 09:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually it was all painful enough that no, I'd rather not. I tried to remain constructive and positive so my comments hopefully can be taken at face value. -- Banjeboi 12:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Response. I have been extraordinarily civil to Abbarocks; please do read the extensive user talk page history. Unfortunately, every edit of his has been either (1) edit-warring against consensus to include OR or other text not supported by the claimed cited sources, often with fake edit summaries purporting "consensus";[41][42][43][44][45][46] (2) edit-warring to delete well-sourced information with edit-summaries falsely calling it OR;[47][48] (3) tendentious argument on the talk-page to include conspiracy theories of John Buchanan (American politician) about Prescott Bush in articles having nothing to do with Bush, or (4) edit-warring to sanitize Buchanan's biography.[49][50][51]
The absolute last straw is that he has followed me to Richard Rossi to start an edit-war there on behalf of a banned editor, complete with a fake edit summary "well sourced" (compare [52]). This is the sure sign of someone trolling and not here to productively contribute to Wikipedia. Far too much productive editor time is being wasted arguing with this user, who has made the grand total of half of a constructive edit in his Wikipedia career, and lots of time is being wasted trying to explain OR and EW rules to him. Just as vandals get progressively increasing warnings ranging from "your editing test has been reverted" to "you have not been productive" to "stop or you will be blocked", users who steadfastly refuse to follow OR and EW rules get increasingly stern warnings. Whether Abbarocks is an experienced editor pretending not to understand the rules or a newbie who still doesn't understand the rules (but somehow magically knows how to include savvy edit summaries misrepresenting his work and to avoid going over the 3RR line when he edit-wars) is irrelevant: the effect on the project is the same.
At some point, one loses the presumption of good faith: this is not an editor who is here to contribute productively to the project, but one who is here to disrupt the project, and there is a non-zero chance this is an experienced editor pretending to be novice.[53] I have reported this user to ANI. THF (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
THF has a habit of stating his very personally directed and negative opinions as if they are absolute fact. He has no real AGF at all in my experience; it's just something he throws out as a criticism when it's useful to him in putting somebody down. And his edits directly below (Re:Protonk) show clearly his habitual use of personal accusations and assumptions about someone's NEGATIVE intent: "He gave you a forthright answer to your original question, and you asked a question in response that most people would view as disingenuous,.....As wikiquette goes, I'm much more concerned about your misrepresentation...Abbarocks (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I would urge all interested parties to spend 10 minutes reading abbarocks' contributions and judge for themselves. Rklawton (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I would urge all interested parties to also look at these edits from THF for balance. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] notice the weasel words he uses and how he disparages those with opposing viewpoints, calling them fringe, conspiracy theorists, urban legends, etc. I think worst of all is this attack on a valiant public servant. Others have brought up issues of incivility with THF before [61] and THF has pointed out that he works for a think tank. The question is does wikipedia want a person working for a POV pushing think-tank pushing POV on wikipedia, or should wikipedia strive for neutrality and stop all these nasty personal attacks THF is using? If people think that type of editing is okay behavior to tolerate on wikepdia, is it really okay to edit your employers entry with some dubious category tags? MehTsag (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Query: Which of the fringe conspiracy theorists that I called a fringe conspiracy theorist do you believe it is beyond the WP:CIVIL pale to call a fringe conspiracy theorist? Because I'll be happy to show you admins (or, at a minimum, reliable sources) who agree with me for any of them. You realize that we have a whole WP:FRINGE policy that necessarily requires us to discuss whether anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists like Voz de Aztlan are mainstream or not, right? The fact that you have to reach back to August and point out a defensible neutral edit that no one in a highly-trafficked article has objected to in six months to make a content-dispute claim against me speaks for itself. THF (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: THF is misleading by double synthesis.Voz de Aztlan was never the RS. Yale Herald (which THF has accepted as a RS)was the RS and it was not even quoting Voz de Aztlan but rather someone who works there.[62] Abbarocks (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That Abbarocks is now claiming that the policies that prohibit us from giving weight to Voz de Aztlan conspiracy theories disappear when one merely quotes such a conspiracy theory coming from the mouth of the head of Voz de Aztlan demonstrates my point very nicely. We are either being trolled or we are faced with an editor incapable of understanding Wikipedia policy; the disruption to the project is indistinguishable. THF (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I provided on a brief highlight of the vile material you posted. But if you want me to trim it down even more, then I will point to a former Major General and a former Attorney General. With respect to editing your employers entry people probably assumed good faith since you did not point out that you worked for the organization in the edit summary. MehTsag (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a content dispute (and one where I happen to be completely in the right), not a civility complaint. You're in the wrong place. THF (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Saying that "NB Ramsey Clark hasn't been an attorney general in over forty years, or credible in over thirty. The fact that he has taken the case is almost prima facie evidence of its meritlessness." (emphasis mine) is not a content dispute, it is a civility complaint and you happen to be completely in the wrong. Please do not tell me where I should and should not be. MehTsag (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussing the credibility of a source is absolutely required under WP:WEIGHT. I fail to see the WP:CIVIL problem, since Mr. Clark is not a Wikipedia editor. To repeat, WQA handles civility complaints, and you are upset with the WP:WEIGHT policy. You can have the WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I am upset with the way you characterized Mr. Clark in an unproductive and uncivil manner. I do not have time for this nonsense, I am pointing out a civility issue within a wikiquette alert conversation, an instead of addressing the you are telling me where I belong and what I am upset about, please do not assume anything about me sir. I have put the links to a smattering of uncivil comments by THF out of the 100s of uncivil comments he has made, I will let others decide the issues involved in this wikiquette alert. As I do not enjoy being treated uncivilily by the above editor I am removing myself from this conversation now gentlemen and ladies, my $0.02 have been added. Note that THF amended his above post while I was posting this edit. MehTsag (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey User:MehTsag, thanks for WP:OUTING THF here... I was wondering who he was... now I know!
Were you planning on identifying the policies violated in the offending edit or were just just implying User:THF has a WP:COI as a personal attack?
In all seriousness I think all three of you can't see past personal issues you have with User:THF and are actively looking to find fault in his work. -- samj inout 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Not so,Sam; I've only mentioned his edits directly related to me and my edits and one other right below on the wikiquete page. He took me to ANI right after I placed this alert. I haven't taken him there. He's the one with Attorney power and experience, not me. He's the one whose User page has been deleted, apparently to hide some of his POV,[63] not mine (this is relevant since I am being accused of POV pushing). I could just as easily say that I think you can't see past the personal support you have for THF and are actively looking to find fault in the work of those who he has trouble with, but that would not, I think, be AGF, so maybe you should not be making those assumptions either. Abbarocks (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not needed and not appreciated, it is uncivil and annoying. I did not "out" THF, I pointed to a post where he "outed" himself. I do not appreciate your sarcastic personal attacks Sam, and my posting and the policy I cited speaks for itself. MehTsag (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I reading this(above) correctly? Does THF work for the American Enterprise Institute? If so I'm going to quit Wikipedia right now. I do not want to be on the wrong side of those people, no way, and he's already told me "there will be heck to pay" if I don't revert an edit. I am dead serious and I think someone who knew,if its true, should have warned me sooner. I will immediately drop this alert and revert every edit THF wants me to and never be heard from again. Is it true? Abbarocks (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


          • Alert Voluntarily Dropped ! I resign. No hard feelings with anyone, from my end. Wikipedia is just not for me. I don't fit in. Sorry to waste people's time. Abbarocks (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:JCRB Posts Insulting Ethnic Remarks & Deletes My Replies

Resolved: Filing IP warned about comments, please don't feed the trolls

User, JCRB, keeps posting insulting statements about Spaniards. He says that phillipinos are Spaniards. His remarks are offensive to my heritage since I'm a Spaniard and we don't consider philipines as Spaniards. The world knows that philipinos are not Spaniards. When I disagree, he DELETES my remarks. He's a phillipino with a racial identity crisis who thinks he's a Spaniard, and wants everyone to think they they're Spaniards. I urge that you ban him. The following link is the discussion page where he posts his insults:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic#To_JCRB

Thank you, and I hope you deal with the probelm since he greatly offends my heritage. 68.173.91.50 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't censor opinions simply because you happen to disagree with them. I cannot find any instances of User:JCRB removing anything from the talk page, in fact the major incivility, personal attacks and removal of talk page comments are from yourself. You are warned. Anymore and you are risking being blocked. --neon white talk 01:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Echo. There's no evidence in the edit history of him removing anything. You're treading on very thin ice when you make nasty remarks about anyone's racial identity, and coming to WQA and repeating it is a Very Bad Idea. arimareiji (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you consider Filipinos to be inferior to Spaniards? Why is that insulting to you, to be included in a category with them? I read through his post, and don't see him as doing anything wrong, simply stating that the great influence Spain had on them. [64]. And link to where your replies were deleted at please. Dream Focus 04:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive User:Veecort returns to ITT Technical Institute

Resolved: in short term anyway. Warned; later blocked for 3RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Veecort, who had been editing the ITT Technical Institute article with a negative POV, has returned from three months of inactivity. He has accused all and sundry of being "PR" for ITT Tech [65] [66].

He has also been incivil on the article's talk page [67][68], and he has also posted a profane off-topic rant there[69] (while Wikipedia is not censored, I still question whether this is appropriate for talk pages).

It should be noted that Veecort's negative POV on the subject isn't really in dispute. I'm not including diffs because this all happened months ago, but they can be provided if needed. McJeff (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that because I couldn't find the wikiquette alert template I haven't yet informed Veecort of this discussion. McJeff (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No need for a template. Just say "Hi, because of the incivility issues, I have opened a Civility Complaint at WP:WQA, thanks"...just like that. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I will warn him. Dcoetzee 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, I have an NPOV, very cordial template at User:Edit Centric/Templates and Color Coding if you would like to use it. Edit Centric (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to unmark this resolved because Veecort is still insisting on placing the COI tag on the article without making any justification [70] [71] and continuing hostility on the article talk page [72]. Would AIV or ANI be more appropriate here? McJeff (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

An identical edit from an IP with no other contributions [73] (Veecort has been known to engage in both IP editing and meatpuppetry (Old SSP case), and Veecort then readded some months old text to the article [74]. McJeff (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that you have already noticed the talkpages of both Veecort and that IP address ... I did potential 3RR warnings some time ago. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Tothwolf Failure to Assume Good Faith

Resolved: User Tothwolf has been officially warned. Any other incivility incidents require separate filing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On this AfD discussion [[75]], User:Tothwolf suggested that by AfDing the article (an article about a susection of a residential subdivision) I was violating the policy not to disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. He wrote a note to the future closing admin to note my "bias" linked to a previously deleted version of my User Page. In that deleted version, I had expressed at length negative feelings about Wikipedia. My feelings about Wikipedia are changing, becoming more positive, and I deleted my comments because I decided to put my old feelings about Wikipedia behind me and give it a fresh start, and I continue to make constructive edits in good faith, and would like the same fresh start I have given Wikipedia. I don't think it is right for editors like Tothwolf to continue to use my old deleted views to undermine my contributions to discussions when there is no evidence that my old views are coloring my viewpoint in new discussions. I think this violates the spirit of WP:AGF.

I respecfully but firmly asked Tothwolf to remove his comments directed to me and those directed to the closing admin attempting to prejudice the admin against me, as I don't think such comments are appropriate or constructive. I received from him in response a note that I should read WP:CIVIL.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • It looks to me like Tothwolf is a little off base, and how he even knew about the old revision of your user page is unclear. Apparently he scanned through old versions of it looking for "dirt" as it doesn't seem you two had any previous interaction. The accusations of being POINT-y and biased are off base, but, as far as the admin closing the AfD is concerned, I think they would know to ignore such a cheap ploy. From what I can see here, you remained civil and tried to keep the AfD on topic, so I don't know where he's coming from really. My suggestion is not to let his baiting and bad faith affect you, I for one do believe in redemption and assuming good faith, and I'm glad to see you trying to turn around your attitude and see Wikipedia in a better light. I think what I'm seeing here is just an editor who knows just enough to quote a policy at you and dig through your contribs, but doesn't understand that such things are not relevant to an AfD, only the strength of the arguments presented are important there. You could be Jimmy Wales' childhood friend, or the guy who spit in his latte this morning, it makes no difference. My advice is to ignore this guy, I'll leave a note myself at that AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually Beeblebrox, I don't think you've all the facts here.
I always WP:AGF but what I continue to see in that AfD is Mmyers1976 systemically browbeating anyone who expresses an opposing view.
As for Mmyers1976's user page, anytime I see a blanked page I check the history. I think most of us who do much in the way of reverting vandalism do. What I saw in the last revision of that page absolutely shows a bias and not pointing out such a thing in an AfD would be a disservice to both Wikipedia and to the other editors and admins involved in that AfD.
With the replies Mmyers1976 left on my talk page (that they edited multiple times) after I suggested they read WP:POINT I don't think my suggestion to read WP:POINT was off base at all. [76] [77] [78]
Considering how Mmyers1976 continues to handle things, and especially the misuse of WP:WQA in an attempt to force me to change my comments I feel my suggestion that they read WP:CIVIL was even more pertinent. If Mmyers1976 has a problem with my comments at the AfD then they are free to take it to AN/I.
Someone also should point out to Mmyers1976 that posting something and then continually editing it, especially when changing the meaning or trying to give it more bite goes against talk page etiquette WP:REDACT and AfD guideslines. [79] [80] [81] [82]
Furthermore, in the future Beeblebrox, please WP:DTTR. I've been around Wikipedia a very, very long time although that might not be obvious if you are looking at the creation date for this account. You templating someone such as myself who has been a very active contributor in and of itself steps on the boundaries of WP:AGF. I'm going to remove the template you applied to my talk page now and this will be the first time I've ever had to remove such a thing.
--Tothwolf (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Tothwolf, Beeblebrox is not at all off base here. The only point you made above that has any merit is that Mmyers1976 should use preview rather than editing his comments after posting them. That said, you still have provided no evidence as to why the AFD in question is pointy and have done nothing to show how your bringing it up was in good faith. Why do you think it was pointy? What has Mmyers1976 said or done to make you think the AFD in question was a disruptive nomination? Additionally, commenting on a KEEP is not at all browbeating. The fact that Mmyers1976's citation of guidelines caused someone to strike through their keep !vote is evidence that his comments are reasoned and fact-based, not at all "browbeating." You may have perfectly valid reasons behind your comments, but your post above does nothing to explain them, and simply makes it look like you are not in fact assuming good faith, for whatever reason.
As to WP:DTTR, see also WP:TTR which is also an essay. In short, if a template says exactly what you want it to say and will be faster than typing it out by hand, why not use a template on the talk page of someone, no matter how long they have been around? The Seeker 4 Talk 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(maintaining thread, tempted to refactor)
Actually, Beeblebrox was way off base as I've already pointed out, but let me further clarify...
"It looks to me like Tothwolf is a little off base, and how he even knew about the old revision of your user page is unclear. Apparently he scanned through old versions of it looking for "dirt" as it doesn't seem you two had any previous interaction."
"My suggestion is not to let his baiting and bad faith affect you"
Those comments alone go against the very WP:AGF guideline template they applied to my talk page. I don't feel the need to quote the rest as I feel its clearly obvious Beeblebrox is applying a double standard.
"That said, you still have provided no evidence as to why the AFD in question is pointy and have done nothing to show how your bringing it up was in good faith. Why do you think it was pointy?"
Ah! Now someone asks the right questions!
First, the user page, past or not is very much relevant when attempting to gauge the bias of someone who has nominated an article for AfD and especially when they browbeat others. You may not agree with my opinion there (and you certainly don't have to), but that's how I see it. Mmyers1976 may not like my opinion or my pointing out their userpage, but pointing out such things during an AfD is very much valid and Mmyers1976's attempts to force me to change my comments goes against WP:CIVIL, hence my suggestion that they read it.
I find some irony in that just as soon as they read WP:CIVIL they decided to file a "Civility Complaint" against me via WP:WQA. [83]
To further clarify why I feel WP:POINT applies not just to the comments Mmyers1976 made, but to the AfD itself, check the timestamps on these changes:
14:55, 26 February 2009 - Talk page
15:00, 26 February 2009 - Article
15:05, 26 February 2009 - AfD
This change, however, was very much justified, however doing this while creating an AfD is bad form and speaks of bias:
14:50, 26 February 2009 - Article, notability
"In short, if a template says exactly what you want it to say and will be faster than typing it out by hand, why not use a template on the talk page of someone, no matter how long they have been around?"
Quite simply, because it is an insult. When you template a regular instead of actually trying to talk to them, you are telling them that your time is more important than theirs. That in turn implies that you don't consider their contributions to be very important. Put simply, it is a slap in the face and I don't know of a single established editor who with a clear conscience would claim otherwise.
--Tothwolf (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(minor edits to preserve pronoun agreement)Tothwolf, I don't want to have any bad blood between us, so maybe I can explain my reasons for bringing this here that will make it less affronting to you. You say my "attempts to force [you] to change [your] comments goes against WP:CIVIL, hence [your] suggestion that [I] read it." I did not attempt to force you to change your comments, I requested that you do so, and my action is the suggestion that WP:CIVIL, which you call upon, gives for handling such a situation: "If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection." and later "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording." I requested that you change your comments, just as WP:CIVIL directs one to do, and therefore does not go against it. You did not edit the comments, and refered me to WP:CIVIL. Now you say "I find some irony in that just as soon as they read WP:CIVIL they decided to file a "Civility Complaint" against me via WP:WQA." Well, WP:CIVIL says: "If the problem continues, the mediation cabal can be requested to intervene. The mediation cabal consists of volunteers who will work with all editors involved with the conflict, and attempt to decrease tensions and find a compromise. Alternatively, Wikiquette alerts is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, and seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." I was following WP:CIVIL in letter and spirit, and I promise it was not some attempt to tick you off. As far as me AfDing the article so soon after putting a notability tag, it was a rookie mistake, PostOak called me on it, and my comments cheerfully accepting his constructive criticsm, thanking him for it, and promising not to make the mistake again are there in the Talk page for everyone to see, so I don't know how that supposedly proves bias. As far as "browbeating" goes, no one else here, no one else on the AfD, including the people I respond to, sees me as having done so. Someone even changed their opinion based on my comments to them. That's what people do in discussions. I did not browbeat anyone. In general, what people are telling you here is that there is no evidence that my past beliefs about Wikipedia influenced my decision to AfD the article, and I assure you, it did not. I assure you, in case we bump into each other again, that my opinion of Wikipedia has changed for the better, I work in good faith, and I am only interested in making constructive edits. As my reactions to PostOak's correction and the issue of my editing my comments demonstrate, I am very open to constructive criticism, and I hope next time before prejudging me as biased and disruptive, you will talk to me first, and I can clarify myself, or if I made an honest mistake, it can be quickly and easily fixed without any animosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmyers1976 (talkcontribs) 21:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
First, you don't have to worry about there being bad blood between us. I don't tend to hold grudges against people. If I did, I'd never accomplish anything here on Wiki.
"If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection."
Most people are not going to change their comments when someone speaks against them in an AfD and especially when they feel that they are justified in pointing out something.
"I was following WP:CIVIL in letter and spirit,"
I'll concede that point then. I still think this was brought here prematurely.
"As far as me AfDing the article so soon after putting a notability tag, it was a rookie mistake"
I can understand that as well. If I'd been in your shoes I don't think I would have AfD'd the article at this point but I think I can see where you are coming from.
"Someone even changed their opinion based on my comments to them."
One person changed his !vote to rewrite. As I mentioned in my comments there, a rewrite is likely justified anyway. For that fact, there is no such result as a rewrite, it'll be a Keep anyway and up to individual editors to rewrite/improve the article.
"In general, what people are telling you here is that there is no evidence that my past beliefs about Wikipedia influenced my decision to AfD the article, and I assure you, it did not."
I'll admit, I have a hard time with this. I've seen far too many vandals and unhappy people turn to AfD and {{prod}} in an attempt to sabotage Wikipedia and it is still a problem. In fact, I'm actually having to clean up a large batch of that right now. (I can cite specifics if need be but I think most people here have probably seen this in the past too.)
"I assure you, in case we bump into each other again, that my opinion of Wikipedia has changed for the better, I work in good faith, and I am only interested in making constructive edits."
If I might ask, what changed your opinion of Wikipedia?
Again, there isn't any animosity or grudge holding, but at the time I left my comments in the AfD I felt I needed to point out the potential bias. I'm actually surprised no one else did earlier in the AfD but that is likely because that particular AfD has been low traffic.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Point taken on editing my comments (though I don't think I edited them after he had replied to them), I will make sure in the future that if I need to change a comment I made that I strike through rather than overwrite, and will also do so sparingly. I do have one question - Tothwolf seems to take umbrage at my bringing this issue here, but said that if I had a problem with his comments in the AfD I could bring them up in an AN/I. I have been under the assumption that this board here is a less formal, earlier step in dispute resolution than an AN/I. Am I wrong? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You are exactly right that this is an informal non-binding process and is considered the first step in dispute resolution. At this point I don't see any need for administrative action in this case. As to not templating a regular, the Tothwolf account hasn't been around that long, and I'm not a mind reader, and it applied to this situation so it doesn't make any difference to me. You are trying to bring something into an AfD that has no place there. Plenty of people have differing opinions at AfD, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are acting in bad faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You are correct. ANI is when administrative action is needed. This is for an informal third opinion/advising of civility issues without wanting/needing admin action. I actually was going to comment on that but forgot to in my above reply to Tothwolf's posting. Also, changing comments is not a huge deal when on one has replied yet, but it is better to use preview and avoid edits like that. Again, not a big deal, just a minor point, I only mentioned it because I couldn't honestly say "you didn't make any valid points" to tothwolf. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
My thanks to you both for helping out with this. I agree that no administrative action is needed, mostly I wanted an impartial opinion that I could reference if an issue like this comes up again. Thanks again, Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(fixed Beeblebrox's indentation), (edit conflict)
Let me try to answer Mmyers1976 before I reply to Theseeker4 as I have quite a long reply queued up which will further complicate the message threading.
You don't have to strike through everything but changing large parts of your comments after posting them, especially in an AfD is not a good idea. Like many others, I compose the majority of my replies offline and when I go back to add them, finding the comment has changed is never a good thing.
Yes, AN/I is more formal. I felt you bringing this to WP:AGF was in bad form. At this stage this wasn't something that justified any sort of dispute resolution. You may not like my comments (and you certainly don't have to agree with them) but if you spend much time around AfD you'll find my comments are pretty mild comparatively.
IMO, bringing something like this here at this stage wastes my time, your time, and the time of those who volunteer here. I've now spent an enormous amount of time replying to this that I would have otherwise spent building out a section of Wikipedia that I'd been working on today.
--Tothwolf (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) What is a little surprising is that some form of reply was made before Tothwolf even had a chance to reply ... in this forum, both sides need to be heard before coming to conclusions. Yes, diff's matter, but this forum is intended to generate a more moderated discussion when one-on-one discussions have failed on individual userpages. It is indeed, non-binding, but let's let both sides talk before we do. Havin read Tothwolf's unfortunately rude reply about "don't template me", I'd also agree that they need to have a closer read of WP:Do template the regulars ...the minute you think you're beyond being templates, you've forgotten your role as an editor/community member. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I considered Beeblebrox's response a borderline personal attack. To be perfectly honest, that only made it more difficult to reply. I was actually writing a reply to Mmyers1976 when Beeblebrox left that first reply but I ended up scrapping it.
"Havin read Tothwolf's unfortunately rude reply about "don't template me""
Please see my reply to Theseeker4 above as I think that will help clarify this issue.
--Tothwolf (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't ever dare to consider the words of a volunteer trying to diffuse a situation a personal attack - you're not that important. An editor had an issue with you - it appears they tried to resolve it on your talk, and they were not pleased with the resolution, so they brought it here. You didn't HAVE to reply, but your silence would have likely spoken against you. Don't ever think you're too important/too busy to respond to the concerns of a member of this community. It takes only a few moments to try and resolve, rather than be aggressive in the way you are. Your actions above now make me want to look further into this entire incident - which, according to you would be a waste of time, but I take the community that we both signed up for to be important, which means resolving issues, not simply throwing them away, and blaming others for "wasting your time". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(I'm having trouble breaking down your reply to compose a response.)
I don't think [84] this was the right way to handle this, and yes, it very much felt like a borderline personal attack.
We are all volunteers here, well, except for Jimbo and a handful of staff.
"It takes only a few moments to try and resolve, rather than be aggressive in the way you are."
Of course. I've actually tried to reply here haven't I? But aggressive? I'm probably one of the more laid back people on Wiki...well, except for MBisanz (and I don't know how he keeps so calm).
"Your actions above now make me want to look further into this entire incident"
You won't find anything beyond the diffs I've posted here. I have no connection to the article at AfD whatsoever nor do I have any issues with Mmyers1976.
To further clarify, I didn't say this "wasted my time", I said it wasted our time. This was something that should have never come to WP:WQA at this stage.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me just be sure I understand your position, Tothwolf. Dredging up an old version of someone's user page to try and get their opinions discounted and accuse them of bad faith at an AfD unrelated to their userpage is fine. Using a level 1 template to ask you to assume good faith is a personal attack. I think you will find the vast majority of users would disagree, as evidenced by this conversation so far. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This [85] is what I'm taking issue with.

      "Dredging up an old version of someone's user page to try and get their opinions discounted and accuse them of bad faith at an AfD unrelated to their userpage is fine."
      Do not put words into my mouth. I linked to Mmyers1976's userpage to point out there might be bias.

      Templating a longstanding contributor is an insult. I will assume you were not aware of this prior to today but you are aware of it now so I will let it go.
      --Tothwolf (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Using templates is a individual editor's decision, however you choose to react to them is up to you. 'letting it go' is the only thing you are able to do in the circumstances. --neon white talk 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I just wish more people understood that it is often considered an insult to template a regular. Tothwolf (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, you have forgotten to read WP:Do template the regulars...or are you too good for the occasional reminder? You're not the victim here. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, I take exception to this [86] much more than I do the template itself. As for whether or not templating a regular is insulting, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point and that's ok. Tothwolf (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I do feel the need to point out that Mmyers1976 might want to glance over WP:NPA after having made this edit: [87]
    (and here I thought we were finally done with this...)
    --Tothwolf (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It's merely letting anyone who might question my "bias" on a discussion based soley on my old user page comments that the issue has already been discussed, just as AfD discussions are archived in case anyone wants to start a new page for a subject that has already been deleted. That's not an attack. Nor is it "personal" because it is not directed at anyone. really, it seems now like your just scratching bare earth trying to find something, anything to ding me for. Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
      • (fixed indenting)
        Mmyers1976, where it crosses the line is this edit [88] that I pointed out where you included a link here with my username attached to the comment:
        "Still, one editor who disagreed with my AfDing an article dredged my deleted comments up as proof of my "bias". For anyone tempted to follow his footsteps, see the results of the Wikiquette alert"
        It is not appropriate for you to post a "head on a pike" type warning on your userpage and this does indeed get into WP:NPA. Furthermore, many people would consider it to be outright trolling and you may wish to read over WP:UP. Specifically, see WP:UP#NOT item 10.
        "really, it seems now like your just scratching bare earth trying to find something, anything to ding me for."
        Not at all. You should realize however that your comment implying that I'm trying to "find something to ding you for" goes against the very WP:AGF guideline you are linking to.
        --Tothwolf (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Reference to a nonbinding, nonpunitive dispute resolution discussion is a "head on a pike' type warning". Right. Okay, I'm finished discussing this with you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Tothwolf ... can you please read this...I'm not saying you are, but just warning that you don't want to become one. Your actions are becoming more insulting to Wikipedia as a whole, and disruption is not good. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Bwilkins, I'm familiar with it. Can't recall ever having been called one on Wiki just yet.
"Your actions are becoming more insulting to Wikipedia as a whole"
Can you be specific? I thought I was pretty clear in what I said to Mmyers1976 here: [89]
Based on Mmyers1976's response above and a further attempt at a refinement in the edit here (watchlist) [90] I feel Mmyers1976 got my point but is attempting to work around the guidelines anyway. I'm aware I could remove the link myself in keeping with the guidelines but because Mmyers1976 wishes to use this forum for mediation I'm bringing it up here.
When I attempted to point out potential bias in the AfD I was attempting to keep the playing field level. I feel I made my point there and based on Mmyers1976's latest response I still feel it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately what I think I'm seeing now is Mmyers1976 attempting to game the system and use WP:WQA as an archive and a means to establish a precedent to utilize later when people challenge their opinion.
Now, I spent almost 8 hours replying to comments here yesterday (I can provide diffs if necessary). I won't be spending that much time on this today. If Mmyers1976 wants to play a dramafest game with someone, they will have to pick someone else because I'm done playing.
--Tothwolf (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the short version: although another editor's actions may explain your reactions, they may never excuse them. You have spent the entire space above justifying your uncivil actions. It is you who are gaming the system, and attempting to demonize someone for having an actual concern over your actions. That is tantamount to attempting to dissuade them from editing. Do not diminish others feelings. Do not discard complaints. I will have to admit that at first reading, I was probably more on your side ... however, the disdain you have shown your fellow Wikipedians above is some of the most disappointing series of actions I've seen. If you had issues about the other editor's comments in AfD, then you should have begun DR yourself, rather than be uncivil in return, and moreso be uncivil in your "defence" above. Consider yourself warned about similar future actions. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins, Should we solicit some outside opinions? I'll write up the RFC if need be.
I'm all for not biting a newcomer but it's pretty darn clear at this stage that Mmyers1976 is not a newcomer and brought this here only to try to game the system. I have no doubt in my mind they had hoped that someone here would tell me to remove what I'd said in the AfD [91] and that is not ok.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's rainingJudith Sheindlin

I do want to state one more thing for the record, which is how I even noticed the addition to Mmyers1976's userpage [92]
After I made this reply [93] I decided I'd leave an apology on Mmyers1976's talkpage, something along the lines of "I'm sorry we had a misunderstanding and got off on the wrong foot. If you happen to ever need some assistance with something on Wiki such as templates, categories, wiki markup, etc, leave me a note on my talk page and I'll try to point you in the right direction."
Instead, when I clicked on their username to follow over to their talk page, I find what I feel is a personal attack.
--Tothwolf (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've sat and watched the above WQA for a while now, and BMW knows why. But I can't just sit by and let Tothwolf keep picking apart the WQA mediators who are trying to find the causes behind this issue and the middle ground to solve it. Tothwolf, you're behaving like an elitist here, and that is just NOT acceptable. You've been here since this time, last year. By comparison, I have been editing here since 2006. I have received my fair share of templating from other users, and I always look at it as a learning experience. "Did I screw the pooch on that? Oh wow, I'm sorry." Approaching this whole thing with the attitude that your "stuff don't stink" and that "...bringing something like this here at this stage wastes my time, your time, and the time of those who volunteer here." is extremely presumptuous. It is not your station to opine what are wastes of our time. We're mediating disputes here, that's what we do. This is how I, BMW, Neon White, The Seeker4 and others have decided to volunteer our time here. Your entire conversation track above is very "uppity", and does nothing to help the issue along toward resolution. Edit Centric (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume I've only been here a year. This account is only about a year old as I worked as an anonymous account for a number of years prior. This last year I was pretty busy elsewhere so I wasn't active as much as I once was anyway. I've actually been on Wiki since near the beginning. I had to give up my original account years ago due to a problem with an online stalker.
Now, that doesn't make me any better than you or BMW, or anyone else here. We are all volunteers and we are all here (hopefully) to try to improve Wikipedia.
I'm not complaining about the templating. I already let that drop if you read back some. Let me make a list of what I'm not happy with here so we don't have to wade back though all the comments above.
  1. Attempt by Mmyers1976 to use WP:WQA to further their own agenda.
  2. Beeblebrox jumping in and making all sorts of presumptions and getting into borderline personal attack territory [94]
  3. Just when I think things are finally settling down after I leave this reply [95] and I'm about to try to offer an apology to Mmyers1976...
  4. I find this [96] on their userpage.
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Accusing other of having an 'agenda' is not assuming good faith, something, judging from the above discussion, you have problems with doing.
2. Getting to the bottom of disputes is often difficult and takes some time and discussion, editor are here to help, they may make mistakes, the are not attacking you, if they do point it out in a civil manner.
3. This has been removed, page complies with guidelines, don't drag up old stuff. --neon white talk 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Wow, I thought this was pretty much over. OK, let me just lay out my perspective on this as it currently stands. I don't like the new content on Mmyers user page any more than the rest of you, I thinks it's unhelpful and unnecessarily confrontational, and he should probably remove it, but it is his user page and if that's what he wants it to be, so be it. Tothwolf, we are here because an issue was raised about a possible breach of etiquette by you at AfD. Discussing that means we have to discuss you, that does not make any comment about you a violation of WP:NPA. Notice that I used words like "apparently" and "I think what I'm seeing is" etc, not "this user is an evil monster who must be stopped". You did bring something into an AfD that had no place there, but this is getting waaay overblown at this point if you ask me. I think a better idea than trying to create more drama is for everyone to just back off and let this cool down. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Neon white, the content is still on Mmyers1976's userpage. I just linked to one version of it. After it was brought up here, they made a "refinement" edit here [97]
Beeblebrox, I still feel I did the right thing linking to Mmyers1976's userpage to point out potential bias. Some people might not like it, but has a very valid place in AfD. AfD should not be biased but unfortunately it often is. While I don't agree with how you initially approached this when Mmyers1976 came here, I'm willing to step back.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by admin Scarian

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: Escalated to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User Scarian used a name calling personal attack against Beantwo on Beantwo's talk page in violation of Wikipedia policy. Beantwo (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read through your talk page. It sounds like he was trying to tell you to calm down, which it seems you still need to do. I am not commenting at all about the merit of the block, but if you feel it was unjustified you should bring it up at WP:AN. Your warning yourself, "banning" yourself and posting an unblock request when you were not blocked was disruptive, which is why Scarian removed it. Please calm down, don't take anything personally, and return to improving Wikipedia. If you cannot do that just yet, then walk away from Wikipedia for a bit to relax. I don't mean to sound condescending at all, we all get frustrated from time to time, and bad/premature blocks do happen, but being pointy, even on your own talk page, never helps anything. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I realize an admin is probably going to back another admin but do you seriously condone name calling by an admin as appropriate? If I were to have done that it would have been another ban. Beantwo (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I assume then, as you have not actually made it clear, you refer to the "Please don't be an idiot" comment. Hardly name calling, it's asking you to refrain from behaving like an idiot, not calling you one. See also meta:Don't be a dick where it advises those 'being called a dick' "...to consider the possibility that it is true. If you suspect that you may be a dick, the first step is to become aware of it. Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception, and if you can't work it out, politely ask those that perceive it to explain or clarify. Once you have determined which behaviors are causing the problem, try changing them and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones."--Alf melmac 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Inferred or not this behavior by a so-called admin is egregious and insulting, especially considering Wikipedia has policies on civility and neutrality and citing sources. Beantwo (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Jamiebijania

Resolved: Policy has been provided to the offending editor
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user posted on my talk page "Hi,i can only conclude one thing,you are racist" here which I removed, but he reverted here. I gave him a warning on his talk page here, which he later removed here with the edit summary of "Stopping a racist freak." I hope I am not alone in my feelings that these comments are unacceptable? Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not. I have informed the user in question about our civility policies. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the speed of your actions :-) After a bad morning, you have restored my faith in humanity! Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I would not be above taking this to WP:ANI. "Racist" is not a word I take lightly, but that's me. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I considered it, but to be honest, if this is now the end of it, its pointless taking it further. All in the past now! Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. If the issue happens again, you will need to take it to ANI, as we're not able to impose blocks. Good luck! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Tagishsimon

Resolved: Seems this is no longer an issue

User:Tagishsimon was decidedly uncivil with me in a recent deletion review, telling me to "Get over [my] pathetic story" before abusing me for being "stupid and reprehensible" before calling me a liar in response to my apology for revealing his behind-the-scenes commentary. I later discovered another attack which is what ultimately prompted this (my first) WQA. It is also my first dealing with this editor so there is no historical issues to consider. It's not their first time being warned about incivility though. Perhaps someone this editor hasn't already attacked pointing out that this is not acceptable behaviour would be helpful. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling something 'a pathetic story' is ok, it's fair comment on a story and not a personal attack. Whilst there are some examples of incivility by User:Tagishsimon, your accusations of impropriety are neither civil nor assuming good faith. I suggest both editors calm down, stick to discussing the issue and remember to assume good faith. --neon white talk 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It sounds bad until you actually click on all the links, and read what it actually says. I see nothing wrong with any of Tagishsimon's comments. Dream Focus 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nec532x

Resolved: Blocked; already dealt with at ANI.
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.

[98] This is the most recent comment left on my talkpage by Nec532x. He is impersonating an actual Navy SEAL named Bob McMeans (I've spoken to the real Bob McMeans about this) and has been trying to add someone named [courtesy blanked] who was not a SEAL to the List of Navy SEALs. This is beginning to look like harrassment and I wanted to make the admins aware. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's rarely any admins here but that comment is obviously incivil and i posted a warning. Also remember to inform the editor of this alert. This seems to be an SPA so if the problems continue i'd post on the admin board. As this involves unsourced claims about a living person you are correct to remove the info. --neon white talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Having read the post to WP:ANI, I have issued a 1 week block to Nec532x (talk · contribs). Attacks of that nature are intolerable. caknuck ° remains gainfully employed 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Teledildonix314

Resolved: user has apologized and promised to remain civil in the future

Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Teledildonix314, who has been reported on this board previously [99], and blocked for a week for breaches of WP:CIVIL already once this month [100], continues to use the same types of personal attacks that resulted in his block "(summary)".

While a number of editors are working through a mediation issue, User:Teledildonix314 is continuing the insert uncivil language into the discussion, particularly in disparaging the religion of the subject of the article in the RfM (Rick Warren) and some of the editors. Examples include the types of phrases previously warned about, including "standard anti-humanist patriarchal heteronormative hyper-conformist agency", "church/cult/agencies", "cultist", "charlatan", etc."(see diff)".--Lyonscc (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i will immediately return to that page and redact my comments. Please accept my apology for upsetting you or causing some kind of disruption. I will further reduce my input in the discussion, i am seriously trying my best to be Civil in that mediation. If you have to Ban me again, please note that i have already agreed to a Zero0RR for any related pages, a One1RR for anything unrelated, and i have already spoken to the administrator VirtualSteve about how i am going to be more quiet and avoid harming your mediation because i know you are there in good faith. If you can agree to eschew an official Ban, i will gladly volunteer to restrict my comments to very simple "approve" and "disagree" styles of answers which the Official Mediator can strictly allow or disallow, i won't say a single further word about anything related to my POV or my "position" in any of the mediation. Would that make the mediation and editing process go more smoothly? I can hold back farther without having to be officially reprimanded, i think people will agree i show some degree of learning and adaptation, right? Anyway, now i'll just delete the bulk of my contributions over there for the sake of showing you i mean you no offense. Please give me a few minutes to complete that Civil edit before you impose any official bans, i'll be speedy here right now. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Firstly, Teledildonix, you can relax, this is a non-binding, non-administrative process at this notice board, you won't be blocked from here. I think we can consider this matter closed as there has been an apology and a promise to remain civil in the future. However, given that this has apparently come up before, and being civil is crucial and our most central behavioral policy, if this happens again you will probably find yourself reported at WP:ANI, so please remember your promises here today. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, i have redacted my comments. I will be quiet as a hamster. Sorry to disturb. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 18:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:70.67.163.110

Stale

70.67.163.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Please look at this user's contributions. You will see repeated uncivil attacks on everyone that reverts his vandalism. I am also reporting him on the vandalism page, but the vandalism may not be as pervasive as the incivility, so I am reporting this behavior here as well.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an obvious case for the admnin noticeboard just mention the general juvenile idiocy of this ip and i'm sure a block will be forthcoming. --neon white talk 06:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian's behavior

Stuck: Too much going on and is certainly not resolved, or going to be in this venue. Sephiroth BCR, LessHeard vanU, and myself agree that both parties should proceed to WP:RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Collectonian tried to get an article deleted, and failed, the consensus Keep. So she waited, as she had in the past, until she thought no one was around to notice, and then deleted everything and posted a redirect. I undid this. She then insults me, once again, calling me a stalker. "figured the stalker was still there - tag for merge)" The entire history for this article here. Any article I work on, I add to my watchlist, I also monitoring various AFD listings and the operation rescue, I certainly not stalking her. She has accused me stalking among other things in the past, that a constant insult whenever someone disagrees with her on any article she goes to, and even distorted things so badly she had administrator to post on my talk page about it, he believing her until I cleared things up. You have an editor with a long history of trying to get the same article deleted twice, pretending to follow consensus then returning to an article to destroy it when she thought no one was around to protest, and resulting to uncivilized behavior when she doesn't get her way. I can't seem to search through the AFD and other places on wikipedia, and the tools at http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Collectonian no longer work. Anyway, to search the wikipedia for the total number of times she has accused me of stalking? Dream Focus 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a pattern of behavior and a known history of harassing me, and in repeatedly engaging in forum shopping to try to get what you want (I count, what three or four different places you posted to complain about "History of quaternions") and refusing to both yield to consensus or follow guidelines. You also seem to be overly fond of filing unwarranted Wikiquette alerts from the number of times you've popped in here lately. And let's not forget your far more uncivil user page, which is nothing but a blatant attack piece against other editors. Administrators aren't stupid. They looked at your history and agreed about your behaviors were wiki-harassment, as have multiple other editors, including in your previous complaints here. There is nothing uncivil about redirecting a non-notable article. The AfD closed as keep on non-existent notability guidelines. When you, as usual, immediately reverted it I noted you are still stalking and started a discussion. You are the one who is uncivilized in your ridiculous grudge over your article being deleted because I nominated it. Get over it, grow up, and move on because your borderline obsession with me is just plain disturbing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
How exactly was me noticing on my watchlist that you tried to delete something again, which you failed through afd to get deleted previously, count as stalking? And you only nominated my Gantz equipment article for deletion, after arguing with me on my talk page. There was conflict was before it, and is not based on that. Dream Focus 19:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't deleted, it was redirected per the usual way of handling an unnotable book. Which it is. The AfD result does not mean "can never be redirected or merged ever", particularly in that case where the keep reasons are based on a now non-existent notability standard that was rejected by community consensus as NOT being usable to determine if an article should be kept. And "your" article was nominated for deletion because it failed all guidelines for existence, and it was deleted by community consensus for the same reason. I don't see you running around constantly making personal attacks against everyone who agreed with me in that AfD, you just keep deciding to come after me, making false reports here, false reports in 3RR, and constantly making personal attacks at every chance you can. As I said, get over or seriously go get counseling or something. This is just plain out freakin ridiculous. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
And the usual pattern starts up again. It is ridiculous that you can't stop accussing me of stalking. Its ridiculous you keep trying to blame all of this on something it is not. I complained about your behaviour on an article, you then deleting the talk page there, and then went to my user page. AFTER that event, you decided to nominate my Gantz equipment artice for deletion. Stop twisting things around, saying I'm after you because of that. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And the History of Quadrains was not forum shopping. I posted here, and was told to bring it somewhere else, I going there, and we working it out. That's just two places posted in, because the first place was a mistake. Just another ridiculous accussation you throw at me. Dream Focus 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
When you stop following my contribs, I'll stop calling you a stalker because then you won't be one anymore. You are the one who can't stay away from me, despite repeated warnings not to. And I'm not the one twisting things around. You are the one sitting here trying to imply I nominated the article for deletion because of a disagreement. I nominated it for deletion because it wasn't notable, period. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you provide diffs of the incivility? It seems to be that both editors need to learn to assume good faith. Both have made inappropriate accusations about the behaviour of each other based on bad faith speculation. Do not continue it here. The afd seems to have been closed prematurely with a very dodgy closing as far as i can see there weren't any valid points being made i'd suggest further discussion is needed. Rather than edit warring maybe take it back to afd cause the current consensus is very shakey. --neon white talk 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict, this thing got three times longer while I was writing my response!)*I've just glanced at this, haven't dug to deeply into it, but my initial impression is that we have two users who just don't see eye to eye on some basic issues, and just plain old don't get along. These things happen, sometimes people just don't get along with each other, that doesn't make either of them right or wrong. Again, I haven't dredged this too deep, but my quick advice would be for you two to avoid each other if possible, and anytime you do find yourselves in conflict, hop over to WP:3O for a quick outside opinion to see if you can "break the tie." The specific incident DreamFocus brings up, my reaction is, there is nothing wrong with re-visiting an old issue, and users are in fact advised to give things time after an AfD before acting again. There is also nothing wrong with having a page watchlisted and responding when it is edited again. The problem here is that you two obviously aren't going to agree, so some wider input is needed. Collectonion has added a merger tag in order to just that, so that is where any conversation relevant to that specific article should take place. My strong advice to both of you is to stop accusing each other of things, and let the merger conversation take place organically, with minimal participation from either of you.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And I have to note I agree with neon, that AfD should have been relisted, there was not enough debate and not enough good, policy-based reasoning to close it either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I just don't like her accusing me of being a stalker whenever she doesn't get her way. I try to ignore her, but she keeps saying that every chance she gets. Dream Focus 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the suggestion of third opinion or request for comment on the merger proposal and User:Dream Focus please remember that consensus can change an afd decison may be irrelevent if a new wider consensus is formed. --neon white talk 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) And I'm sick of you accusing me of being sneaky, throwing around "deletionist" like a swear word, not following consensus, etc and of you running around and interjecting yourself in issues I'm involved in purely so you can disagree with me rather than having any actual interest in the issue. As for the merger, DF didn't bother mentioning that as soon as I tagged the article, I notified the Anime/Manga project of it to invite further discussion from others, per the guidelines of dispute resolution (and something I do for pretty much all merger discussions as a matter of course...so sneak of me I know </mild sarcasm>. He is, of course, already ignoring the excellent advice above and trying to claim one single review that has not been confirmed to be RS is now all the notability the article needs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
And she accuses me of bad faith, once again, assuming that if I post somewhere, it isn't sincere, but clearly an conspiracy against her. This is what I'm complaining about. The article doesn't matter, just her constant rudeness. Was her stalker comment appropriate? She complained recently here about my user page. My complaints about deletionists behavior is not directed at one deletionists. And she did not do this merge previously, just waited until attention died away. This has before. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mizuki_Kawashita&action=history After the consensus was to merge information there, she tried to revert it, and finally after a lot of protests from people, allowed a small summary of the series to be listed there. Then she went and deleted it weeks later, hoping no one would notice. She even stated somewhere, it wouldn't matter, that she'd get rid of it eventually anyway. And once again, this isn't about the article, its about her hostility towards me. Dream Focus 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Mulitple others agreed that IT was merged properly. You are the one who incorrectly believes that a merge means you copy/paste the entire article in another or that you include plot summary in an author's biography. You call me rude with that user page and your behaviors all over AfD and DRV? *shaking head* As usual, DF only tells part of that story. The summary was done to shut him up, specifically, and then removed after further discussion and clear consensus in both the article talk and the anime/manga project that it just doesn't belong in the article. I then removed it, returning it to its original proper merged state before DF's original complaining about merging just because he doesn't agree with how a merge can happen. Sometimes it is nothing but a redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually the history clearly shows several other editors felt something should be merged, if the AFD was merge. There was also a discussion about that here, or somewhere... Consensus was that a merge and a redirect were two different things. You allowed some information to remain there, since people were against you going against the merge consensus by now allowing anything at all to be merged, and then when those editors weren't around to notice, you deleted that information, just as you said you would. Dream Focus 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The WQA issue here is really whether the initial accusation of stalking constitutes a personal attack. Given the fractious history, I don't see a WQA issue here; the behaviour is akin to stalking and the charge is reasonable on its face. Whether true or not is another matter. Having been brought here, the dispute seems to be escalating, and that is not productive for anyone. Now, this is really a content dispute and given the anemic participation in the last AfD, I suggest it be relisted for wider consensus and the matter dropped. Eusebeus (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yea guys, you are having a content dispute now, that's not what WQA is for, and you both know full well that the way to resolve content disputes is to seek consensus, not to keep attacking each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thirded. Both users have been a bit ad hominem in their edit summaries; frustration will do that to you. I think that describing this as a "complaint about my user page" is unhelpful as the link does not bear out the claim. pablohablo. 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Its about personal attacks.
  • She accusses me of stalking, was my behavor stalking?
  • She accusses me of forum shopping, by accidently posting here on a recent issue, before then reposting where I was directed, a total of two post. Was that forum shopping?
  • She accusses me of being after her because she deleted one of my articles, despite having conflict before then, and it nothing to do with that. Does anyone think the various disagreements had in the AFD are based on that?

Dream Focus 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • We've been over this territory already. I stand by my earlier advice that you both should stop accusing each other of things, and always seek outside opinions if you come into conflict in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You've both been warned enough about assuming good faith and not carrying on hurling bad faith accusations around and have both ignored it, so i have issued both warnings. Sort it out lest you both end up with a block. Every editor is entitled to disagree about edits, that doesnt mean they are being underhand and trying to disrupt the encyclopedia. Consider the ither persons point of view and use dispute resolution to solve it. --neon white talk 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
My accusations are not bad faith, they have been confirmed by others after I was forced to ask an administrator to step in back in January when this started. I hadn't posted links yet because I felt certain anyone responding would have read his talk page, but here are just some.[101][102] as well as some from other places.[103][104] and some links to show him jumping in on other issues to begin attacking me[105][106] I also have not said anything in hours since most of these comments/warnings were left, while he has continued elsewhere[107] I am attempting to follow this advice, so I don't see that issuing a warning when I hadn't even said anything for hours was particularly helpful here, certainly not a level 3.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You are continually accusing another editor of acting in bad faith, that isn't civil. I fail to how most of those diffs are of any relevence. The assume good faith rule is not negotiable or dependant on support from others. You have both continued this. Recognise that accusing an editor of "interjecting yourself in issues I'm involved in purely so you can disagree with me rather than having any actual interest in the issue" is not assuming good faith. You were both warned several times to stop this prior to carrying on the mud slinging. Draw a line under this and start interacting from the point of view that both editors are here to improve the encyclopedia but have different ideas how to do it. --neon white talk 02:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
AGF does NOT mean denying underlying issues nor pretending inappropriate behaviors haven't occurred. If that were the case, we wouldn't even have things like ArbCom and the like because its all "good faith." There is a difference between a false accusation and noting that others have indeed stated that he is wikihounding and that it is not just I'm not "assuming good faith" nor am I "mud slinging." I'm pointing out the previous history as requested above and showing clearly that I am not the only one who feels he has engaged in the stated behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This alert has nothing to do with the dispute or the afd, that's a content issue and needs to be resolved using proper discussion and the DR suggestions made above. This is about the lack of good faith between the two editors and the accusations. I realise that there is previous between you too but accusing each other of this and that is really not helping. The bottom line you cannot have knowledge of what motivates another editor or whether they have a ligitimate 'interest in a topic' so making assumptions that their behaviour is motivated by malice and they are only there to antagonise you when it can likely never be substantiated, it's just not helpful. see WP:AOBF. --neon white talk 05:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As this seems to be a long term dispute between two editors, this goes beyond the scope of WQA so I've asked admin Sephiroth BCR, who has dealt with this dispute previously to intervene. --neon white talk 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This discussion has outlived its usefulness - both parties are advised to proceed to WP:RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:B. Franken

Resolved: Warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tries to establish personal terminology.[108]. He answers questions and arguments by personal attacks both in discussions as like as in edit summaries[109] [110] [111] [112] [113]. I am active in Wikipedia and it's controversial scenes for a while but I never was reviled in such ways. Geo-Loge (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • This is indeed very troubling. I've issued him a warning; any further personal attacks or incivility should be reported straight to an administrator noticeboard for further action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Random12347

This user is the creator [114] of and most prolific contributor [115] to the National Broadband Network article. Whenever I have made contributions or edits to this article, the user has engaged in a protracted campaign of personal attacks and accusations of ownership against me on the article's talk page.

The user has referred to myself and/or my edits as "petty"[116], "naive"[117], displaying "pure ignorance"[118], being "not the first unnecessary edit performed"[119] and preventing the article from being of "good quality"[120]. The campaign of accusing me of ownership whenever I make a contribution has included:

  • "To be a balanced article your opinion should not influence the views of others"[121]
  • "The major issue seems to be that one editor is insistent on removing information based on their own opinion."[122]
  • "is not up to the opinion of one editor to decide what readers see and don't see."[123]
  • "The opinion of one editor does seem to be influencing the article to large extent" [124]
  • "this article is bigger than any one person" [125]
  • "you need to settle down and let someone else edit the article, you are not the only person" [126]

The conflict of opinion first came to a head when I made what I obviously saw as improvements to a table on the page. It ended up going through the third opinion process, which this user did initially participate in, although many of the above remarks were made during this process, making it difficult to proceed. A third party ended up contributing a suggested compromise which I accepted, but by this time the user had withdrawn from the process and did not respond further.

During this process I did raise some of my concerns as stated above but no resolution was reached and the user has returned to the same behaviour. In the most recent incident the subject of wether the article describes a Current Event or not has been referred to the third opinion process without any real engagement with myself other than a renewed personal attack and accusation of ownership, but really this (Current Event status) is hardly the issue at all and I don't think the concerns I'm raising here can be addressed by that process as it was attempted before with no resolution. -- Rob.au (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Firstly the editor did not call you petty or niave but referred to an 'argument' and a 'view' these are not really personal attacks and the words are not always derogatory, nor did the editor directly accuse you of 'pure ignorance'. Most of these are very mild and the editor is clearly engaging in discussion about the future of the article which is always a good thing when trying to resolve a dispute. I suggest you do the same and if you find his tone upsetting a polite work can go a long way. --neon white talk 06:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. I find it hard to see how referring to my stance and arguments as "pure ignorance" and the other remarks is not a personal attack on me, especially in the context of this occuring in many comments directed at my contributions... and I was under the impression that this wasn't appropriate on Wikipedia. Otherwise I agree with you - in the past I have simply pointed out that I was unhappy about these attacks and requested we concentrate only on discussing the issues. The problem - and the reason why I have brought it here - is that this has not stopped the behaviour and it has become impossible for the article to move forward. I have tried and tried again to engage this user on the issues but it keeps ending the same way. I know the editor has the good of the article at heart, but I find it frustrating to find myself constantly accused of bad faith. -- Rob.au (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Can you provide diffs of previous warnings? As i said the editor did not directly refer to your views as 'pure ignorance' but said a certain view would be 'pure ignorance'. A personal attack refers only to an attack on a person. Wikipedia allows editors to dispute others arguments and views, although we should be careful not to use such language as to offend as has happened here. It's not a major civility breach so i think a polite word asking the editor to tone down some of it and respect others views is what is needed here. If there is a dispute over article content that isnt going anywhere consider asking for a third opinion. --neon white talk 05:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I have to say that I'm really still not seeing the distinction between consistant attacks on my arguments using offensive put-downs such as the recent "pure ignorance" comment and this not being a personal attack. The user was clearly not making a general case argument but specifically addressing my argument when using this offensive remark. In any case I see this as a moot point as my WQA was far more about WP:CIVIL that it was about WP:NPA. Just to resummarise what I said originally ... instead of focussing on the issues and refraining from uncivil remarks, my arguments are continually ridiculed with the offensive put-downs as well as the frequently repeated non-justified claims of WP:OWN by the user (as highlighted with diffs in my WQA), continually attempting to intimidate me from editing, when in fact I'm only a minor editor of the page. Is this not a breach of WP:CIVIL? As noted, I initially responded by ignoring the attacks and staying focused on the topic, but they kept going so I eventually highlighted the problem in the context of the earlier WP:3O in December as the attacks were continuing (and escalating) while a third party was attempting to assist. I initially raised the issue on 19 December (diff) and then, shocked at the response from the user, I elaborated further (diff). At this point the third party suggested that it would be appropriate to just draw a line under it - no apologies, no retractions, everyone just move on (diff). This did happen at the time. The user did go on to make a contribution to the ongoing discussion, but it then continued with other users only. The user only returned recently and a renewed uncivil comment followed almost immeadiately (diff) that led me to raise the WQA given as it was a return to the exact same behaviour I had complained about previously. Just to stress - I don't think the editor has anything other than good faith intentions for the article, I'm just asking for interactions to be based on the issues and completely free of offensive put-downs and repeated baseless allegations and related requests that I stop editing that I've highlighted in my opening comments. -- Rob.au (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, short form: "Bwilkins, you're dumb" is a personal attack. "Bwilkins, that was a dumb edit" is not. I'm quite intelligent, but have indeed done more than my share of dumb actions (and edits) in my life. Your last diff is even less of an issue: "to not discuss X would be pure ignorance" - such a broad, generalized statement, not-directed at any person, or indeed states a hypothetical situation. Agreeably, it's possible that Random12347 uses this type of close-to-the-line statements regularly, which means he should be a little more careful that his statements do not offend. I'm sure it seems like a nuance in language, but in many ways it is - you felt insulted, and the comments may have been meant as one, but they were not 100% written as one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've raised this as a WP:CIVIL issue (I actually thought that was what WQA was about) but no-one seems to want to discuss it as a WP:CIVIL issue. I still don't agree it's not a WP:NPA issue - the use of generalisations to redirect a personal attack is the oldest trick in the book. The intent is still there, but an attempt is being made to absolve oneself from the uncivil remarks. It's still irrelevant... I'm calling it out as uncivil per WP:CIVIL and that's not what is being discussed in response. Also the responses are entirely focussed on one aspect of the most recent incident and ignore the fact tht I keep getting told not to edit the article and also ignore the fact that the WQA issue I've raised is that it has been part of a protracted campaign of put-downs and intimidation asking me to walk away.
The unfortunate reality is that there are two editors - myself and Random12347 - who appear likely to have differences of opinion on how to improve the article. The only way to move forward is to be able to discuss the differences in a civil manner, but it appears like I'm being asked to put up with the constant put-downs used over and over again (as shown in my first post here) and put up with being constantly asked by Random12347 to walk away from the article who tries again and again (as has been done below) to paint a picture that is patently untrue. I have throughout the entire history of this conflict always been there to discuss the issues (just look at the talk page) and been happy to take time out to discuss it in talk rather than being bold and editing the article directly, but it's completely untenanble when again and again Random12347 treats me with disrespect and, even now, simply doesn't even acknowledge it. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines at WP:AGF state that we should not assume another editor's comments were made in bad faith. You cannot know what another's intentions are. If you find a comment offensive and it is not a direct personal attack as is the case here, it is best to assume that no offensive was meant and politely talk to the editor about it if it continues. --neon white talk 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I have never entered into personal attacks on Wikipedia, the accusation is a load of crap (for lack of a better phrase.) I still don't understand that because I have a larger number of edits on the article than any other person, I must be guilty of WP:OWN, also how does the fact that I haven't edited the article up until three days ago have any significance and is contradictory of the WP:OWN and of the other editors statement that they are only a minor editor when in fact that are the second largest editor and by volume of real edits are probably close to equal with my number of edits. When I created this article in September it was the first that i had created and as I have stressed the number of my edits is not indicative of the volume that I have changed. These may seem off topic, they do to me, but time and time again these are brought up. As for these offensive put downs I have revised over the completely unrelated December discussion page and fail to see these. Regards Random12347 (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • All I'm questioning is that you constantly tell me that I shouldn't edit the article on the basis that you believe I'm preventing others from having a say, which is actually what I feel you are doing to me... you've contributed the most to the article (any way you look at it - the fact you've made three times the number of edits to the article is only indicative... but by far the majority of the article is your work - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that - it's a good article) - it's just what you're trying to claim here every time you try to intimidate me and ask me to walk away is patently untrue. Whenever I have something to say you use offensive put-downs to rubbish my views and tell me to go away and leave the article to others. If you need to see the put-downs you have used, I have included all the examples in my first comment above. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think a read of WP:INDCRIT might be of help to Random12347 and refer to this from WP:OWN; "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect." Wikipedia:NPA#Responding to personal attacks might help Rob.au as well. --neon white talk 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that there's some clear misreading going on. Dissuading someone from editing Wikipedia by intimidation is bad, recommending that someone else's research on an article be considered is good...we work on consensus. If you were bold, and it was reverted, then it's time to discuss (WP:BRD). That has nothing to do with # of edits. Continuing to insist that something was gigantically uncivil when a few very neutral people have given a 3rd opinion otherwise is going to give you more stress than anything else. We're not here to pick sides, we're here to give a new set of eyes to a dispute. I understand that you felt they were being uncivil, but from the general point of view, some minor attitude may be there, but their actions were generally not uncivil. A lot of it is nuances in written vs spoken language, but we WP:AGF around here. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 08:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments... to be honest Neon white's most recent comments do seem to acknowledge what I was saying and WP:INDCRIT is precisely what I was talking about, as well as the other point which is what I was saying from the start. Wikipedia:NPA#Responding to personal attacks is what I've been trying to follow and what finally brought me here. Moving forward, the details of the most recent incident is already being handled fine under the WP:3O process. If Random12347 is prepared to be mindful of the policies cited by Neon white then I'll certainly do my part and hopefully we can do our best to get on with it. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Being mindful is good advice for all editor. Sometimes is may be necessary to adjust language and tone in response to differing debating styles of other editors. --neon white talk 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is all great advice but all of this assumes that I actually engaged in personal attacks against the other editor. The WP:INDCRIT does say to avoid indirect criticism but there was no indirect criticism, I was highlighting clear facts and stand by those facts. Random12347 (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
So after what has been discussed here, you stand by calling myself or my arguments "petty"[127], "naive"[128], displaying "pure ignorance"[129], being "not the first unnecessary edit performed"[130] and preventing the article from being of "good quality"[131]. Not to mention the other side:
  • "To be a balanced article your opinion should not influence the views of others"[132]
  • "The major issue seems to be that one editor is insistent on removing information based on their own opinion."[133]
  • "is not up to the opinion of one editor to decide what readers see and don't see."[134]
  • "The opinion of one editor does seem to be influencing the article to large extent" [135]
  • "this article is bigger than any one person" [136]
  • "you need to settle down and let someone else edit the article, you are not the only person" [137]
This presents a bit of a problem, in my view, as these appear to be things that are not OK per WP:INDCRIT, WP:AGF and WP:OWN. -- Rob.au (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the fact that I did not engage in personal attacks, I do not regard the article as my own, how much clearer can I make that. "To be a balanced article your opinion should not influence the views of others" how is this a personal attack? Assuming good faith is a two sided street I have and still do assume good faith even though I feel that is not reciprocated. The context in which some of those quotes are used should also be highlighted, for example the quote "The opinion of one editor does seem to be influencing the article to large extent" was expressed during a discussion about a table, it was an open discussion in which I assumed good faith only to have that turned around on me. Random12347 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, one by one:

  • "To be a balanced article your opinion should not influence the views of others" As true a general statement as you can find in any policy. Not uncivil.
  • "The major issue seems to be that one editor is insistent on removing information based on their own opinion." An observation of the problem to be solved. Not uncivil.
  • "is not up to the opinion of one editor to decide what readers see and don't see." Yes, since we go by consensus. This is a general, undirected statement. Not uncivil.
  • "The opinion of one editor does seem to be influencing the article to large extent" Again, an obervation of the problem to be solved - a questioning of the weight of one editors edits. Not uncivil.
  • "this article is bigger than any one person" All this says is that articles are group efforts. Not uncivil.
  • "you need to settle down and let someone else edit the article, you are not the only person" Same as above - indeed, settling down is a good idea, and there may be a concern about WP:OWN. Not uncivil.

Let's stop making this into a WP:POINT against another editor. I'm going to have to say that if, indeed, you had a significant case in the beginning, you've watered it down by insistance that discussions such as the above are uncivil in any way, shape, or form. You continue to re-hash the same arguement again and again after multiple neutral editors have advised you differently. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What you've just said is not consistant with neon.white's later comments, starting from 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC). Look, I certainly don't want to labour the point... I hate spending time on this... I don't want to be here talking about it, I want to be out editing articles (not that anyone's stopping me, just this obviously takes time and energy I'd rather redirect)... but the only reason this is still going is that the stance that you are taking (and neon.white appears not to be taking, but they can correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be say that there is a carte blanche allowance for the previous behaviour to continue unmitigated. neon.white's stance certainly appears to be something along the lines of "Okay, look it was unintentional per WP:AGF so what's happened is happened, no harm done, but as it has been pointed out, then - as elabortated in WP:INDCRIT and WP:OWN - it's not so fine going forward." If that's the outcome, then that's fantastic... that's all I'm after. I just want to move on. But your comments and Radnom12347's comments make it quite clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong with what's been going on so it's alright to keep going the same way in future. I don't think your last comment is fair given that the other neutral editor is clearly not taking an identical stance to yours and I'm all I'm trying to get at is looking to avoid recurrance of the situation. I don't care so much what's happened in the past, it's only relevant in context of wanting a slight shift in course with the future. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Page: Floor, users: WDIAROM, tedder, Dmcq, IP 80.42.27.133

A new user (WDIAROM) and what is likely a sock IP (80.42.27.133) came along and made major contributions to the Floor article, with every paragraph being a reference to a website titled sustainablefloors.co.uk. I immediately rolled back the changes (using the AGF rollback in Twinkle) and put a welcome template on WDIAROM's page warning against spam. My revert was quickly rolled back by the IP, and a discussion ensued on my talk page, with a large number of accusations lobbed my way.

Dmcq came in and tried to sort through things also, which resulted in a similar discussion on his talk page. Dmcq took the constructive conversation to the floor talk page, with a somewhat abrasive reply from WDIAROM.

In between all of this, there other shenanigans going on also- the user and IP repeatably removed maintenance templates I'd placed on the page, complained in another section of the page about the "heavy-handed editing", and blanked their user talk page to remove warnings (which is allowed, I know).

Ultimately, here's what I see and feel is going on: Dmcq and I have tried to protect a neglected article that tends to get linkspammed, my quick reaction on removing unreferenced material may have sent the wrong message to a new user, and the new user/sock IP are rapidly becoming Tendentious editors. The worst of the etiquette occurred on my talk page and on Dmcq's talk page; please read through those to see the accusations lobbed against us.

I'm not immune from mistakes in my edits, either: while I reverted with AGF enabled, I can see how that could deflate well-intentioned edits that were simply missing reliable sources. So please don't hesitate to tell me how to improve my behavior either. tedder (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Reading through the talk pages involved and the edits made, this isn't really a civility issue at the core, though it does have elements of civility involved. As far as the actual content issue, I suggest opening a RFC as the current status of the page is an edit war, which no one wants. I can say the current content is not blatant spam, so there is no harm in letting it exist until the sutability of it in that article is established.
As far as the civility issues, it seems like User:WDIAROM began by assuming good faith on your talk page (though slightly abrasive, he seemed to be genuinely looking for an explaination) but did not respond well to further suggestions. He seems to have felt bitten by having his content removed, though I do think the removal of the original contribution was justified. It seems he felt like he was under attack by having his addition challenged, but I don't see any way you could really have done anything differently, other than explaining in more detail exactly what was wrong with his contributions. He also seemed to take offense about the maintanance tags, though you did explain their purpose on your talk page. I am not sure what more you could have done to avoid offending this user other than abandon any attempt at reviewing their contributions to the article, which is often worse than mildly offending a new editor (new editors need to be shown our guidelines and policies after all, or they will end up violating them until they are blocked). I suggest opening an RFC about the content and not trying to revert their additions until there is consensus. As far as the IP editor, it may very well be a sock; if you believe it is you can open a checkuser, but unless he/they become obviously disruptive I would personally assume they are not and stick to the RFC. Just my thoughts on the matter, and I may have missed something more serious that I commented on, this is just my impression of what I read on the talk pages. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


  • By the way, I have notified WDIAROM and the IP, but please make sure in the future that you notify all involved parties whenever you open an alert. thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to remark on the content dispute as that's not what this page is for, but remarks like [138] are clearly over the line. WDIAROM is making condescending lectures about how Wikipedia works, when he is a single purpose account with an extremely short editing history. That doesn't really make sense. WDIAROM, you need to calm down, these other users have tried to be civil and patient with you, and you have in turn grown progressively more hostile towards them, and even tried to make them stop editing this article. That is not how Wikipedia works. I advise you to follow the advice already given you, familiarize yourself with the five pillars as it is a clear and concise "road map" to what Wikipedia is and how it works. Consensus is the fundamental way that decisions are made here, and refusing to continue discussing an unresolved matter is unhelpful at best. I also strongly endorse the idea of an RFC to get wider community input on this matter. Obviously, the removal of templates without discussion or improvement is not acceptable either, if edit-warring continues, you may want too ask for protection from WP:RPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I decided to explain what happened on THeseeker4's request, as they were clearly mis-informed about what happened.

1: I searched for article on sustainable flooring- there was none, to my big surprise. I had to do the research myself - and used private subscription journals and my books mainly. 2: I decided to make a small contribution in order to start improvements to the very basic and poor 'floor' page, with a ope this will evolve naturally, ad eventually split into flooring/ floor individual pages. 3: I created an account, as I was prompted to do so when I pressed edit page tab. I pasted the prepared text and previewed how it looks, however, my browser kept freezing and logging me out, so I just saved the page, and started to do edits one by one instead, to get the page to look right, fix grammar, and add references. 4: To start I used a well researched 'green' website as a reference, that does not sell anything and does not advertise anything. 5: In the middle of my edits, the whole entry disappeared- and I received a patronising message accusing me of vanadlism by spam. There was no justification or evidence of this. 6: I proceeded to modifying my entry making it sound more neutral, as I agreed parts did look like I was trying to advertise. I sent a message explaining what I am doing and why, and asked what the problems was - to the accuser. 7: They explained they felt like it may be spam, because I used a single source, and the course looked like it may be spam. 8: I proceeded to clean up my entry and add more references. 9: From there more discontent about the original reference followed, and this was all removed gradually- as new references were added. 10: The Teddedr? (I think) kept placing ridiculous patronising templates on the page, that were removed- and I objected to this practise and explained my objections.


This is what Tedder did:

1: They accused me of vandalism without checking the website he suspected. 2: They failed to check if there was a spam. 3: They failed to admit they were wrong. 4: They failed to improve the floor page in any way. 5: They failed to justify their actions, and provide evidence. 6: They involved another party,who failed to check Tedders claims. 7: Both got involved in speculations about my motives and actions. 8: Bohh failed to improve the Floor page. 9: Both failed to show any expertise about the subject.

This is what I did:

I kept working o the article trying to improve the page. I kept explaining to them I have no interest in advertising any produce/website. I made changes Tedder suggested, but I refused to use newspaper articles as references - as I find this ridiculous and not credible. I agreed the page may need to split in the future, depending on further contributions.

This leads to simple conclusion- I wanted to provide a missing information about flooring, on page that is both for floor and flooring topics. I hoped others will collaborate, and I will occasionally add information, if I find an interesting piece of research. Tedder and their buddy made no attempt to improve the page, and insisted on patronising wikipedia users,by posting templates that tell people article needs improvement- as if the users could not work that out themselves, and proceeded to make further wild accusation on several places, where I was forced to waste time by responding.

I hope this helps - you can always waste a few ours of your time and checking that everything I said is correct. --WDIAROM (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, firstly, this page is not for discussing the particulars of this article. This is a noticeboard for possible breaches of Wikipedia policy on civility, so a prolonged discussion of the article itself is out of place here. Secondly, article improvement templates are part of Wikipedia, and are on thousands of articles. They should not be removed arbitrarily because you don't happen to like what they say. That you criticize other editors for trying to involve more editors and discuss things shows a fundamental disconnect with what Wikipedia is, as this is exactly what a user should do in a content dispute, involve more editors and discuss to find a version of the article that is supported by reliable sources and has a rough consensus supporting it. It seems the content is being split into it's own article, and there is an RFC underway, so proper discussion is taking place at Talk:Floor. I would again advise you to read and understand WP:5. I would also add that it is not uncommon for a new user such as yourself to have a little trouble getting used to the way things work around here. Please don't be discouraged by this, lively debate is what makes Wikipedia grow and improve. If you just keep a cool head and try not to be so condescending with your remarks, I'm sure you will soon find yourself enjoying contributing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes another user SarekOfVulcan has now moved the additions to a separate article and put in a short summary and link. That way it doesn't push itself unduly on the rest of the article. I'm quite happy with the summary and split. I'll not comment on all that personal stuff above, I prefer to stick to the subject matter. Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll disagree with you here- I'm less concerned about the RFC and the new article, more concerned about the Wikiquette. I know what standards articles are held to, but don't know what to do if the civility issue pops up again. tedder (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


To Beeblebrox: You missed the main problem here, the original dispute was not about the entry not being suitable,I had never problem with flooring becoming a new page, and as I said, I made the entry so that people start contributing to the floor page, that was very poor. The templates- you may like them, and they to pollute loads of pages sadly, but all they do is make a mockery of wikipedia by patronising the users. Instead of running around copying/pasting templates, maybe the person who feels there is a need for improvement- should just do that- do some research, and fix te problem- or at least start. Anyway, the 'dispute' was about teh fact Tedder DID not check before they decided to make accusation- and then insisted on replacing references they criticised with newspaper articles, as more credible- WAIT a minute..dont those have adverts all over- YES they do...are they credible and not biased - NOPE! Once Tedder did not like to be contested - they started to go all sulky and summoned help to bully me. - Am I surprised - NOT at all- sadly most people have ego and confidence issues, and that is why they seek little powers here and there, and when they feel those are somehow threatened, they get defensive...do I believe this is the wikipedia way- not always! Anyway, - nothing else to add really- shame that all this time wasted by all here ws not put into working on that page- it would certainly be more accurate by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.27.133 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The site he goes on about is I believe one set up by www.pts.com, it has hundreds of such sites. The company probably would be a worthwhile subject for a wiki article. It gets money by commissioning people to write some content, getting as many links as possible and then sticking in ads which they collect money on. The content here wasn't worth linking to. Dmcq (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

Resolved: Seems like an honest mistake that was corrected when asked. No further action necessary. neon white talk 08:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour on Talk:Nobody's Fault but Mine#Connection to Blind Willie Johnson. User has been engaging in a series of revert wars in the article page with both myself and other editors. Referred to me on the Talk page using male pronouns.[139] I am female. My userpage states I'm female and has always done so. When I pointed this out to the user. His response was "How in the world was I insulting?" MegX (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith. Referring to someone as male when they are female is an honest mistake, which i note was subsequently corrected, and not incivility. In fact it is your comment ("You insulting person. It clearly shows on my userpage I am female. If you wish to make it personal I will in future.") that is a personal attack and incivil. Improve it. User:Walter Görlitz response is understandable. --neon white talk 03:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
He corrected it only after I made the complaint here. Furthermore "Meg" is a pretty easy give away on my gender. MegX (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily, the fact is he corrected it and as far as i am concerned that a solution and end. --neon white talk 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur. MalcomX was a male. "Meg" could have been a short form for a last name, ergo MegX could be male. Besides, an apology was already given...what else did you want? Now that he knows, future intentional uses of male cold be an issue.(talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The apology was given after I had lodged the complaint here. MegX (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate and SPA tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: These same issues are already over at WP:ANI, further conversation should take place there

User Bali Ultimate[[140]] had been insistent on tagging me as SPA [[141]] even after being pointed that I had this login since 2006, granted that I haven't posted many edits since then. However I had openly put in a disclaimer in my initial "Keep" comment for the wikipage MotleyMoose [[142]] that I do visit the webpage and had posted there. Instead of being civil and assuming good faith (as demonstrated by my initial comment) Mr. Bali Ultimate had been rude and uncivil. After I pointed that I considered his repeated misuse of SPA characterization as personal attack he posted a rude message on my talk page[[143]]. I also followed up on his comments in the admin page [[144]]. It is clear that Mr Bali Ultimate [145] has been misusing the SPA characterization and resorting uncivil personal attacks. What is proper followup for resolution on this?--Louisprandtl (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The SPA tag is perfectly appropriate, considering you havent made many contributions until this afd discussion. I think it's use is perfectly reasonable and the 3rr warnings aren't rude or incivil. However i am tired of seeing the bickering at this afd. Can't we just get an admin to close it early as no consensus and protect the article? --neon white talk 08:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
My complaint is not about the 3rr warnings. This is an exact quote from Mr. Bali Ultimate "...you are a special purpose account. You're uncivil, unversed in the policies here, and being highly disruptive...." You don't think that this does not construe a personal attack?--Louisprandtl (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The 3rr warning is valid as you did, indeed, remove an SPA tag from AfD multiple times. You very clearly appeared to be an SPA based on your edit history. You've been uncivil. You've been bickering. Indeed, since you are already discussing this at WP:ANI, now you're forum-shopping. I really think you need to read Wikipedia's policies clearly ... do you need a link? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is defending myself against an unfair accusation will be considered uncivil and considered bickering especially when the editor concerned was extremely rude and hostile? I did not dispute the 3rr warning tag. I've responded (civilly) to another editor Sloane [[146]]for being kind enough to point that out. And I'm not forum shopping. I'm following Wikipedia's own rules at dispute resolution. This page's headers states "This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." [[147]]. This is the proper process for start of the dispute resolution as far I can see. At the other site I'm responding to Bali Ultimate's unfair accusation and tagging me as such. --Louisprandtl (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The SPA tagging is entirely fair as you are an SPA. If you don't want to be labelled as an SPA then start editing other, unrelated, articles. Verbal chat 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful suggestion. I would do so.--Louisprandtl (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Except that you weren't defending yourself against an unfair accusation - the SPA tag says clearly "X has made few or no other edits outside this topic". The number of edits you have made outside the relevant topic (the AfD and associated pages) is precisely one. Therefore the tag is completely accurate - length of tenure is irrelevant. Which part of it do you disagree with? Black Kite 16:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Pixelface's behaviors and civility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: this is over at arbitration enforcement, new comments should go here [148]

Pixelface (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly abusive and uncivil during discussions regarding the notability of fictional topics with anyone that disagrees with him. This has been on going, but recent discussions have pushed me to my limit of tolerance. The first instance began lightly, refering to me a pathetic (other instances 1, 2, 3, 4 ) , and then making presumptions about my opinions. Instead of explaining why their opinions differ, Pixel blatantly attacks me and my opinions.

Pixel takes in appropriate tones with other editors, like Paul730, final line to TheRedPenofDoom, Eusebeus are some examples. A close look at Pixel's contributions will show that he has actually sought out and commented on just about every single comment that I have made on the Talk:List of South Park episodes page. This includes back tracking to days before he arrived just to comment directly to me. I will note that I have made a single comment to Pixel since this all started, yet they continue respond to everything I say with an antagonistic attitude toward me, and from what I can see, everyone else they don't agree with. IMO, it is doing nothing but breeding a poor environment for any discussion that takes place (as, if one looks at the history of the pages, this hostility does not appear to be coming from anyone else who shares Pixel's opinions).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "blatantly attacks me and my opinions" cited above seems more of honest critcism than anything else in that he is correct in that we don't have a notability requirement and that the reasons you present in that place are weak from his objective. An attack would be using swear words and overt insults. Critiquing opinions is merely disagreeing and not an attack. And if anything, I can understand frustration with unconstructive ideas such as trying to merge South Park episode articles as they are inherently notable and verifiable. Finally, at least on of the editors cited above has been incredibly insulting toward Pixelface and some others of Pixelface's inclinations where I cannot imagine how they could expect a more friendly tone from him given how they have treated him. For once people should try reaching out to their opponents rather than tattling on them per the whole bit about using honey rather than vinegar as these "alerts" merely enflame tensions and do not help bring any articles to good or featured status. BOTH sides should be civil and collegial. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Referring to someone as "pathetic" is not "honest criticism", that's a flat out attack of character. No matter how you slice it. Once is ignorable, but when it appears to be common theme when addressing me, that's not appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with calling anyone "pathetic", but why not try reaching out to him instead? Why not work together to bring an article to good status. I have found that I can take more seriously opponents when they extend the occasional olive branch. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean like in the only comment I made to him, where I asked him not to comment about me or other editors, but just the topic at hand and he continued to refer to my comments and beliefs as "pathetic" on multiple pages? Matter of fact, he even directly commented to my comment (see the #4 link), and said: "That makes you look like slightly less of a hypocrite, but you're still a hypocrite." Why did he say that? He said it because I created an article some 3+ years ago when I first joined, left (didn't know about "watchlisting" back then), forgot all about it until a few months ago when Pixel threw it in my face as a way of saying that I don't hold everyone to the same standard. So, I tagged it with a notability tag (I don't edit comic pages, I know very little about them. I created that page when I first got here because I had read the comic he appears in and hoped others would expand on the page...that never happened apparently). But because of that, "[I am] a hypocrite". Tell me that was not a personal attack. Just to point out, since he brought it up originally, he has seen fit to mention it every single time he crosses my path in a debate. I would even wager money that if I were to be bold and merge the character into some other page he would either revert me (not necessarily, but he did say he would oppose merge episode articles are terrible shows just out of principle), or start throwing the fact that it took me 3 years to do anything about the article in my face every time we meet in debates (given his track record with using this particular article as ammunition against me every time we meet).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
My advice is that everyone stop being mean to each other. I do not blindly support fellow inclusionists. I have even asked Pixelface to strike when he called someone a "tool" in an RfA and he did do so after I asked him. At the same time, editors should not bait or raise tensions with him either. ALL sides of these fiction disputes should resist getting vicious. Believe me that I have felt like telling many accounts off, but have held back, because what would it accomplish? Just as I have thought of starting many threads such as this against editors but have resisted doing so as much as possible as they usually do not accomplish anything worthwhile and only exacerbate animosity if anything. MANY editors involved in these fiction disputes are devoting waaaay too much time to trying to get each other in trouble and going back and forth on talk pages that do not seem to go anywhere rather than on actually improving articles. Imagine what we would accomplish if we all stopped fighting each other and instead put our energies into referencing and fixing up articles! I hope and urge everyone to get back to doing that. I am seeing way to much swearing and battleground comments on this site that is making it seem increasingly less like a collegial place to edit. And it has to work both ways. Inclusionists and deletionists alike should maintain civility and not just spend time in AfDs, but actually referencing and improving articles as well. And I know it is possible to do that, because I have on occasion had those of deletionist leaning reach out to me for help, just as I am willing to give out holiday greetings to those with whom I have disagreed and in fact improve articles that those of deletionist leaning have asked me for help with. There is no excuse for anyone else, whether he or she be inclusionist or deletionist, to reach out and work constructively on article improvement or to just ignore and not even respond to incivil comments and instead of getting mad, log off and enjoy real life, or forget that discussion and help build a good or featured article. I recall in my youth when I worked inr etail a customer one day who obviously was having a bad day starting off our interaction with a rant. Rather than get all defensive or what have you, I acted understanding and polite, asked him about unrelated stuff and he ultimately said, "You know, I'm sorry about that. It's just been a rough day. You're not to blame." And ever since he sought me out when he came in the store. Besides, sometimes our critics have a valid point that we shouldn't miss out just because they are the ones saying it to us. Heck, anyone who knows me knows how much I used to go back and forth in AfDs. Look at my Afd editing for this month and you'll say several days with no AfD comments at all and in fact the last two I actually argued to delete, which is considerably different to how I edited in AfDs when I started editing here. People can change and they do so when approached in a constructive manner. Not all do, but instead of making things worse, ignore them or do something that makes you feel good and benefits the project at the same time that no one is likely to protest over. Take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Pixelface's strategy of insulting people he disagrees with is an ongoing problem, and was a smaller aspect of a recent RFC/U for Pixelface's edit warring. Reaching out to him and finding middle ground has failed from my experience, because it usually just means that he sees it as an opportunity to extract a harsh demand, and swat your hand away when you don't give in. The only reason he's evaded so much as a harsh warning for being so insulting is because there are enough defenders to pop in and say "other people are incivil too". But frankly, I resent the proposition that Pixelface can attack anyone he wants because some random unrelated person was mean to Pixelface at some random point in the past year. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and "if another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind..." let alone to be uncivil, uncooperative, and insulting to other well-meaning editors. I'm not saying he needs to be blocked or given any harsh penalty, but he needs to be put on notice because this is completely unacceptable. Randomran (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The random unrelated person that editor A Nobody (who's sorely testing our RTV guidelines btw, but I digress) refers to was me, and it was hardly unwarranted. I was responding to a 5K word screed against another editor that Pixel had taken an intense dislike to. Pixel can say what he likes to me as I wouldn't bother taking him to WQA - instead I'd sit him back in his Stammtisch at AN/I. I agree with your characterisation of his editing behaviour; it is mystifying to me that he has not been blocked since he is highly disruptive and pointy and has been at AN/I like 30 times. As a rule of thumb, when editors find they no longer contribute to the encyclopedia part of the online encyclopedia, but only to talk & policy pages, it is probably time for a moment of self-interrogation. I disagree with A_Nobody's positions, indeed I agree wholeheartedly with DGG about him, but at least he occasionally edits an article or two. Pixelface has basically stopped contributing except in this kind of unhelpful exchange. Eusebeus (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Bignole, you can't complain someone went and replied to every post you made. That doesn't mean they are out to get you. I don't see this as a deliberate insult, he just stating his opinion. Eusebeus, it doesn't seem like a "strategy" either. Dream Focus 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That isn't what my comments were about. My comments were about how he intentionally sought out everything I said, and just about every single comment he left he was rude and attacked me personally. THAT is where the problem is. Simply responding is not the issue, it is the attitude he was/is taking with me, and his personal attacks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Closing this thread Pixelface's behavior is being discussed at Arbitration Enforcement, which is waaay beyond WQA. Discussion is here [149] Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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