Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive64

Petulant user JordanITP

User:JordanITP changed some material on a Talk page in the interest of correcting typos. I pointed out to him on his talk page that one should not edit other users' comments on talk pages, and he proceeded to put some profanity on my user page and blank my talk page as a result. I would appreciate someone educating him as to proper Wikiquette. MSJapan (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's attracted the attention of SarekOfVulcan so someone's already had a go at that. This is a very new user - only started yesterday, and states on his userpage that his intention is to fix typos. You were rather short with him - I would suggest trying a more discursive approach.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a personal note as well as a welcome template on their talk page. I agree that, since this was a new user you probably should have explained why we don't edit others' comments, or at least point them to the correct page, but their response was inappropriate and I have told them so. Also, in the future please notify any other involved user when you open a thread such as this here or on the other forums such as WP:ANI, etc. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 02:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would have, but I figured that under the circumstances it would have appeared even more escalatory to continue to post on his talk page. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:William Allen Simpson

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) called me "obstreperous" [1] and accused me of "silliness" [2].

He creates an atmosphere of "it's him against us" with edits like "Obviously, we deliberately decided by consensus" [3], "And who the heck is Debresser (talk · contribs)? I don't see a lot of contributions here!" [4], "the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed" [5].

He repeatedly used "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" when undoing (amonst other things) edits I made [6], [7], [8] e.g.

Debresser (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of the edit references in the first paragraph are identical (the same CfD nomination).

1. Obstreperous seems accurate, as Debresser harangues folks that revert his edits on their User talk pages, or on other Talk pages and posts a notice on our talk to go read his diatribe.
   • Note also the recent WP:ANI against administrators who reverted his category edits (that began without any discussion at CfD), forgetting the "revert" in the WP:BRD cycle. Rather surprising for somebody that's supposedly been around for over a year....
2. I can think of considerably less polite terms than "overly literal silliness" for edits that remove categories from both a parent category and various related "see also" lists, based on the names of most containing "deletion" and those he removed are "discussion".
   • As he'd know, should he ever bother to examine 4 years of history in the categories that he changed, I'm the person that chose the term "discussion" (migrating from "deletion"), so that all the shortcuts would still work meaningfully (many in old edit summaries, very hard to update).
   • Some processes changed their name, others didn't. WP:RFD moved their project page, but not their category. They still work together relatively harmoniously.
   • Truly, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!

I'm unable to discern the "him" in his second paragraph. Presumably the "us" is related to "we"; that is, the many, many folks that arrived at the previous consensus decisions after extensive discussion at WP:CFD over many years. I expect that folks (even those still behaving like a newcomer after a year, yet bragging about his edit count) will follow the instructions at our policies and guidelines, especially after we point them at those instructions.

I don't have the time to respond to each and every such item that he rains down. I'd have thought him a high school student that had a lot of time on his hands during a summer break, but his user page says he's married with children.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding insult to insult. Seems to feel he owns the area of Wikipedia connected with categories for discussion (as I have stated before here). Debresser (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

---

• Among other things, Mr. Simpson labelled as racist an edit replacing the categories identifying Ayn Rand as ethnically Jewish (which she was) which he had removed, as shown here: [9] [10]. This is highly inappropriate and combative behavior, especially given the troubled history of that article. Attempts to engage with Mr. Simpson on his talk page were rebuffed. I do not know what a proper remedy would be, but I do know that it is totally inappropriate for other users to be using the word "racist" as their edit summaries, as this clearly qualifies as an attack on other users. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• These blatantly racist edits are the bane of Wikipedia.
  • TallNapoleon is currently banned from editing the Ayn Rand article.
  • TallNapolean was not the editor in question.

• Moreover, TallNapolean is factually incorrect: Ayn Rand was not ethnically Jewish. Although explanations abound on the Rand talk, its talk archive, and my talk, here's a shortened version:

The edit was marked racist — which it is by definition: "... racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race...."

He repeatedly assigned several heritage categories to a person that did not consider themselves of that ethnicity.

Because of the sad history of racism, it is Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage that:

Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.

Moreover, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories policy requires:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

As he admitted, my edit specified that policy. He reverted my edit, demonstrating that the revert was a violation of policy, evidenced by its summary (Her heritage is attested in reliable sources).

The assertion is that Rand was Jewish by matrilineal descent.

1. Rand herself was an ardent atheist.
2. Rand's original surname is commonly associated with Jews. She changed it.
3. Rand's parents lived outside the Jewish community — the Jewish Pale of Settlement — and were not observant. They qualified neither as cultural nor religious Jews.
4. The Jewish descent was implicitly assumed to be from a grandparent, although based on no information in the article, as there are no references in the article for any grandparents.

That's deductive speculation. QED.

Re-adding a person to categories based on her grandparents' probable religion is racism at its worst, no different than the Jim Crow "previous condition of servitude" laws, and "grandfather" clauses.

We do not consider persons that have "one drop" of Jewish ancestry to remain Jewish.

The definition is sufficiently notable that Wikipedia has had an article "Who is a Jew?" since its earliest years.

There is no WP:GOODFAITH exception to policy. I have long removed such racism whenever I find it rearing its ugly head!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I was no party to this discussion, I would like to point out that:

1. Atheist convictions are not proof of not being Jewish.
2. According to the definition provided by William Allen Simpson "... racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race....", is see no racism in calling somebody Jewish, or Negro or whatever. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Mr. Simpson does not "get" Judaism. More accurately he is conflating two different notions of Judaism. One is religious, and here he is largely correct. Rand certainly did not practice the religion of Judaism, and her parents were either irreligious or didn't care very much per "ayn+rand"+jewish&ots=h4Av96K4Qe&sig=GHKf94SVl3j2RamFiGqRqthN3_o#PPA7,M1. However, there is also a second definition of Judaism, which is purely ethnic. Under this definition, the fact that her parents were Jewish--never mind if they practiced or not--makes Rand Jewish by definition. Obviously, care should be taken not to place undue weight on this--the appropriate weight is very, very small. Perhaps a mention in her childhood. However, I see nothing offensive with having her listed in those categories to which Mr. Simpson objects, and it certainly is not justification for accusing other editors of making racist edits. This is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I would also invite Mr. Simpson to take a look at "ayn+rand"+jewish&btnG=Search, which shows that there is indeed discussion--albeit not much--of Rand's ethnic background in reliable, academic sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither of your links work correctly. On behalf of my Jewish friends and relatives, I'm appalled by your condescension. I'm from Oakland County, Michigan, home of the Birmingham Temple. Your assertion of perpetually heritable Jewish ethnicity is repudiated by most branches of Judaism other than Orthodox, and responsible for racist pogroms and the Holocaust. Also, Ayn Rand is very popular among Mormons, and the post-death baptism of her and her parents into the Mormon faith has as much validity.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Assigning people to a religious category based only on their descent seems undesirable. It is up to Wikipedia how we want to assign these categories, but literally using descent as the criterion would imply that Jewish converts to Christianity would be classed as both Jewish and Christian. Hardly helpful to our readers. It's like saying, 'You are the same religion as your parents whether you like it or not.' I still don't like WAS's use of the word 'racist' in an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's fairly common for people to class Jewish converts to Christianity as both Jewish and Christian. There is also the well-known phenomenon of Jewish atheists. Judaism is fairly unique (and confusing) in that it is both a religion and an ethnicity, but denial of the religion does not remove the ethnicity. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not whether the use of "Jewish" as an ethnic term is acceptable. Honestly, I think it's a bit more serious than the accidental "racism" for Mr. Simpson to overreact so extremely to so many posts. The reasons he has provided for editing have been pretty obviously made to get a reaction from other Wikipedia users, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. ConstantCabbage (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, only the 4th contribution of new user ConstantCabbage (talk · contribs).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish" is a faith group. The majority of the members of the faith group happen to have a similar ethnic background, but not all. Caucasians, Asians, and those of African descent can all be Jewish. "Semitic" is an ethnicity that primarily includes members of the Jewish and Islamic faiths. The majority of people who practice Judaism happen to be Semitic. "Jewish" is not a race or ethnicity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bust in here but this is a huge pet-peve of mine - BMW is absolutely correct. Judaism is a religion, Hebrew and Semetic are the prominent races, and the nationalities are far too numerous to mention (Ottoman, Israeli, yadda, yadda). Whereas I don't agree that it's racist to simply believe a person to be a certain race, it's also of little note and, at least in this case, wholly inaccurate. Padillah (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) WP is actually, for once, quite clear (there have been a lot of similar cases). If the person is Jewish only by inference, and neither by self-identification nor by verifiable fact, then the category is not applicable. If "perpetually" is invoked, we are all, by virtue of Eve, Jewish. Per WP:DEADLINE we have a lot of time to find out if she was Jewish, and then, and onnly then, should the category be added if corect. Collect (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Can we stick on topic please? Content disputes need to be resolved on the articles talk page. Stick to discussing the incivility of William Allen Simpson who has demonstrated a poor attitude towards other editors including bad faith accusations. He must recognise that in order to be a constructive editor of the project, you need to work with other editors; whether in agreement or disagreement remaining civil is the only way that is going to happen. --neon white talk 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So what can be done about William Allen Simpson's "poor attitude towards other editors"? Debresser (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideally the first course is to encourage the user to be civil and convince him of the necessity of assuming good faith in collaborative projects. If that fails and the behaviour continues then it will have to dealt with by an admin. --neon white talk 11:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He has been accused of incivility and personal attacking before, including a block, and a wp:ani discussion: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and more recently [17], [18], [19]. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If the editor rejects advice then the only thing you can do is to let ANI deal with it. --neon white talk 19:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a level 3 NPA warning to William Allen Simpson. While trying to deal with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues here in WQA, he took the opportunity to generate new attacks. Agreeably, his concerns (and personal misunderstandings) have given rise to possible WP:OWN issues, he must ensure that he remembers that we comment on edits and never editors on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Templating regular users is seldom helpful (see here). Templating people who are already aware of your concerns and are engaged in a conversation/disputation concerning them is NEVER going to be helpful. Please don't do it. Templates are for bringing people's attention to things they might have missed. There are not punitive, and are not a substitute for discussion. Indeed, using biolerplate templates in instances like this borders on incivility itself.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I haven't reviewed the entire history here, but I came across Debresser's claim that William Allen Simpson made a personal attack here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 30#Category:Teen love. I disagree that pointing to a user's edit history was a personal attack in this context. The user in question is essentially a single purpose editor, and that fact is verifiable and relevant to the discussion. I have no opinion about the other issues in this thread.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with Will here. And most of this thread looks like spurious sock-infested nonsense to me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My point was not so much to dispute the fact of a certain singlemindedness in User:Paulo_Andrade's edits, as more the reference User:William_Allen_Simpson made to wp:point. wp:point says "This page in a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked." Implying that User:Paulo_Andrade causes disruption comes "close to a personal attack". (Mind you, I said "close"!) Debresser (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Warren and Top Gear

I'm in the middle of a content dispute between User:Warren over content related to Top Gear (2002 TV series), however, after warning him to stop it with the abusive language (stemming from his response to the matter), he goes and inserts language I find abusive and possibly bordering on bullying into his argument. I wish to settle the content dispute, but I cannot under the circumstances right now.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is good to hear that you want to settle the content dispute. Unfortunately, you're not going to achieve that by posting here. I'm sure you are quite capable of ignoring any comment about yoruself, and discussing the substantive content issues: whether articles about television shows should be restricted to a plot summary of that show, or should include information about critical reception. In the meanwhile, I will ask Warren to avoid making any posts that might be seen as personal attacks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to jockey position in the matter, I just want the other editor to cease his caustic language, thats all. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like people taking issue with your insistence in removing sourced, relevant content from articles in a way that violates WP:NPOV (which applies to all articles; episode list articles are NOT excepted) then stop removing sourced, relevant content from articles. I (and a great many others) consider this to be highly damaging to the encyclopedia and thoroughly ignorant of both the encyclopedia's goals and the approach we take to achieve those goals. Warren -talk- 22:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

None of that is any excuse for personal attacks which is the subject of this alert. Editors should remain civil at all times towards any editor and persue dispute resolution when there is a dispute over article content. --neon white talk 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Revan_ltrl

Revan_ltrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has been here before, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive58#User:Revan_ltrl. Not a major case, but this recent edit - [20] - indicates an unwillingness to abide by WP:CIVIL despite past experience. It is an annoyance and waste of time for editors who work to help improve the encyclopedia to make note of these sorts of pointless talk page postings. Requesting that someone post another reminder to this user about following this path which hinders the serious efforts of others. Sswonk (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• He didn't exactly lower the tone of the conversation, since right above his remarks you used phrases like "snowballing regurgitated crap." This is borderline incivility at the most, and probably not worth getting all worked up over. If you had read the previous WQA, there was some debate about whether it was well-founded, and again, the user has not been notified of this discussion. I don't see how this one remark "hinders" your efforts, although I can't claim to have read the entire (very very long) talk page in question. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have notified him of this thread. My only advice is that this is not that big of a deal, but Revan could stand to tone it down a little. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I now see your public warning about this user on the article talk page. I don't think that is very appropriate either, trying to instruct other users not to talk to him on that page. I've never seen that done before, and I don't think I like it very much. Yes, he used some ill-advised phrasing in his remarks, but painting him with a scarlet letter does not seem a very good way to respond to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, it's borderline, I just notice that this user and User:JamesBurns sock MegX HelenWatt (Sswonk (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)) went back and forth over this issue earlier in the talk page. I don't usually use language like I did about the unfortunate bi-products of an article as you mention but it is crap, since media outlets insert data they find there into published material which then gets cited among articles back here, a snowball. That's one thing, but we are trying to get a definitive verifiable statement that will resolve this issue and having a provocative insult about totalitarians inserted there threatens to derail those efforts by inviting response to the accusation. I refer you to Godwin's Law. Would you like me to remove or amend my suggestion to avoid dealing with this user directly? Sswonk (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) NB: Beeblebrox archived relevant statements on the talk page, despite the fact that six comments on the now-archived threads were made in May 2009. Starting afresh may be a good idea there, I merely point out that the earlier comments are now here. Sswonk (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oops. They must have been all mixed together, the timestamp in the last section I archived was from April, and like I said I didn't read the whole thing as it was very long, and much of it should have been archived a while ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of the phrase "Don't throw stones in a glasshouse", Sswonk? Revan ltrl (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure have. I posted here for the reasons I gave, because it is one thing to use colorful language but another to cast accusations of totalitarianism against the other editors you have argued with. Read Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum to see why I think that certain type of incivility is out of place and to be discouraged. I can't count the number of times I've listened to Floyd favorites like Wish You Were Here, The Wall and The Final Cut and of course the same can be said for Led Zeppelin. I don't have a dog in your hunt regarding whose gone more multiplatinum more dozens of times, both bands have dominated sales in the past. I don't see either as wanting to establish superiority over the other. So, it troubles me that you would attempt to raise hackles by making the statement you did on Zeppelin's talk page in defense of Pink Floyd; using that sort of accusation may in some way indicate a glass house dweller as well. Simply put, I want you to not make the talk page into a shouting match about editors' personalities or which band "rules", simply give your approval to the change suggested and move ahead to better editing days. Sswonk (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Revan, that really was not a helpful way to respond to this. As I said above you were borderline incivil, and remarks like you have left on that talk page, and now here are not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Being right or wrong in a content dispute is not a reason to toss WP:CIVIL out the window. I suggest that you tone down your remarks in the future, gloating is never an appealing trait, and not helpful to Wikipedia. Sswonk, I suppose what I was trying to communicate before may not have been entirely clear. What I should have said is that it probably would have been better not to take the WP:BAIT and make a big deal over this. And you are right that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and not for hurling around accusations at other editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I got your meaning right away and had the same thoughts before bringing it here. I decided sending it here and then posting a notification at the talk would actually help remove the WP:BAIT from temptation for other editors who may not realize the discussion's history. That talk page is much improved after your archiving action, so maybe this minor conflict will ultimately improve things for the article despite it being as you note "not that big of a deal". Sswonk (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the agent provocateur who laid the bait, like a weasel, and Sswonk took it, felt he couldn't quite let it go. Naturally. I wouldn't either, in spite of my high IQ, being a girlfriendless teenager. Your point with the reading recommendations is unfortunately invaild in this case, since my reference to totalitarianism firstly was meant as a joke, and secondly because totalitarianism doesn't necessarily equal Hitler or Nazism. I don't stand by it, but it's not only a joke, but a result of the systematic, insentient on-slaught you experience when disagreeing with the authority (editors). Hence my reference. But I believe appropriateness of such remarks is irrelevant in Godwin's Law, all abide? I'm not too knowledgeable about that, maybe I'll click on the link after all. Well, since this isn't that big of a deal, I don't really know how to respond to your short stories for answers (joke). I kind of knew that the comment would have some consequences, and I'll cool it with the weasel-like, no-use comments. Revan ltrl (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345

Resolved

User:Wikifan12345 has recently been making unconstructive edits on Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei:

• "Don't throw policies at my face when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about".

This is after his comments about our mediator ended an informal mediation:

• "It is you who has engaged in, or acted indifferent towards, tendentious editing."

I should disclose that we have had a past issue here.

Thanks,

--69.217.67.104 (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice bait. IP has commonly mis-attributes policy and continues to promote SYNTH-pieces. He constantly violates basic editing policy and then files a complaint when someone bluntly calls him on it. He just wants to remove the only editor who is a counter balance in the discussion. I'm sick and tired of his wiki hounding and using noticeboards to deflect. I can think of a word to describe him...hmm. I won't say it. He'll probably file another etiquette report, how lovely.

I'm not trying to silence you, I'm just trying to get you to discuss collaboratively.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I really like how he only links diffs and not the actual section. I can't access the noticeboard file because it's probably pages in the archive but it was closed because the IP violated the mediation agreement and the whole complaint was a load anyways (which was described in the section). Why don't you link that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I included the diffs because that was what the instructions told me to do. I only included the past issue to make editors aware there has been an issue going on for awhile.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please. You included the diff because it only sold your "side". This isn't new. I know you want me blocked so you can go back to ME and do your thing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want you blocked, I don't think this would be the proper avenue for that anyways, and I would appreciate it if you would just discuss improvements to the article.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: "I did direct a profane message at you for a reason. Clearly it got your attention but failed to send the right signal. Maybe I should say fuck more often. :D". I really feel this is an inappropriate response.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. IP has no freakin clue what the hell an RS is: Its my opinion that an op-ed written by the subject of a biography, the IAEA, the National Academies Press, the Global Security Newswire, and the Arms Control Association are reputable and reliable sources. For further evidence, take a gander at Mohamed ElBaredei refs. IP is the principal editor and is responsible for the majority of the not-so-reliable sources in it. *cough* Press TV *cough* Tehran Times *cough* Xinhua News Agency. You take offense at a silly word but not at propaganda and blatantly unreliable sources. Unreliable sources which you dubiously referred to as reliable and then sent me an ANI after I called you on it for the 5th time. If this is what gets you fine. No one else seems to care about basic BLP policy if it violates their "In my opinion" mentality. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of the subject and the truthfullness of all claims here. Using bad language, especially in the direction of another editor, is always a Bad Idea. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I apologize. I've seen it posted by admins and editors alike in certain situations and never felt in the least bit offended. It was not directed at another editor, it was done to emphasize the contextual meaning of a sentence that the IP blatantly ignored 3 times. I wasn't just trolling the discussion with f this and that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Pakistan relations, I argued, quite sensibly, that details such as foreign visits quickly forgotten, which we for instance wouldn't bother mentioning in the biographies of those doing the visiting, or in articles on the foreign relations of the countries in question, ought not to receive mention at all. From which Richard Arthur Norton has three times mentioned what he calls the "Biruitorul Biography Rule" - claiming my position to be that only facts which are mentioned in biographies are worthy of inclusion, which is an absurd reading of what I actually believe. I would like this nonsense to stop: it violates WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor"), and it completely misrepresents my position, which is grounded in WP:N, not the fictitious "rule" he's invented. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest a policy of getting over it. Some folks who edit Wikipedia are just plain surly, without going to the extent of calling you a .............. or a .................. or one of those ....................... Ultimately he hasn't done you any harm - other than annoyance.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect everyone to be milk and honey, but a minimum sense of decorum, such as not twisting my words and in essence attacking me over that misinterpretation, would be a good start. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

He's just winding you up. I know it's not grown up - it's playground stuff - but perhaps it would help if you were clear on what you are hoping someone is going to do about it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if someone asked him to be more mindful of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and he showed a willingness to abide by those policies, that would be a good start. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Wassermann

Wassermann (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) has a long well-known history of problems. Yesterday, s/he posted a long diatribe (twice), attacking both myself and Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs):

• the regulars here at CfD along with some Wikipedia admins in general should definitely start to critically examine the blatant WP:POV and seemingly extreme non-neutrality of User:William Allen Simpson as well as User:Carlossuarez46 in relation to these ethnic and racial categories. These two users are openly, clearly, and flagrantly violating the cornerstone WP policy of keeping a WP:NPOV under all circumstances. ... WASimpson consistently engages in all kinds of obfuscation and pseudo-sophistry in a poor attempt to halfway veil his strongly slanted POV regarding these categories....

The just previous contributions were:

• It seems that both of you have personally scrapped this essential policy and as such both of you should be investigated and possibly even censured for blatantly disregarding/flaunting this essential Wikipedia policy.
• The fact is that many highly biased/POV users want any and all Jewish-related categories permanently deleted (completely censored) from Wikipedia.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wassermann has a gross civility problem, but I am "involved" as one of his targets - interestingly, Wassermann's personal attacks are both improper on policy: note that NPOV only applies to "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - not to discussions, or formulation of policy - where like on this page, most of the stuff is opinion. Second, it is I who is consistent and Wassermann who seems to have some sort of agenda here. Race/ethnic categories as I have said are just baloney - subjective, inaccurate and ultimately useless - there is no % of Fooian ancestry that gets one included in the category while another with less is excluded, nor is there any explanation how such % can be objectively determined and why whatever % would be chosen a little less is markedly different. I've said this over again. And Wassermann will not intimidate me into silence because he needs to racially categorize everyone. That's his problem, not mine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Debresser

Debresser (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has been a party to at least 6 incidents this year at WP:ANI, such as using legal threats to bypass consensus, and was recently blocked for incivility. Apparently, this experience led him to begin accusing others of incivility, often for the most trivial of reasons.

He has repeatedly filed complaints here, at WP:ANI, and elsewhere against me, other users, and administrators.

Most recently unfounded ad hominem personal attacks:

• Nominator seems to have problems with the subject of ethnicity, as has been shown in several discussions already.
• Nominator seems to have problems with the subject of ethnicity, as has been shown in several discussions already.
• Point 6 is irrelevant to the discussion and comes close to a personal attack. ... I said "comes close to". I have defended this formulation here.
• My point was not so much to dispute the fact of a certain singlemindedness in User:Paulo_Andrade's edits, as more the reference User:William_Allen_Simpson made to wp:point. wp:point says "This page in a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked." Implying that User:Paulo_Andrade causes disruption comes "close to a personal attack". (Mind you, I said "close"!)

His edits frequently are missing the section name that is changed, making these harder to discern or locate later.

He has engaged in Wikipedia:Harassment — Hounding and Stalking — at WP:CfD (frequently on my nominations, where he was not a regular participant until recently), on pages I've recently edited, responding to talk conversations with other parties, and hunting down some rare years-old negative comments. Such as:

• added history of incivility
• See the numerous accusations of uncivility on this talk page and in the few conversations I've seen you involved with that you have a FAT CHANCE of becoming an admin. You must be kidding.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just to make one teensy comment. It's the WikiMedia software that adds the section name to the edit summary. If you edit from the top rather than from the section, it doesn't put the section name in. Just so's you know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I know. Bad habits. He also frequently forgets to sign, although he'd supposed be around over a year, and made 20,000 edits.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't we already do this? You two already have an active thread up the page. Dare I suggest that the two of you take a break, from each other and from pages where you have bumped heads. Maybe even turn off the computer altogether and go for a nice walk outside.... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've read all the rest now, and I have to say I can't make any sense at all of what you are saying. The first four links don't contain any incivility. The fifth is a collection of things you have said. The sixth is perhaps a little OTT, but was in response to the direct question "would you support my application for adminship", so "no" possibly wasn't sufficient, AND he didn't say it to you AND you haven't provided evidence that the person he did say it to was in any way taken aback by it. Maybe they were. Who knows. Perhaps you need to take Beeblebrox's advice and cool down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Elen, I'm surprised you find unfounded accusations "civil". He said the sixth directly to me on my Talk. He was responding to my question on another's Talk, where the matter was discussed, and he was not involved. Please examine my link more carefully.
• Anyway, until this moment, I had no idea that he'd been so involved in WQA and ANI, and been blocked. Given his massive changes to categories without going through CfD, I'm thinking an RFC would be appropriate. Thank you for your time.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're right, I had misread the sixth. It was directed at you, and you're pissed, and I understand that. I still don't see a problem with what he said in the first two- he gives his personal opinion of you in moderate language. You don't like it, but it's only an opinion. And you didn't understand what I was saying about Wikimedia. There's no requirement for editors to supply the section if the software doesn't do it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But he's spent some time earlier this week on this page complaining that I'd stated his edits were silly. His comments go far beyond that.... And going through 4 years of my talk to find every instance that somebody had ever complained? Seems like stalking to me. Until I started researching for this section, I'd no idea that he brings complaints against anybody (perhaps everybody) that crosses him. It's a pattern of behaviour.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And then you follow him round and complain at him? That's going to help.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid being accused of disdaining to join the thread opened in my name... I feel somebody is trying to take revenge on me. This is not an accusation, this is how I feel.

I sincerely appreciate the advice given above to try and avoid crossing paths with User:William Allen Simpson. I will take that advice to heart. Unfortunately, there are a few areas where our interests in Wikipedia intersect. I have tried to be as "to the point" as possible, at times supporting his nominations, at times disagreeing. User:William Allen Simpson has made disagreeing with him unpleasant (see e.g. this discussion or just now this insulting edit and edit-summary), but I think I have managed to stay cool. Any editor who thinks I have behaved uncivil, please let me know.

Anyway, to the point, I don't see any problem with my edits or the edit summaries. So apart from a lot of unfounded accusations I don't see anything here that warrants my - or anybody elses - attention. Any editor who feels differently, please feel free to tell me so. Debresser (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka

Stuck

 – User has stated they will not be swayed by this process, if disruption continues, report at WP:ANI Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a longterm pattern of disruptive and incivil editing across several article, article talk and user talk pages, mostly involving the Perez Hilton/Carrie Prejean Miss USA 2009 controversy. He responds neither to polite requests to be civil nor to warnings about his behaviour.

Around the beginning of last month, when I first enountered him, he left several extremely incivil notes on my talk page, summarized with equally incivil edit summaries ([21] [22] [23]). I haven’t been the only target of these talk page rants: [24]

When I attempted to discuss with him on various talk pages, he refused. Here’s a typical edit [25] with the summary “No. Its staying right here.” He has accused other editors of sockpuppetry [26] and repeatedly threatened to engage in edit warring [27], generally over the inclusion of statements by Perez Hilton about Carrie Prejean. He responds to polite requests not to edit other users’ comments with “don’t tell me what to do” [28]. Just today, in the midst of a discussion about certain content (which had been removed by consensus), he simply recreated the section. When asked to be civil and please discuss his (re)additions on the talk page, his response was “Let me help you out. You are NOT my boss and I don't think you are. I suggest you stop acting so strident and get a strong grip.”

Most troublingly (and disruptively), InaMaka insists on commenting on other editors rather than on content, here accusing me of using Wikipedia to spread hatred. See also: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

It must be said that he has improved slightly. He will, at least, now engage in discussion on talk pages. However, his posts centre on the theme of “Hilton’s bigoted, misogynist, psychotic hate speech." Anyway, there’s far too much to post all the diffs here. Can someone please have a look at InaMaka’s contribs and try to impress on him the need to edit civilly? Exploding Boy (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole comment area looks like the attempt by Exploding Boy to shut up and remove an editor, me, InaMaka, that does not agree with his attempts to jam the word "BITCH" into the article on Carrie Prejean. I do not agree that the article have the word placed in the heart of the article. It is a quote from Perez Hilton. Exploding Boy believes that the article MUST quote Perez Hilton's hate-filled comment ("bitch") in the article and I argue that it can be placed in the article but only in a footnote. Exploding Boy will not agree to a compromise. His only idea of a compromise is to harass me on my talk page, misrepresent my point of view (I believe that Exploding Boy and another editor have been calling my attempts to get the article to adhere to BLP "censorship"), and talking to other editors about straightening me out. Look, if Exploding Boy and whoever else decides to rip me on this page then I know that my comments about Wikipedia to be true. In the Carrie Prejean article the attempts by certain editors to jam the word "bitch" in the article clearly violates BLP, NPOV and Profanity, all long-time and important rules of Wikipedia. Now, Exploding Boy has decided to come after me in another venue--this talk page is another attempt by Exploding Boy to shut me up. He is ignoring BLP, NPOV and Profanity and he just simply wants to shut me up so that he can push forward with his POV agenda on the article.--InaMaka (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, InaMaka. Please understand that while I do disagree with you about whether we should quote Hilton in the article, this issue is not about article content: it's about civility, and only about civility. Discussion of article content belongs on the article talk page. Wikiquette alerts are about mediation, not punitive action. If I were seeking blocking or other admin action, I would have started a Request for Comment. However, I do think it's time that your way of dealing with other editors is addressed constructively. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See your comment above tells the whole story. It is not my way of dealing with other editors that needs work. It is your attitude and the way that you summarily remove information from articles, etc. You editing style needs more work than anyone that I know. The fact that you feel you need to fix me is indicative of the problem. You can't even see your weaknesses. You don't even know that you have weaknesses. The comment above just reeks with condensation where you are putting on a faux air of superiority and you accuse me of things which you have done to me over and over again. No, Exploding Boy, you need the assistance of an intervention, not me. Good luck with that.--InaMaka (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this comment by InaMaka gives a perfect grasp of the situation to any outside party. Inamaka is being rude, uncivil, and is engaging in personal attacks against other editors - the above comment clearly shows that. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, very good. Now TharsHammar has decided to use this process to shut me up. TharsHammar is one of Exploding Boy's fellow editors that feels the need to violate BLP and NPOV and Profanity in the Carrie Prejean article. That should tell you all you need to know about this Star Chamber activity. This silly process will not stop me in any way from pointing out gross violations of BLP and NPOV--which both Exploding Boy and TharsHammar are engaging in. They just don't like what I have to say and they are attempting, unsuccessfully I might add, to shut me up. Good Luck on that.--InaMaka (talk) 14:10, 1 June 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.

Incivility

Resolved

 – Not blatant incivility, and Pedro apologized anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

I would like to obtain an outside view about whether the following exchange represents acceptable conduct from User:Pedro in a discussion he invited me to on his talk page.

• Pedro: you are one of those people with whom there is no value in having a debate, as you are so blind to your opinion that you will never be disuaded no matter what.
• Groomtech: your first sentence can be read as personally offensive. I suggest that you reconsider
• Pedro: Consider my first sentence as an opinion.

This looks to me like a personal insult, and a refusal to apologise: calling it an "opinion" is hardly intended to soften the blow. Is this the level of civility I should expect from an admin, or am I just oversensitive? Groomtech (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Pedro's talk page indicates that he will be traveling until June 4th. I suggest holding off all discussion on this subject until he returns. Better yet, I would prefer to pull this WQA until he returns.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not worth a Wikiquette alert. Groomtech, just back off and the situation is resolved. You are both in stalemate over a certain opinion, and those opinions clearly won't change, so the only result of continued discussion is exasperation and strong words. If you were offended by Pedro's words, talk to him privately. Far too early to drag this to the noticeboards. Closing as no action taken. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag as resolved anyone? — Ched :  ?  17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 Note: Statement by Pedro (talk · contribs) here. — Aitias // discussion 17:58, 2 June 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:MikeyCMS

This new user began by creating the article M3 Rock Festival. The article was soon nominated for deletion as an advertisement and a non-notable subject. After some issues with removal of the AFD template [34] , MikeyCMS began contesting very civilly, starting with a message on his talk page [35]. That escalated into messages on the deletion entry by his apparent IP address, 72.81.194.107 [36], then into uncivil comments on User:DanielRigal's talk page [37] [38] and finally into blatant vandalism [39], along with a personal attack at ClueBot[40]. MikeyCMS has indirectly admitted that he created the article to "promote the festival", and seems to be going after anyone involved with the deletion of it. just a little insignificant 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, blocked indef for harassment. just a little insignificant 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Threats from User:Mathsci

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – two active threads at WP:ANI, closing to avoid forum shopping

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

I would like to ask for someone's assistance in dealing with User:Mathsci who has used threatening and belligerent language since I began attempting to edit the article Europe. Initially refusing to dialogue on the talkpage, the user repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion, with the result that I was blocked for 3RR. I am, as has repeatedly pointed out by User:Mathsci , a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, so unfamiliar with many of it's conventions. However, I understand the topic, and I do not understand why I would get blocked for posting numerous sources that support my position. The European article as it currently stands is at worst in error, and at best only providing one side of a contested understanding. I would like to rectify this. I find the agression and threats quite disturbing, and were it not for the fact that I care about the correct facts being presented on Wikipedia, would have left ages ago. I realise this may well not be the place to voice my concerns, but I honestly do not know where else to put it, or what to do. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Regards--TheThankful (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This was his last post to me: This is just your own personal synthesis. If you cannot distinguish between the cradle of civilization and Western culture, I don't think there's anybody here that can help you. You seem extremely confused. Until you find some way to come to terms with classical antiquity and how it is represented on wikipedia, you are probably best off not trying to edit here. At the moment you just seem to be trolling on this page. Please go somewhere else.

Please Help--TheThankful (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a 72 hour block for edit warring and then block evasion. He resumed exactly the same POV-pushing on Europe that got him blocked. I warned him not to continue since all editors had been against his edits and wrote that if he persisted in trying to restore his rejected change to the lede, he could be blocked. He reported me here and simultaneously on WP:ANI without informing me. I have reported him afterwards on WP:ANI where is probably the correct venue for this to be discussed. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 2 June 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.

Changes made to "votes" in AfD of Noemi Letizia

Hope that this post is in the right place.

An AfD is currently in progress for Noemi Letizia. I posted my opinion ("vote") on the subject. I returned to the page later and posted additional info labelled as "comments", which could be taken as supporting the opposite opinion on the AfD. However, I wished my vote to remain the same, for the reasons I'd originally given (I still thought that they were stronger than the "opposition"), and I did not edit or change my original post.

I then see that my vote had been struck out with a "del" tag, contrary to my opinion and desires. I haven't checked to see who did that. I see that many other votes have also been struck out. I haven't checked to see who did that.

It appears that someone may be changing / striking out the AfD votes of others. I'd like administrators to look into this matter. I'd like all the votes to be restored to whatever desired by their own voters. If someone did act inappropriately here, I think that it would appropriate for administrators to take some sort of action.

If this post is not in the right place, could you please move as appropriate. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• There aren't necessarily any admins here, they tend to hang out at WP:AIV, but I will see what I can figure out. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Person doing the strikeouts is User:ElfQrin - in the belief that anonymous IPs may not vote in an AfD (see edit summary hereElen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Yes, just checked. Reference is to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Editing_from_anonymous_IPs - looks like User:ElfQrin is right and I am wrong. Or what?? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is probably referring to actual elections, such as WP:RFA and the ArbCom elections. AFD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, and IPs are certainly allowed to participate. I've undone the strikeouts, left the user who did them a note about it and informed them of this thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Only Snowspinner vs Lir features the 'may not vote' principle. That decision comes from 2005 - I can't say I've seen it enforced in AfD's these days unless the author has a basket of anonymous socks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminder on the editors talk page should do the trick. --neon white talk 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact I've only striked out votes, not comments, by anonymous IPs. --ElfQrin (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Taulant23

Can something be done about insults like this [41]? I've had it with this guy. His useful contributions are virtually zero, and all he does is troll around drop insults like the one above. He's been repeatedly blocked for incivility and placed on civility parole in the past. --Athenean (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're establishing a pattern, this will likely need an WP:RFC. If you're thinking they need an immediate block, WP:ANI is the place to go. I do agree that the diff you provided is beyond worthy of reproach, and I provided a level 3 warning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• B, I agree with you except for one thing, "beyond reproach" means that it's perfectly ok. That remark is worthy of reproach. Ok I'll stop being such a vocabulary nerd now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's soooooo bad, it's beyond your normal definition of reproach? ;-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"His useful contributions are virtually zero, and all he does is troll around" Honestly that's a personal attack.The only thing I tried to explain to you was that we all need to find a common language.You can not destroy the work of other because of your interest.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Athenean should not have used the word "troll" to describe your contributions. That is a word which tends to be problematic, whether used correctly or not (and note that I'm not offering judgment here on your contribs). Having said that, there is no way that we can reconcile Taulant23's claim of "need[ing] to find a common language" with comparing another editor to "a fat kid who wants his ice cream so bad that it will destroy the work of others just to get his vague point [across]".

I know that it can be particularly difficult to discuss content disputes in areas where nationalism is an issue, but I don't see why Wikipedia can't fairly and neutrally cover each nation's viewpoints. I would like to see both of you making more of an effort to work towards that end, and to assume good faith of one another. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

Resolved

 – Try WP:DR -it's not an WQA issue. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I thought I'd start here instead of WP:AN/I for once.

An Anon IP doesn't like some text I took from the Library of Congress website about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. I've tried to work with her/him, but the matter has now turned surreal with that person (1) claiming the text means what it doesn't (okay, to me at least), (2) the person getting angry (& I too -- but I'm controlling my anger, & willing to admit I'm wrong); & (3) now she/he "will be seeking remedy as I have every right to do". Anyone interested in pouring oil on these troubled waters & calming things down? (I probably won't be back online for another 4-5 hours today, so whatever happens will happen without my knowledge or input.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute rather than a WQA issue. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Marshals (film) Inaccuracies section and User:Collectonian

I would like to receive clarification on whether or not it is civil for an editor to take action to delete a contested section in an Article after the issue has been posted on the noticeboard, but before consensus has been reached.

On February 22, 2009 User:Tony Sidaway deleted a section of the U.S. Marshals (film) which dealt with inacurracies in the film. His reason was that it was a "trivia" section.

I reverted his deletion, and started a discussion of the issue on the article's Talk page. There were no responses to my post. On May 31, User:Cton85 deleted the section, without discussing his deletion on the Talk page or even explaining his deletion in his edit summary.

Today I reverted his deletion and posted in the Fiction Noticeboard to get consensus on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#U.S._Marshals_.28film.29

User:Collectonian was the first editor to respond. She referenced main policy titles as why the section should be deleted, but did not show where in those larger policies she found verbage that proved Inaccuracies sections should be deleted. I asked her to point me to such verbage, with no response from her. Immediately after she posted her opinion, before any other editors had responded, she deleted the section from the article.

I reverted her deletion, and asked her not to delete it until others had weighed in on the issue, as I don't think her opinion alone qualifies as consensus. She immediately deleted the section again.

My question is: Is it civil for an editor to take action to delete a contested section of an article while that section is still being discussed on a Noticeboard?

Thanks for your help.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As per the policy of bold...revert...discuss, things all seem to have been done correctly, except that normally you discuss on the article's talkpage. WP:TRIVIA does partly apply - the fact that in a piece of fiction, characters were chained contrary to normal FAA guidelines is moot - it's called "artistic license" in order to increase dramatic effect. You state on the noticeboard that you have a 3 - 1 !vote...sounds like a majority opinion, as you're the only one arguing a contrary position. The action overall is not a violation of WP:CIVIL no WP:NPA, it's the used of BRD and WP:CONSENSUS - your reversion of a reversion is a questionable action, and could have been considered an edit war. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember wikipedia doesn't work on votes. --neon white talk 22:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, notice that I wrote "!vote" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a "!vote" and how does it differ from a "vote"? And is it pronounced with a click at the beginning like the name of the !Kung people? ;)Mmyers1976 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim of a 3:1 opinion is dubious. Tony Sidaway had called it a trivia section back in February, and I had started up a discussion of this on the Talk page, where I said: "I found WP:TRIV, and even that says 'This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. '" So that called the basis of Tony's opinion into question, and there was no response to that. Cton85, who has only had an account for 6 months, provided no basis for his deletion whatsoever, not in the discussion I had established on the Talk page, not even in his edit summary, so it is hard to call that an opinion. I guess with Collectonian's actions, I'm thinking you wouldn't go ahead and delete an article right after being the first person to vote "delete" on an AfD, so doing something similar on a Noticeboard would go the same way. With that in mind, my reverting her delete and asking her not to take action until others had an opportunity to weigh in is reasonable. I know I'm not guilty of "warring", in edits of otherwise, and have done everything to keep this civil. Even when I informed her of the Wikiquette alert (which I have understood is required if you start one on someone else" I did it in the nicest way possible: "It seems we have a difference of opinion on whether or not it is appropriate to delete a contested section while it is still being discussed. I don't want this to get uncivil, so I thought I would get some outside opinions on it. Please don't take this as an attempt to get you in 'trouble, I just want to clarify, and if it turns out that people think your actions were appropriate, then my apologies in advance," which earned from her an accusation of "not very good faith." I'm fine with the conclusion that her actions did not cross any line, and I will keep my personal conclusions about her overall level of cvility to myself, but I don't accept that any of my actions were somehow "questionable." (edited for clarity)Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is a content dispute not a problem with civility. Just complete the discussion and form a consensus, although i disagree with removing anything from an article that is under discussion. It should be left so new participants can judge it. --neon white talk 22:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my basic issue - something that is under discussion should be left in place so new participants can judge it.Mmyers1976 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Two editors stalking each other

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – I've looked this over, and I don't see any blatant violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. This looks more like a content dispute. If there is edit warring, consider reporting at WP:3RR or WP:RPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. In the past week or so, I have noticed an ongoing battle between Erikupoeg (talk · contribs) and Rubikonchik (talk · contribs). They're both involved in editing a number of articles, but the one I got involved in through WP:3O was Sofia Rotaru. What I've witnessed so far is that Erikupoeg made a number of edits - fairly decent ones, in my opinion - and Rubikonchik has attempted to wholly revert the edits without any particular explanation. Looking at the editors' contributions reveals a lot of reversion battles on several articles. There's a lot of personal attacks and civility issues going on, so I figured that I'd bring it up here so someone else can take a look at these two editors' actions and perhaps help to resolve some of the tension. I'll inform both editors about this so they can weigh in. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs? --neon white talk 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely. Take a look at the Diffs section just below. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:HelloAnnyong - first thank you for opening this alert, after you have "informed" me on the talk page "we can take it further" - where I suggested you to continue. In this respect, I would like to remind you that you are not "we", but should be rather "I" - as you were requested to provide a neutral third opinion.--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Second, when you say:

1. "Rubikonchik has attempted to wholly revert the edits without any particular explanation" is an obvious lie, as it is enough to see any talk page of the edited by me articles for all the necessary numerous explanations and sources.

1. "There's a lot of personal attacks and civility issues going on" please provide examples. Thank you in advance.--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples of what seems incivil from my POV. First of all, Rubikonchik assumes bad faith, calling what Annyong and I have to say, a 'lie', e.g.: [42], [43], and stating things like: " I would not be surprised to see Jaan Pärn nominate all together the article Sofia Rotaru for deletion here as well." ( [44] ) He has called me a 'disruptive editor' or used various forms of the word 'disruption' to describe my edits tens of times without making it clear what exactly I had disrupted, e.g. [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. He has called this edit a 'chaos' without explaining what was chaotic about it. He has repeatedly accused me of providing no evidence on edits where I already had provided one, like in his comment on the first edit of the history where I had referred to relevant WP policies. He has repeatedly removed sourced material without any comment, e.g.: [52]. He has removed prods unilaterally from three files: [53], [54] and [55]. He has violated the WP:3RR on numerous occasions, including: [56] twice: on 7-8 May and 22-23 May, [57] on 2 June, [58] on 2 June, [59] on 2 June. The list could go on and on. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a mismatch between the current section title and the content. The title says "Two editors stalking each other". HelloAnnyong, either support the title with evidence on me stalking Rubikonchik or change it to "An editor stalking another" or anything else appropriate. --Jaan Pärn (talk)

Sorry, Jaan, but I thought I had seen evidence of you following Rubikonchik. If it's all one direction, then that's something that should be brought up here. As to what Rubikonchik said, it's true that I was brought in to give a 3O, but since it wasn't panning out and I became an editor of the page, I brought these issues to a larger forum. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And what may be the evidence? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Um... maybe List of highest paid musicians in 2008? Seems that Rubikonchik started it, and then you somehow came across it. Actually, now that I look at that article in the proper context, that article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for Rotaru. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I came across it on here. Keeping an eye on a WhatLinksHere page does not constitute stalking nor any other violation of Wikiquette. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the titles partially reflects the reality. In fact, User:Erikupoeg reverts almost any single of my edits on any edited by me article. This is clearly stalking. User:Erikupoeg does not read given explanations on the talk pages, does not read the provided sources and links. Moreover, User:Erikupoeg uses a banal technique of simple lie, even when rarely referring to the provided by me sources, interpreting them in an inapopropriate way.--Rubikonchik (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite opposite is the truth. A quick look at the article histories will show that my first edits of the articles were neither reverts of Rubikonchik's edits (apart perhaps from the WP:COATRACK List_of_highest_paid_musicians_in_2008) nor have anyhing to do with Rubikonchik personally, but were original contributions. The fact that Rubikonchik considers original contributions on Sofia Rotaru a personal attack, speaks for himself. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffs

Here's a list of diffs, with page names and stuff.

• Sofia Rotaru: Rubikonchik completely undoes all of Erik's edits without any explanation in the comment, and does it again
• Mikhail Boyarsky: Erik edits, Rubikonchik undoes, Erik un-undoes, repeat several times.
• Johnny Dorelli: Erik edits, Rubikonchik reverts, Erik re-undoes, etc.
• Sopot International Song Festival: Erik edits, Rubik undoes, Erik un-undoes; a bit later, Rubik edits and Erik undoes, and it goes back and forth.
• Anthony Monn: Erik, Rubik, Erik, and so on.

The list just goes on and on. In looking up all of these diffs, actually, it seems that both of them are so far past WP:3RR that it's not even funny. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have violated WP:3RR only once: recently on Mikhail Boyarsky, which was a clear case of Rubikonchik acting against WP:FILM#Foreign-language titles, later confirmed by consensus on Talk:Dusha. The rest of my edits were original contributions, not reversions of another editor's contributions within 24 hours. However, that may be of secondary importance as my edits can be seen as edit warring anyway. I can only plead on aiming towards the content, reverting Rubikonchik's uncommented undoing of sourced statements and my removals of clear violatons of WP policies. Note that the WP:3O process produced few results, as Rubikonchik simply ingored it. Therefore I was left with two options: either to let Rubikonchik own the articles connected to Sofia Rotaru or to do something about it. I realise now, the way I did something about it was technically wrong, but I do not know what's the right thing to do when your arguments and the WP:3O process is being ignored by a user. I mean, I or an admin can restrain me from editing but that won't change the fact that the articles and statements on Sofia Rotaru all over Wikipedia suffer from substantial issues, being mostly WP:POV,WP:PEACOCK, WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:SYN, WP:SOURCE, WP:COATRACK, WP:FAIR USE, WP:NAME and plain grammatic and syntax errors. Rubikonchik is putting in a major effort to bluntly block people from removing the violations and adding sourced NPOV content. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice and User:Daedalus969

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

These users have been involved in what appears to essentially be a flamewar on each others talk pages. This resulted in Daedalus taking it to AN/I claiming that Jayhawk of Justice has been making personal attacks and "stalking" him. I occasionally browse AN/I and this caught my attention so I began looking into it. It appears that this same thing had happened previously resulting in Jayhawk getting blocked. Apparently his block expired and he returned yesterday and the flamewar immediately continued. This probably didn't need to be brought here considering it's already at AN/I, but I felt it should be brought up here as well considering the personal attacks that have been flying back and forth between these users.  Anonymous  ^{Talk  Contribs} 02:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if it's already at ANI, it should never be brought here to ensure that discussion remains linked. Thanks for catching the issue overall, and please ensure you contribute to the ANI thread. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Oxana879

Resolved

 – Referred to WP:ANI, blocked 24 hrs, bring subsequent violations to admin attention

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

In response to a nomination for deletion by Ironholds of an article Oxana879 created (AfD discussion), Oxana879 left a clear personal attack on Ironhold's talk page. Both myself and Euryalus found this behavior to be unacceptable, so we both made polite (in my case, a bit stern, using the standard template) note of such at Oxana879's talk page.

In response, Oxana879 directed personal attacks at both myself and Euryalus. This makes three clear attacks, two at uninvolved editors attempting to clarify Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I left another warning on the user's talk page. If he ignores that or responds with more personal attacks, the only thing left is to block him as he is unwilling to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like she got you too......Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That was all I can do. I brought this issue to ANI here. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:28, 4 June 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.

Vandalism and Attack IP

Resolved

 – warning given to ip who hasn't edited since, unlikely to need any further attention

I made this edit: [60] reverting an addition that is against the consensus built for the lede in this article. This IP responded with this attack: [61]. Not sure anybody should have to put up with this type of heated attack. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've stuck a warning tag on the IP's talk page. If they do it again, report it at ANI Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Incivility, personal attacks, and other similar issues (Kudpung), (GyroMagician), (Jenuk1985).

Stuck

 – This is going nowhere fast, take it to ANI if you all still want to argue these points. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

A while ago I placed {{npov}}/{{weasel}}/{{undue}} tags on Malvern Water because I felt the article had issues of neutrality, gave undue prominence to certain facts, and so on. I tried to explain myself on the talk page, but I've been met with an incredibly amount of bad faith from the editors there who seem to have taken my taggings on a personal level, and who's response has essentially been one of defamations, mockings, belittlings, threats of administrator intervention, and so on. Now, I've lost all interest in editing that article (since I have better use of my time than to be insulted at some ungodly rate), and while I'm not using any sleep over what some guy/woman over the internet thinks of me, this is IMO, intolerable behaviour on Wikipedia. I'm not out for blood here, although I admit I wouldn't mind seeing some of them being served with a 24 hour warning ban/block/whatever you wanna call it. I'm more concerned about the next guy/gal who'll have to work with the Worcestershire Project, and who, like me, will end up being turned off of editing a page because of incivility issues. The other editors on that page haven't been much better, but people seems to be unable to drop the issue. Some quotes:

• It is quite obvious throughout the WP that some editors tag like mad and look for issues and typos in order to increase their edit counts and brownie points
• What does one do about editors who indiscriminately tag articles everywhere without obviously reading them and understanding them? There are some who blatantly do this just in order to boost their editing counts.
• IMO he is now just trying to make feeble excuses to justify his actions. I too will wait for more comment from others, failing which, I also vote for going to WP:ANI.
• Is there a tag for 'please go away and let us get on with what we were doing'?.
• I have given Headache a very polite but concise opinion of his work on his User talk:Headbomb#Malvern Water page and removed the latest from his repertoire of ready-to-paste banners.
• We have better things to do than fight 200-a-day drive-past editors with Cyrillic signatures and user pages looking like carnival bunting, with a list of their degrees (there's no shortage of BSc's, MA's, and even PhD's on the Worcestershire project, but I don't see anyone posting them on their pages.
• I've checked out some of the other water pages too (to think that Headbomb accused us of advertising!);
• Headbomb, your riposte is just a smokescreen and POV. With all due respect, I would suggest you contain your editing to subjects on which you are an authority ... take this as a friendly hint before someone tags your talk page with an official WP:ANI warning...
• The best thing to do now is let us all as responsible and mature editors/contributors get on with our various projects and save time all round

All this in a period of less than 24 hours. All I did was tag with NPOV/Weasel tag, another editor removed them because he thought the matter was settled, I objected (revert) and explained why, he reverted because he thought the tags were inaccurate, so I then tagged with the more accurate {{undue}} instead. Then I was met with this onslaught of insults. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are numerous violations of policy on no personal attacks in the above referenced statements. Disagreement is all well and good, but bad faith remarks and threats are not the way to go about it. This article seems to have become a walled garden where outsiders are not welcome, that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Users absolutely do not have to be experts on a subject before editing it's article, and mocking another user's screen name or signature is the kind of childishness best left on the playground. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with you there, the article is in no way a walled garden, and constructive edits are welcome. Fly by tagging because an editor insists that it must be tagged in some way even if the article has none of the problems reflected by the tag, is not constructive, and thus not welcome (that goes for anywhere on Wikipedia). Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like "fly-by" tagging either, but clearly this is not what happened here. Headbomb didn't just tag it and ignore it, he engaged in conversation on the relevant matters on the talk page and was met with insults and derision from the editors there. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes he engaged in conversation, but nothing constructive was coming out of it which wasn't very vague, no particular issues were raised which actually applied to the article itself. He distinctly gave the impression (and still does) that he hasn't read the article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• 1. The initial tagging was a drive-past and was left without a required clarification. The tag clearly states 'see talk page'. This clearly demonstrates that drive-past editing of this kind is ineffective and not helpful to the Wikipedeia.
• 2. The comments and advice which Headbomb finally offered were contrived anf fake examples of the text from his own POV, and intended to deride the perfectly legitimate mentions of the royal family, and to attack 'advertising' although the article cleary is not focussed on the commercialisation of Malvern Water, although dozens of brands of mineral water have their own pages.
• 3. He has admitted several times in his comments to being unsure of his interpretation of the article and his use of tagging.
• 4. headbomb's citations in his complaint above are quoted largely out of context and do not mention his use of offensive language. Offensive language has only been used in his messages.
• 5. He has not read (or reacted to) the polite messages on his talk page (1 July) before starting this escalation (or included them in his complaint above)
• 6. The article clearly is not a 'walled garden' as its page creation from another article was a matter of discussion by its major contributor, who invited additional support and editing from other Wikipedians.
• 7. No 'threats' per se were made of reporting his action - just friendly advice to moderate his intervention that has been considered a matter for escalation.
• 8. Both he, and the editors have considered this issue closed several times, and the authors have clearly demonstrated that work on the article is still very much in progress, and is the combined effort of several serious editors who are well aware of the Wiki guidelines for the creation and editing of articles.
  --Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things.

• I already admitted that the initial tagging was left without clarification, I thought the reasons were obvious. I apparently was wrong, so I clarified what I meant here. I fail to see how that is a "contrived and fake example" (people would normally call those analogies).
• The "ineffectiveness" of the tagging is mostly due to you taking the road of personal attacks rather than one of assuming good faith.
• Nowhere did I deride perfectly legitimate mentions of the royalty's endorsement of the Malvern Water. In my own words: It's not necessarily that the Queens' love of the Malvern water should not be noted in this article, it's that the emphasis seems disproportionate with the relevance.
• Expressing concerns of non-neutrality/undue weight is not by any strech of imagination, an attack.
• I never "admitted being unsure of [my] interpretation of the article and [my] use of tagging", what I "admitted" to was that the NPOV/Weasel tags were the tags, which although somewhat innacurate, I felt were the most representative of the issues in the article (I later revised this to the more accurate {{undue}}).
• Assuming you mean the June 1 message, I fail to understand how I'm under some obligation to reply to personal attacks and libel. But if you insist, you can, in more ways than one, say that this page is my reply.
• I have never considered the issue of NPOV/undue weight closed, unless by closed you mean I got turned off editing that article because of the onslaught of insults. I did consider the civility issues closed at one point in time, but you kept lashing out, again, and again.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see this issue wrapped up. From my perspective, the problems started when Headbomb added tags for {{advertising}}/{{npov}}/{{weasel}}/{{undue}} to the article, but did not explain what they were for. When asked, via his talk page, for comment, Headbomb gave this rather vague reply. The whole discussion would have been very different had Headbomb given us something to work with, but he hasn't. Read through his comments on the talk page and highlight the lines relevant to the article. I can't find many. I don't see how the article can be a Walled Garden when I have asked Headbomb to edit the article, and another editor is currently making changes and quietly staying out of this mess (very wise). For the record, anyone reading this is welcome to edit the article (especially if they have a photograph of a bottle of Malvern Water!). I find it frustrating to be told something is wrong with the article, but not knowing what. I still do not know what is wrong, despite asking for clarification. I initially tried to engage with Headbomb, but gave up in exasperation. The piece has since been edited actively over the past few days, and certainly looks better than it did. Maybe the issues (with the article at least) have now gone away? If an editor is unhappy with an article but cannot find an appropriate tag, isn't it more helpful to start a conversation on the talk page than applying an inappropriate tag? GyroMagician (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Let's not drag the content dispute over here, the purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with civility issues. The problem is that Headbomb was subjected to a flurry of personal attacks, threats of ANI reports, and childish insults. If all the involved editors could indicate that they understand and will abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in the future then the matter is closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, as I have done nothing to violate those rules. Warning a disruptive user about what course of action will be taken is common place on Wikipedia, why do you think all the warning templates have something along the lines of "if you continue you may be blocked from editing". Warning this disruptive editor that if he continues, the matter will be raised at ANI is no different. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing? Here's your own words: "... it was a stupid tagging, If there are any further additions of tags that don't apply, I shall take the issue to WP:ANI as disruptive behaviour. Tagging pages is not disruptive, but stifling discussion certainly is. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It *was* a stupid tagging, and I am well within my rights to say that, definately not a personal attack. "If there are any further additions of tags that don't apply, I shall take the issue to WP:ANI as disruptive behaviour" - again, nothing uncivil there, just a warning regarding your disruptive behaviour. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - no. "Stupid" means lacking intelligence and edits don't have intelligence - editors do. That was a highly inappropriate comment on the editor, and Jenuk1985 should know that. Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I call the editor stupid? No, did I call the action stupid? Yes. End of story. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not end of story. You fail to see how your actions are uncivil, which is why we are here and why you need uninvolved parties such as me to tell you this. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing a particular action isn't particularly uncivil in my opinion. A bit rude at most in my eyes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing a tag removal is a criticism of the article content, not the person making the edit. Discussing content should be encouraged, not discouraged. "That was a silly thing to do" ≠ "You are a silly person". This is a trivial, pointless argument. Get back to arguing as much as you like about the content, and forget the personal stuff. I see absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in continuing such a discussion. Why don't we take a step back, and look at improving articles.  Chzz  ►  19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While I may feel you have a stupid opinion, it would be uncivil of me to say so. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Sorry, I didn't mean to drag out the arguement, I'm just trying to explain my frustration (I'm new to the process here). But, yes, sure, I will happily stick to NPA/CIVIL. GyroMagician (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, thanks for your help with this. I'd like to ask how I can ask that Headbomb should start a discussion along with article tags. I'm guessing this is the wrong place to discuss the issue, but I don't know where the right place would be? If you could point me in the right direction, that would be appreciated. I don't think we handled the issue very well, but I still think it is a problem. GyroMagician (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

filling the gaps

As one of the accused parties, let me just take a step back and review this situation once and for all before it is closed, and we all get back to work (although my enthusiasm for the WP has been somewhat dampened by the future expectation of the new editing methods that I was unaware of , and of the toleration of filthy language.)
As some people consider it helpful to quote messages out of context, we can all play this game and maybe this will help fill some of the gaps:

• I'll let you restore the tag. If it's there when I come back, I'll assume it means you'll want to improve the article. If not, I'll leave you alone, as I have better things to do with my time than being insulted at some ungodly rate. (Headbomb)

• I had considered the issue dropped. You have still not given any help. I still do not understand what you think is missing/wrong/weasel/pov. If you have any useful advice about how to improve the article, I'm listening. ... GyroMagician (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• You swapped one tagging for another, without any comment.... We need something solid here, not some ramble about mushrooms. Kudpung has written an excellent, well referenced, starter article. Your input, so far, has been a gallery of tags. As others have suggested, rather than reviewing 100-200 articles too quickly (and annoying all those editors), why not review 10 articles carefully? GyroMagician (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is sufficient consensus against Headbomb's tagging, ... I too will wait for more comment from others, failing which, I also vote for going to WP:ANI. --Kudpung (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• "go away you're a nuisance who's only goal is to piss us off" Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't be a dick (Headbpmb)

• This article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole, and if you disagree you are a moron". Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Headbomb, I think you've got yourself into a knot over this issue. ...The best thing to do now is let us all as responsible and mature editors/contributors get on with our various projects and save time all round, and if you have a particular interest in Worcestershire and something to offer, you are welcome to join our Wiki project. --Kudpung (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• If he ... can't communicate in a mature manner, or pastes another different tag to avoid the 3RR rule I'll go to arbitration. Making up totally exaggerated 'hypothetical' examples for comparison of what he thinks should appear, is not constructive criticism and is a waste of Wikipedians' time....Kudpung (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I will happily agree to abide by the rules, however, I'm afraid I must disagree with Beeblebrox in part. Although this is about a civility issue, one must take into account how and why the issue arose and why Headbomb's complaint on this page is purely preemptive. Headbomb did simply tag it and ignore it, and he did only engage in conversation when (politely) asked. His ensuing actions were merely frivolous comments that have little to do with the article's text, and nothing to do with analogy. Like GyroMagician, I shall try to find out how Wikipedia policy makers think it can be possible for an editor to make 200 objective taggings in one day, and how making inappropriate analogies can be of help to serious authors who clearly have a nascent article well in control.
A chronological review of the various statements and actions will prove without any doubt whatsoever that Headbomb, in spite of our offers of an olive branch, is the one who is unable to let the matter rest and that his complaint here is purely preemptive, because he was warned first.
I have enjoyed working with others over the past four years to create serious contributions to the Wiki and to put less serious articles right, but if this are the new methods of editing that are to be expected in the future, unless Headbomb also expresses a committment to improve his editing methods, I shall probably lose my enthusiasm for being a creative writer, and and become a very critical editor of editors instead.

I will conclude with an administrator's advice on this very page:

• Review open items and when you find one that you feel you can help with, visit the relevant pages and observe the situation. When you are ready, enter your helpful comments and strive to improve the situation...
  Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• The only issues of concern here are the personal attacks and incivility, not the relative merits of the tags. You have clearly demonstrated that it has gone both ways, and so I will revise my position: All of you that have engaged in insults, name calling, and other personal attacks and incivil behavior need to understand that this kind of behavior is not conducive to building the encyclopedia, and if it persists, offending parties probably will end up being reported an WP:ANI or elsewhere and being blocked. If there is still a content issue to settle, I would urge you to consider a request for comment in order to get input from previously uninvolved parties on that, as opposed to trying to get ArbCom involved. They won't take a case anyway if you haven't exhausted other options first. If there is edit warring, consider asking that page be protected until consensus is formed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving proper context (in bold is what Kudpung quoted)

• I tagged the article on the 25th, thinking it was clear. I was wrong, and clarified. So I tagged it again on the 31st, clarified what I meant, expressed my willingness to help, and you're all "go away you're a nuisance who's only goal is to piss us off". (by headbomb)
• Don't be a dick (Headbpmb) (I have no clue who said this and where, but I know I never said it)
• Since the clarification, I've essentially been given less than 24 hours to fix an article, most of which had to spend on this talk page arguing about petty remarks and justification for the tags. That's not a very good climate for collaboration, nor a lot of time to do something about the article. {{undue}} writes "An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole.", not "This article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole, and if you disagree you are a moron". (by headbomb)

And lastly, threats and insults are about as far removed from olive branches as I can imagine.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to say one more thing here. It seems there is a lot of exasperation here about all this talk on this issue, and I have to say I'm feeling it too. When this happens, it is time to take a break and stop arguing in circles. Clearly, there has been some unacceptable behavior around this article, but I think we've discussed it about enough. Actions speak louder than words, all of you who have resorted to calling each other "stupid" "morons" or whatever should understand by this point that that is not how to go about things and, as evidenced by this long thread, leads to drama as opposed to content building. So, may I suggest that you all do something else for a few days, either here on Wikipedia or, even better, in the real world. Try to come back with a fresh perspective and listen to each other instead of resorting to insults and name calling. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• "All of you that have engaged in insults, name calling, and other personal attacks and incivil behavior". I think its about time you exclude my name from this "all of you", as has already been established above, calling an action stupid does not fall into any of those categories. And if you do wish to take this matter further, I suggest taking it to ANI, as I have no intention of stepping down on this matter, and if I see another stupid action in the future, I will call it stupid again. I will not be bullied into throwing common sense out of the window. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:39, 5 June 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.

Repeated PAs by User:BillCJ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

All parties are advised not to engage in such behavior in the future, report to WP:ANI if there is a pattern of personal attacks Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

---

User:BillCJ disagrees about some changes I made to Eurocopter AS332 and Heavy Transport Helicopter. He avoids discussion, instead falling back to personal attacks in several edit summaries ([62], [63], [64]). My request to stop his personal attacks are reverted.

Please tell Bill that he should stop personal attacking me and enter the discussion. --91.55.206.73 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Third-party comment: This is not worth the space/ time being used to discuss it. Said IP user likewise exhibited uncivil behavior with this edit, but has since acknowledged it. I think the parties should just shake hands and go their separate ways. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This opinion is bit puzzling; as an IP, one is blocked for much less. --91.55.206.73 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The first two edit summaries were good faith interpretations of your editing as vandalism, albeit "strange", as you didn't explain yourself. Your civil behavior after this suggests that blocking would be punitive and not actually helping the project. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"good faith interpretations of your editing as vandalism" is nonsense. Good faith means be assuming that an edit is an attempt to be productive not the opposite. Vandalism is an interpretation of bad faith and the term should only be used when an edit is clearly a deliberate attempt to compromise wikipedia. This was not the case hear and the edits should not have been marked as vandalism. --neon white talk 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

However, though blocking for civility is not warrented, both of you could easily be blocked for edit warring there; I suggest you stop reverting one another and discuss the problem on the talk page.The Seeker 4 Talk 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As demonstrated, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the point. BillCJ has only to agree to cease the insults and assume good faith on my part.

(Actually if one template deserve cussing, it's this one.) --91.55.206.73 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

BillCJ's reaction to this alert: He insulted me again. I think something more than just a shake of hands is in order. --91.55.206.73 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I retain my opinion that a truce is in order. <-- Please read. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting for some comment from Bill, but there is none. So whatever is in order, Bill isn't available for a truce. --91.55.196.144 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

3rd party comment As a reasonably experienced editor on Wikipedia I have seen too many occasions where IP editors have made a series of seemingly innocuous edits without edit summaries that eventually add up to a very subtle form of vandalism. Often these edits individually seem fair enough but in total they are not. Unexplained edits by IPs are usually indistinguishable from such vandalism and I too will revert them unless it is very apparent that the edit is genuine and/or serves a useful purpose. All this would have been avoided if the IP editor here registered an account and used edit summaries. He/she also seems to be rather thin skinned, calling apparent vandalism by its name is not an insult - if you expect others to assume good faith, you should assume it yourself. This shows an extreme lack of good faith and very uncivil behaviour and frankly from that point the IP has lost all credibility with me, whatever apparent contrition he/she has made since. If you wish to make edits that are not instantly reverted by editors concerned with maintaining the validity of Wikipedia then supply edit summaries and register an account. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"[E]ditors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." So in effect Nick is promoting to ignore one of Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't see why this would be a useful comment.

I called the allegation of vandalism a personal attack, not an insult.

Nick Thorne is however, neatly evading the basic question: Is BillCJ allowed to insult fellow editors without consequences? In fact, would he be allowed to insult me even assuming that my edits were bad faith edits (which they were not)? --91.55.196.144 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To 91.55.196.144 (talk): You lost any credibility with regard to your good faith through This edit. That was all your own work, don't try to blame Bill for that. Then you say that you called the allegations of vandalism a personal attack not an insult, well [65] and [66] give the lie to this. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim and you have not shown evidence of Bill insulting you at all. He has (accurately IMO) described the edits you have made as being apparent vandalism, that is not directed to you, but to your edits. You seem unable to distinguish between comments about your actions and personal attacks - they are not the same thing at all. I have explained why the types of edits you have been making are indistinguishable from vandalism, but you have conveniently chosen to ignore that most substantive part of my previous post. Is that an indication of good faith? I think not. You say I have evaded the basic question, this is incorrect. You do not have the right to decide what the main issue is: you may provide your evidence, that is all. Others who choose to contribute here are entitled to decide for themselves what the real issues are. As I said before, had you bothered to use edit summaries and use a registered user account, none of this would have happened. That is what the real issue is IMHO and you still don't get it. You seem to be acting like a three year old who has not got his way and so throws a tantrum. Instead of slagging off at BillCJ who is a long time editor of good standing, I suggest you get your own house in order first. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• You think that cursing over an obviously broken template calls for being insulted? Or that it calls for abandoning all assumption of good faith? If not, what's your point?
• Check your links and post a correction. Your diffs do not prove your accusation.
• Bill called me "dumb" and "not that bright", I provided diffs. Do you claim that these are not personal attacks? Quote: "how can one person be so dumb!" and "Some people are just not that bright!" (my emphasis) Do you claim that these are directed at my actions?
• Before my actions are getting relevant to this discussion you first have to show that personal attacks would be justified by them. These were in fact the most unsubstantial parts of your post.
• Is BillCJ allowed to insult fellow editors without consequences? --91.55.196.144 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been ample opportunity for BillCJ to comment on the issue. Since the facts are clear, I call for some kind of sanction. --91.55.196.144 (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The facts are indeed clear, but not the way you think. You should go and register an account and even more so, you should start using edit summaries. BillCJ has no case to answer. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So is it or is it not allowed to break NPA and call someone "dumb" and "not that bright"? In what circumstances? --91.55.196.144 (talk)

3rd party comment Bill's conduct looks OK to me. Some of his edits could have had politer edit summaries, but none are particularly bad, and the IP's behavior is much worse. If you want to be taken seriously, please register an account and use polite edit summaries - this is particularly the case as your IP appears to be dynamic. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate, which of my behaviors is much worse than calling someone "dumb" or "not that bright". If you think these are ok, it follows that it is ok to call you "dumb". --91.55.196.144 (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this one? or are you pretending that this was not you? - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cussing about a broken and seemingly unfixable template is not "much worse" than personal attacks. You know that. --91.55.196.144 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents here... if you want to be taken seriously, register an account on wikipedia and take charge, bear the responsibility that comes with it. Matter of fact, we don't know who you are and what IP you might be using next to edit on wikipedia, and you might be someone who had an argument with Bill prior to this for all we know. So if you deem this as a PA against you, then I'd suggest that you think again. We had it worst, look at my account and you'd realised that I had been the target of many PAs by other anon IP and I don't give a rat ass about it. Like I've mentioned earlier, register an account if you want to be taken seriously. Accountability is the keyword here. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question above: Is BillCJ allowed to insult IP editors without consequences? Does calling and IP editor "dumb" and "not that bright" constitute a PA? --91.55.196.144 (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then let me be equally blunt here, why aren't you registering an account for yourself? Afraid we might find out that you are actually an editor who had an argument with Bill before this? Or maybe you're someone who was blocked by wikipedia for certain violations? Or perhaps you're the sockpuppet/meatpuppet for someone? We could go on and on about this, you know? We get our fair shares of insults and name callings by anon IP, I think I speak for most wikipedians that we don't and we won't take it seriously. Why should we? Since there is already so many vandalism by anon IPs, what makes you think that we will take you seriously? PS: Go register! --Dave1185 (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF

None of this answers my questions: Is BillCJ allowed to insult IP editors without consequences? Does calling and IP editor "dumb" and "not that bright" constitute a PA? --91.55.196.144 (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I checked your edit history and noted its all directed to this particular issue here in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, what gives? And I'm sure a lot of the regular folks here might already understand what I'm driving at now. BTW, does Deutsche Telekom AG and Weilerswist ring a bell to someone here? --Dave1185 (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP address, and I'm currently too involved in this to start something else.

Deutsche Telekom is I think the largest ISP in Europe. What's your point? Go ahead and CU me, that might get rid of your baseless allegations. --91.55.196.144 (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• CU you for what? Read WP:DENY for trollish behaviors displayed by WP:Troll. Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be right. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, for what? --91.55.196.144 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Stop trying to force an editor to get an account, as it's permissible according to the rules. Everyone already knows that:

• IP editors are (and will always be) taken less seriously
• IP editors are less anonymous, as they can be tracked due to the open-ness of IP registries. Indeed, if needed, you can track an IP address right to their house.
• IP editors need to be more carefully to label all edits clearly in the edit summary, as historically, IP's tend to do more vandalism
• You will never build up a "body of work" by editing as an dynamic IP, so you can never brag "I edited over 10000 Wikipedia articles" because you can't prove it
• All that stuff about watchlists, etc just don't happen without an account.

Further attempts at Wikipoodling the IP editor to try and force them to get an account will not be tolerated. All individual edits must be judged in conjunction with their edit summaries. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is trying to force the IP editor to do anything. However, I at least have been trying to point out to him that he is the architect of his own problems in that had he edited using an account and had he used edit summaries, none of this would have happened. BTW, I have no idea what "wikipoodling" is (and it is not found by a search in the wiki), so I cannot tell whether or not I am doing it. Thus your admonishement perhaps misses its target (if indeed it was directed at me). - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Being insulted is my fault now? This is getting ridiculous. Stop harassing me. --91.55.196.144 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with you: do not feed the troll. I reserve the right to reply to any other editors here, however. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it woulds be a good idea to withdraw as you're comments are not exactly helpful. Both your and User:Dave1185's obvious prejudice against non-registered accounts is becoming a more pressing concern that the original problems. Good faith should be assumed with all editors. --neon white talk 23:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy spending the odd hour reverting vandals, and I agree with Nick Thorne that an IP Editor, no edit summaries, repeatedly adding or deleting blank spaces would get viewed as as vandalism because there would apparently be no reason to do it, and a named editor kept reversing it. IP vandals do some weird shit - there is one who adds some immensely rude statement in the middle of a para, then immediately deletes it himself. I think he must get off on it. And it's not so much your cussing at the template in that edit summary that's the problem, as the attitude you display to the other user. You have apparently only been editing for two days (although as you have a dynamic IP address, who knows how long you've been here) - why is this white space business so important to you. You pulled the same stunt on Opel Diplomat but the other guy didn't come back and revert you the last time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is no reason to do it you are required to assume good faith. --neon white talk 23:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Neon - if they did it just once, I wouldn't even notice, but an IP persistently removing (or adding) whitespace and being reverted for it, I would. I would also guess that the IP's initial edits were being reverted by editors quicker off the draw than I am. In this case, the IP does seem a bit obsessed about whitespace.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mum's the word, read WP:DENY~! --Dave1185 (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think you're right.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think that none of my actions would warrant being insulted, but I will indulge you this time: The articles in question use a broken template (BillCJ agrees here). I fixed it, bringing it back to what you would expect for an unbroken template.

Please point out where my attitude towards others it lacking. --91.55.196.144 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Recapitulation

I fixed three instances in two articles where a broken template changed the way the article is displayed. User:BillCJ reverted my changes. We reverted each other for some time.

During the edit war, BillCJ personally attacked me thrice: By calling my changes vandalism and by calling myself dumb. As a reaction, I asked him to stop the personal attacks on his usertalk. He simply reverted my request.

Since a normal discussion seemed to be impossible, I opened this alert on WP:WQA. BillCJ was informed a few minutes later (reformatted by User:Cobaltbluetony).

BillCJ's reaction to this alert: He insulted me again. He hasn't taken part in the discussion yet.

During the discussion:

• I was called a troll, a liar (using wrong evidence), "acting like a three year old [sic]" and a vandal.
• It was also implied that I was a sockpuppet.
• A common cuss word I aimed at the broken template was used as a reason to assume bad faith on my part henceforth.
• Ironically, I was also charged a lack of good faith (again with wrong evidence).
• The insults are discussed very little if at all.

Some questions:

• Is BillCJ allowed to insult fellow editors without consequences? Is he allowed to insult IP editors?
• Why are some editors harassing me for pointing out an obvious breach of Wikipedia's guidelines? Are they right to do so?

Since the policy seems to be clear on the issue, and since there is no indication that BillCJ would act differently in the future, I call for a sanction against his behavior. Since the only sanction around here seems to be a block, I suggest a very short block. --91.55.196.144 (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're driving at punitive action; that is, you want Bill punished. (We don't do that sort of thing; blocks for disruptive behavior are for persistence in any such behavior; see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption.) He seems to have backed off completely, perhaps in order to keep cool. I suggest you likewise drop the subject and think about actually helping out around here. This nitpicking and insistence on coming out the victor is NOT helping. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Your complaints have been looked into by several editors and have been judged to not warrant any action, and repeating them isn't going to make any difference. Your use of this forum to continue to complain about Bill, who is an experienced editor with a great reputation, is getting very close to trolling or outright harassment. Nick-D (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that a number of editors have actually contributed poorly to this WQA and confused the matter. There is evidence of some minor personal attacks and the mislabelling of edits as vandalism. A reminder about this would help but nothing else is needed. --neon white talk 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"A great reputation" - How to counter such an inexplicable statement without getting personal?

I want clarification. In the face of a blatant break of policy, and no indication of change in future similar cases, why is there no sanction, not even a slap on the wrist? --91.55.253.79 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony, imagine you want to improve on a community project and are insulted for your efforts. Calling others to comment, your are being bullied while the insults are not even discussed. What does that remind you of more, a working legal system or a school yard?

Take a step back and try to see the matter from the point of view of a neutral outsider. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Third part comment: BillCJ is not by now acting in not so friendly manner. Last time i have to do with him, he was acting exactly in the same way. In BAe Hawk page i made some editing. Well, do you know? He reverted my edits at will without any discussion and problem. When i protested for this form of censorship (what else? See WP:OWN), mr. BillCJ simply reverted my posts in his discussion page and reiterated his convinction to be right to delete at will my edits: [67] and [68]. Mr. BillCJ is not even considering that Wikipedia is not needing his censorship. Deleting my edits in the Ns0, and later, deleting my posts by his talk page, for him it's 'natural'. He is perhaps the master of wikipedia, does he can do anything he wants? And i am not the only one that is experiencing this attitude to not discuss at all, just reverting anything he wants, typical of BillCJ. So, what's the point to have all that fair policies if someone can deny to who he wants to edit in Ns0? This attitude of mr.BillCJ should be considered higly problematic, not only because he reverts edits (sometimes rightfully, sometimes not), but because he refuses basically every kind of discussion: 'it's so, i decided it'. If someone would acting in such way, wikipedia would be cooked. So this user should be considered really problematic, because he refuses any wikipedia collaboration policies: he lives in a own world in which he is always right and never has to discuss with other editors. Just see his history page: [69] how much times he reveted even the posts of his censored editors.

So we have: 1-BillCJ is moving outside every kind of wikinette policies; 2-He is always 'right' and the others are wrong, because they are trolls, vandals, poor grammar, unreferenced and so on 3-he never discussed things, like he doesn't not even now, here, and it's not surely to 'cool things', but rather to not bother with. So just tell me how is behavouir is 'wikipedian-compatible' and don't deserves any conseguence. Or everyone is allowed to do like him, or it must be written a policy that explains WHY 'some are more equals than others, seen how BillCJ is avoiding any discussion and still, he is defended for his actions.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:UP#CMT editors are able to remove comments from their own user talk pages at any time, so that's not a grounds for complaint. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You simply avoid to take the point Nick. Bill is not allowed to delete everything thing he wants, like he does. It seems that since Bill is a experienced editor and has great(sic) reputation (your opinion), then he is allowed to hold a definitively 'unfriendly' attitudes. The point is the lack of any capability to inter-act with editors that, as his judice, are not good enough to post in Ns0. This is, or should be, needless to say, highly forbidden in wikipedia. Bill is not allowed to remove contributions without any compromises, without any talk, trial, discussion. It does not matter how you rate him, the point is that wikipedia can be edited without his permission. Please read WP:OWN. If you don't agree, why to not go to [70] and delete all? If BillCJ is abilited to 1-remove all he wants 2-don't answer to any editore he don't like 3-delete even the messages 'because he can', then this is 'play with rules', using them to attack other contributors. Why Bill is not coming here? Because he refuses any discussion. And he is encouraged to hold this attitude by justifications gave to him. If every contributor will start to revert all he wants without discussion, calling others as vandals, trolls and ignorants, then Wikipedia would fail miserably.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence of this? or we cannot look into it. --neon white talk 23:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The link above i posted could helps. The point shold be that no one editor can forbit another to edit and not even trying to discuss the material reverted. It is recomended, but who really cares? When i made BAe Hawk edit [71] i gave some materials, lather moved (by me) in the discussion page[72] and there is still awaiting for discussion, that obviously, nobody was interested to hold, surely not BillCJ that 'don't cares'. But who is to speak: Reverted poorly written and partly uncited addions by Stefanomencarelli - too focused on minor details? If someone contribues to wikipedia, it is not expected to be censored by other editors with these reasons. Even if the material could be always questioned, it's unuseful for the project throw away everything w.o. discussions at all and never trying to start one as peer to peer review. I am not in the position to make editing in the Ns0 because the judge BillCJ has stated so? No room for a discussion, a compromise, nothing? In this case Wikipedia's policies are easily eluded HIMO.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate place to raise these issues. This case is about the obsession of one IP editor with white space on one wiki article and his apparent inability to stop flogging a dead horse after being told by a number of un-involved editors that his complaints lack merit. If your concerns have substance, then by all means raise you own case (but be prepared to accept that other editors may not see things the way you do), otherwise you risk being seen as indulging in harrassment and/or wiki-stalking of BillCJ. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That really made me laugh. I'm harassed for two days by people adding nothing to "this case" and now you find that we should stay on-topic? How about calling the editors to order who called me troll, a liar and used fake evidence to "prove" it?

Oops, you are one of them. Never mind. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

BillCJ's Reply

Found here:

I've been following the "complaint" against me, and was considering replying there. However, User:Stefanomencarelli has commented as a so-called "third-party". This user was banned for 1 year for the exact things I reverted him for, and I won't participate in his vendatta against me, or be reading up on the discussion anymore. I still can't read his bad English either, which is why his "contributions" are continually removed from articles by other editors besides myself, among other problems. As for why I'm staying out of the discussions altogether: less stress! With the exception of two users, the other editors don't see a problem. Oh, I'm still laughing at the IP's comment about having "fixed" the broken template! All he did was hide the problem on 2 pages - the template is still broken - he fixed nothing. And for the record, I like the line spaces on the edit screen because I have bad eyesight, and the spaces help to break up the long templates, especially after several hours at the computer. I don't see how the extra linebreak in the article itself affects anyone, other than looking a bit funny. I'll go in favor of eyesight, plus the articles won't need to be adjusted when the specs template is finally fixed. - BillCJ (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

91.55.253.79 (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a blatant case of PA, I don't need a majority to see that. If you disagree you have to agree to be called "dumb" and "not that bright" in the future. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dear 91.55.253.79, or should we say Stefanomencarelli? Just what is the thing you are driving at? Your very actions here speaks not too highly of the quality in your behavioral pattern and mental projection; yet you have the audacity to ask us to AGF? Look at you! You ask us to AGF and look at the kind of disruptive attitude you have shown to us, thus far. My question to you now is: "Do you really want us to take you seriously?"; and my answer to you is: "I don't think so!". I don't have much confidence in your accusation, which is noted to be kind of vindictive, if not vengeful, in nature. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

...and the rule with accusations are "File your SPI case, or stop accusing" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks, and stop the libel. Answer to the points I have raised. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to retract the word "libel" ... that's bordering on a legal threat (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(Like any real judge would be interested in hearing this...)

To clarify: The word "libel" is only meant in the context of Wikipedia: He accused me of a blocky offense without any evidence. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree likewise with the use of the term "slander"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Would I agree to use the term "slander" instead of "libel"? I used the second because Defamation explains that libel is for written words. I'm not a native speaker, I probably don't see the finer points here. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the fact that you accused a user of "libel" and the named user accused the same user of "slander". [73] Similar wording, while it may be coincidental, raises suspicions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that again. Stop accusing and file your SPI. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have accused no one. I am simply raising questions. When you file a complaint about another editor, your own behavior also comes under scrutiny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is sophistry. Your questions are accusatory. Stop it and file your SPI. (I would really like to see your evidence: "They both used... similar words! Guilty! Guilty!") --91.55.253.79 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Many use "libel" and "slander" synonymously. And since two users are coming to each others' defense, with similarly over-reactive attitudes about very mild comments, and using those two terms in a similar way, it looks fishy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop accusing and file your SPI. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mini-reply

Well, i have just three things more to say:

• Dave: why you don't do a CU? Arguing i am the IP it would be seen as an personal attack, seen you should presume 'good faith'. I have no secrets to hide. Your accuse is clear. I ask for a CU on me and that IP, and then i'll ask for your apologies. Eh, when it's enough it's enough.
• Nick, the attitude of BillCJ is not different moving by that IP to a 'regular user'. It' amazing that you miss this point
• Bill, dear,'Vendetta' not 'Vendatta'. As the rest of his post, he insults me openly. No one sees a problem here? I would remember that wiki.en is 'international' and gains a LOT because this. So you have not to blame foreigner contributions, even without a 'perfect' english. As for contribution, well, the manner in which Bill has written it (in his usual 'gentle style') is already an insult. Like it or not, i wrote almost all italian aviation WWII section, even with some adjustement needed (i don't say not, of course). Before me, the mighty wiki.en had few or nothing in this sector. Now it's far different. But not enough, since the insults of BillCJ are not questioned. He is came here and still renewed attacks (quite personal) on my work (around one MB). If he was better than me to write about italian c.a. in WWII, then he has still to proof it. I did my best, he seems not. While i came here only to contribue on this project. Do you see any loss of time and waste of edits in my homepage User:Stefanomencarelli? Not. I believe in the Ns0, not to enrich my user page as many does; this would allow some degree of respect. It's not so.

This wikinette page wuold explain that, in fact and in spite of some basic rules, there are editors authorized to censor others, no matter if their contribution worths or not. The fact that BillCJ is able to come here and simply explain how he not want to talk/discuss/re-elaborate instead to 'delete on the spot', and nobody sees a problem with, it's really impressive.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked...

Dave asked me to express my opinion here. It looks to me like BillCJ could have been a little more tactful in his edit summaries, but it also looks to me like the IP address is way overreacting, which tends to look like trolling behavior. If everyone would, for the time being, restrict their activities to discussing the content issues in the talk pages, that could go a long way toward resolving this.
And you wonder why I'm happy not to be an admin. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way am I overreacting? Where is the over-the-top statement I made? Where am I insisting on a topical item (i.e. referring to the insults) to which another editor has stated a disagreement? --91.55.253.79 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action would you like to be taken against BillCJ? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I don't see anything beside blocks. I've asked for a very short block above. I would love to hear about alternatives. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is to focus on the content issue and not get all worked up over very mild editorial comments, especially after you dropped the F-bomb, which is a thousand times worse than anything BillCJ said. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Look up: Am I the one dilluting the matter?

A thousand times? I that an accurate measurement? Anyway, he his free to post his own alert, please don't bring up another diversion. --91.55.253.79 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How is saying fuck "a thousand times worse" than calling another editor stupid? I don't think anyone needs to be blocked here, but WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are both policies. I don't believe one is a thousand times more applicable. IP, get over it, and stay civil. BillCJ, stop insulting other editors, no matter who you think they may be or what you think their agendas are. --Onorem♠Dil 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This section was raised most likely because the IP wants the user blocked so that he can feel free to make his changes without interference. This complaint should be closed as being frivolous, and the content changes should be worked out on the article talk pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, so my Evil Master Plan is to "way overreact", to "beat the dead horse" and to raise all kind of hell... to clandestinely implement the changes that are already status quo for two days?

Please elaborate on the "frivilous". Is "dumb" an insult or not? --91.55.253.79 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not worthy of blocking. Listen to the advice given by many on this page: Drop this and go back to editing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from an administrative perspective: My perception of the purpose of blocks is not to punish, but to prevent disruption. In this case, BillCJ would have to be persisting in disruptive behavior -- which he's not; he's dropped it and is avoiding interaction with his accuser. The disruption, IMO, is coming from the IP editor continually beating a dead horse. Therefore, I recommend ending this discussion unless and until BillCJ "offends" again. Thereafter, if any further noise on this issue comes up from this IP editor, it should be rollbacked. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd very much like to hear something from the horse's mouth but I guess it can't be help now, right eh? Toodles~! --Dave1185 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 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.

Slander by User:Balkanian`s word

Resolved

 – Both parties seem to understand how to proceed in a civilized manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Recently, this user, angry at me for having reported him for a 3RR violation, has embarked on campaign to refer to me exclusively as "the reverter" [74] [75]. I warned him to stop [76], and this [77] was his response (not untypical, by the way). Can something be done about this? He needs to be warned in the strongest possible terms to cease this kind of behavior, or else be blocked for it. --Athenean (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I was refering to this user as the reverter, because he always reverts my edits. This was not ment to be an offense, but just a fact. So, if this user thinks it is a slander, he may have told me. But, he did not: he asked me to call him "The reverter" one more time, without asking me not to call him this way. Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no reason to "warn in the strongest possible terms." What would be better would be if you two avoided each other. This noticeboard is for reporting blatant incivility and personal attacks, not mildly disagreeable characterizations. Also, accusations of slander border on legal threats, which can get you blocked. Also, you didn't warn him to stop, you dared him to do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't avoid him as we edit the same articles, but I find the consistent reference to me as "the reverter" highly, not mildly, disparaging, as well as an attempt to discredit me. I do not want to see myself referred to as "the reverter", it's that simple. --Athenean (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered asking him not to as opposed to daring him to do it and baiting him? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true, unfortunately, we cannot avoid each other, since he is reverting the same articles, I edit. The problem is that he can ask me not to call him in some way, without bagging to get me blocked.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you cannot avoid one another for the long-term, then walk away, even if it means from the computer entirely, until you both settle down. The exchange demonstrated by the last two diffs in Athenean's first posting are the epitome of childishness on both sides. (no, I am not name calling, I am saying the edits made were childish, just as there are edits I have made I am sure that could be called "stupid"). Daring someone to do something, followed by that person doing it again shows neither of you are calm enough right now to edit, so I say take a 1-day wikibreak, or at least long enough to cease the inappropriate behavior. Nothing here is a blatant personal attack, but continued incivility is disruptive, and refusing to halt disruptive behavior is blockable. Athenean, try to avoid Balkanian's word and especially try to make a point of not reverting his edits if you can help it. If he makes a truely troublesome edit someone else will certainly fix it. Balkanian's word, stop referring to Athenean as "the reverter" since 1) it is incivil especially since he has told you to stop (even if he hasn't before now, this thread certainly is telling you he doesn't appreciate it) and 2) it is designed to be disparaging and baiting. I also suggest that if someone reverts your edit, whether it is Athenean or someone else, instead of reverting them, try discussing the edit on the talk page. If you proceeded in this manner in the first place you would never have been blocked for a 3RR violation. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Points taken, I have plenty of other things to do right now anyway. Taunting him was definitely not the smartest move on my part, and I will refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks. --Athenean (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you The Seeker 4 Talk. Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:32, 5 June 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:Greglocock: incivility and threats

User:Greglocock promised me some of his 'special attention' after for disagreeing with his edits (he insisted on using an unaccessable, potentially unreliable wartime primary source). Recently he addressed all other editors (often) disagreeing with his POV as 'fanbois'. When the the reference he 'requested' was given to him, he addressed these as 'fanboi exaggeration' and threatened to 'clean up the mess' which I would 'not enjoy'. User:Greglocock was already warned to refrain from incivility. Kurfürst (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No response required. Greglocock (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From the diffs I have seen the "fanboi" namecalling is a little much, but not severe enough to be called a serious personal attack. Saying that he is going to single you out for "special attention", though, that is very uncivil, certainly seems to me to be a threat, and a threat to edit war with you. User:Mmyers1976|Mmyers1976]] (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem a well meaning soul. I suggest you check K's remarkably long history of 3RR antics, and subsequent blocks, before you get sucked in. Cheers Greglocock (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Has absoltely no relevance, you are required to be civil to all editors. There is no mitigation or excuses. --neon white talk 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, perhaps its been worth noting that Kurfurst falsely accussed Greglock of falsifying citations! Kurfurst is not being truthful with sources, claiming they contained information which they do not - as had been proved on the Tirpitz article (the book was on google books). He complains about everyone, yet the only one who is guilty of incivility is himself. Is it any wonder he is loathed by all those he deals with. Why don't you take a look at his block log, and his talk page - where he deletes all his blocks . This editor is extreme trouble and thats why others police his edits. Dapi89 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All irrelevant, civility is not dependant on others being civil to you. --neon white talk 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, talk about missing the point. I'm saying: shouldn't you be giving him the same warning? Dapi89 (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A WQA is about a specific editor. --neon white talk 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:IbnAmioun

User IbnAmioun has written: "You should look at the consequences of obsessive stalking a character." [78]. I find this to be an impolite/uncivil communication, because it can be interpreted as a threat. Ulner (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing remotely threatening about that. This is a non issue. --neon white talk 16:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

IbnAmioun making uncivil comment in edit commentary: [[79]]. Ulner (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Allright fellas, let's just calm down. Ibn, your baiting of Ulner is unhelpful at best, and could be considered trolling. Ulner, don't take the bait, just ignore it. If you two are having a content dispute, discuss it on the talk page. If you find you can't agree, instead of taunting, try getting outside input via WP:3O or WP:RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux - I don't think I'm being rude...

Stuck

 – This is no longer serving any purpose, and is turning into a WP:LASTWORD contest Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Can someone please have a look at the interactions between myself and User:Roux at User talk:Roux? We've been conversing, and I think that we're not understanding each other 100%. The conversation has devolved into a conversation about who was rude when, and I would very much appreciate the perspective of a third party. To anyone agreeing to have a look, I thank you for your time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh for craps sake, I am soooo sick of arguments related to DougsTech. And that thread is very WP:TLDR. My quick advice, to you and Roux, and everyone else still talking about this, let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with DougsTech. He's dead and buried, and I no longer care about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a waste of time. I tried to get you to end this conversation after the second time you attacked me--allegedly due to 'careless' proofreading, but by this point I have my doubts. This conversation is over, and I will thank you to stop using me as your therapy. //roux   21:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your failure to assume good faith has been noted. For me, pointing out that a sane and intelligent person disagrees with you is light years away from claiming that you are anything other than sane and intelligent. If you're going to draw conclusions like that, then you'll mis-communicate over, and over, and over again. People who think that issues can only be correct on one side should wise up, and learn that almost every issue has at least two sides that reasonable people may support or believe. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with DougsTech. This is the third time in a few months that I've had an interaction something like this, and I'd like to learn from it. There is a certain personality type around here that I seem to be very bad at interacting with, despite my efforts. Since Roux has seemed willing to discuss, by continuing to reply, I thought I might learn something from this by asking for a third opinion. Roux has been offering to report me, but he hasn't done it, so I did it myself. If he's not willing to pursue dispute resolution, then maybe he shouldn't have threatened me with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You have posted here regarding what appears to be a long and quite heated discussion. To ask others to point out where you made "mistakes" to "learn from" is rather silly. From the looks of it your biggest mistake was continuing the conversation in the first place, as there were plenty of very non-subtle clues you weren't going to get anywhere. Soxwon (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well... I don't see what' silly about wanting to learn to communicate better. I have noticed that I have a weakness in my communication skills, but I guess this isn't a page where I can try to address that problem without being called "silly". Thanks for that feedback; and I guess this one's ready to archive.

The conversation didn't seem to be doing much, but Roux had some kind of openness to keep talking about it (until just now), so I got the impression he was trying to get something across to me. Excuse me for wanting to learn from my experiences. I'm clearly "doing it wrong". Goodbye. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It would probably help if you weren't being dishonest. My sole 'threat' to report you was if you continued to insist on posting to my talkpage after being asked not to; nothing to do with any dispute resolution, as I have zero interest in pursuing this any further. You--finally--apologised for all of your offensive behaviour, so this is at an end. //roux   21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You still think I meant to insult you. That's remarkable. Saying "there is another side that reasonable people take" apparently means "you're unreasonable". Good to know.

I'm not being dishonest. What possible motive would I have for that? Why does he keep giving me things to reply to? Why not actually end the conversation, by ending without throwing in little barbed attacks? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As odious as it may seem to leave unanswered the mischaracterizations and snipes that accompany the instructions to leave, don't take the bait. It became clear enough soon into my reading of the back-and-forth that your intentions were good and that the other party simply didn't want to accept them as such. So, I see no WP:NPA or WP:EQ violations on your part; it was even obvious to me that your one mistake of continuing the discussion was motivated by a desire to correct, clarify, learn, and resolve rather than to intentionally aggravate. Rest assured that any third party observer would not peg you as having been rude beyond that which you already quickly acknowledged and apologized for. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been told by more than one admin to LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. Do so. You haven't edited this page in at least seven months; there was absolutely no reason to come here now except to continue needling me further. GO. AWAY. Leave me alone. This is not difficult to understand: do not comment on or about me anywhere on Wikipedia; you have done enough damage to me as it is. GO AWAY. //roux   05:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody made you continue to read here, or reply here, Roux. If you consider the discussion over, as you've said repeatedly that you do, then stop commenting. Stop reading. Let it go.

If you reply, then it's clear that you do not consider the discussion over. Learn control. It should be easy for you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider the discussion with you over. That I hadn't removed this page from my watchlist yet was an oversight. I decided to make it crystal clear to Miesianiacal--again--that he is to leave me alone. The next infraction will be met with severe displeasure by at least two admins I know of, and probably several more. Also, I suggest you retract your insult--"child"--as this has gotten to the point where you simply refuse to stop attacking me for whatever reason. I don't know what you're getting out of this, but this is your final warning: stop attacking me. Period. I don't care what your explanation is, you will stop doing it now. I trust that is crystal clear. //roux   07:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to bark all day, little doggie, or are you going to bite? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Child" is the most generous thing I can call you at this point, child. If you're not, then you should be ashamed of your childish behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• (ec):Ok, let me take another swing at this. On the second of this month Roux began a message to you with the words "I think this discussion is at an end." Earlier today he began a message with "Should you persist in making any edits to my talk page, they will be treated as vandalism and you will be reverted." Obviously, Roux no longer sees any benefit in going around in circular debate with you, and yet you persist, making incedibly verbose comments that I won't even pretend I read. Read and understand WP:STICK. When an argument has gone two or three rounds with no one changing their position, there is generally no point in those same two persons continuing to argue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I wouldn't have kept posting, but he kept offering to converse with me if I make an appropriate apology. If someone says "Go away unless you're ready to apologize", and I'm ready to apologize, then I don't take that to mean, "just go away". If he didn't want a reply, then he shouldn't have kept pointing out the open door, and offering to converse with me after an apology. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Commment It is surprising that GTBacchus, whom I've thought a kind of a "sage" is accusing somebody of his incivility. That is very rare, but the accused person was reported to WQA by another admin recently. By the way I changed the title a little because it is not clear whom GTBacchus complains about.--Caspian blue 11:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I was doing my best to report myself, because he kept threatening to do it, and then not doing it. At some point, you gotta put your money where your mouth is, you know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated attacks by GTBacchus

See section above. This is out of hand. I gave him a final warning, he seems uninterested in desisting from the attacks, so it would seem that he needs to be blocked until he agrees to stop making personal attacks. //roux   07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank God he finally did it. I welcome review of my behavior regarding this "editor". -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone tells you to stop posting on his talk page, you should stop. That's why I no longer edit on your talk page, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He kept telling me that if I apologize properly, he'd converse with me. I kept trying to do so. If he wants me to go away, he should stop indicating an open door. I posted my last comment to his talk page a while ago, and he chose to attack someone here who posted an opinion. When I objected that it was unnecessary to do that, he went off on me, again. Thanks for your input, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:46, 7 June 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.

Behavior of User:Jezhotwells

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

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

I’m concerned about the civility of the actions of User:Jezhotwells relating to Eurovision Song Contest articles. WikiProject Eurovision had two similar articles nominated for Good Article status that would have become the ninth and tenth such Good Articles for the project. They had been awaiting reviews for more than a month, and an hour or so before Jezhotwells decided to take them on, an ip adds a comment stating that the reviewer should check the reliability of two of the sources [80]. When the review started, Jezhotwells decided to quickfail and claimed that the sites are blogs and therefore unreliable [81]. I came online right after he failed the first and sent him a message asking for clarification of why he would fail and pleaded for him to discuss this before he take anymore action. [82]. In what I feel to be a gross violation of assume good faith, he quick-failed the other article. From then on, a discussion began where I was lectured on what blogs and reliable sources are and a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard was started. Though there was an overall lack of participation in the discussion, two outside editors responded. One told me that Jezhotwell’s actions were uncivil and I should try a reassessment with another editor, [83] and another told me that the only problem he sees with the sources is that they may be overused and that I should diversify them before GA status is granted. [84]. The uncivil behavior continued when Jezhotwells informed me that he will reassess all of the other GAs of the project to make sure that the sources are reliable [85]. This action is highly POV as there is still no consensus that the sources are unreliable and it is highly unlikely that the many GA reviewers who reviewed the other Eurovision articles just made a mistake about the sources. I was just going to let this whole thing go and submit the two recent articles for reassessment, but the incivility continued this morning when he decided to tag several Eurovision articles with unreliable reference tags [86] [87] and then opened a reassessment on an article and decided to delist as a GA within minutes of starting the reassessment using his personal belief that the sites are blogs [88].

I ask administrators and other editors to look into this matter and determine if the actions of Jezhotwells were civil and determine if he assumed good faith. Most troubling to me is that after waiting so long for these articles to be reviewed, he failed them without even inquiring about the reliability of the sources, without asking for a second opinion, and without waiting for any response from the editor as is routine. I don’t see why they could not have been put on hold while a discussion of the reliability took place. He had a preexisting view on the subject and is carrying on with his edits as if he is right even though there is no consensus on the matter. I find it difficult and frustrating to edit and improve Eurovision pages knowing that he will be there to make a scene about the sources, or request a reassessment and motion to delist based on his personal beliefs once again. What use is having these two recent articles reassessed as he mentioned [89] if he will just personally reassess them later and fail them once again? What’s to stop him? He is going around telling me on a dozen or so articles that I have the burden of proof (which i do) yet there is a rough consensus that the sources are in fact reliable (also see here for a project-wide discussion on the reliability of Eurovision sources. His editing is disruptive and must stop. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've worked with Grk1011/Stephen on Eurovision articles.

Are OikoTimes and ESCToday blogs? They both have a long history of being regarded as WP:RS in Eurovision articles, and don't seem to me to be "blogs" - readers can comment on the main article, but that's possible at mainstream newspapers' websites too.

No comment on Jezhotwells's behaviour as I'm unfamiliar with this incident.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried taking this to Wikiquette alerts, yet? If not, I recommend going there, first. Otherwise, I do not see an immediate need for admin action. MuZemike 16:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, just looking at the second comment, the reliable sources noticeboard? MuZemike 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read carefully, I said we already had a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard ;) I'll copy paste the whole discussion to wikiquette alerts then, please put further responses there. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, please continue with the comments here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Response I quickfailed both articles as they rely almost exclusively on two multi-blog/fan sites, which do not have statements of editorial policy, have no contributors who are recognised experts published in WP:RS publications and which heavily rely on reposting information from other websites. The quickfail process is just what it says on the box, no discussion, just a decision on whether or not any major GA criteria were lacking, which clearly there were. The nominator complained at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Wrongful_quickfail about my action in somewhat intemperate language. He has been repeatedly referred to WP:GAR which is where such decisions may be re-assessed but has not taken that action yet. No proof has yet been offered that the disputed sources are reliable. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to give you the run-around, but I don't see this as a wikiquette issue at all. There is no blatant incivility or personal attacks, but rather a content dispute, that I think the reliable sources noticeboard could be more help with. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur ...where is the incivility? You don't agree with a decision, so that's a matter of talking and finding consensus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would reread the first few sentences then. The editor fails to realize that the sources were deemed reliable both by the few comments received on the reliable sources noticeboard and through the consensus achieved by the wikiproject. His disregard for the consensus and continued editing to reflect his view on the sources is what I view as uncivil, along with his second quickfail which i described above. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done still don't see it. I see that you "felt" there was incivility, but I don't see any evidence. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are violating WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict Still not seeing it. He's firmly referring to and dealing only with the article and it's sources. He doesn't appear to have said anything about you. This is primarily a dispute about sourcing, nothing to do with incivility.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's article and sourcing issues, prove them on the article talkpage ... link to any WP:RSN decisions. Do an RFC for the article to confirm. If you don't provide the proof, it can be challenged. This is not incivility. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• By your logic, BWilkins, Elen of the Roads, and myself are all now being incivil as well. Disagreement happens constantly at Wikipedia. What form that disagreement takes is what determines whether everyone is behaving civilly or not, and there is not a civility problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 7 June 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.