Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive70

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


User:WriteINGWell

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Now escalated to WP:ANI for little wake-up...and they have a fortnight rest to read those warnings
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I was referred here from Editor Assistance.

My concerns with this user are that he or she seems completely non-communicative in the face of multiple notices about his or her image uploads. He or she continues his or her upload pattern, blithely pushing ahead without paying any apparent attention to his or her talk page. I have posted a request for communication to no avail. His or her only talk page edits have been to delete a brief discussion on Talk:Snow White (Disney) without explanation or comment (twice).

WriteINGWell's article-space edits are often trivial or subtle changes in wording, yet he or she does occasionally provide useful, referenced information. (See, e.g., this series of 13 consecutive edits).

I appreciate any thoughts on where to go next.

-- Powers T 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If they fail to respond to talkpage notices, they likely need a little admin wake-up. I have escalated to WP:ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that this user has NEVER edited on their own or anyone else's talkpage, or any article talkpage, I do not believe that even replacing their talkpage with a picture of a bomb going off would have any effect. I suspect that they may not know that such pages exist. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 17 August 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.

Naming and shaming

Resolved
 – Section title renamed. Rd232 talk 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On 6 August a new User named Quantumechanic began contributing to Wikipedia. His early edits were all on the article Entropy. Three days later (9 August) a new thread was started at Talk:Entropy called:
Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all?
This title still appears at item 35 on the list of contents at Talk:Entropy.

This title is condescending and it names Quantumechanic explicitly. I believe it names and shames this newcomer.

Wikipedia should not name and shame individual Users, especially not on a much-visited talk page such as Talk:Entropy. Wikipedia is founded on its five pillars, the fourth of which is the Code of Conduct. Naming and shaming individual Users is not consistent with the Code of Conduct.

The User who created this new thread is a highly experienced contributor (3440 edits, first edit in 2004). I have written to him twice at his User talk page and asked that he amend the title of his new thread. See User talk:Count Iblis#Civility. He has not yet amended the title, and has defended his actions.

Wikipedia should not name and shame individual Users. The title of this new thread should be changed. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in fact does name and shame individual editors by blocking or banning them for violations of policies. So, your last statement suggesting that naming and shaming should never happen on Wikipedia, is not really true. This then means that in case of my edits we have to look at the circumstances and see if what I wrote was reasonable. You cannot simply reason like: "naming and shaming is never allowed, and you clearly did do this, see this text, so you are guilty".
Now, before I give my explanation, let me first say that the title of thesection was chosen deliberately not per se to "name and shame" (although it was inevitable to have that effect), but it was to make clear a relevant point to everyone. In the unlikely case that I was wrong, user quantumechanic would have all the oportunity to turn the tables on me by explaining exactly the formulas and then it would me who would have been "shamed".
So, what was the justification? The exact chronology is as follows (I think all of it is relevant, so you have to read everything, I'm afraid). User Quantumechanic made edits to the entropy page which I reverted on the grounds that they were misleading and then I decided that since the entropy page was in need of revisions anyway, why not do it right now? Now, user quantumechanic was insistent on editing the article in a different way along the lines of his first edit.
Then, I thought, why not let him have a go? It would mean entropy would be introduced from a phenomenological POV, which is not my favoriute POV, but if he is willing to spend the time to do a lot of writing, why not let him do that? I would sit on the fence and make some comments and perhaps make minor corrects myself.
I wrote to a Wiki Admin, see first paragraph of this posting here about this plan. This Wik Admin had seen my first revert of his edits and reacted to that and we discussed that a bit previously. So, I was notifying him in advance to avoid trouble. You can imagine that quantumecanic editing again starting from the version that was later reverted wold be interpreted as edit warring by that Admin.
But not long after he started editing again, did it become clear to me that his knowledge of the subject was simply way below the minimum level needed for him to be able to contribute in an effective way. The fact that he insists that "there are errors which he's correcting", while in fact there are no errors and he is editing in nonsense thinking that he's "correcting errors" and pointing that out for every instant takes a large amount of time, led me to conclude that he should not contribute at all.
I wrote on the wikiproject physics page about this, see here and on the Adminstrator's noticeboard, see here
I explained why it was now not practical for him to edit from his preferred version and that I would be editing starting from my prefered verion. Since this could look like I'm edit warring, so I thought I needed to explain myself first before doing this.
Now, let me explain that section on the entropy talk page. I did not spot the flawed integral expressions for the entropy by user quantumechanic when he first edited those in. This happened later and at that point I concluded that that my suspiciouns that I already had about him were correct: He really doesn't know much about this topic.
But because he was constantly pretending to be an expert, in the sense that he constantly argues that he has an advanced book and he has spotted erors in the entropy article and I'm removing his sourced edits etc. etc., the only way to make clear to everyone beyond a reasonable doubt that his judgement cannot be trusted, I had to write that section in that way. He choose to have a big mouth, look at his edit summaries where he says that he's correcting errors. He didn't want to consider that he's wrong, that the article is correct, and that he's editing in nonsense after detailed discussions.
So, I decided that it was now time for him to put up or shut up, so I copied and pasted his own flawed edits on the talk page and I now directly questioned his expertise. I see absolutely nothing wrong to act in this way in a case like this. Count Iblis (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Dolphin51 - this was along the lines of a scholarly debate, not an attack. Headlines on talk pages highlighting a particular editor are not unknown, and Count Iblis is careful to word things in a civil manner. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading the contributions by User:Count Iblis and User:Elen of the Roads I think my purpose in raising this matter has been misunderstood. My purpose is not to criticise Count Iblis or to have action taken against him. My purpose is to get Talk:Entropy changed so that it no longer names and shames Quantumechanic, a newcomer to Wikipedia.

If we assume some benefit was achieved by naming and shaming Quantumechanic on a much-visited talk page, there is a valid question in asking for how long should Quantumechanic, or any other individual User, be named and shamed on a Talk page? Is one week sufficient, does it take a month, or a year, or should this individual User be named and shamed in perpetuity?

Quantumechanic was named and shamed at Talk:Entropy on 9 August, almost a week ago. My view is that little or no benefit will be achieved by continuing this naming and shaming any longer. Talk:Entropy should be amended promptly to put an end to the naming and shaming of Quantumechanic.

This whole affair is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its five pillars, the fourth of which is a Code of Conduct that includes protection of individuals, even including vandals and newcomers. Wikipedia also has:

and yet, in spite of these laudable statements of good intention, it appears that Wikipedia may be willing to see a newcomer named and shamed on a much-visited Talk page on only his third day of contributing. Newcomers will always be inclined to be over-enthusiastic, and in doing so will cause a little damage and upset experienced Users. Wikipedia has legitimate strategies to deal with such behaviour from newcomers. I watch with interest to see how long Wikipedia is willing to allow this illegitimate attack on Quantumechanic to continue.

Talk:Entropy should be amended immediately to put an end to the disgraceful naming and shaming of a newcomer. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'll say again - this is a lengthy scholarly debate, not a naming and shaming. If Quantummechanic his/herself is at all bothered by the headline, s/he knows where the edit button is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This section seems totally unnecessary. I'm a pure mathematician and as such not sufficiently familiar with the kind of mathematics that physicists do. So I can't comment about the errors discussed in the "naming and shaming" section. But in the section that follows it, Talk:Entropy#The introduction still doesn't make sense., it becomes clear that Quantumechanic is one of those editors who think the possession of one or two good books on a subject which they haven't learned properly entitles them to argue against real experts who are already active at the article. (The fact that log can be taken to various bases depending on which subject you are working in, and that in a physics context it almost always means ln, is hard to overlook in any kind of university-level physics education. I hope that at least Count Iblis had some fun writing his eerily calm and controlled a/b/c response.) Learning a subject by proving the experts wrong until they have patiently explained why they were actually right, and doing it again, and again, and again, is quite convenient – for the learner. For the teachers it's simply unacceptable. Attacking them for using the only method they see for stopping it is not OK. This is a project for writing an encyclopedia, not for teaching superior students.

If Quantumechanic is bothered by the "naming and shaming" section, there is an easy way out: stop the problematic behaviour and archive the thread, or ask a more experienced editor nicely to do it.

To Quantumechanic: When something doesn't seem to make sense, "I don't understand why..." is going to give you much better answers than "The following is wrong: ..." and will make you appear more intelligent, not less. Hans Adler 20:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the section to be deleted. I'm only asking for the title of the section to be amended. The title of the section appears in the list of contents at the head of the Talk page. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. I suggest that you follow this link, which will take you to the section in question. There will be a link called "edit" to the right of the heading. Follow it, and you will see that the first line looks like this:
== Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all? ==.
You can change the heading, but be careful to leave the = signs as they are, because they are needed. If anybody disagrees with your edit, discuss it on the page itself or on user talk pages. In case of serious problems come back here. If you have similar problems in the future I recommend trying WP:Help desk first. Hans Adler 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied over from my talk page, as I prefer to keep the debate in one place, and it also responds to Hans's SOFIXIT challenge.


Hello Elen. Recently you contributed twice to WP:WQA#Naming and shaming. Thank you for adding to the debate.

You commented that the matter in question was a scholarly debate. I agree that all the postings on the subject constitute a lengthy scholarly debate. However, my complaint is not about all the postings on the subject. My complaint is about the title of the thread:
Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all?
If you read my opening statement at WP:WQA#Naming and shaming you will see that I use the word title five times.

The title of the thread is only eight words, beginning with Quantummechanic, the name of a newcomer to Wikipedia. Hence my use of the word name in naming and shaming. The remainder of the title is the condescending, rhetorical question do you understand this topic at all? Hence my use of the words and shaming. This question was not asked in good faith!

Eight words written by one User cannot be described as a debate. A seven word question that is both rhetorical and condescending cannot be described as scholarly.

My objective in raising this matter at WP:WQA is not to have the lengthy scholarly debate deleted or amended in any way. My objective is to have the thread's title amended to something more civil. In particular, my objective is to have an administrator rule on the matter so that all of us who are interested know whether this thread title is acceptable, or not, on Wikipedia. That will be a useful precedent for the future.

Thank you for your interest. (Posted by Dolphin51 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC on talkpage for Elen of the Roads and copied here by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Did you suggest that they be bold, and politely amend it themself? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Quantummechanic doesn't seem to have expressed an opinion - he seems more interested in the argument about the equations (a true mathematician). If you meant did I say this to Dolphin51, then no, because Hans Adler had already said it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I've renamed the section title. Section titles should focus on content, and this did not. These mistakes get made, but when an editor requests a change, it is only polite to do that. I've done it now, I hope that's an end of it. Back to content. Rd232 talk 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. But I will respect the wishes of the people here of not having a title like this. Then, the only solution is to delete the entire section, which I just did. Changing the title will misrepresent some of my edits in the section itself. When quantumechanic replied to what I wrote, I wrote that he had answered the question I asked in the title (i.e. he confirmed my very strong suspicion that he has a very poor understanding of the subject). But with the changed title, my reply to quantumechanic's answer has a totally different meaning. Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Implications of template and edit summary use

Resolved
 – Further discussion here is not required at this time. Policy issues maybe raised elsewhere if necessary, and dispute resolution for any other issues followed appropriately. Rd232 talk 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a simple case: is it considered a personal attack to call another editor a troll?

  • 21:07, 15 August 2009 As per WP:NPA, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." I remove the comment.[2]
  • 01:37, 16 August 2009 Admin User:Lar then restores the troll link[4]
  • 01:39, 16 August 2009 Admin User:Lar then places a warning on my talk page:[5]
Do not remove the remarks of others from discussion pages
This edit: [6] was unacceptable. You may comment on it if you disagree, but do not remove the remarks of others from discussion pages. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 01:40, 16 August 2009 I remove the comment.[7]
  • 01:54, 16 August 2009 Lar posts a second comment.[8]
== Removal ==
Your removal of my administrative warning is within policy, (it means you've read and understood it) but as an admin, I will post warnings and communications when, and where, I find necessary. If you remove the comments of others again (on pages other than your own, as you did at that MfD I was warning you about), you may find yourself blocked for disruption. I've replied to you on my talk as well, you're entirely welcome to continue discussion there, or not, as you like. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now ignoring the history we all have, which these editors will inevitably attempt to bring up to confuse the two simple questions:

  1. is it considered a personal attack to call another editor a troll?
  2. should a admin be defending one user for calling another user a troll?

If so, is it acceptable to call other editors, trolls?

Disclaimer, I left out a few edit diffs, which I can provide if necessary. Ikip (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been discussion in the past as to whether using a template such as WP:DFTT, or using a template such as WP:DICK with phrasing like "don't be a WP:DICK" is actually calling someone a troll (or a dick or what have you) or not. There has also been discussion about whether edit summaries that consist of statements such as "remove trolling" are calling someone a troll or not. These cases seem fairly analogous to me. I think it's a very interesting question and am interested in the community view on this. Note, I've changed the heading because I think the crux of this is not about a particular user (Ikip, Jack, me) but rather about a norm. ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
So Lar, would you agree with the statment that characterizing good faith comments by others as "trolling" is disruptive? Ikip (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, I'm no longer really sure, one way or the other. Here's another example (note the edit summary) ... my wife thought it was at the very least, lacking in good faith assumption, if not actually disruptive... what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about that edit summary? Would you find it disruptive? Ikip (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the summary I am asking you about, the very one, and I asked you what you thought. Did you want to answer or were you going to wait till I did? ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I strong feel that anyone calling anyone else a troll is a personal attack, that includes A Nobody. How do you feel about it? Ikip (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm somewhat in tune with Malleus, below... if someone actually IS trolling (and there is little or no reasonable doubt about it), it's not an attack, per WP:SPADE. If someone absolutely is NOT trolling (clearly my wife felt she wasn't trolling, when she left a gently worded admonishment at A Nobody's page, and I think most everyone would agree), why then, it probably is an attack, at least a mild one. The cases in the middle, where reasonable people disagree, are the hard ones. Hence why I think this is a good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why everyone is so precious about this kind of thing. If anyone feels that someone is behaving like a troll, then why not call them on it? Either directly or indirectly in an edit summary doesn't really matter does it? "Personal attack" is just becoming a sad joke, something for the trolls to hide behind. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Oddly, I agree with you, to a point. (see WP:SPADE )... it's when someone characterises activities that clearly AREN'T trolling when things get stickier... it tends to raise hackles. Maybe we all need to (as I've been saying a lot lately) "man up" ? But see the recent Civility poll. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
My view on the "civility" nonsense ought to be well enough known by now. I'll spare you the expletives. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Note in passing that one of the omitted diffs was this one: [9] which I found rather interesting. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I really must insist that this not be called "Lar"... the original incident is Jack and Ikip sparring, my warning of Ikip is tangential. I have changed the summary to "Implications of template and edit summary use" again, please leave it that way. If you MUST use names, why then call it "Jack, Ikip, Lar" or something. Let's not edit war about this. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: I guess I'm somewhat in tune with Malleus, below... if someone actually IS trolling (and there is little or no reasonable doubt about it), it's not an attack, per WP:SPADE. If someone absolutely is NOT trolling (clearly my wife felt she wasn't trolling, when she left a gently worded admonishment at A Nobody's page, and I think most everyone would agree), why then, it probably is an attack, at least a mild one. The cases in the middle, where reasonable people disagree, are the hard ones. Hence why I think this is a good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Lar, your vague position now is really quite surprising because 2 days ago you criticized A Nobody for calling someone else a troll:
03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Have to agree with Jack here... AN is starting to look like the source of the problem to me. Complete failure to constructively engage, blows off advice given by others, characterizing it as trolling, repeats behaviours warned about, and so forth. Time to impose the proposal made on John's page and then enforce it, because it's pretty tiresome.[10]
14:30, 14 August 2009 (ec) Ikip: They may be "facts" but they're irrelevant. Who did what first is playground talk. This constant beating Jack about the head with charges of stalking, harrassment, "he started it", etc, while characterizing good faith comments by others as "trolling" is disruptive.[11]
It is okay for Jack to call A Nobody a troll? [12]
But it is not okay for A Nobody to call another editor a troll?[13][14]
Who decides who is a troll and who is disruptive Lar? You do? You then have the authority to block other editors you are personally involved with?
You are a highly involved and biased editor Lar. You are defending an editors personal attack while condemning another's. That is not the expect behavior of an administrator.
If you block A Nobody or I, you seriously jeopardize your admin privileges:
Wikipedia:Block#Conflicts_of_interest
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.
There have been several recent arbcom cases about involved editors blocking others they are involved with and many admins have been desosyped.
So no more threats about being "blocked for disruption".[15]
No more reverting Jack's personal attacks followed by using your admin status to defend these personal attacks, because it makes you look like you are abusing your administrative authority, which you did tonight.
I would highly appreciate it if any uninvolved editor would revert the personal attack of Jack Merridew[16] which administrator Lar seems to fully support.
Thank you for your time. Ikip (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's quite the wall of text.

  1. First off, you've confused WP:DTTR (about not templating the regulars) and WP:DFTT (about not "feeding the trolls")... two quite different pages. I think you need to take another look at what you've said in light of that, it may need some considerable revision.... specifically it is not correct to say that I have called you a troll and you need to retract that.
  2. Second, I think (as you do) my wife's comment to A Nobody was one that almost no reasonable person would characterise as trolling, and A Nobody was out of line to remove it with that edit summary. It's pretty cut and dried. Other comments raised in this discussion seem less cut and dried to me. If reasonable people disagree about something it's not so easy to say "don't do that thing".
  3. Third, if I felt someone I was involved in a dispute with needed blocking, I'd find an uninvolved administrator and ask them to take a look and decide for themselves. Don't confuse warning with blocking. I feel free to warn, but not to actually block. I think your admonishments to me go too far, I've been an administrator since 2006 and I know how things are done here. Perhaps better than you do.

I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the DTTR mistake, my apologies for my mistake. thank you for pointing that out. Ikip (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You should restore the comment and strike-thru, as it can be confusing to simply remove it. UnitAnode 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, strikethrus are vastly preferred after other people have responded. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The biggest problem I see above is Ikip removing another user's comments at the AfD, as well as his dropping templates on regular contributors, and now trying to prohibit Lar from using his tools. Trust me when I say that Lar will not be losing his tools anytime soon. He's one of the best administrators we have on this project.

    This needs to stop, Ikip, as it's unproductive and pointless. And please do not change the name of this thread back to "Lar", as his participation in the incident only arose out of your own initial misbehavior in removing Merridew's comments at the AfD. UnitAnode 03:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nod, @Unitanode. However I think there may be some merit in considering the questions asked (when we cut away the irrelevant material we're left with two good questions):

  • It is okay for Jack to call A Nobody a troll?
  • But it is not okay for A Nobody to call another editor a troll?

Well, my answer to that (as I said above) is as follows... it's OK to call someone a troll, if they are indeed trolling (although there may be more effective ways to address the matter). It's not OK to call someone a troll if just about anyone would say there wasn't any trolling. So then:

  • Jack's characterization of A Nobody as trolling: Correct, IMO. Jack could have made his point more effectively though, and I recognise not everyone agrees... which is why instead of removing, a reasoned response to the comment is a better approach.
  • A Nobody's characterization of Josette as trolling: Incorrect, IMO... and I dare you to find anyone who thinks she WAS trolling.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Given your and your wife's defense of Jack in various venues, such as at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive69, it really feels like husband/wife tag teaming to have both start up arguments with me practically simultaneously and when I have no extensive past interactions with either in seeming defense of that user and when I see hyperbole laden edit summaries like "So sick of all the fan cruft BS" with a WP:PERNOM vote rather than argument once again in support of that same editor with whom I am in obvious dispute (not to mention their earlier team up to describe User:Daedalus969 as "shit"), I cannot imagine anyone reasonably seeing it as anything but some kind of ganging up or biased attack. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing the point to this whole thread, given this is an incident oriented board and not a discussion oriented board. it appears to be a debate on examples of incivility or personal attacks, using specific example from the parties involved in the debate. It would seem far more useful to open a wider RFC on whether or not Wikipedia:Don't call editors trolls should be elevated to a policy at Wikipedia talk:Don't call editors trolls and avoid using specific examples (which rarely are helpful for deciding future actions). MBisanz talk 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  • There was no need to make this comment directly at the AFD; particularly given the apparent history. Foolish and unhelpful.
  • Instead of removing that comment as if it had a sense of urgency, a polite note regarding the appropriateness of the edit, in place of this or this would've been more ideal. Templating regulars in that way was foolish and unhelpful.
  • Another set of actions involved reverting the removal, with this warning, and then testing the limits by reposting at a talk page [17] when it would no doubt further provoke the dispute. Together, the actions were more (if not equally) foolish and unhelpful. This is not the first time this has happened. Any further notes, cautions, or otherwise, should have been left to another administrator (that is, one who is utterly uninvolved).
  • Are you all looking for ways to further disputes around this project? Or would you rather work in a collaborative environment to help make this an encyclopedia free of problems and disputes? If you all have a chance of getting along, then interact (and use each others talk pages) with a tad bit more respect for one another. Otherwise, make a greater effort to avoid others with which interactions are not positive - so far, such efforts have been limited. If that's the case, then a reminder: if you can't make a mutual effort to avoid even a chance of interacting with one another, then there's a problem - this means avoiding entire Wikipedia discussions where necessary, rather than sliding into a few, like at certain deletion discussions, noticeboard discussions, RFAs or elsewhere. If there's still problems, because a user refuses for any reason, or because you all work a LOT in that area, that's when DR is needed.
  • MBisanz has hit the nail on the head on where where the discussion should occur about "trolling" itself. However, there's an obvious difference between pointing out trolling in your userspace, and specifying it in areas like deletion discussions where there's an obvious heightened importance to focus on content (rather than an individual contributor).
  • Foolish, foolish, and more foolish is what sums this whole thing up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Please do not equate, in any way, Lar's actions with Ikip's here. Restoring content to an AFD that was removed by someone other than the person who posted it is policy-based. Issuing a warning in such a case is simply standard practice. And he did not just "restore" his warning to the page, he left a wholly separate message to Ikip letting him know that removing the initial warning was simply an indication that it had been read. The fault, in this case, lies with Ikip, not Lar. And you mentioned "inflaming" things. What exactly did you hope to do with this extensive post? Mbisanz's was well-considered, succinct, and should have been the last word. Yours seems less so, is all I will say. UnitAnode 04:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    Unitanode, I can understand your desire to participate, even if you only just started editing at Wikipedia-en 6 months ago. However, this does does not mean you can tell me what to do, succinctly or otherwise, so please back off. If the actions were not equally or more foolish, I would not have said so. That is, I'm well aware of what happened here, and by contrast, what ought to have happened.
    Policy pages specify that they should normally be followed - that is, you should not follow it without common sense. Restoring inappropriate content (that also added no real value to the discussion) does not demonstrate the type of good judgement that is expected of an admin. Ideally, a good admin would have tried to explain (to the user who removed the content) why he believes the content should be restored. This involves giving the editor an opportunity to restore it himself or to at least explain the underlying reason why it should stay removed. No where does this involve escalating needless conflict. Note: a warning does not come into this either. There was no urgency to take the actions that the admin did here. Reposting at the talk page where the admin was clearly not welcome was plainly disrespectful and extremely foolish. Any further notes should have been left to another administrator (that is, one who is utterly uninvolved). Though, an established user would be aware that removing text from the talk page also indicates that it was read.
    The approach used by all involved could be considered equally unhelpful and foolish - though I've explained why it would be even greater in the case of the concerned admin. My comments were (and are) not invitations for you to rewrite your view. I'd already duly considered your view which you made earlier, where you glorified the admin in question - quite obviously, I rejected it as both biased and incomplete. Those should be my last words on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    Save your condescension about length of tenure, please. I'll be more direct, then: your post was ill-considered, and I fail to see any point in your having made it. You have every right to do so, and I have every right to point out that your post -- ironically enough -- only served to stir a pot that Mbisanz's post had effectively cooled. UnitAnode 14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    Unitanode, you are responsible for the ill-considered and disruptive postings you made here. Ikip (the filing party) seems to have confirmed on my talk page that MBisanz post was insufficient to resolve the tension. Yet, you've tried your hardest to pretend that it has, and that the only problems in this dispute were with the user who filed the WQA, when this was plainly not true. Please refrain from making such misrepresentations again. Instead of stirring the pot further by pointing at my analysis and badgering me about it, hoping yours will suddenly become valid, find a way to fix your the problems with your own approach (such as with your own analysis). And no, there's no condescension, but a logical explanation regarding your unhelpfully problematic approach here - that it is perhaps a direct result of your lack of experience (you've been editing for merely 6 months). Regardless, I'm going to leave a similar warning on your talk page to make this point clear - if you continue to employ such an approach on-wiki, then your tenure here is likely to be short indeed. For the final time; back off. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    Please refrain from throwing around tenure of service claims in this discussion. It's unhelpful to say the least. You have no right to insist that anyone here "back off", so I'll take that for what it's worth. You inflamed a discussion rather than cooling it. That is a fact. Ikip's own attitude and actions are a major part of the problem here. Enabling his attempts to extract some kind of measure of "justice" on Lar isn't helpful at all. And I think you'll find your empty threats about my tenure on this project being "short indeed" will be treated with all the respect they deserve. UnitAnode 15:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    You should not be making technical comments when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Your editing of (about) a mere 6 months is a fact [18]. However, your assertion that I did anything but cool the discussion is a claim. Similarly, your claim that Ikip is attempting to extract some kind of measure of justice on Lar, and that I enabled such an attempt, is nothing more than fanciful - much like the threats you imagined. You've been warned; what happens after that will be a result of your actions. Repeatedly misrepresenting the situation is the most foolishly unhelpful thing you can possibly do, and it is disruptive. All I did was give a plain and fair view of all the actions taken by the 3 users during the dispute - if this includes pointing out how foolish Lar was during this dispute, just as the other 2, then so be it. Your attempts to suppress this fact are futile, period. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think that most people reading the sprawl of this discussion -- and especially your contributions to it -- can determine for themselves who has been disruptive here. Rd's post below was timely. I'd encourage you to read and consider what he's written. UnitAnode 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    Why am I not surprised you foolishly continue with your misconduct and misrepresentations? Despite the fact I clearly read and considered what Rd wrote below (in my reply), you try to make out that I did not. Case in point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    Again with the condescension and bad-faith assumptions. When I posted the above, I hadn't noticed you had responded below. There's irony in that the board where you're becoming this antagonistic toward me is the WQA board. As I said before, it's pretty clear who's being disruptive in this discussion. UnitAnode 16:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    You posted 4 minutes after I did above, and 2 minutes after I did below, yet you expect others to believe you were not EC'd - even if that was to be believed, if you bothered to assume good faith and check if I'd reviewed what Rd said, this would not even be an issue. You have no one but yourself to blame for the disruption caused. When you continue to use the same problematic approach that you've used over a few days, and others are not surprised, that's not assuming bad faith - rather, it's called common sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we let bygones be bygones and try and move forward. Rd232 talk 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I can't see this discussion achieving anything at this point, apart from multiplying wikidrama. I suggest instead of digging through "he said she said", everyone goes back to editing the encyclopedia. Everyone has been reminded of relevant policies and getting back to content would be the most constructive thing. If there are policy issues, those can be addressed elsewhere; if there are ongoing issues of failure to collaborate, WP:AGF, etc, those can be addressed specifically as and when and probably elsewhere. Rd232 talk 15:55, 18 August 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:Alastairward

Involving:

Events in diff chronological format.....

I have filed a third opinion request anyway on the article talk page, this WQA is simply to get some feedback on the proper methods of content dispute resolution, in light of the fact that I consider my actions here totally reasonable and the comments, and edit warring, highly innappropriate, especially as Alastairward claims to be a good faith and experienced editor. As far as I am aware, we have never interacted before, and I only came to this article two days ago.

MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it that this is a two way process, and input from me is welcome? I think it would be important to note that although MickMacNee had asked me to seek other editor's consensus, I was already acting on the suggestion of another user. In the deletion discussion for this article, it was suggested that a section be removed (see here), and I acted on this. It seemed to me to make the notion of seeking a third opinion moot.
Other information I would like to add was that in the middle of the deletion discussion for this article, MickMacNee renamed the article, quite changing the entire purpose of the article (from identifying notable use of certain actors, to being a mere list of all guest actors). Having seen this user make this change, I couldn't understand then why my edit, which was intended to tidy the article and not remove any information that would take away from its intent, was noted as "extreme".
From my own point of view MickMacNee's response here did seem to logically suggest that they were not seeking ways to improve the article, but maintain it so that it would simply pass the deletion discussion.
And in all honesty I wasn't sure what to make of this reply, I really didn't see any attempt to explain the worth of their edits to the reader or what was so wrong with my own. Alastairward (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The rename is irrelevant after you decided to revert
  • You had ample oppurtunity to say you weren't acting unilaterally, you didn't, instead merely flipping me off
  • So, it's OK to assume bad faith as long as its a logical deduction? You want the article deleted, so by deduction, removing information from it would be a good way to do that, no? Does't really work does it? Either you respect my motives or you don't.
  • Not understanding someone's rationale is NOT an excuse to ignore it and edit war. MickMacNee (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If we take away anything from this, its that I can tell you honestly that you seem to me as blunt as you characterise me. Alastairward (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Either explain yourself, or don't. This is not an explanation. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to note that an editor who has been blocked eight times for incivility (as MickMacNee has, by my count) are going to find it difficult to get anybody to take a WQA report seriously unless the case is very clear, and this one certainly isn't. Looie496 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If you had disclosed your previous account name with this opinion, I might have cared what you think, or entertained your rather odd position that a good faith WQA report need not be looked at if the reporter has a bad record. It strikes me that if your motives are sound, you should be doing everything in your power to persuade me, a proven 'bad guy', not to handle the situation highlighted with this editor with incivility and edit warring. Anybody on the pedia who takes this attitude is not helping the project, admins in particular. MickMacNee (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Going through the diff list, I think this is merely a great big misunderstanding. Nevertheless, this is what I found, and my advice to you both, MickMacNee (M) and Alastairward (A).
  • 01:59, 14 August 2009. M, please note that calling his action an "extreme" measure was a perhaps not a good choice of words, but more importantly, was merely your opinion rather than a matter of fact. Making it clear that it was your opinion would've perhaps cut the core misunderstanding in this conflict, and explaining your position in more detail would've achieved the same end.
  • 08:51, 14 August 2009. A, asking a more simple question ("Can you please explain why you are leaving it in the article?") probably would have been handled a little less aggressively by MickMacNee than what you'd asked - certainly, another source of misunderstanding.
  • 14:30, 14 August 2009. M, if the question was posed, I would avoid thinking of it as an assumption of bad faith or an accusation - rather, he didn't understand what you were doing/saying, and merely made a suggestion to try to figure out (with the aid of an unfortunate assumption - that may be incorrect). A simple answer to the question would've sufficed, rather than jumping to the conclusion that he was accusing you of something.
  • 17:10, 14 August 2009. A, please note that pointing to the section at the time would've probably cut the need for this entirely. It would've also possibly cut your concern of ownership.
  • 18:20, 14 August 2009. M, the article talk page is the most suitable place for the discussion. Also, if you'd made those comments, despite being aware of the section where the user was acting on another's suggestion, then understandably, an editor may feel that insisting your opinion trumps on the article is showing signs of ownership.
  • M, It is due to such potential misunderstandings that no further reverts were a good idea. However, you do need to relax your stance (and perhaps your approach, as well as the language you use) a little bit. Most people would appreciate it, and in turn, I think you probably would too. :)
  • A, had M reverted, would you have reverted back? If no, good. If yes, then that would be very unwise - where you reverted last in this dispute was where the line should be drawn.
  • If your differences cannot be resolved in terms of content, I would suggest mediation first off. Mediation helps keep discussions focused, so that less misunderstandings develop, and content is attacked with hopefully the same goal to further this project's purpose. Mediation can either be formal WP:MEDIATION, or informal. That said, if mediation is not successful, or nobody is both willing and able to mediate, then article RFC is what's left. These are the content dispute resolution mechanisms available at Wikipedia-en.
  • Finally, I must emphasise that this is merely my opinion, and it may be in need of improvement on a few facts or explanations. But I do hope that helps you understand how this could've been approached to otherwise avoid the need for this WQA. I also do hope that this clarifies any misunderstandings that resulted from Looie496's unhelpful post. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper

Resolved
 – I'm sorry for bringing this here, and I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper consistently assumes bad faith on my part and on the part of other editors. I realize he has legitimate policy concerns about a number of articles, but his decision to ignore my attempts to resolve the situation and engage in discussion is, honestly, infuriating. Some recent diffs, [19], [20], [21]. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The above user is WP:WIKIHOUNDING#User space harassment me on my talk page, and has posted 4 times since I requested he not post there, ever. This report is an additional part of this abuse of his editing priviledges.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not desire to harass User:Wolfkeeper. I would like to point out that I was not "asked" to avoid talking on his page. I was instructed to[22] in an inappropriate tone. I have since refrained from using warning templates on the user's talkpage and have tried to open up into friendly conversation. Each posting has been unique and different, and an attempt to engage in cooperative discussion. I have looked at the user's history only in regards that I disagree with his habit of renaming articles on English affixes, which I fully recognize to be a disputed practice. I am not ignorant of why the user might wish to make these changes, I just wish to discuss them and bring them to the attention of those WikiProjects that might be associated. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If somebody asks you not to post on their talk page, it's best to follow their wishes unless you have something to say that is absolutely essential, such as notification of deletion or of an ANI report. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how else I'm supposed to contact him, as I'd really like to just discuss the situation, but if that's what policy/guidelines say, then fine. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally, I see that this user is quite happy to repeat his accusation of harassment in any place we are both involved in discussion... I have tried to assume good faith with this user, but edits such as this [24], as well as this user's history, (see [25] and [26]) have convinced me that this user will not assume good faith on my part and will not discuss the issue with me under any circumstances. What are appropriate ways to try and resolve this dispute? Irbisgreif (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Irbisgreif, the DIFF that you provided that supposedly shows a recent accusation of harassment (#36) actually predates much of this discussion. The other DIFFs are from 2008 - how far back in time do you want to go to prove a point? You were asked to stay off their talkpage, you always need to disengage from the user - continuing to try and discuss is, indeed, harassment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have, in fact, attempted to disengage. I have not gone to the person's talk page, I have not gone to their user page, I have, for the most part, tried to not talk to the user at all. However, I find that in any case where I am in disagreement with this user, this user accuses me of hounding him. I'll admit that I should have left the user's talk page alone, as instructed, but this user, after I opened this and after I requested he assume good faith on my part, responds to my comments with accusations of bad-faith editing. For an example, see [27]. Since consensus seems to be that I cannot be involved with anything this editor has touched, I will drop all issues and refrain from participating in affix-related articles altogether. I'm sorry that my attempts to constructively discuss renaming and deleting a large number of articles was harassment, as I never intended it as such. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Continous flouting of civility by User:Starstylers

Stale
 – 22:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The abovementioned user has on many different/seperate occasions insulted (including name callings on several occasions) various editors on Wikipedia, including me, his latest reply to another editor has demonstrated yet again his flippant disregard of WP:AGF as well as WP:CIVIL. If any concerned Admin would care to check the contribution/edit history of the said user, one would most certainly find a track history of various civility issues against other editors here on Wikipedia. Let me just state this, this is not his first time being so rude to another Wikipedian; the said user was blocked on one occasion for doing just that to me and had been unblocked after apologising and promised to not make the same mistake again. Clearly, the said user has no respect with regards to WP:NPA. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: he was already warned for the incivility above (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • NB: Indeed he was warned but that was last year and he has yet to change his attitude towards other Wikipedians. Put it this way, he may have change his tune/music but his dance routine hasn't differ one bit. --Dave1185 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You have not notified the other party of this alert - I have done so now. In the diff, he appeared to be talking to you, or am I reading it wrong. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This struck me as a particularly abrasive edit summary. Is that a threat? I can't say I'm new this user. Although I can't remember being personally abused, I have been critical of his highly inappropriate comments in the past - which also extend to sources and ethnic groups he doesn't particularly like. His talk page archive is another good example. --Merbabu (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This contains an apparent threat of legal action. Davidelit (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I disagree ... just like our policy sections warn about slander and libel, all this says is that Indonesia also has slander a libel laws. The aggressiveness in that post, and the edit summary noted above is concerning, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It is, concerning since it is bordering on implying a kind of legal threat, and if you add it to his long list of sly insults towards other Wikipedians, he's no different from a suit wearing Mafia gangster. Seriously, how far would you still go on to take this kind of remark from him? I think I speak for Merbabu and Davidelit when I say this: "tolerance has a limit and so do we". --Dave1185 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
To say that there are libel and slander laws, and the libel and slander should be kept out Wikipedia articles, is quite uncontroversial. I don't think that much constitutes a threat, since it doesn't say he's going to sue anyone, especially in view of the fact that if there was libelous material, his edit would presumably have answered, corrected, and deleted the libelous allegations. I think some of his other edit summaries, calling other editors' work "bullshit", etc. might qualify as uncivil. I think I'll say more after I've looked this over further. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Speak of the devil, this is the message he left me, very conveniently skirting the issue raised here and giving me a kind of "faux pas" answer on my talk page instead. Refusing to engage is one thing, passing off a sly insult as a "faux pas" reply is another matter altogether. As what Merbabu once said to me, the actions of Starstylers is nothing less than that of mental masturbation. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm - since you brought it up, the term used was "moral masturbation" and it was used by Starstylers himself, not by me. From memory, I was reporting it to you. And it was some time ago. regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim4048

Stale
 – 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've requested that user stop acting uncivilly, explaining that they should comment on content and not contributors, but their behavior changed little:

  • 21:56, August 17, 2009 - "... You are dishonest George. There is no point to continue discussing with you... saying that 'these sound like things that belong in the Syriac or Maronite articles' is pretty stupid."
  • 23:18, August 17, 2009 - Warned the user about incivility on their talk page using template.
  • 01:57, August 18, 2009 - "I did call you dishonest. That's true. You are dishonest."
  • 10:48, August 18, 2009 - "Again you show your ignorance of Middle Eastern History... I advice you to just stop editing Middle Eastern related articles or if you insist on participating, edit only what you know. Having sunbathed on the beaches of Lebanon, riding a camel or participating in other tourist attractions and taking a hiking trip on Mount Lebanon doesn't give you the expertise to contribute to Lebanon related articles."
  • 19:10, August 18, 2009 - Warned the user again about civility on the article talk page.
  • 22:36, August 18, 2009 - "Stop threathening me wit bans because I disagree with you and exposed your ignorance on certain matters. If you don't want to be embarassed then don't make statements like 'Syrian is a relatively modern term and it's hard to believe that a 1500 year old religion was known by that term'."

I've already filed a request for a third opinion regarding our content dispute on the article talk page, but the user's incivility is another issue that could use an outside opinion. ← George [talk] 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the whole discussion instead of only George's selections you'll see why I called him dishonest and adviced him not to edit on subjects he has no knowledge about. He claimed he knew "quite a bit" about Lebanon and said that he had been in Lebanon but his lack of knowledge about Lebanese or Middle Eastern history shows otherwise. He had never heard of Syriac, claimed information about Syriac and Maronites should be on the Syriac and Maronite articles. He did not know that Syriac followers of Saint Maron started the Maronite church and settled on Mount Lebanon. He did not know that the inaccesibility/remoteness of Mount Lebanon was the reason why so many christians survived the arabicizition of the Middle East which led to the creation of Lebanon by the allied powers after WWI (McMahon-Hussein Correspondence). All this makes that information about the Maronites and giving the Syriac name is essential. So I told him that having been in Lebanon and enjoying the touristic facilities gives him no expertise.
I did call George dishonest but it is hard to call him anything else if someone repeatedly turns around and denies what he has said before. I mean we can all see what he has written. I did not call George stupid though. If you read what I actually said, you can see that I said if .... is the fact then saying .... is stupid. Nor did I call him ignorant but talked about his lack of knowledge/ignorance on certain matters. That is not an personal attack, especially if it is true. You could say that calling my sources (the Daily Star, SIL ethnologue,the Joshua project, Zinda Magazine) garbage is also not very civil.
There should be no content dispute at all. Refusing to allow the Syriac name for Mount Lebanon by claiming that historical names and names in other languages but the official were irrelevant was wrong. See Naming conventions (geographic names) rules. Then continuing to claim the Syriac name is an historical name was wrong. Giving information about (classical) Syriac being displaced by Arabic in the thirteenth century and only used for liturgical uses, next to a modern Syriac name for Mount Lebanon in the etyomology section of Mount Lebanon was also wrong/irrelevant/misleading. That information should be in the Syriac or Maronite articles. It is misleading because it makes readers think that Syriac is a dead language thus denying the existence of 416.000 Syriac speakers in the world [28], approx 50.000 of whom live in Lebanon.
So his opinion that "any editor is allowed to edit any article they so choose" doesn't hold in that there are certain requirements to be met for editing articles. The information should be accurate, sourced, relevant and not misleading. Even though his source about (classical) Syriac being spoken from the third to the thirteenth/seventeenth century when it was displaced by Arabic is accurate, it doesn't meet the relevance and misleading requierements. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No, there are NO "requirements to be met for editing articles", anybody can indeed edit any article. It's the edit itself that must meet requirements. Never, ever mix the two up. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am saying. The "requirement to be met for editing articles" is that "the information (the edit) should be accurate, sourced, relevant and not misleading". Didn't you read what I wrote? Don't play word games by selectively copy pasting. Either you misunderstood/misread or you deliberately try to slander me. It is obvious that I didn't mean that there are requirements about the editor like that the editor should have a degree, be from some nationality or whatever. What I meant is that in for example the holocaust article you can't give information about Britney Spears because it is irrelevant.

I only adviced George not to edit on subjects he has no knowledge about. If you don't have any knowledge about something, what's the point of editing that article? He clearly has not much knowledge about (the history) of Mount Lebanon. Perhaps he knows something about the flora and fauna or the tourist sector. He could edit on that. He admits himself that he had "never even heard of Syriac before I mentioned it". Yet he inserts information about (old) Syriac being displaced by Arabic in the thirteenth century and Syriac only being used for liturgical uses, next to my modern Syriac name for Mount Lebanon. I proved that Syriac still exists as a spoken language, that it is still spoken by approx 50.000 people in Lebanon and 416.000 people worldwide. This makes George's edit about classical Syriac being extinct irrelevant and misleading if you put it next to my modern Syriac place name. On top of the fact that he clearly gave wrong/misleading/irrelevant information he still tried to push his own view and discredited my legitimate sources as garbage. So why the hell are you defending him and reproaching me? It should be the other way around.

I notice that a lot of people on the internet are against me (sometimes even insulting) when I use my real name Ibrahim (name used by both muslims and christians) but when I use another neutral (western) name on forums, people are generally not that hostile when I say exactly the same thing. It is astonishing. Still I won't change my username Ibrahim4048 to prevent people from thinking that I am muslim. What if I was? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there ... let's not start with the non-WP:AGF ideas that there's xenophobic discrimination by ethnicity or religion here - that's more insulting that you can imagine, and I suggest you strike. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I echo what Bwilkins just said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Best to stick to one username at a time on Wikipedia, anyway; what happens on other sites is outside the scope of Wikiquette. It would be foolish for anyone to make assumptions as to ethnicity, religion, gender or anything else based solely on a user's chosen online name. pablohablo. 12:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)edited  pablohablo. 16:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you strike? What do you mean by that? Strike like in striking at work or something? Are you telling me not to edit anymore?
What about the fact that George removed my referenced edits and replaced it with inaccurate, irrelevant and misleading information? I showed on the talk page and here how giving information about (classical) Syriac being extinct since the 13th century next to a place name in modern Syriac is irrelevant and misleading. If after all te sources I gave that Syriac still exists in Lebanon and the rest of the ME, George calls my sources garbage and continues to push his POV isn't he vandalizing?
I didn't hear you guys say anything about that. Only complaints that I supposedly told George not to edit and that he should meet certain requirements. What am I to think if George is protected here and I am the one rebuked instead of him? Logically together with all my other experiences I can't help but coming to the conclusion that somehow all of this hostility and unfair treatment has a certain reason. Which I think is my arabic name.
If you have another explanation why for example Bwilkins rebukes me for something I didn't even say while he keeps silent about George's vandalism, please give me that explanation. Otherwise I will have to come up with all kinds of theories myself, like racism, or favouring a friend from the old boys group or another possible theory. What happened here is not normal. You shouldn't keep silent about the wrongdoings of someone while searching for faults in the other and if you can't find anything then make up something. And for the echo, you also think nothing is wrong with George vandalizing but me explaining that editing has to meet certain requirements is a capital crime? Did you really read everything and came to the same conclusion as Bwilkins or do you just back him up because he is a friend? This all only strengthens my believe that something is wrong here on wikipedia. There are groups here who favour friends (even some moderators in the past) and a lot of propaganda is going on. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Strike means to cross out your offensive statements above. This isn't the place to discuss our content dispute, or the quality (or lack thereof) of your sources. This is a venue for discussing behavior of editors. ← George [talk] 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Pablo, I only have one username here. What I mean is that on other sites and the rest of the english speaking internet community people are generally biased against Middle Easterners. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, time to call a spade a spade: around here, that kind of talk is pure bullshit. We have a wide range of intelligent Middle Eastern editors who contribute according to policy, and are equals in the Wikipedia project. Stop playing the race/religion card - especially when you have no clue the race/religion of the neutral editors who are trying to assist here - it is becoming disruptive, and is well past being offensive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So again no answer why nobody commented on George's vandalizm or him calling my sources gargbage. Isn't that uncivil too? Nothing to say about that?

I am not a muslim so the religion thing is bullshit. I also don't use the race card or whatever card. I simply wonder why you guys only criticize me (for something I didn't even say) when George is the one here who committed the vandalism and made misleading edits. You accused me of saying that "requirements were to be met for editing articles" in the sense that George should meet requirements when I said exactly the same thing as you said, that the edit should meet certain requirements. To me that is intentionally looking for a stick to beat me with. What do you have against me? You don't know me. So the conclusion I have to take is that either something about me bothers you or that there is a connection between you and George which is the reason why you favor George. You don't have any info about me other than my name so prejudice because of my name is likely. Maybe you and George are friends or George has backed you up previously and you return the favor. I am only guessing here. If there is something else to explain why you rebuked me for something I didn't even say, please tell me.

I think I know enough now on how matters are here on wikipedia. I am not blind. You guys are saying that there is no bias or propaganda here on wikipedia. That is the most ignorant thing I ever heard. Anybody with half a brain can understand why wikipedia is the walhalla for bigots and nationalist and others. Wikipedia is completely open to anyone and as the world is filled with bigots, nationalists and other scum there will be a fair share of these people here on wikipedia. Perhaps even more here on wikipedia as this is where they can reach the most people. I know that there are rules to counter this but that keeps only the stupid ones away. The smart ones play by the rules. There are plenty of sources for them to use since even governments and government paid academics provide these sources. Some say that there are even editors paid by governments/organizations to spread their propaganda on wikipedia. A bit naive to say then that there is no racism, bigots and propaganda here on wikipedia. Denying it doesn't make it go away.

"I'm sorry, time to call a spade a spade" That was exactly what I thought when George turned around and denied what he said before for the ...th time. So I called him dishonest. I have been called much worse here on wikipedia. Other than that I never said anything about him personally. I never called him stupid but said if .... is the fact then claiming .... is stupid. I also commented that he was ignorant on certain matters which also is not an insult. He didn't know about the stuff he was editing about and I had to warn him that he was making misleading edits. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

request for civility being answer with obscene language personal attack

Resolved
 – Subject warned; filing party blocked.

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

I politely requested that a user refrain for making personal/profane insults against other editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greglocock

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greglocock&diff=prev&oldid=308297294

and his reply was to call me a wanker. "Whatever gave you the impression that I have the slightest interest in your opinion? Wanker."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greglocock&diff=prev&oldid=308650643

I understand that wikipedia is not censored, but this is an obvious personal attack, from someone who is finding it hard to deal with others.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't focus on incivility given that he made an obvious personal attack. I've warned him accordingly. If there are further personal attacks or incivility, please report it to this administrator noticeboard. Otherwise, this should hopefully be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's resolved and all, but looking for and reacting to "bad words" is easy; underlying issues are more complicated. 119.173.81.176, bringing up incidents from almost 3 weeks ago, in which both editors involved kind of went over the line, and in which you were (I assume) uninvolved, is probably unhelpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Nuance and context are incredibly important in such cases. UnitAnode 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well said Floquenbeam. Exactly. Greglocock (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The issues are not complicated with respect to this fundamental policy. Some people come across a need to bring up incidents from even a few years ago, let alone a few months, while others don't actually have a need. Why did the anon bring up that particular incident? If Floquenbeam was correct in making that number of assumptions, then I would concur with that comment to the anon. If the answer is different, then perhaps not. But really, it doesn't matter what the answer is: if Greglocock chooses to respond anywhere on Wikipedia, he's expected to do so without resorting to despicable personal attacks. This is non-negotiable, or an express ticket to a block - and it's as simple as that. The question that remains is: why has the personal attack still not been retracted or struck? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Which particular personal attack are you referring to? You really do need to write in clear English if you are going to pretend to be a lawyer's clerk.
I don't regard this issue as 'resolved' at all, and regard your warning on my talk page as high impertinence, and it reeks of self importance. So, let's see if we can do it in baby steps for the hard-of-understanding. A month or so ago I got into a bit of a tiff with an editor, in the course of which I referred to a particular phrase as a bit of wankery, which is a Britishism. Then, when we were arguing on my Talk page I said it made him sound like a wanker. Eventually we compromised, end of first act. Then Mr anonymous shows up on my talk page recently and takes me to task for using the word wanker, so as any comedian would do I replied, and naturally called him a wanker in the process (perhaps he does not masturbate, and never has, but I doubt it). He objected to that, and here we are. If you don't like my Talk page then don't read it. How hard is that, ladies? Incidentally, wanker is not obscene language, therefore this section is incorrectly titled, and the whole thing is a fart in a bubblebath. Greglocock (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The agression (patronising tone, sexism and so on) in the above message, if anything, makes it clearer that your messages were personal attacks, or at least inappropriate. Furthermore, I don't know what part of Britain you're from, but calling someone a "wanker" where I am is hardly considered friendly. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Was it obscene? Greglocock (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it to a priest, I wouldn't say it to my mother, I wouldn't say it to a police officer. Sounds pretty obscene to me. It refers to masturbation. "Obscene" isn't a word I like, but I would say this is certainly a candidate for "obscene language". J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: the section heading was modified before either of this last post, and almost an EC with the one before :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Using the words "jerk-off", "asshole", "cock-sucker", "fuckhead", and their linguistic equivalents such as "wanker", etc are not, in and of themselves bad. It's recommended not to use them, and they don't belong in say...an edit summary. Where the problem arises is when they are used as a personal attack: "you are a jerk-off/asshole/cocksucker/fuckhead/wanker/etc" is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Then resorting to "how hard is that, ladies" here in WP:WQA is a continuation of the trend, using sexism. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on where you are. Any of those terms you mentioned might get you slugged in America. "Wanker" would probably draw a quizzical look or a blank stare. Or an insult aimed at Brits. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that Greglocock is using a language style which may be appropriate for mates bantering at the pub, but isn't appropriate for online debate - at least not on Wikipedia. Besides the language, there's also the issue of general tone and implied disrespect to other editors, which is no way to get things done. I suggest he takes a step back, apologises, and moderates his language and tone in future, and that can be an end of this. Rd232 talk 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Apologises for what exactly? The rather Orwellian editing process here has just seen the charges modified, and the state of judgement rescinded, all with no concurrence from the relevant editors. I'd note that even funnier the original complaint was inspired by the anonymous whiner retroactively getting worked up about a resolved issue on my Talk page that didn't involve him at all, in any but the most general way. Greglocock (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
While I don't agree with all the hand-wringing above about the word "wanker" -- and especially not with the grim "you will be blocked if it happens again" tone taken by Ncmv -- I think you would be well-advised to simply say "hey, sorry that my use of the word wanker offended" or something similar. I, too, find it odd that the IP dropped a warning for a dead issue, but pragmatism suggests that in the interest of ending this "trial", some for of an apology might be aprapos. UnitAnode 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Apologise for throwing around terms like "wanker" and "whiner", and generally moderate your tone. Also WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - these are not charges and this is not a trial. Wikipedia is a community and there is an appropriate way of behaving in it, and this is a forum which is suggesting that you need to take a step back and consider the manner in which you participate in it. This is unnecessary wikidrama and there's an obvious way for you to defuse it and allow everyone to get back to editing. Rd232 talk 12:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I stand by my warning to him; how he chooses to take it is up to him, even if he were to use Unitanode's unhelpful 2 cents on that matter. At the end of the day, as long as he relaxes and does not let this approach continue in the future, this would be satisfactorily resolved - even an apology is not needed (though it is highly desirable if he strikes or retracts those terms in both contexts). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you please refrain from calling my commentary "unhelpful" when I disagree with you? I have every right to comment on these issues, and the simple fact that we have different approaches to situations brings a better texture to these discussions. Varying viewpoints on such matters is a good thing, not a bad one. UnitAnode 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If what you've asked is what you really want, then please be a little more tactful in your postings, so that there is no need for me to point out the tiny value your comments have added to such discussions. Differing points of view is one thing; what you seem to keep doing constitutes something else altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
What I'm asking you to do is to stop mischaracterizing my participation here. You've been antagonistic every step of the way, and there's no small irony in that you're treating me so disrespectfully on a board about etiquette. The rudeness inherent in how you've been acting is quite apparent, and it needs to stop. How is what you are doing "helpful" in any way? (I encourage anyone who wonders what this is about to closely examine both my posts and Ncmv's for who has been truly unhelpful throughout.) UnitAnode 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
While you continue to refuse to be more tactful in your postings, your posts are not being mischaracterized. Needlessly interacting with and mentioning me, despite my repeated requests and warnings to you to back off, is nothing short of plainly disruptive conduct designed to further conflict. His repeated attempts to misrepresent the reality should really say it all, and that's perhaps even more disruptive. I encourage anyone who has a chance of getting through to this editor to tell him in no uncertain terms what will result from this if he continues down this path. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone reading through our interaction can plainly see with whom the problem lies. I've not attacked you, as you've done me. Calling someone disruptive, when they're not, is a personal attack. And honestly, I don't believe for a second that you even believe that. If you did, you would have reported me, with diffs, to some message board or other. The problem is, there are no diffs for such accusations. You can either provide diffs to support your accusations against me, or choose to let this die. I've asked you again and again to stop. This is my final request for you to stop attacking me and my motives, unless you're willing to provide diffs and attempt to get me blocked for disruption. I'm tired of your accusations. UnitAnode 04:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of calling people names left and right; it's often counter-productive, makes you look foolish, and when it spews forth continuously it poisons the editing environment for others. One-off outbursts are another matter. I was disappointed in the rather simplistic "resolving" of the situation without considering the underlying issue, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically trapped into supporting over-aggressive namecalling. It looked pretty clear to me that the IP was trying to bait Greg into responding in this way, so he could come running here and report him. Bringing up a resolved issue from 3 weeks ago that occurred on Greg's talk page, leaving a patronizing warning, reporting him here, and then disappearing, is baiting behavior. While it's annoying that Greg couldn't resist taking that bait, the IP's behavior shouldn't be rewarded, or ignored. We shouldn't encourage people to go wandering around, actively looking for things to be offended by.

If this is a one-off issue, then let it die. If it's a chronic problem, then address it as a chronic problem. But the bait-react-report-warn/block cycle that is so common here seems useless, and silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate your comment; the cycle you refer to is indeed a recurring problem, but when it does occur, WP:DNFT/WP:BAIT should be followed - quoting it, resorting to attacks, or not seeking outside assistance, are the wrong way to handle it. I've found that the warning/reminder on attacks is enough to remind most users about that, though obviously, that was not the case here. In this case, for now, we're back to the wait-and-see point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for not finding the offensive comment the second it was made - that must make me a troll. I also apologise for being tired and going to bed, while this process was going on - I should have not gone to bed, or gone to work today, instead I could have sat on wikipedia commenting on the entire drama unfolding here. I don't have to justify my motives in pointing out this personal attack - this is not about me, it is about the user who called me a wanker. I would have thought that my motives were obvious, on the user's talk page I did state that it seemed out of character, implying that he is not a problem editor, if I had been so set on causing problems myself, I would have simply left a message on a few admins' talk pages requesting that they look into it and block him - wikiquette alerts seems to be a place were things are talked over, not a place where blocks are given. I don't need an apology, as it is unlikely to be sincere - I just think that calling someone a wanker is offensive, Britishism has nothing to do with it, I assume I cannot call someone a cunt, and then point out the jovial manner in which Australians call their friends a cunt. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Your motives for leaving a "warning" about a 3-week-old issue are important, as it gives the appearance of baiting. Greg shouldn't have responded as he did, but the warning that precipitated the remarks shouldn't have happened either. I think that's the only point that anyone here was trying to make. There is more to this than a simple "he called me a wanker and should be warned." UnitAnode 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll leave you lot to spin your wheels on this for the time being. The (fake?) outrage exhibited by the original complainer when he poked a sleeping bear and got his finger bitten off doesn't inspire me with any guilt, and the lawyer's clerk seems to have a unique approach to problem resolution that seems to involve poking sleeping bears as well. Since this process seems to lack a defined aim, and a path, I assume it is just a talk-fest. I have far more entertaining things to do, and have at least met 3 rational editors in the course of this, so it is not a dead loss. So, thank you, F,U, and J, and as for the rest of you, get out in the sunshine, you are spending far too long in the basement.Greglocock (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps now's the time to draw a line under it. I guess Greg got the message about that particular exchange, and unless there are new issues or other issues, that's probably as much as can be had from discussion of this. I'd like to remind him though that the phrase "lawyer's clerk" is confusing and erroneous - everyone is a volunteer here and there is no such position of authority on this page (there are clerks in a couple of the more formal Wikipedia dispute resolution places, but not here). Rd232 talk 23:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The "poked a sleeping bear and got his finger bitten off" comment is hardly accurate, I think that "pointed out rudeness and got an immature rude response" is far closer to the truth. I hope that Greg has learnt his lesson - an apology or block is hardly required, I just hope he does not act in such a rude manner in the future. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better characterization would be, "pointed out rudeness that was three weeks stale and long-resolved." As I said, Greg should not have responded how he did. But you also should not have left the "warning" over a stale issue. There was simply nothing to be accomplished in doing so. UnitAnode 17:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am not that experienced in editing wikipedia - now I understand. Perhaps if I vandalise an article I can hope that no one discovers my actions for three weeks, because after three weeks instead of action being taken against me, the person who reports me is going to receive the criticism instead. Nice to know. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note I have given User:119.173.81.176‎ a 72 hour block due to engaging in baiting behavior. It is clear he is trying to create a negative response from Greg, this block should prevent that. His most recent post the Greg's page was an insincere apology mixed with insults and taunts. We don't need that. Chillum 14:07, 21 August 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:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

Resolved
 – Filing party advised.

RHoPF previously filed a WQA against myself here [29], unfortunately he failed to notify me so I had no chance to actually reply. I noted here on his talk page [30] that he has failed to do this previously. After noticing that he had failed to notify me, I made a polite comment on his talk page here [31], [32] and [33]. He failed to respond, instead deleting my messages and basically leaving a rather curt comment on my talk page here [34].

The main reason for coming here tonight is that RHoPF made a number of unhelpful comments this morning accusing other editors of harassment [35]. It has been pointed out to him that those comments were inappropriate but he has declined to respond. Instead he has chosen to make further personal attacks and bad faith accusations [36]. I also have concerns that RHoPF is encouraging an editor with a POV agenda to forum shop to continue his disruptive edits see [37].

Its obvious any comment I make will only inflame matters, I was hoping that someone neutral would be able to help. Justin talk 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Did anything come of that original WQA, or was it effectively quickly dismissed? What really was the purpose of asking about it 2 full weeks later, other than poking the bear? Why in heaven's name would you re-add the question after they deleted it from their talkpage? They obviously have no desire to talk with you - are you aware that by re-adding it 3 times, you came awfully close to a 3RR block? Whether collegial or not, they have the full right to choose not to discuss something, AND to request that you leave them alone. Considering the current issues surrounding Gibraltar right now, I see nothing inherently wrong at the surface with the points he has raised in your diff's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No nothing came of it, the conclusion was there was no case to answer. The purpose of asking about it two weeks later was that I only found out about it yesterday. If you want to know the reason why I asked repeatedly, its because I was upset it was raised in the first place, especially given that I have frequently had good cause to raise a WQA in the past but didn't do so. I wouldn't have broken 3RR I'm aware of the policy, nor did I try to hide the fact that I'd asked repeatedly. I appreciate the comments you've made and I'll take them on board, perhaps I was over sensitive about the WQA.
One point I don't think I'm wrong about is I don't see the comments about harassment as helpful, for the reasons outlined below. Neither do I feel the bad faith accusations about other editors are helpful in defusing the current situation; in fact they're encouraging another editor to continue with disruptive behaviour. So while I'm content to drop the issue of the WQA, I still feel that it would be helpful if someone neutral would look at the other comments. Justin talk 09:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Addendum. After reflection I posted an apology for the multiple postings yesterday. Justin talk 11:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Justin, firstly on a procedural note, I think it's more useful to point to the archives so that we can see what came of it in the end - in this case, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive68#Justin_A_Kuntz. Secondly, I echo Bwilkins comment - so rather than take up space by copying and pasting every sentence, I'd appreciate it if you read through each sentence of his comment again prior to reading further. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is that you do so. Thirdly and finally, the accusations by the subject are indeed not exactly helpful. Although I can appreciate that there is quite a bit of frustration between both parties, this appears to have developed into a battleground mentality. Everyone taking a step back from that article/area for a little while may work wonders. Otherwise, the dispute has escalated to the point where nothing we say about conduct (at this venue) is going to reduce the underlying core conflict; attacking the content may achieve a more preferrable outcome for all involved. In such circumstances, there's no real point in leaving this particular complaint open, but if anyone is ready to go into this in more detail, they're welcome to. Trying to tackle the content issues through more formal mediation channels (WP:MEDIATION) possibly has greater chances of producing a more useful outcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I take the point on procedural grounds and thank you for finding and pasting a link. In answer to your second point, I think I've taken the lesson on board, I apologised for bugging RHoPF on his talk page already with the comment that both of us should try to be less confrontational toward one another. For info I've taken nearly a week's break from the article for precisely that reason, in fact I took nearly a week off wikipedia totally. I'm not entirely sure I follow the reasoning in your later comment. The accusations by Red Hat are part of the problem, something you appear to acknowledge. I was rather hoping a more informal mediation might go some way toward defusing the situation. Certainly an objective comment on my own behaviour yesterday has led to a certain amount of clarity. I don't see how it could hurt?
For info perhaps I have misunderstood, I've never thought of WQA as a complaint system (that function is undertaken by AN/I). Rather I've seen it as an informal way of mediating editor interactions. Am I wrong? Justin talk 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Unlike ANI, WQA is a non-binding forum, and on the rare occasions blocks are handed out here, it's usually not-on-request blocks for serious misconduct or emergency situations. But essentially, WQA involves a complaint being made about incivility, difficult communications, and so on. The users here will try to note what's happened and how it came about, advise the parties on how to go about it, make any necessary warnings, and in some cases, escalate more serious problems to ANI for admin intervention. You're right to an extent: the uninvolved editors here (when they can, may try to) help mediate editor interactions, but you must remember, WQA cannot intervene in content disputes or mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts. Based on the level of frustration I detected in the accusations, I wonder whether this conflict falls under that category. (Again, I might be wrong, but that's what I felt on reading it). In any case, a response from Red Hat would probably help. No matter what kind of mediation it is, it can only work with consent from both parties - is there a reason Red Hat has not responded, at least to the note I made about the accusations? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, to be honest I was looking for mediation to avoid things going as far as AN/I or arbcom. Things seem to have cooled since I made that apology, RH responded with the same. I'm not sure why he hasn't responded here, probably he simply hasn't seen it. Justin talk 07:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note: AN/I is not a part of Dispute Resolution - WQA is. On top of that, I do not expect RH to reply here - I'm not sure who would have notified him, and to be honest, my first posting in this thread was what I thought was going to be closure here. No more poking of bears please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Imalbornoz

Stale
 – 10:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Imalbornoz appears to be an SPA account focused on the Gibraltar article. Off-wiki he has expressed a strong Spanish nationalist POV [38] on this issue. He has edit warred in an attempt to insert his edit into the Gibraltar article. He has also persistently canvassed both on English Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. He is also forum shopping on the mediation cabal [39], NPOV noticeboard [40] and RS noticeboard [41], [42] and [43]. In response to warnings about his behaviour he has resorted to accusations of harassment [44]. His behaviour on the talk page is to constantly ignore any comments returning to repeat the same point again and again. I think this is probably the last resort before starting a thread on AN/I. Justin talk 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may I'd also like to draw attention to remarks made by the aforementioned user at User talk:The Four Deuces in which he proffers his own political opinion (e.g. "there is a not insignificant probability that Gib[raltar] could return to Spain") and posits wholly false information and half-truths (e.g. the notion of "UN jurisprudence") to tendentiously win the support of other users. I think it is inappropriate that he should make political points and I hardly think he is unaware of our basic principles of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. RedCoat10 • talk 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
RedCoat: You are misleading. All I have done is to explain to an editor interested in a discussion about the UN and the Gib article [45] why the UN list is not a mere historical curiosity. One of my points was that, according to UN past resolutions, "(o)f course, the contrary can be argued, but there is a not insignificant probability that Gib could return to Spain." I also explained Gibraltar's and UK's position (look at the link). In any case, I don't think that stating one's opinion in a talk page is wrong (look at Gibnews). What is non-NPOV is to veto alternative not insignificant POVs in the text of an article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Answer to Justin:
  • I am a newcomer (I made one contribution in December 2007, on the Dire Straits article, but nothing since).
  • I edited Wikipedia for the second time on July 28 2009 after a discussion about Gibraltar in The Economist, when I was surprised that the first sentence of the WP article directly contradicted the UN position, and that position was not explained until more than 160 lines below! Also, that statement was not sourced. So I have been trying to correct what I see as a non NPOV in the lead of the article and try to get it properly sourced. The reaction from the usual editors of the article has been so intense that I have not had time to contribute to anything else... Once inside, I have found WP's system very interesting, and I intend to contribute in other articles in WP, as soon as I see that lead is OK.
  • I have not canvassed. I have just asked for advice to two expert editors that I considered neutral. I have also explained some details about the UN to some user who had already participated in the NPOV noticeboard (not wanting to spam it) -that's the case that RedCoat10 mentions-. I have also made some comments to 2 or 3 other users who had already participated in the RS noticeboard. In no case have I insinuated anyone to participate in a discussion to unbalance it.
  • I have resorted to forums outside of the Gibraltar talk page following the dispute resolution process. In fact, one of the reasons for this is that Justin did not want to keep discussing in the article talk page[46] and did not want to accept the mediation cabal[47][48].
  • I have said that repeated false accusations can amount to Harassment (that's a fact). Before that, I have also said that I was starting to feel harassed by him because he kept accusing me of SPA [49] since my fifth edit in the Gibraltar article!!! (the eighth in English WP ever, and the 10th in .es and .en WP) Talk about not biting the WP:NEWCOMER!!! Also...
  • ...I have repeatedly asked Justin not to attack me, but he has accused me of: edit warring[50], canvassing[51], impersonating a newcomer[52], bad faith [53], using his talk page as a soap box, edit warring [54], canvassing [55], canvassing [56], edit warring, bad faith [57], bad faith [58],canvassing and bad faith [59], SPA, canvassing, edit warring, bad faith, impersonating a newcomer [60], SPA, canvassing, edit warring, bad faith [61], edit warring, canvassing, impersonating a newcomer, bad faith [62], impersonating a new user, insinuation of sockpuppeting, canvassing, edit warring [63], ...
  • I will go through all the necessary steps as established by WP's policies in order to find a resolution for this dispute. I have explained my situation all the time but he has simply kept accusing.
  • I have to keep repeating things, if I ask questions such as "Can you give me an example of (statementA)?" [64] [65] [66] and get answers such as "See this example for (statementB)" [67] or “I have already told you” [68] or "I just think that (statementA) is true" [69] (in longer paragraphs, <CTRL + F> for "misconstrued"). The same happens if I say that I see a contradiction in an editor’s position [70] [71] [72] (seek “rationale for a change” in the last reference), and it is neither explained or corrected, only ignored (unfortunately, I can give NO example of a good or bad explanation or correction to this contradiction).
BTW, I would like to know if some editor recommends that I should make a formal complain for Justin A Kuntz's behaviour. Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to make whatever complaint you feel is justified, in fact I would welcome you to do so. You might then realise that it is in fact your conduct that has been problematic. You might like to consider that RHoPF has already done so, the conclusion being there was no case to answer. A clue, there is a link above. You might also like to think about the fact that I've chosen to raise this in an informal environment, aimed at resolving issues informally rather than resorting to the route of a formal complaint.
You say you have to keep repeating things (point emphasised), what has actually happened is that you have repeatedly had an answer to the same point you keep raising. This is disruptive. The record is there on Talk:Gibraltar.
You say that false accusations are harassment. The facts are that you have edit warred, you have canvassed users both on the English and Spanish wikipedia - and this was done to gain support not for advice. You have also forum shopped trying to get an answer you like but been repeatedly disappointed. You've then further canvassed anyone who has replied trying to involve them in the discussions at Talk:Gibraltar and the comments you made have clearly tried to influence them in the discussion. Warning a user about their conduct and directing them toward the relevant policy information is not harassment. I would add that a false accusation of harassment is of itself disruptive and can result in a block for uncivil behaviour because it disrupts the dispute resolution process.
You say you are trying to correct something that is POV, which you "corrected" by substituting for a Spanish nationalist POV, diminishing the level of self-government Gibraltar enjoys and elsewhere employing emotive language such as describing Gibraltar as a colony. Not only that but you have used derogatory and false accusations about the conduct of the Gibraltar Government; including accusing them of laundering drug money.
You're also misrepresenting what I said on Talk:Gibraltar and at the Medcab. On the talk page I highlighted the fact that there seemed to be no progress because you simply returned again and again to repeat the same point. There was no progress because you refused to discuss. On the medcab I did not decline but highlighted to any potential mediator the stalemate on the talk page and that you were asking Medcab to deliver a judgement - Medcab can't do that.
Yes I have expressed doubts that you are a newcomer, I still entertain strong doubts about that. You've frequently demonstrated in-depth knowledge of wiki-processes that are uncharacteristic of a newcomer.
Finally, you've not bothered to list any of the forum shopping you've done. You said yesterday that you didn't realise that you had to do so. Yet the instructions on each forum you've used are quite explicit in saying you should do so. Not only that but I actually told you last week you were required to do so. Justin talk 09:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this comment before (shouldn't it have been somewhere below?) About forum shops, one comment that I kept repeating and you not answering (the inconsistency of the previous source in the lead of the article) was not solved in the Gibraltar talk page: it was solved by one of you guys as soon as I posted it in the RS noticeboard (look here. And I didn't list it! Without any discussion. That does not say much about your eagerness to discuss rationally, I would say.
It's diffs, shortcuts, and so on what I am still learnig how to use, if you see my evolution. The basic processes of WP are very intuitive, because they are just about rational discussion. Are you saying that you had great difficulty when learning how to follow them?
Something else: Are you still saying that I was impersonating a newcomer on the 28 of July? That would mean that I am sockpuppeting or something like that (I don't know if that's the accurate term). If you really mean that, say so or make a formal accusation. If you don't, just shut up.
Also, I have already apologised if it was unpolite to not list the questions in external forums. On the other hand you keep complaining that it is explicitly written somewhere in the forum. Where does it say in the [WP:MEDCAB]] or the WP:RSN that you have to list any question? Show me and I will apologise again. If you don't or can't, just shut up.
Justin, this is too much. I want to get along with you, at least as much as it's needed to improve the Gib article. I will assume that you really believe what you're saying. I have already explained my position, with diffs and everything. I can't do anything else. I hope you calm down and look for a solution for the lack of consensus in the Gibraltar article. I am open to work on that and forget everything. In any case, as I have said, I am determined to go through all the necessary steps to solve this dispute. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding medcab and other forums. I made a comment here [73] noting that it is customary and polite to inform other editors when you raise the matter elsewhere. If you want an example of how this is formalised see [here] where you will find an example of precisely the sort of template I referred to. Again it was a good faith post of mine to simply point out to you that this is generally a requirement, the comment "If you don't or can't, just shut up" is singularly unhelpful and again this is demonstrating how you don't assume good faith. You responded to an referral to 3RR with comments on my talk page alleging bias. Again you haven't shown good faith right from the start.
Regarding sources and this diff [74], again multiple sources have already been listed. You rejected sources from Gibraltar as biased. The choice of source is not the issue your conduct is; the choice of suitable sources to support the lead is extensive - take your pick. Again you're resorting to personal attacks with the comment "That does not say much about your eagerness to discuss rationally, I would say." Is it helpful, does it resolve matters? No it doesn't it raises tension unnecessarily.
And yes I still entertain doubts that you're a newcomer. You might like to refer to WP:SPADE and don't confuse someone being direct and confronting you about inappropriate behaviour with being uncivil or try to infer anything else from it.
And you say you want to improve the Gibraltar article, fine, make a suggestion for improvement. If other editors don't feel it is necessary, don't accuse them of bias, don't claim the edit is controversial, listen to their reasons when they explain their position and don't endlessly return to the same point that has already been rebutted, don't forum shop, don't canvas for support. Because all this does is raise tension and escalate the argument into an unproductive direction.
You might also care to note the comment at the bottom of every edit "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Your edits can and will be changed by others. Where people disagree you are expected to debate, debate is not about constantly stating the same position. Debate also implies you listen to other editors. Does it not occur to you that you may be problem when in all the forums you've shopped in, not one person has come forward to say there is something wrong with the lead. The comments you've had all say pretty much the same; that the lead is fine given that the text amplifies the different nuances later. Does it not occur to you that is precisely what people have tried to say to you on the talk page?
And again I've raised this at WQA which is an informal arena for discussing and resolving problems with editor conduct and incivility. I'm trying to avoid making this into a formal complaint. The comments at Medcab being an unproductive step were precisely because you were asking Medcab to endorse your position as you've subsequently tried and failed elsewhere. NPOV, Medcab and RS have all said pretty much the same thing. There is nothing wrong with the article. Justin talk 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, User:Imalbornoz has been somewhat ganged up on by a cabal of editors who all share the same political views. The view of the cabal is "we've discussed it, we don't want to compromise, that's the end of the matter, and any attempt by you to seek outside opinion on other pages is canvassing/disruptive/tendentious". Combined with the view "you were doing stuff at the Spanish Wikipedia, so you are obviously at the English Gibraltar page to cause mischief", it all makes for a very unhealthy situation there, given the issues with the sovereignty disputes over Gibraltar. As an editor who clearly is not here to be disruptive (I spent hours and hours on British Empire to get it to FA status, and it was recently featured on the WP main page), I have to give credit to User:Imalbornoz for not simply giving in, as I did with the Gibraltar page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Red Hat, continuing the same accusations on the WQA page is not helpful. You have made a series of bad faith accusations about a number of editors already. Not only that you raised a WQA against myself, did not even do me the courtesy of informing me and have rather rudely declined to provide an explanation. I have to say that in all my interactions with yourself I have found you to be an editor that unnecessarily raises tension in talk page discussions. I still have not forgotten the occasion you chose to call me a Rottweiler, we're both half-Spanish and we know exactly what you meant by that remark even if the meaning might be lost on an English audience. Justin talk 09:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Time adding content to the British Empire article was better spent than making false accusations of sockpuppetry like these in which your good faith was been dispensed economically. Probably why you were canvassed. --Gibnews (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't as Justin has acted correctly. You have acted as a SPA and canvassed other editors for support because they have a track record of dissent on talk:gibraltar
You seem obsessed with one small point. The proper place to discuss this was NOT on Justin's talk page but on talk:Gibraltar. It has been discussed at great length and the consensus is that the lead stands.
You have posted all over wikipedia regarding your POV that Gibraltar is not self Governing and should be Spanish. Please take note of the result in Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002. This section is about Wikiquette, I politely suggest that resolution would be for you to show you are interested in wikipedia by editing some non Gibraltar related articles for a few months and then returning to this point as almost everyone else is very bored - editing wikipedia should be about disseminating useful information and not trying to grind people down with tendentious argument because they simply don't agree with you. --Gibnews (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Gibnews: That's simply a lie. I have been very careful NOT TO SAY ONCE in Wikipedia that Gibraltar should be Spanish. I have explained once to an editor [75] why the UN list is not a mere historical curiosity. One of my points was that, according to UN past resolutions, "(o)f course, the contrary can be argued, but there is a not insignificant probability that Gib could return to Spain." I also explained Gibraltar's and UK's position. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Lets just clarify your statement slightly shall we. You've been careful not to say as much on-wiki but your opinions expressed elsewhere have most definitely shown an extreme Spanish nationalist POV. Your comments were also aimed at influencing an editor in a particular direction. Justin talk 09:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Gibnews: The first sentence of the Gibraltar article is "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory" the UN official description of Gibraltar is “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” I have been trying to find a less misleading, partisan and controversial WP lead than the current one. I have offered several alternatives, but you have not offered any. So far there is no consensus: myself and one other editor don't agree that the status quo should be kept (please look here: WP:CONS). --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You only consider the current intro missleading because you don't like it. Wikipedia is not about YOUR beliefs. You fail to grasp that. And this discussion is not yet another excuse for you to try and assert that Gibraltar is governed from Whitehall, which is nonsense. --Gibnews (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing Imalbornoz or what he is accused of and why, I will say that accusing persons of Wikipedia:SPA is a dirty tactic. There is nothing wrong with being interested in a single subject and editing only that subject. That subject might just be your passion and that could be a good thing since you should have a lot of knowledge about it. The only time when there could be objections is that when an editor has been banned and is using a sockpuppet. If you think Imalbornoz is a sockpuppet then file a complaint and have him checked, otherwise just shut up about Wikipedia:SPA or sock puppetry. People who even mention SPA should be blocked for a long time. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you re-read your contribution and ask yourself whether it was helpful. I agree that simply having an interest in a particular area is not a bad thing. However, when a person seeks to skew a neutral article in the direction of an extreme nationalist viewpoint then it becomes a problem. Regards. Justin talk 09:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Justin, I am glad you are withdrawing the SPA accusation (or so it seems). On the other hand, I still don't see you have withdrawn any other undue accusations. On top of that I haven't seen any apologies (myself I have apologised several times for a couple of things, it's not too painful for me to recognise my mistakes). If needed, I am willing to apologise again for anything that may have disturbed you -as long as it is justified (e.g. my comments in The Economist previous to my editing in Wikipedia).
About my contributions: I have discussed in order to include a neutral quote from the UK Government or the UK House of Commons, I have also wanted to reposition a reference to the UN. Is that extreme nationalism (my gosh!)? You have vetoed any quote from those organisations in the lead of the article (which currently almost literally contradicts the UN official position). Is that neutral? BTW, I am still eager to keep looking for a consensus solution with you. Let's cool down and see what we can find (like User:Narson proposed[76]). Cheers. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not withdrawing any of my comments, my comments on your behaviour are accurate. The purpose of a WQA is to discuss editor behaviour not to discuss edits on an article. They belong on the Talk Page of the article itself; as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Noticeably you haven't discussed you just repeat the same point again, despite the fact its already been answered. Its frustrating and disruptive. Justin talk 12:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
And in answer to the insinuation in that response, I am perfectly prepared to apologise where it is warranted. It isn't in this case, all my comments are accurate. Justin talk 12:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT Could someone else take a look at this alert and offer an external opinion? I'll admit that it probably looks (and is) so tangled that it does not have much appeal from the outside (even less from the inside, I can tell you). But I'm pretty sure that some external editor with some experience that takes a look at the details and gives an additional opinion could do much good. Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK somehow I doubt you'll listen to me but I'll try again to explain how Wikipedia works. You keep asking for people to make a judgement and come down on one side or the other. That isn't how it works here. The purpose of a WQA is to facilitate mediating a dispute so that both sides come to an understanding. The purpose in raising this WQA from my perspective is to try and make you understand that the way you're going about things is disruptive and counter productive. Justin talk 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you miss the point, this discussion is NOT about the article but about your behaviour. Take a moment to read the title and intro. --Gibnews (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. Can't sa I'm loving the 'tar them with the same brush' thing from Red Hat, but hey ho. I will say hat Imalbornoz has blustered around a bit and does need to slow down and read the policies /then/ proceed, not proceed and then look back to see which policies lie under foot. Once or twice is understandable, the number of times this has now happened is careless by him and I hope he will accept that people could be annoyed by it. However I can't say I feel he is malicious in his intent. It is Remember to read the rules and you'll be tickety boo,though I would somewhat suggest the Gib article is left for a week. Allow tensions to calm etc. When there have been accusations of canvas with some merit to them, people might consider the debate then tainted and it is not worth the hassle. A good idea might be, if Imalbornoz desires to engage more fully in wikipedia and its processes, to list for an uninvolved mentor. I do feel that having someone neutral to sound things off would help him and stop some of the angst. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin and Gibnews, I am going to say this with complete candidness and without any sarcasm: please read again my previous comment word by word, as if someone else had written it. You will see that I am not asking anybody to take sides. I am not talking about the article. I am only asking for an external opinion to help us out.
I am sure that Justin (who opened this WQ alert on my user) could have written it word by word, as he says, asking for someone to facilitate mediating this dispute (not the article) so that both sides come to an understanding. I hope that we all can cool down and try not to see an attack in each comment, so that we can find a solution.
Narson, I think that the uninvolved mentor might be a good idea. I have also proposed Justin to write a consensus question and send it to one/several uninvolved and experienced editors and assume the answer. By the way, I would honestly like to have an independent opinion on which policies I and others have stepped on, so that:
  • I don't persist if I have done wrong: after Justin's first accusations (let's say, after he accused me of edit warring and canvassing -at first I didn't realise SPA was an accusation, I thought he was calling me a SPAniard) I have carefully read WP's policies and don't think that I have been so exagerately careless (a bit, yes); but I am willing to hear an independent opinion.
  • Others don't persist if they have done wrong (which I am pretty sure they have in some degree, although I could be mistaken). I admit I may have annoyed some (and have apologised several times), do you think others might (and should) have too?
By the way, Narson, out of sheer idiomatic curiosity, what does 'Can't say I'm loving the 'tar them with the same brush' thing from Red Hat, but hey ho' mean? (I must say that this discussion at least is helping me to improve my English) ;)
My next comment is also totally candid, but it is aimed at making you think: Has there been in the last 2 or 3 years anyone with a non Gibraltarian POV editing the Gib article without a very hard discussion involved? How many times has that editor seen a collaborative environment even if there were different opinions? How many have returned? Were they all evil Spanish nationalists or half-Spanish collaborationists blatantly ignoring WP's policies (I looked at those discussions and saw MANY accusations crossing the page)? Am I intending to trick you in order to cover the Gib article with an evil Spanish nationalist bias, by wanting to add some UK and UN sources? Think about it, please.(no hard feelings kept or intended) (BTW, the last question's point is not about the article, but about my intentions).
Please, I will really appreciate any more constructive comments, from inside as well as from outside the usual editors of the Gibraltar article. Best wishes to all. --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As I keep saying, this is not the place to discuss that - sit back and read some more about wikipedia and how it works. The advice you got from ecetaml about not pushing a Spanish POV on Gibraltar articles holds good. We like Spain here so much so that we have provided a building for the Cervantes Institute that we can learn more about your culture. Learn about Gibraltar because everything you have heard in Spain, and repeated elsewhere is nonsense. --Gibnews (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
My mother is Spanish, its actually well known; for example Narson mentioned it on the talk page. I didn't just call you an SPA, I wikilinked it. See WP:SPA. We don't tolerate racism, full stop. Don't make assumptions; part of the problem is from the outset that is precisely what you've done.
Read your comments again, you're asking someone to make a judgement. You say you're asking for an independent opinion, you want someone to say right or wrong. You're asking them to take sides. Understand this, Wikipedia isn't about taking sides its about working collaboratively.
Again as I pointed out on your talk page, wikipedia isn't about horse trading, getting someone to referee and make a judgement about who is right.
As regards your "candid" question, you might like to know that I have worked extensively with Argentine editors on Falklands War articles. I'm also half-Spanish just to make the point. Spanish editors have edited on Gibraltar, constructively, they're welcome. Equally the talk pages have on several occasions become filled with tendentious arguments of Spanish Nationalists wanting to right great wrongs. As we're being candid, you might like to consider whether the Gibraltar editors such as Gibnews are influenced by the confrontrational policies of past Spanish Governments and the libellous and false accusations made by the Spanish Government, such as drug smuggling, money laundering; all of which have been shown to be demonstrably false - and which you repeated off-wiki. And as you've mentioned the UN, you might like to think about how their view of Spain is characterised by Spains assertion at the C24 that they don't matter. Think about, please.
And again the purpose of this WQA is to discuss editor behaviour not to further dicussions about Gibraltar. Justin talk 23:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


UNINDENT This is getting very tiresome. You guys seem to misunderstand every comment I make, and then I have to explain again, and then you misunderstand my explanation (always thinking that it is more aggressive or off the point than it is).

Gibnews, ecemaml didn't ask me to "not push a Spanish POV", he just said almost the contrary: to ask for some room for it to balance the Gibraltarian POV (that's how NPOV is built) -anyhow I am not trying to push that POV but to give a place for the POV of the UK Foreign Office & Foreign Affairs Committee & UN (Justin, you speak Spanish, explain it[77] to Gibnews, please).

I doubt that anyone will waste the time diving into that mess up there. But if -hopefully- someone did, could that editor please explain to Justin that: 1) I know SPA stands for what it stands, if you read my comment again you will see that I said that "at first I didn't realise SPA was an accusation, I thought he was calling me a SPAniard" (I was a newcomer, remember?); now of course I know it, after you've repeated that accusation many times.

2) You didn't wikilink it at first[78].

3) Why do you talk about racism? Have I talked about racism?

4) What the heck is this WQ place for if not for asking outside opinions trying to help out with disputes among users? Opinions do not have to be right or wrong (are yours always like that, Justin?); I was not asking for an arbitration or talking about the article: you can either believe me or keep a record of what "I really have said in spite of my saying the contrary" (even in a trifle like this).

5) Are ecemaml and RHoPF Spanish nationalists?

6) I presume that Gibnews has an opinion of his/her own, not easily influenced by external acts.

7) This point is about the article (the only one, I can not stress it further without taking too much space): we can negotiate and ask for external mediation. I know mediation is voluntary, but I have the will, do you? It's a part of the dispute resolution process and it would save us a lot of time and crossed accusations.

8) OK, so then "little hairs to the sea" and let's look for a solution. I am ready to do it. Are you? Please?

Any additional outside guidance would be welcome!!! --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me say it again, this discussion is not about the article, its about YOU going on and on about it 'as nausiam' You cannot 'negotiate' on Gibraltar being self Governing as its not yours to gift. As for the editors you mention being influenced by being Spanish take that with them. However, the press in Spain reports less than honesty about Gibraltar. This causes missunderatandings. --Gibnews (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Just for info, I really have had it this time. Everytime I think we're making progress you go back to the same position again. I give up, its just so frustrating. Justin talk 10:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As I was asked to translate. I'd say Gibnews was accurate in his translation, the comments are to insists on the Spanish POV being represented. Admittedly it then follows with a comment that this is to achieve a NPOV. It also makes accusations that the article is biased. Its not, the article does mention the Spanish POV. Thats the point you're failing to grasp. And again this forum is to dicuss editor behaviour, its not about judgement. Thats it for me, bye. Justin talk 10:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuous rude and uncivil behaviour from User:Vintagekits and User:Dahamsta

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Moved to ANI
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moved to WP:AN/I. Nathan T 20:52, 21 August 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:John

Resolved
 – Nothing to see here. Get back to discussing content - elsewhere. Rd232 talk 20:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The condescending and scornful tone of user:John's remarks in this edit summary and here is unacceptable. It is problematic under WP:CIVIL ("[r]udeness"; use of "[j]udgmental tone in edit summaries"; "[u]se of condescending language towards other Users"; "[f]eigned incomprehension, 'playing dumb'"), Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct (admins "are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others," above and beyond that expected of run-of-the-mill editors), and, in the case of the edit summary, WP:AGF (telling a long-established editor who made an unobjectionable edit, without any reason to think it was made in bad faith, that he should "try Conservapedia maybe if you want to construct an article like this?" imputes motive and begs the question of what "this" is).

It is all the more misplaced because the crux of the disagreement is far from a clear-cut issue. John objects that my edit violates NPOV, RS, and BLP. How so? The claim that it violates NPOV is entirely obscure, and although I have twice asked him to elaborate, he has simply ignored the question or changed the subject. This is especially problematic because if John will simply switch to objecting on NPOV grounds even if the sourcing is unimpeachable, time spent resolving the sourcing issue will be time wasted. Accordingly, by maintaining his NPOV objection but refusing to discuss or explain it, he is effectively stonewalling the edit. That would be mighty frustrating even absent the unacceptable tone. [Update: since I originally posted this, John has addressed the NPOV problem, albeit not convincingly.]

The claim that BLP and RS bars the edit is more understandable but the answer is no more clear-cut. RS and BLP reject the use of self-published sources - a category that includes most blogs. Both, however, make it crystal clear (and WP:SPS underlines the point) that it is not blogs that are objectionable, per se, but self-published sources, a prohibition that is itself a function of WP:V. For this reason, when a blog does not have the problems that the policy is designed to avoid -- when it is not self-published, as when a newspaper publishes a blog on its website, or when the credentials of the author on the subject are not in any doubt (SCOTUSblog, for example, is deemed a reliable source, even for BLPs") -- a blog may be an acceptable source.

It's common ground, clear on the face of the policies, that self-published blogs are unacceptable as sources. A blog published by a newspaper or other MSM source is probably okay, because it isn't self-published. (Nothing in that reasoning confines the application of that principle solely to media outlets, either.) At the other end of the scale, an anonymous blog on Typepad is probably unacceptable because it is self-published. Here's the rub. Where between these extremes should we situate a blog published by a well-reputed and established red brick think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, written on by the think tank's academics?

Now, to be quite clear, I am not asking this noticeboard to resolve that question. That is an issue for BLPN or RSN to consider later. I am asking WQA to look John's conduct, not at his substantive views on the policies at issue. For that, you need notice only that the answer to the question is far more subtle and intricate and nowhere near so clear-cut as to justify John's condescending tone and "just read the policies" demeanor. If this was as simple as a case where I was trying to cite the anonymous typepad blog mentioned earlier, John's stance might be acceptable, but when the issue is more complex, a more circumspect tone should be expected, particularly from an admin. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's you who are in the wrong. Your edit was far from neutral, clearly intended to convey an opinion rather than just the facts. John called you out on it. This is another in a set of spurious complaints you have made, and like the others I have seen, it is made at tedious length. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Looie, Looie... I don't know what the source is of that axe you feel the need to grind against me whenever the opportunity arises, cf. [79][80]. And I don't care. Whatever trivial or imaginary slight you have concocted or exaggerated in your mind to justify this jejune playground sniping, it just isn't something I have any interest in. In any event, though, holding grudges is not accepted by the community, so if you aren't capable of evaluating issues on their merits rather than grinding that axe, my suggestion is that you simply recuse yourself from issues involving users you have a problem with. As to your TLDR complaint, I have said all I intend to say on that subject.
Given the foregoing, a lengthy reply is unwarranted, but a brief response is in order. Your claim that my edit "was far from neutral, clearly intended to convey an opinion rather than just the facts" founders for three reasons. First, the edit at issue involves two undisputed facts (duration of incarceration and number of victmis of Lockerbie) and the application of some fourth grade arithmetic (the forner divided by the latter). That fact by itself cannot be an "opinion" - it is a fact. Whether this guy deserved to spend more time, or whether he was innocent and thus should have served less time, are separate questions that are not implicated by inclusion vel non of this point. Second, if the wording is problematic but the point itself is not inherently NPOV, WP:REVERT becomes a problem. Reversion should be a last resort - it is appropriate when the edit is fatally flawed or if there just isn't some other way to write the comment. I have much more faith in John's command of written English than you; I think he could readily have rephrased the fact in an NPOV manner. And third, the content of the edit is not at issue here at WQA - the focus is on how John and I have conducted ourselves in regard to the issue, not the substance of the issue. Your response is accordingly inappropriate (given your pattern of irrational hostility towards me), erroneous (because it's wrong), and inapposite (because right or wrong it's irrelevant to the issue before WQA). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything terribly impolite about User:John's conduct. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that stock in your judgment hasn't been trading as highly in the last few weeks as it once did. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Simon and John. I have perused the edits in contention and I can offer the following comments.
This article represents a highly current affair. Just about the entire world is aware of it by now, and world views are polarised. Most people in the world will have one of two views on it. For example, 8.5 years and 3,123 days are symbolic of each of the two views. It is naïve to imagine Wikipedia will or should promote one view over the other. The matter is sensitive and Users should proceed carefully in determining the most appropriate way for Wikipedia to report it.
When John observed Simon’s edit to change 8.5 years to 3,123 days alarm bells should have rung. Ideally John would have used either the article’s Talk page or Simon’s User talk page to discuss the issue and see if consensus could be achieved. Reverting Simon’s edit, especially with a gratuitous edit summary about Conservapedia, is not the way it is done on Wikipedia when dealing with an issue that has polarised the world and therefore is likely to polarise the Wikipedia community.
There is no prize for the winner. Let’s see less competitiveness and more co-operation. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ideally John would have used either the article’s Talk page or Simon’s User talk page to discuss the issue and see if consensus could be achieved. Totally disagree. It was a good revert. The gratuitous mention of Conservapedia was perhaps out of line, on the other hand, Wikipedia would probably be better off if we didn't all pretend to not notice when editors are blatantly pushing a point of view. Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, long-running grudges have no place here. I realize that your're frustrated by the repeated rejections of your attempts to put a partisan skew on Sarah Palin, and identify me with that, but your desire to grind an axe is irrelevant and misplaced. See WP:BATTLE, WP:STICK, and WP:JDI.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I also support John's revert. If I had seen the same change, regardless of the number formatting (to which I'm indifferent), the use of a blog as a source would have been the grounds. If the number was reverted consequently to a different (yet factually identical) format would have been irrelevant and could later be compared to various other article formats in regards to sentencing (though from my understanding) there is no definitive standard. Mkdwtalk 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Simon, have you carefully reread your responses to other people? To call someone out on a WP:CIVIL case, over a comment that seems to be direct, but not an attack, and then come here and tell people their "judgement" is cheap is against the very nature civil. It is obvious the article Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Kenny MacAskill has been heavily debated as of late and the source of many troubles for you. Would you consider stepping away from the article for a period of time to let calm heads prevail? Mkdwtalk 19:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You're speaking about matters whose context you don't know. Clemens was recently spanked heavily by numerous users on both sides of the issue for an utterly inappropriate early SNOW close. He got away without sanctioning by the skin of his teeth and is nursing a grudge against me for challenging his authority. Don't think for a moment that his comment has the requisite disniterest. Likewise Dlabtoy's comment above; he has repeatedly tried to skew the Sarah Palin article into a hit piece, and has previously expressed a great deal of frustration with me as one of the prominent reverters of his tendentious editing. That's the trouble with filing a WQA: all the people with an axe to grind against you come out of the woodwork and add these snipy little comments, and people who haven't been involved in the previous disputes aren't aware of the context.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As to "stepping away" - are the other editors also going to step away? Are you proposing to fully protect the article "for a period of time to let calm heads prevail"? Or are you merely asking someone who has a different view of it to unilaterally disarm and let you and 11.5 MacAskill's apologists have your way with the article? It's interesting, isn't it: parties never seem to file a recusal motions against the judges they think are on their side. Environmentalists, atheists, and terrorists appealing to the Supreme Court never ask Justice Breyer to recuse himself, but they're quite happy to invent theories why Justice Scalia should recuse himself. So are you really interested in cooler heads, or just less heads? I'm not suggestig that you're not genuinely trying to improve the encyclopædia, I just wonder if you don't think that I'm an impediment to getting m:The Right Version. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a deal then. I'll step away if you do. That makes one "11.5 MacAskill's apologists" and one of you to step back. Regardless of Clemens history, I am responding to this page, and its overall tone is hostile. On sections or articles in regards to controversy, there is no 'right version', but there are differing versions. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." - Reuters Mkdwtalk 20:14, 22 August 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:TVC 15

Unresolved

I find the last sentence of this comment to be highly insulting and incivil. I would really appreciate if someone else could have a word with this user, as I'm tired of him accusing me of shilling for PhRMA and speculating about my mental health. Skinwalker (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was Skinwalker who introduced his problems with a closely related drug (venlafaxine) into the discussion of the subject of the article (paroxetine), to bolster his own credibility.[81] There was no speculation, and I did not insult him, although I did express my sincere hope that he found/finds something better. As for incivility, it is in fact Skinwalker who has barraged me with endless false accusations unsupported by diffs. For example, I think it would be appropriate to expect Skinwalker to produce a diff showing whether I accused him of shilling for PhRMA.TVC 15 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Skinwalker and TVC 15. I have perused a number of your exchanges on Talk pages and I notice that some of what you have written relates to each other rather than to content. You did this, you did that etc. I think this is the root of the angst you are both experiencing. As you work with Wikipedia I hope you will notice that most discussion on Talk pages is about technical content and citation of sources. Very little is about other Users, what they said and what they did. My experience is that when a debate focuses on other Users the debate quickly becomes ad hominem and technical content makes no progress.
I suggest you both practice the art of writing in the third person. Write the quotation from document A should not have been deleted rather than you should not have deleted the quotation from document A. Please also familiarise yourselves with:
WP:Assume good faith
WP:Civility
Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - writing in the third person (and limiting comments to content rather than editors) might help, and re-reading WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL can't hurt.TVC 15 (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Dolphin, I find that to be a facile and superficial response to the problem. Since I raised this complaint, TVC15 has repeated, at least three times, his "sincere" wish that I find psychiatric drugs that will help me with whatever condition is causing me to disagree with him. I find this to be highly, highly offensive for reasons that should be obvious. Collaborative editing on this article cannot continue until this is addressed, preferably by TVC15 striking his incorrect and insulting speculations about my mental health. Skinwalker (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm, again I think it would be appropriate to expect a diff - or in the case of the latest accusation above, three diffs.TVC 15 (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Skinwalker, on a preliminary check on TVC15's contributions this statement appears to be without foundation. Please provide diffs or withdraw it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
He repeated it once, not thrice.[82] I have refactored accordingly. Skinwalker (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
That diff is simply to the paragraph (above) answering the accusation that started this thread. Having been thus accused, it was appropriate for me to answer by putting in context what I actually said. Moreover, "something better" does not generally mean "psychiatric drugs," particularly after Skinwalker described his problems with a prescribed SSRI. There have been no insults or speculation, although I am trying to think of anything consistent with assuming good faith to explain why Skinwalker would claim that "once" (counting the answer above) was "at least three times."TVC 15 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dolphin51 was spot on here. Stop taking things personally, stop referring to other users personally (and stick to discussing content exclusively) and if you're too bothered by the current discussion, take a step away from the article until your calm returns. Shell babelfish 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    So you see nothing wrong with TVC15's comment that I linked at the start of the thread? Skinwalker (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    As I said, you've both obviously gotten too personal. TVC 15 says he meant it as sincere well wishes and you've now made it clear that you would prefer not to get so personal. Lesson learned. Move on. Shell babelfish 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr. IP

Resolved
 – User blocked for 24 hours for personal attack; since been extended to two weeks for continuance of same on talk page

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

Mr. IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This comment in an RfA [83] possibly meant as a seriously-dark joke, is nonetheless unacceptable unless the editor can provide a valid explanation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that that could be considered to be anything other than a vicious personal attack. I would, however, not support taking action until Mr. IP explains what the bloody hell is going on. — neuro(talk) 15:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me like little more than a joke. A horrible, inappropriate joke, but a joke nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I've commented on the AN/I thread. It does not seem to be a civility problem so much as acting out to stir up trouble. It's close to vandalism - a clearly impertinent comment that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, just noise. That it was uncivil is a bit of a side issue.Wikidemon (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Editor has been blocked for 24 hours. Marking resolved Exxolon (talk) 18:26, 23 August 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:Heliosphere at Sikh extremism

Resolved
 – Blocked, after taken to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satanoid.

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

This editor first came to my attention as user:Satanoid (blocked-edit warring, and abandoned), and later as user:Morbid Fairy (blocked permanently-edit warring), then as user:Analtap (blocked permanently-bad user name). The editor has, after a break, returned to Sikh extremism (which article the editor strongly argues should be Sikh terrorism and far more... focused) where the editor has made huge improvements, but still says the "article is a joke". The editor also focuses on editors, and editor names, too much, instead of content. It is my hope that suggestions for changes in behaviour might help. I fear that any words I might add will be unwelcome and counterproductive.- sinneed (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The uppermost banner on Talk:Sikh extremism says: Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
All Users who participate at the above Talk page must conduct themselves in accordance with the need for a cool head. Heliosphere’s edit the "article is a joke" was not displaying the required coolness. It was possible for Heliosphere to say what he (or she) wanted to say without resorting to inflammatory language. Wikipedia demands that all contributors assume good faith and conduct themselves with civility. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not think User: Satanoid (blocked, and abandoned)aka User: Analtap (blocked permanently), user: Morbid Fairy (blocked permanently), User: Heliosphere aka several IPs (some of them were blocked as well)can ever act in a civilized way. If there was any hope then wiki administrators did not have to block him multiple times. Here are some of his faces:

This should be taken to sock-puppet investigations. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satanoid Irbisgreif (talk) 06:07, 25 August 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.

Accusations of Naziism

Resolved
 – Subject blocked as sockpuppet of banned user; filing party warned.

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

User:Romandrumanagh, in the midst of a content dispute on the article Drumanagh, has called me a Nazi. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Do you mean It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe (nazism, fascism, communism et al) in order to make "disappear" contrary opinions to their dogmas, ideals and points of view. This is not the same as calling you a Nazi.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see a great deal of difference between being called a Nazi and being told I'm behaving like a Nazi. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't see that either. You are being told that you made an edit of a type that is also used by many others to "make disappear" contrary opinions. Don't assign attacks by trying to read between lines, as that's contrary to WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Hairsplitting of the most pusillanimous kind. So comparing a fellow editor to a Nazi is perfectly fine, but objecting to it contravenes the assumption of good faith? Christ. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It was a stupid comparison to make since it serves no purpose other than to aggravate, but you taking it to heart doesn't accomplish anything more than that either. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • When Bwilkins says that you're reading into the comment something that isn't actually there, to a disinterested party, xe isn't either splitting hairs or being pusillanimous. Moreover, when xe tells you that you are not being compared to a Nazi, you have no justification for completely distorting that statement into the claim that "comparing a fellow editor to a Nazi is perfectly fine". You came here for third party advice. Listen when it is given. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm glad some others have weighed in with other opinions, because if I thought this kind of patronising sophistry was the standard response to abuse of this sort on Wikipedia, I really would despair. I didn't come here for impartial advice on whether being compared to a Nazi (which is there, I'm not reading anything into it) is a breach of Wikiquette, I came here for help in dealing with something that self-evidently is. I'm not sure what irritates me more, abusive editors or those who indulge them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a POV pusher, who skirts just below the line of actionable personal attack. In these edits: [84] [85] (same text; he chose to post it multiple times) he uses race/nationality as a subtle jab. The user seems too familiar with policy for a brand new account. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have NOT called Nicknack009 a nazi or communist. I have only written "It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe", and I want to repeat that "I hope to be mistaken". I am sorry if he misunderstood me. Allow me to appreciate the comment of Elen of the Roads, Bwilkins and others. It is not easy to deal with nationalistic groups, even in the italian wikipedia (where I mainly post). Sincerely.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
As you see, despite a warning, he persists. I don't believe this level of personal abuse is acceptable. Sadly, there does not seem to be a mchanism to warn and block editors for personal abuse, as there is for vandalism - the WP:NPA page only suggests mediation, and I am not prepared to discuss anything with this editor until he stops with the personal abuse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I DECIDE TO RETIRE FROM WIKIPEDIA: I retire from Wikipedia as a form of protest, because is too much controlled by groups of fanatic nationalists like Nicknack009, who calls "INFERIOR" (sound racist, isn't it?) my posts from the first moment in the talk page of Drumanagh. He has made me change the high esteem I used to have of Celtic Irish people.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...and I have had enough of Nicknack009's attacks on neutral editors in this forum, and his additional, unsubstantiated accusations on Romandrumanagh above - so horrific that an editor was driven away. I have warned Nicknack009 for those personal attacks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me see if I've got this straight. Romandrumanagh explicitly compares me to a Nazi, but that's not horrific. Me pointing it out as the abuse it is is horrific. While he continues to call me a nationalist and a racist, not a peep. But I point out the complacency and indulgence of his behaviour by you and others, and I get slapped with a personal attack warning? I have made no personal attacks, only criticised what Romandrumagh, you and others have written - that's "content", according to the terms of your own warning on my talk page. Your priorities are peculiar, to say the least. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I've just noticed, you have also called me a nationalist. How is that not a personal attack? I am not a nationalist, and there is no nationalistic content to my edits to the article, which have been entirely concerned with the quality of the article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"Horrific"? An exaggeration perhaps? Romandrumanagh's last post is a clear indication of the problem here - Wikipedia is "controlled by nationalistic nationalists"? Suggesting that people are using "racist" terms? And why has one editor's behaviour changed his view of an entire ethnic group? If he's a neutral editor, I'm a Dutchman. I hope Nicknack009 doesn't take the warning too seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
By "neutral editor" he was referring to people like himself, but you're quite right. For the record. A single-purpose editor comes in, inserts claims which are not backed up by any reliable sources (and arguably of marginal relevance to the article in question). When an editor reverts his actions, he accuses him of nationalism akin to Nazism, which is really an ad hominem argument of the worst and most unconvincing kind, tries to shift the burden of evidence, and walks off like a diva (I didn't say he is a diva, just like one). Case resolved (unless he really is a diva and comes back). We don't really need this situation, do we? Cavila (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am an italian friend of user Romandrumanagh (sorry for my english). He requested me to thank user:BWilkins for him. He even requested to substitute the word 'nationalistic nationalists' with 'fanatic nationalists' (it was a mistake, writing in a hurry). I personally believe he should calm down, get back to en.wiki and ask for an arbitration about Drumanagh. But I understand -reading the comments of user Cavila and user Bretonbanquet (both clearly "celtic")- that it will be 'very very very' difficult to achieve it in an impartial and calm way. Finally, even I find the book of Hughes (British Chronicle) a Google book worth to be included in the bibliography of the voice Drumanagh in the italian wikipedia (and should be even in the en.wiki...), because wikipedia must accept all the points of view and I don't believe Google accepts low level books. What strikes me more is the intervention of the admin Kathryn NicDhàna, who seems to be totally on the celtic side, cancelling the posts of my friend asap.Yours. Roberto M.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to the insinuation that I am incapable of being objective in this matter due to my Celticness. Some of us are bigger than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicknack, it has been explicitly pointed out that you were never called a Nazi - you're reading between lines to accuse someone of something that may or may not exist, and the person whom your complaining about has even addressed it. On top of this, "nationalistic" != "racist", and to suggest so requires a little shake of the head to clear the cobwebs. Nicknack, you have spent more time attacking the neutral editors in this forum, than to read those neutral comments in the light that they have been provided to you. If you're not willing to read, then you are not willing to be helped. This forum generally requires BOTH parties to bend a little - and you're not; so much so that you have driven an editor from en.Wikipedia - that is contrary to policy. There's a little article about WP:POINT ... and something about climbing something dressed like Spiderman that you should read. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Not sure how well your memory's working, but those are the words used by Romandrumanagh. Glad to assist, Cavila (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You, and a couple have others, have indeed told me that Romandrumanagh's personal abuse, including specific uses of the words Nazi, nationalist and racist, is entirely in my imagination. Thing is though, you're wrong. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The consensus among neutral editors in this forum is that although the comments were not a personal attack, that kind of rhetoric was unwise. He was warned not to use that type of commentary again, and seeing as he has retired from the English Wikipedia, there's no need for further discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You haven't noticed his "friend" coming back to continue the same "unwise" rhetoric then? Or are you you going to argue that calling people "fanatic nationalists" isn't actually calling anybody a fanatic nationalist? That's quite apart from your own unwarranted accusations against me. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, this discussion is setting a useful precedent for the definition of "personal attack" at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'd suggest we add the following disclaimer:

Note that indirect abuses are not personal attacks. Examples:
  • "You are a Nazi" is a personal attack. "You are like a Nazi" isn't, it's a simile. Neither is "You sound/behave/edit like a Nazi."
  • Don't be a Travis Bickle. "I'm leaving this discussion. It is ruined by fanatic nationalists" is not a personal attack, because you can never be sure it's you who's being targeted, even if there are no other targets around.

Cavila (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably better to bring this up at the NPA talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Followup: Turns out Romandrumanagh is one of the sockpuppets of banned user Brunodam. Confirmed by checkuser and multiple sockpuppet investigations. Rosandrumanagh account indef-blocked. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:05, 23 August 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:ThuranX

Resolved
 – Warned; try ANI in future.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User has engaged in rather pointed personal attacks on the Glenn Beck talk page like this one and continually makes hostile comments on editors rather than content. I can provide other diffs if necessary. It appears (though I only say this as an observer) that similar issues have occurred on the Carly Fiorina talkpage as well. Soxwon (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Soxwon. The example you have given on the Glenn Beck talk page doesn't provide evidence of seriously inappropriate behaviour. Are you suggesting ThuranX is acting in breach of WP:Civility and/or WP:NPA? If so, please provide some focus on what you see as unacceptable behaviour and some extra diffs. You can add them here on this page.
Other members of the WP:WQA community will also comment in the near future, especially if you provide some extra detail. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't really useful to say something like this to such an experienced editor as ThuranX, but I will anyway: it's generally best to aim for a calm, unexcited style of writing, and avoid derogatory words like "fanboy". Soxwon, have you notified ThuranX of this section? Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have but he would most likely ignore it as he has stated at the page,: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. I bring this up b/c he has done it non-stop on Glenn Beck and it seems to be a running thing with him: [91]. Soxwon (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Soxwon. I agree that ThuranX’s style of editing has become unacceptably personal and angry. His edit summary here contains profane language which is unacceptable on Wikipedia except in the most extraordinary situations.

At the foundation of ThuranX’s edits there is a most legitimate point of view. Unfortunately ThuranX has become angry and frustrated and is resorting to personal attacks. (I see no evidence that his personal and angry style is having much effect, and now his edits are on display at WP:WQA.) There is a way for ThuranX to express himself persuasively and still remain within Wikipedia’s Code of Conduct. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This has got to stop. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX often tries to do what is right for the project, but the level of professionalism or civility he displays on-site is a long term problem reflected in his block log. Anything we do here is likely to be greeted with comments of this nature. Therefore, the next step in dispute resolution would be user conduct RfC. However, further issues with this type of behavior with this user should otherwise be brought up directly at an admin noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 25 August 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:Faustian continues with inappropriate comment

Resolved
 – Subject blocked; any further discussion on this belongs at ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Faustian states "I"m kind of surprised noone went after you for threatening to practice psychology without a license when you threatened to risk harm to your patients" [92]

He was warned for previous comments here [93][94] however states that he thinks he should have a right to make these comments [95]

The comments being refered to being here under the legal section [96] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Doc James. I have looked at the diffs you have nominated above. I haven't seen anything that I consider a breach of Wikipedia's Code of Conduct. Feel free to provide greater definition of the perceived problem, or extra detail, and it will be considered. Other members of the WP:WQA community will also add comments in the near future. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
How about this one were he refers to me as a dishonest sociopath? [97] This one was from a while ago "someone will probably go after wikipedia, the guy who posted the stuff, James Heilman, Heilman's employer, etc" [98] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Docjames forgot to mention that he deliberately tried to provoke: [99]. "I was being fascious, just yanking your chain Fasutian. Nobody in my profession uses this test not because we couldn't but because we have no need for it."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Faustian (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Really, I don't think this is the place to report someone who has had so many warnings about this sort of thing. This page does not take action. If this continues I think a user conduct RFC, or a simple post to ANI will be a more productive solution. This has gone beyond attempting to convince the person to follow our civility policies, that approach has been rejected by Faustian. It may serve well to collect links to the numerous warnings this user has received from various users, as well as the reports that have already been made. Chillum 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Faustian referred to sociopathic behaviour, and dishonest. However, he depersonalized his comment by removing these words a couple of hours later. Your latest diffs show that Faustian sometimes uses aggressive language and focuses on other Users rather than on technical content. When he uses aggressive language towards other Users I believe he is in breach of WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for warning me about coming here, docjames. Incidents where I have slipped are a tiny percentage of my edits. Let's review this case. Docjames tries to provoke a response and admits to doing so: [100] "I was being fascious, just yanking your chain Fasutian. Nobody in my profession uses this test not because we couldn't but because we have no need for it."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) When he gets a response he comes on here, and issues a wikiquette alert without telling me, after I had depersonalized my comment in response to his provocation. He seems to be as clearly as worthy of a wikiquette warning as I am.Faustian (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually came here before the above comment. But it looks like you are blocked now. Will be heading on to other content. The consensus is clear. Wikipedia beleives in providing information regardless of theoretical risks of harm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 26 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive70&oldid=1142555686"