Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive80

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

User:QueenofBattle pt 2

Resolved: I would like to thank all those involved for taking such a mature attitude to this matter, particularly Queen, for being prepared to withdraw offending remarks, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

QueenofBattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Personal attacks on own user page, calling other editors WP:DICKs. [[1]]. Although user page is templated retired, user continues to edit [[2]]. Gerardw (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DICK is an accepted essay ... the use of it in this manner although frowned upon has been held as considered "ok", as the essay describes specific types of activities that are considered to be "dickish". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an accepted essay, but that doesn't make calling someone a "WP:DICK" a good idea. Most situations where that essay applies are terrible places to actually cite it. It's entirely likely to add heat to a situation, and entirely unlikely to produce the desired effect on the other party's behavior. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The essay itself states The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as “a dick”.Gerardw (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
She also calles them "tools", but links "tools" to the page on "wanker". SpitfireTally-ho! 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
...actually, the wanker/tools comment is grammatically meant for more than just the one editor :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, grammatically it was for 3 named users. That doesn't make it any better, it is still a personal attack, which I have removed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Weakopedia (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Calling people names is foolish behavior on Wikipedia. It leads to WQA reports. Anyone wishing to focus on article writing would do well to avoid a lot of wasted time by simply not calling people names. There's nothing complicated about it, and nobody should have to read any policy page to know what it means to treat others well. Just do it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, folks, why is this coming up again? The first bad faith WQA made against me (by another editor who engaged in attacks against me, no notification, etc.) was closed. This second bad faith WQA also seems to be running to resolution. The reference to the essay is acceptable, although ill advised (thanks for the advice), and the rest is a statement of fact. Those editors have made it very easy for me to make the decision to try to retire. What does anyone consider a personal attack? Please cite specifics and I'll take it under advisement. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Referring to a specific user as a DICK is a full-out personal attack, whether or not you believe it to be the truth - comment on edits, never editors. Calling others wankers, although not a direct PA, is still uncivil. You would quickly find your userpage/talkpage deleted should you retire with them there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Saying: "The editors who I have had dissagrements with have made it very easy for me to leave the project" would be acceptable.
Saying: "Don't be a dick your entire lives, huh? You tools/wanker[sic] have made it very easy for me to retire" is not acceptable, WP:CIVIL states clearly that things such as "Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions" are all unacceptable. Please remove the wanker, tools and dick comments. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, Spitfire, you are the first editor to ask me nicely and respectfully (or to even ask me, come to think of it) to remove the text that you consider to be personal attacks. The other self-appointed politeness mall cops have merely sought to remove them from my user page in contravention of stated policy. Let that be a lesson to you folks. I do not consider the words to be personal attacks, but I am happy to remove the dick and tool/wanker references. The points have been well-made at this point. Regards, QueenofBattle (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not logical to send a request to a retired Wikipedia editor. Gerardw (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F states "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis original). So saying "you have made it very easy for me to retire." is a personal attack. Gerardw (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. It is a statement of fact. If you still believe it is a personal attack, find someone to block me. Enough with this. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If that is your position QueenofBattle, then consider this a final warning regarding personal attacks. You may not consider words like "wanker" etc to be a personal attack but they in fact are when used to insult someone. I far prefer your idea of removing the insults than your other idea of getting blocked. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I have already removed what Spitfire considers to be personal attacks, largely because he/she asked nicely. The rest need to work on their bedside manners lest they take their, umm, duties, too seriously. Block if you must, I am trying to retire. If others want to remove from their pages what they think are personal attacks, they are more than welcome. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents, but saying someone led to or helped in your decision to retire is not really a personal attack in my opinion. The name calling is unambiguous though. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course it. WP:Duck and all that. How can a statement saying "you made it easy for me to leave" improve Wikipedia? Gerardw (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Then, I consider this matter closed. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, as one of the editors that Queen was making personal attacks against,, and I did consider them personal attacks, I mentioned it to Queen on her talk page and Queen removed it [[3]]. Then Queen executed several personal attacks on me, [[4]] for the lovely edit summary and the entire section is Queen making more personal attacks so if there is an option up there for blocking, I'd support it. RTRimmel (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
RTRimmel knows full well that I am a male, so to continue to refer to me as a female can only be uncivil, at best, and a personal attack, at worst. The first bad faith WQA (not bothering to notify me) coupled with misquoting me on his user page should be viewed with skepticism by the community as to his motivations and prejudice as to his request to have me blocked. I have no intentions to return to editing, and was trying to retire, when RTRimmel came to my talk page to protest (via his own personal attack) what I have placed on my user page. Then we've got other editors claiming they didn't feel the need to simply ask me to remove the remarks (which I did when asked) because it's "not logical to send a request to a retired Wikipedia editor," yet felt the need to open this second WQA after the first was closed, because I was "still editing." Which one is it? Either way Gerardw is wrong and has wronged me. The whole thing stinks. And, to think there is wonder and amazement as to why I've decided to retire from Wikipedia?! Onerem seems to have a reasonable approach to me. We all should take his/her advice and let this unfortunate and bizarre episode expire of natural causes. I've enjoyed all the years editing here; thanks, community, for the parting gift. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative. There's no reason to block now based on comments from over a week ago, especially if the editor truly plans to retire. The user page comments have been tamed down a bit. Please just let it drop and see if QueenofBattle is also willing to let it drop. If they retire, the result on your future experience is the same. If they don't, and attacks continue, then bring it back to the attention of the community. --OnoremDil 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Your points have been adressed - see QoBs counter WQA posted below. By their actions it does not seem that user QoB has any intention of retiring or letting anything drop - that 'Retired' notice has been on their page for a long time now. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Weakopedia should AGF. I have stated I plan to retire and when this unfortunate episode has come to an end, I can assure you I will comfortably retire. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

QueenOfBattle, thank you for the removal of name calling on your user page. There isn't currently a consensus as to whether the remaining remarks constitute a personal or not. One possible conclusion would be for you to remove them, rending the point moot. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue I have here is that Queen keeps saying that I'm making personal attacks... yet queen called me a tool, a wanker, a dick, a liberal elitest, a wanker again, a cheater, a told me I was editing under the influence. And misquoting him, which of course is odd given that I'm using a direct quote from Queen, but whatever, Queen can argue that I'm not using it in the proper context but that is another issue and I'll happily remove it from my talk page as soon as the link from his talk page vanishes. So I feel, based on the repeated and pointless personal attacks, Queen has established a pattern of incivility. My responses have been to call Queen petty, a bully, and quoting from Queen "not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor". So despite Queen's insistence that I somehow am on the same level as him is on its face an absolute farce. I'm sorry I called a Queen a girl, I do that because the English language specifies that you use her when addressing women and Queen decided he was macho enough to take a demonstrably feminine name and then become upset when people screw it up. This is certainly not the first time this has happened, and I'm certainly not the only editor that has done it, and I forgot and I'm sorry. As for not notifying Queen, Queen had retired and deleted comments off of his talk page so I had mistakenly assumed that Queen was going to... retire, as the big banners on his page had indicated. I had simply put up the WQA as a pretext to deleting the personal attack from a users talk page with another editors, preferably an administrators, go ahead. Next time someone posts a string of personal attacks against me and other editors, I'll be more careful not to upset their sensibilities. RTRimmel (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of excuses here from RTR, but none of them hold any water. There is no policy of Wikipedia that says something to the effect of "personal attacks are not allowed, unless another editor attacks you first..." The "I-did-it-only-because-he/she-did-it" excuse is lame. RTR has misquoted me by taking my words out of context, a fact that is without dispute. During our many content disputes, he has accused me of POV pushing. He has not extended me the courtesy of a notification because I "had retired", yet opened a WQA on me even though he thought I had retired?! This pathetic excuse is nonsensical. And, lastly, his excuse that he was following some sort of gender-specified naming convention is discredited by the fact that he has other very recent edits in the Wikipedia where he has correctly referred to me as a "he" or "him"; he seems to enjoy alternating between referring to me in male and female vernaculars. I'm sorry RTR got his feelings hurt and feels I bullied him; I wish I had treated him with a softer approach. Perhaps, though, he should reflect on his actions that contributed to the souring of our relationship and recognize that his actions played a part in it (as did mine). But, to feign wonderment wrapped in a victim's mentality is disingenuous and just plain silly on his part. One only need look at his talk page and his many other edits to see that he doesn't play nice with those who cross him or challenge his viewpoints. I had hoped there was a bit more gusto and gravitas with him. So, as to the resolution of all this, I have removed the offending remarks directed at RTR and the others, and have simply referred to "the others" without naming names. I hope RTR will follow through on his promise to remove my quote, which he has maliciously taken out of context (and any other references to me, for what it's worth) and we will all move on. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
As an update, I have removed the offending remarks from my user page and RTRimmel has removed my out-of-context quote from his. This issue is resolved. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have verified that the personal attacks are removed what Queen felt was an out of context quote. Good resolution. RTRimmel (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Disparaging personal attacks by User:RTRimmel

Editor has continued to make disparaging comments by referring to me in the female context here, here, and here when he knows (or should have known) that I am a male. Additionally, he has accused me of POV pushing and has taken my words out of context. From No personal attacks: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. I consider these to be personal attacks. Other comments from uninvolved editors are welcome. QueenofBattle (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The first reference you supply is from your own WQA, the second in quick succession, where you were admonished for calling the user you are complaining about a 'dick', a 'tool' and a 'wanker'. You say that RTRs remarks at you own WQA are disparaging by referring to you as female, but you reference a discussion held some 9 months ago. Your userpage is blanked as 'retired' so since you have the word 'Queen' in your username and have posted no information stating your gender on your talk page and last discussed the matter with RTR 9 months ago it is quite a stretch of the imagination to regard this as a disparaging remark. What do you have against females anyway?
In fact the first three references are from the last week or so, 9 months after the discussion you had with RTR. You are a 'retired' user with no talk page and Queen in your name, it is natural for anyone to assume that you are female, and it is not the responsibility of every Wikipedian to check back through history to discover the gender of the person they are talking to. In a world of faceless online contributors 'he' and 'she' are simply abbreviations designed to improve the flow of conversation.
If you have a problem with being assumed as female it is your responsibility to do something about it, not the communities. The fact that you talked to RTR 9 months ago about this and are only complaining about RTR calling you female during this last week, it is obvious that you should have first spoken to RTR about it rather than levered the matter into a WQA. 9 months is a long time, long enough to forget that a 'retired' user is female or not.
Let us not forget the manner in which you decided to approach RTR about this 9 months ago. You opened your statement to RTR with 'Look you condescending SOB' which is hardly good etiquette nor a great way to diffuse a situation. Referring to someone on Wikipedia as a 'son of a bitch' is considered bad etiquette, and certainly a poor way to begin a section designed to address what you see as bad etiquette.
As to the rest of your complaint, the reference you provide shows that in the discussion with RTR about your NPOV or lack thereof you begin by saying 'Waah, waah. Umm, wanker'. You have already been admonished for the use of such language on Wikipedia. You will of course know that 'Wanker is a pejorative term of English origin, common in Commonwealth and ex Commonwealth countries, including Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. It initially referred to an onanist but has since become a general insult.'. Your use of the term is explicitly insulting, and from your own WQA above it is obvious that you intended it to be such.
Wikipedia policy on civility is clear and says that 'Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment.', however the references that you have supplied do not show that you have followed this policy. Weakopedia (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
RTR and I have a long history together on Wikipedia, both working together and working against each other. It is very clear that RTR knows I am not female, and so his continual (but oddly, not consistent) use of female terminology can only be a personal insult. It matters not what I think of females (I happen to like and respect them), and it matters not if RTR thinks I insulted him first. His actions, which are all he has control over, have been to insult me purposely because his feeling are hurt, I suspect. As for the rest, Weakopedia, you have failed to see humor and sarcasm when it is present. By reading the whole text from nine months ago, and not merely the title, one can clearly see that we were having a cordial discussion but using slightly crass language. It's also unfortunate Weakopedia that you have assumed that I lack NPOV. I asked for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Given that you have engaged in a heated discussion with me yesterday about your actions, and then removed my comments that you didn't like but left the rest, you are not univolved. You appear to have taken RTR's side, even though he has engaged in the very same activities for which you are attempting to adomonish me. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I have not 'taken sides', I simply gave some context. My comment does not suggest that you have any point of view in particular, if you read carefully you will see that I was referring to the discussion between you and RTR on the matter - I have made no claims whatsoever regarding POV. You can ask for what you consider to be uninvolved editors to respond but doing so does not change the guidelines for who may respond. If you were 'heated' in our previous conversation then you were the only one, I find matters such as this insufficient to become heated over. And once you had brought that conversation to a close yet insisted on reopening it I informed you that discussion would be better continued elsewhere and discontinued the conversation. I received your messages, their deletion served as notification of that fact. If there has been more relevant contact between you and RTR during the intervening 9 months then please try to supply the diffs rather than rely on a 9 month out of date conversation. This enables the uninvolved editors you seek to come to a reasonable conclusion. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Weakopedia, I know of no one who retains their own comments, but selectively removes another's (as you did) and then claims that they are dispassionate about the discussion. Be that as it may, further discussion about RTR's actions are detail above. It is quite clear, and evidence proves, that RTR clearly knows I am a male, be it through a discussion from nine months back or from his edit made less than two weeks ago where he correctly refers to me as a "him". QueenofBattle (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not resort to telling lies as your last action before finally retiring. The reference you supplied clearly shows that I discontinued the conversation and informed you of that fact. There was no selective removal of your comments, that is simply an untruth. You were informed that further discussion on the matter was inappropriate and your subsequent comments were rightfully deleted. Weakopedia (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me?! You are going to try to admonish me for personal attacks by launching a personal attack yourself? You are planning to lecture me about my Wikiquette by engaging in poor Wikiquette yourself? Allow me to refresh your memory, Weakopedia, about the conversation in question between the two of us, which ended by you removing my last edit, but leaving all of yours. Later, you removed another edit of mine, but continued to leave all of yours. Then, you threatened to report me to 3RR for removing my own words. And, curiously, you have now removed what remained of the conversation in question (hint, it remains in the history section forever). And, now you are calling me a liar? The diffs don't lie. Does anyone else see the quirky irony here? Weakopedia, I might suggest a) you owe me an apology for a wholly-inappropriate remark, and b) you might not resort to the actions that you are presumably on this noticeboard to help others avoid. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I stand by my remarks - it is no longer possible to assume good faith regarding your misrepresentation of my actions. Happy retirement. Weakopedia (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, your position is very unfortunate. RTR and I have resolved our differences because we were introspective and recognized that we were both wrong. Please don't accuse others of lying; it's very bad Wikiquette and the folks that come to these noticeboards seeking assistance expect more from those that are offering that assistance. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with where things currently stand with Queen and have no desire to further provoke this situation. RTRimmel (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I, too, am satisfied with where RTR and I stand. Now, about Weakopedia. Perhaps someone can visit with him/her about the inappropriatness of calling another editor a liar on the WQA noticeboard, of all places? QueenofBattle (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that this disagreement should simply be laid to rest. All continuing this discussion will do is to lead to further disagreements. Be introspective, realize you are retiring, and let it pass. RTRimmel (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pan-Celticism#Flag

Can someone have a word with User:MacRusgail in regards to his comments and tone at Pan-Celticism

You started this dialog [[5]] with quite an agressive tone the ref added is not a RS and as such I will keep removing it until such time a WP:V is added and it meets WP:RS . A more consensus seeking approach will likely give you better results in the future. MacRusgail, it'd be helpful if you try to restrict your comments to the content, not the contributor. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that is aggressive more a statement of fact and intention as the flag had been added un-cited several times. However if it reads as aggressive then I offer my apologies it was not my intention Gnevin (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Gnevin's edits regarding the flag of Ireland have been useful or helpful, and I think I have the right to express that opinion. With the rugby union articles, there was a basis for the removal of the tricolour, because the IRFU does not use it for all-Ireland... however, that debate tied up many users for hours on end, which could have been employed more constructively.

In the case of Pan-Celticism, however, it is a non-issue. Irish Unionists/Loyalists do not support pan-Celticism (other than some link-up with Scotland in a bizarre way perhaps), but Irish nationalists/republicans do, including those of the Celtic League. They also happen to consider the tricolour the flag of all-Ireland, not just the Republic, and the tricolour is flown across such areas in Northern Ireland. Despite including orange (as well as green) to represent the protestant population, that flag hasn't found much favour in that group, but then again, neither has pan-Celticism, so it's not an issue.

As I have said, I think this is a waste of time, which could be better spent on improving wikipedia.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivility and accusations of POV-pushing by User:Rudrasharman

This user recently contested additions to Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia in the section R1a1. He arbitrarily inserted that it was observed mainly in "high-caste populations" without citing anything, (the Kivisild (2003) article at the end of the paragraph makes no such claim) on the basis that one source used had numerical inaccuracies (though the Bamshad (2001) study which claims that European Y-DNA correlates to caste rank is also (and it is safe to say more) problematic in that its conclusion doesn't correspond to the data (middle castes are more European than upper castes, for example, and there is no regional variation in the subjects chosen)).

This neglects all other sources which state that R1a (M17) is most likely South Asian in origin including those used on the main article for the subject, Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). When I left a comment asking him whether he was an Aryan Invasion Theory proponent based on his attempt to deviate from the (presently mainstream) belief that South Asia is the most likely origin of Haplogroup R1a, as is suggested by sources used on the page linked to above, he did not leave a substantial reply, just a silly ad hominem because I had attempted then retracted an argument against his criticism of Sharma (2009), he then reverted my edit which cited three other valid sources which are all used on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to substantiate a South Asian origin, on the basis that one out of the four sources was questionable without a single comment on the others, and accused me of POV pushing in his edit summary.

He also says that the results presented in Underhill (2009) do not agree with "what I want it to" (perhaps he is hinting that I think R1a has something to do with Indo-European migrations, though I have not made any comment on that on this article or talk page), but it is in fact most compatible (as also stated on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) with sources) with an Indian origin of Haplogroup R1a: "The highest STR diversity of R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes are observed outside Europe, in particular in South Asia ... but given the lack of informative SNP markers the ultimate source area of haplogroup R1a dispersals remains yet to be refined." and "Analysis of associated STR diversity profiles revealed that among the R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes the highest diversity is observed among populations of the Indus Valley yielding coalescent times above 14 KYA (thousands of years ago), whereas the R1a1a* diversity declines toward Europe where its maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia and Crete."

If that's not enough, he has also made persistent personal attacks on users including myself such as that they subscribe to "blog warriors", childish "you did it first" comments, and most recently accusing me of being unable to read or comprehend sources, among other things, crying POV-pushing, even though I have used these sources in the exact same way they are used on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to state the exact same content, (not to mention that out of these citations; [6], [7] and [8], none of them is the Sharma (2009) he had complained about), but I have generously chosen not to leave him the {{Uw-npa4im}} that this behavior has unambiguously warranted. GSMR (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's most helpful here if discussion is limited to the civility issues, not content. That said Rudrasharman is inappropriate. Gerardw (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have stated civility issues. GSMR (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "content dispute". It is the all too common case of a POV-pusher trying to escalate his way out of his difficulties, by usual ploys such as wikilawyering and forum-shopping. The full history of this farcical incident is here, and a typical example of why GSMR cannot be taken seriously is here. If anyone feels the urge to get involved, please be sure to first familiarize yourself with the dreary history and background of the POV issues that have plagued this article and related ones for a long time by now. "Incivility" is the least of any problems here, and far from any real ones. rudra (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

repeated personal attacks

I already have write you, but nothing is changed. Many times I have asked him to comment on content, not on the contributor, but User:FkpCascais continually labeled me as:

There is more, but I am tired of searching. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All of this is found on the talk pages of the articles of Kingdom of Serbia and Greater Serbia articles. This user has a highly nationalistic and NPOV way of editing, and he has been warned to stop many times, and by several users. I did pointed him the reasons, but he ignores me, not by not responding but by insisting in the same edits (throu said, he started responding only now, when he noteced that other editors also don´t agree with his edits, before he usualy angaged in edit wars). I would also like to know if there is a possibility of ending this highly NPOV editing by same user of sensitive historical and political articles of Balkans and Serbia related articles. FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the first thing for both of you is that there is no such word as "hateriot" -- the word is "hatred". To Mladifilozof, if you want to give examples of what you consider incivility, please give diffs rather than pointers to pages that are full of stuff. Without more specific pointers, it is impossible to get anywhere without an unreasonable amount of investigation. Looie496 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jemma Redgrave

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: vandalism, fixed Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw on the entry for Jemma Redgrave that someone has posted under the Personal Life heading:"She is married to Tim Owen, with whom she has one weirdo Gabriel and one child Alfie".

I do not know Ms Redgrave or her family, but this seems unkind. Perhaps it should be changed to reflect that Ms Redgrave has two children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.18.80 (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just vandalism, not an etiquette problem, but thanks for pointing it out. Its been fixed. Tobyc75 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Goethean

Resolved: Goethean has acknowledged the problem, and apologized. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethean has made a number of uncivil comments. A few include accusing another editor of being a megalomaniac and a liar, called another user's contributions to an ongoing discussion pathetic and did a revert with the edit summary undoing hatcheding (sic) of article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the hatchet-wielder. It amused me that he responded negatively to my objection to being insulted... then made substantially the same edit himself a few minutes later. I confess to being moderately pissed off. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You deleted a giant section of text. I moved it to a new article, following summary style. I stand by my characterization of your edit. — goethean 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
My primary concern about this user (and this is a good example) is that she appears not to understand what a personal attack is, or that it is possible or desirable to edit without them. We've all seen users with that problem before, and they are inevitably permanently blocked as the community loses patience with them. My own opinion is that this user has been fully and sufficiently warned, and that from this point forward, all personal attacks should result in blocks, beginning with 24 hours and following the usual pattern of escalating lengths. No amount of useful editing is worth keeping a user who can't play nicely with others. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional Comments

Apart from what has been said above, I have more things to add, Goethean has actively been involved in personal attacks, uncivil remarks on Ramakrishna article. Here are some of the civility issues ranging from 2008:

  • "bunch of liars"[9]
  • "What a mess. The new additions by Nvineeth are disasterous. It is comical ..."[10]
  • Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_4 , Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_5 , Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_6 have sections related to civility problems.
  • "Claim that discussing sex in lede is undue"[11] ( The more accurate (and civil) term is sexuality, not sex )
  • "gang of religious believers" [12]
  • "...You think that a scholar can write this and not think that Ramakrishna had homoerotic impulses. You are being deliberately obtuse."[13]
  • "It's because the recent sources contradict the points of faith of the swamis, like that Ramakrishna was a sexless ephebe."[14]
  • Edit summary uncivility : "+refs --- keep in mind that I can provide extensive quotations from each of these to buttress my claim that SRK's sexuality is generally taken to be ambiguous."[15]
  • Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_7#4th_rv_on_POV_tag
  • "...discredited, cult-like religious organization"[16]
  • "... I would expect some abuse from my peers"[17] ( This is Goethean's justification for his personal attacks Face-smile.svg )
  • "egg-throwing right-wing hindu nationalistic fanatics are not actually pluralistic, despite how they portray themselves" [18] ( Edit summary vandalism, possible BLP violation attack. )

I would also like to point out he was using his user page to launch attacks on at least 5 other editors, before uninvolved and neutral admin User:Abecedare asked him to remove it. ( The user page was later deleted and recreated. )

These come from just 2 articles. To add to this, he has added some really nasty controversial claims, not present in the sources cited whatsoever( ex: [19] ) and even fought for its inclusion[20]. (Had it been some minor original research, nobody would have bothered, but this is a baseless controversial claim, and was discovered after over an year, after it was copied to another article, from Goethean's initial addition !) I would like to point out that he is hell bent on proving "eccentric", "ambiguous" "sexuality" and even neutral opinions[21] by other admins like User:RegentsPark are greeted with "pathetic"[22] message. I would say that he is trying to illustrate a point ( also indicated by other uninvolved editor here ) by bullying on editors and violating WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL --TheMandarin (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I've run across Goethean on 3 or 4 different pages (ramakrishna, Spiral Dynamics, a couple of philosophy/philosopher pages that I can't recall off hand), usually because I've responded to an RfC about some argument where he's a central player. He's tenacious about his arguments (which is a good thing in my books) but he is consistently rude, and tends to see opposition as conspiracy (both of which are bad). For instance, the ongoing debate about ramakrishna's sexuality is still ongoing mostly (IMO) because Goethean has decided that sexuality should be a primary focus of the article, and sees any attempt to place the reference in a perspective based on weight of sources as complicit with Vedantic efforts to whitewash RK's reputation. It makes for a very difficult and unpleasant editing atmosphere. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Goethean has decided that sexuality should be a primary focus of the article, and sees any attempt to place the reference in a perspective based on weight of sources as complicit with Vedantic efforts to whitewash RK's reputation.
False. I would like the biographical section of the article to reflect academic opinion rather than the dogma of a religious cult. I don't mind being pilloried for this desire. — goethean 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish. The only "academic opinion" that counts in your book is the bunch of self-absorbed wannabes in so-called Religious Studies, most of whom go out of their way to "sexualize" anything to do with Hindus and/or Hinduism. This is a well-known problem, and the very reason that, in the real world, the only people who take these Religious Studies clowns seriously are those clowns themselves. The point, however, is that these clowns, while meeting WP's "reliable source" standards, are not the only reliable sources around. Plenty of people have written plenty about Ramakrishna. Skewing it all to give the Kali's Child fiasco pride of place, as has been your agenda, is tail-wagging-dogism run amok. rudra (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Academia is nothing but a bunch of perverts, and the Ramakrishna Mission religious organization has got it right all along. Fascinating. I can't imagine why I'm so frustated and angry all of the time when I have such rational, well-reasoned, open-minded interlocutors to edit articles with. — goethean 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you won't hear about it on WP, because the clowns have the only "reliable sources" you would look at locked up. But you could venture into the wider world and look this up. (You might even learn about abuse of the praṇava, maybe.) rudra (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I do appreciate your wide-ranging speculation on what my agenda is. Surely your comment is the epitome of civility. — goethean 20:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
After, as of some time today, 732 edits of Ramakrishna and 572 posts to its Talk page, words other than "agenda" were possible. rudra (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Please keep it up. It appears that you don't have to play by the same rules that I do. — goethean 17:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You might consider avoiding sarcastically admonishing others for WP:CIVIL violations. Kind of difficult to take the statement seriously. --King Öomie 21:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thank you for reaffirming my point... --Ludwigs2 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Claim that discussing sex in lede is undue"[23] ( The more accurate (and civil) term is sexuality, not sex )
Um...QED. — goethean 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by content issues. The basic point here is that Goethean has repeatedly made personal attacks. Not all of the examples above fit that description, but enough of them do. Personal attacks are disruptive to the editing process regardless of the level of provocation. Goethean is strongly advised to show more restraint. Looie496 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the provocation, it's the Victorian standards. User:TheMandarin thinks that using the word "sex" in an edit summary is uncivil. This is not in line with typical 21st century standards of what constitutes civility. — goethean 20:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You are not correct that you have been admonished primarily for using the word 'sex' in an edit summary. You have been admonished for violating WP:CIVIL. I am sincerely curious now: is there any one of the above links that you think were uncivil and inappropriate? So far, you have not indicated that you understand what we are asking from you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)I personally don't care if you use 'sex' in an edit summary. I do care about the constant stream of sarcasm, indirect insults, and inflammatory statements that seem to come from your direction. it's frigging annoying. you can be assertive on your points without having to put down everyone around you, you know. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
My experience of Goethean at Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory supports most of the above comments. Its an intimidatory style and s/he is more than happy to ignore WP:BRD and/or ignore any attempt to achieve a consensus. I've also seen gaming; s/he attempted to claim I had a commercial interest in one article, and when his/her appeal to the relevant forum gained no support, continued to make the accusation. Happy to find the diff. if someone wants them, but this editor constantly violates WP:CIVIL with no sign that s/he accepts any fault and can't resist attacking other editors rather than focusing on content issues. --Snowded TALK 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Goethean is a "HE"... small point, but just like to see the discussion on this Thuggee kept factual. See this thread here for more information CLICK HERE76.202.245.18 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Banned User:Joehazelton knows my gender because he has literally stalked me to my doorstep as part of his long-term abuse of myself and other users. — goethean 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I will say, I don't know if that IP is a banned user, but I do not appreciate that kind of 'thuggee' comment, which is rude and counterproductive. Goethean, if you believe that's a banned user, you're within your rights to report it at SPI. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you really think that the sock cares about your civility warning or your SPI? All he has to do is log in from a different IP and the pointless bureauocratic process has to start all over again. — goethean 17:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
no, but if the SPI comes back positive it will get that IP (or range thereof) blocked, which will keep him out of your hair for a while. It's an unfortunate fact of life that there's always someone making a mess somewhere. best to put a stop to it in what little ways you can, as you can. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that I have been inappropriately harsh in my comments and edit summaries to many users. I did this because I let my emotions get the better of me. I apologize to those to whom I have been rude. In the future I will endeavor to control my emotions and to avoid personal attacks, harsh comments, and edit summaries. — goethean 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an absolutely perfect response. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. While I added this Wikquette alert I have a high regard for Goethean's article contributions. I am happy to mediate/mentor Goethean as time permits, if he is willing. He just needs to post a message to my talk page or send me an email if he feels that a dispute is getting out of hand and I will endeavour to assist. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I do love it when wikiquette ends like this. Thank you Goethean - I wish more editors could manage that kind of perspective. --Ludwigs2 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Off2riorob

Resolved: Off2riorob has acknowledged overreacting, and apologized for any offense. Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have had several unexpectedly unpleasant interactions with Off2riorob in recent days. Off2riorob responded to a BLP/N question concerning possible synthesis in a biography I had created. The editor who raised the complaint agreed, after discussion and presentation of additional sources, that the sources supported the original statement, yet Off2riorob not only continued to insist they did not, but also removed from the article a statement summarising an episode reported in about 10% of reliable sources on the subject and thus in accordance with weight and BLP.

Off2riorob then called the 31-year-old subject of another article I had written a "girl", nominated the article for deletion, and began to delete relevant and well-sourced information, writing "its rubbish". The user, who because of past problems has promised to avoid edit warring, repeatedly reverted (e.g., [23] and [24]) to maintain the deletions, made further deletions, including without edit summaries and attacked me personally ([25] and [26]) when I asked for talk page discussion of these deletions. My explanation of the editing environment at related articles (where several editors with strong personal interests in a particular illness usually dominate the editing) only prompted further attacks, along with a profession of pride for past behaviour resulting in blocks.

Considering:

  • the user's prominence and potential influence at BLP/N,
  • the user's extensive block history,
  • a past promise not to edit war, contrasting with behaviour yesterday,
  • several unexplained, unprovoked and surprisingly strongly worded personal attacks accusing me of agenda editing (the validity of which accusations I categorically reject)
  • and a profession of pride for the user's block record,

I would like to request that others review the user's behaviour. I believe this user has done some good work at BLP/N, and has the potential to do more, but episodes such as this one are unpleasant and disruptive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I second the motion. Despite some good work on the project, in my experience I find the user to be much more of a disruption than a help. The user's unpleasant demeanour is well-documented, and I am unsurprised to see that others are dismayed by the user's personal attacks to the extent of bringing the issue here. The user appears to see Wikipedia as a personal battleground instead of a field of civil collaboration, and previous blocks seem to have made little moderation in the undesirable behavior. (Full disclosure: the user brought me to this page some months ago with charges that were rapidly dismissed. When the user attempted to reopen the charges (regarding my bringing up the aforementioned blocks), he was rebuked by the admin in question. It is not my intent to reopen my own personal history with this user, but to back up others who feel the user has an ongoing problem with basic civility.) Jusdafax 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The third diff on DGG's talk page is not an attack, and calling any female a "girl" may be deemed un-PC, but not an attack, and not directed at the user. The fourth diff is one word "coatracking", again not an attack. The fifth diff is from August, not an attack. The sixth and seventh diffs are reverts, yes, but not attacks. The 8th diff appears to be a repeat diff of the single comment, the 9th is Off2riorob's attempt to explain his removal of material at the page in question, not an attack. The tenth diff is Off2riorob expressign frustration at POV in BLP, again not an attack. The past promise to not edit war does not impact on correctly removing POV statements, and the final diff about blocks agains has no attacks. That Off2riorob sees being blocked as part of the back and forth in WP is not a breach of Wikiquette, just a statment. As in uninvolved user I don't see any evidence here that Off2riorob has breached any wikiquette, he called a 31yo woman a girl but what does that have to do with the price of bread? The dispute is over a BLP article which may not meet the bar for notability, all Off2riorob has done is try to excise sections of the article which do not apply to the individual concerned. Keepcalmandcarryon is being a little sensitive about an issue which is being addressed at an AfD. If I was Off2riorob I would have nominated this for AfD after my first revert, rather than continuing to revert, but there's no breach of Wikiquette that I can see, nor has been presented here. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that although Off2riorob professes to wear his block log with pride, he hasn't been blocked since August. He is however violating his promise not to edit-war -- I would suggest thinking very carefully before deciding to do any more multi-reversion. The "it's rubbish" comment was also uncivil when directed toward the person who created the article. In short, Off2riorob needs to dial back the level of aggression. However, the most obvious thing about this matter is that there is a heated content dispute going on in which both sides are being overly aggressive. (To Darren: yes, the past promise not to edit war does impact on removing POV statements.) Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
@Looie496, surely Off2riorob is only "violating his promise" if he was carrying out an edit war? Off2riorob and Keepcalmandcarryon engaged in one parallel series of edits over a ~40 min period from ~23:15 on Jan 20. The two sets of diffs that Off2riorob made are [27] and [28]. Yes these include a partial redo, but if you check the difference text and history, you will see that the comments given by Off2riorob clearly explain the reason for his edits. Both of these sets were reverted by Keepcalmandcarryon and at this point move to the discussion pages. As far as I understand, one isolated incident does not make an edit war; it was also Off2riorob and not Keepcalmandcarryon who gave ground here before moving to discussion. -- TerryE (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Looie496, The "Its rubbish" talk page header was about the article, not the person. Off2riorob was saying the article was rubbish, not that Staycalmandcarryon was a rubbish editor. This section is titled "Personal attacks by Off2riorob", yet all that has been linked are reverts of POV pushing, discussion of those edits and promises made last August to not edit war. There are no personal attacks here, Off2riorob did express frustration over poorly written BLPs but that's not an attack. Off2riorob did make three edits that would have formed a 3RR report (version reverted to, 1RR, 2RR) but he stopped before making the 3rd reversion and discussed the edits. Unless the word "coatracking" is considered a personal insult then there is no breach, and this report should be closed. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point: the user accused me of agenda editing and POV pushing in several of the diffs given above. That's a personal attack. This is an editor with eight blocks in the span of several months in 2009 for precisely the sort of behaviour exhibited towards me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You did have a point of view, you felt that the parents, the foundation, the doctor and the medical trails for the new drug were relevant to a biography, Off2riorob felt that it was coatracking. He reverted you, you reverted back, he reverted then discussed his view on your edits, then the AfD started. POV is not a personal attack, coatracking is not an attack, and to have a record of being blocked before is not relevant to accusations of a personal attack. In the AfD TerryE agrees that the article is a coatrack. Since posting on your talk page on 19 January at 23:36 Off2riorob has not made edits to the article in question, the talk page or the AfD. There is no evidence of a personal attack, though Off2riorob's last post on your talk page could be called blunt it is not an attack, more of an opinion on editors and POV-pushing in general. The exchanges are about content, not Wikiquette. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just logged back in, after a couple of days break, (which I was in need of) to comment regarding the report..I called the woman a girl, that was a slip of the discussion, so she is a woman, fine by me, I meant nothing by it. My block record, actually I have seven blocks, I am not ashamed about them, although I do not want any more, it is wrong thinking about it to say that I am proud of them, I am not but they are part of my growth here and I know the specifics of what each and every one was regarding, a couple were edit wars and I also had a good growth experience of working for one month to one revert a day and this was a good lesson and a good process to learn how edit wars never work, and I think I also stopped well short of edit warring here, if I had stepped on or over the bright line that is edit warring this report would have gone straight to the 3RR noticeboard I was upset though, at the end of my tether you could say. As for my near the knuckle comments on User:Keepcalmandcarryon talkpage..I did ask User:Keepcalmandcarryon "Do you mind if we have a open discussion about this, as adults? expressing our honest opinions?" I don't know if he understood what I meant but I meant could we talk without the restrictions that some of wikis policies put on general discussion, and he appeared to say that was ok and as we were on talkpage I said things I was feeling which I would not have said without asking if we could talk openly as adults.User:Keepcalmandcarryon took my commenting that the content was coatracking as an attack, it was not, coatracking can be easily done and easily corrected by a merger or some other solution. I was perhaps over reacting to the situation which perhaps was compounded by multiple unrelated situations at other articles and nothing to do with User:Keepcalmandcarryon, so although I feel I haven't stepped over any bright lines here I am prepared to take the report on board and learn from the report. So if I was a bit near the knuckle with User:Keepcalmandcarryon I am sorry that he became upset through our interaction and happily apologize to him about that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive response, I think that it addresses all the issues. It would be well to realize in future that people may easily be offended by harsh language even if they express willingness to have an open discussion -- things like that should always be handled cautiously. Looie496 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with IP address 94.193.135.142

[[29]]. What the IP user calls "[my] opiniated BBC pov editing" is nothing of the sort, and I consider that an assumption of bad faith, and an offensive comment to make - I have no idea why they are going to an unrelated editor's talk page offering to "pursue [it] to Wikipedia editors and admins". Just to concisely state the problem, the IP editor asserts that there was no evidence the jamming of BBC Persian Television came from Iran, however the source contradicts that. Rapido (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And for some reason they have copied postings from my talk page, and pasted them here Talk:BBC Persian Television. Not sure if that's allowed or not, but I find it a bit strange, as it's supposed to be personal communication between myself and another editor. Rapido (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Just ignore him. He has no standing to raise any stink over a content (non-)issue. IP editors sling ridiculous threats like this all the time. --King Öomie 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ignore them, however they keep reverting to 'their version' and even put in an edit summary [30] Are u the Wikipedia version of Stalin?, apparently because I deleted the copying and pasting of my entire talk page onto the article's talk page. Rapido (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I now get called A REVERT-TROLL by the IP user, however the IP user has broken the 3RR rule, and I haven't. [31] Rapido (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The IP user in question was blocked for 24 hours for breaking 3RR, unfortunately they are back talking about my [32] Troll-like attitude and they seem to want to have my account, and other editors accounts [33] (I have reported many of your kind successfully before) suspended. They keep saying that I am not discussing my edits and that I am violating Wikipedia rules, however I have given explanation in my edit summaries, and on the article talk page, and I cannot see that I am breaking any rules. Also accuses me of being [34] a Political activist lurking around Wikipedia which is absolute nonsense. Rapido (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Now accusing me of lying [35]. Rapido (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I now have a user based trait to engage in deceptive editing [36]. Amongst other accusations of bad faith and false assumptions. Rapido (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
[either] he has a strategy to get me blocked or is just arrogant [37] (Neither is true, of course). Rapido (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Some more, and starting to get personal attacks: [[38]] [lying...] in the face of being exposed for starting an edit war and having an arrogant attitude, others [I] have bullied and others; repeated here [39], calling me 'incompete[nt]' and with a 'prejudist attitude against I.P. editors', plus 'Rapido is lying' [40], more accusations that I am lying [41], arrogan[t] [42]. The IP editor has made little attempt to address the concerns of the article, only attacking editors. Rapido (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do check the article history, and my numerous invitations for Rapido to discuss with me the issues. Please look at the discussion page of the article and form your own judgement. He is again, trying to make me look bad, and thinks I am a mob, calling me "they", reverted without annotating or responding to my revert annotations and criticisms. And yes, he is lying, which you can see first hand by checking the BBC Persian Television article's History and discussion, and my numerous objections on Rapido's own talk page. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to take this to WP:ANI. It requires admin intervention, and admins don't systematically watch this page. (Sometimes, but often not.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the one being accussed, I would like to remind you he deleted my editing on the user EdJohstons talk page, which demonstrates his problem causing behaviour, and stress first hand look at the situation as Rapido displays alot POV, even when reporting and accusing people. He often uses the word "attack" to describe what are editorial criticisms and criticisms made against his editing and rapid reverting style. He often, despite me stating I am an static IP user, and am 1 person, refers to me as "they" and accusess a mob editing. Discussion on the matter can be found at these places: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The Original 3RR report made by Rapido:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29
EdJohnstons user page who kindly protected the BBC Television page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#I_have_commented_on_Rapido.27s_false_claims_under_his_report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Rapido_has_removed_my_links_on_your_talk_page
The article:
History and proof of Rapido's uncoperative editing style:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC_Persian_Television&action=history
Discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BBC_Persian_Television#Satelite_Jamming_dispute
I would also liked to remind you, Cunando, replied in the discussion that he agree's Rapido's sourcing is weak.
Rapid's discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rapido
Regards --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Admins, please make your mind up about who is causing the disruption. Since they like posting links, here is the one that shows the IP editor was blocked for breaking the 3RR [43] Rapido (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We need urget mediation, this is becoming to personal when the matter at hand is the content of BBC Persian Television article, I cannot grow white hairs over an arrogant user. EdJohnston has already said both me and Rapido have engaged in an edit war, and I would like matter sorted out as soon as possible. I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page, because they bare more logic than anything else. I hope to see a resolve v. soon on the issue, and would like the editor or admin viewing this case, to decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, more personal attacks from the above IP editor. Rapido (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On how pages have you written this lie? What attack? Stop chaging the subject. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To admin and editors: Please decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia and who is guilty of sparking the edit war if not both. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The above editor called me arrogant... and now has just posted another personal attack about my lying. The vast majority of the IP users edits merely contain personal attacks or assumption of bad faith. Whereas none of my edits do. Rapido (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IP:99.19.92.173

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP:99.19.92.173 has been giving problems on the Johnny Test and List of Johnny Test characters articles. My problem with this IP began on January 15, when I ran across and removed several references that felt were unreliable as they used original research such as "Parody of Darth Vader" and didn't use any kind of source template. Shortly after the IP reverted my removal. So I removed them again and added in my edit summary that they were unreliable and not to add them again. So the following January 18, they resorted to blanking the article and adding "Knock if off Sarujo" in it's place, as seen here. After their attempts to add those sources failed, they began moving the main character section back to the main article and added a further information tag in it's place on January 19, which deemed as vandalism I restored back. So now they have resorted to tag the article for deletion on concerns that it fails crystal, cruft, and original. Claiming that they proposed that the article be merged back with the main article. However, records show that no such proposal was ever made. Instead, they have simply tried to move the main characters section into the main Johnny Test article without prior notice. Now keep in mind that I agree that the article is in bad shape, but it's issues can be treated some copy editing, and an outright deletion or a redirect is a harsh and unnecessary action. It has been pointed out that main articles on various media such as television and video games should always only focus on the series itself and not on it's stars ad characters. Yet it is becoming more and more clear to me that since the IP couldn't edit the article as it suited them, then they would just rather delete it. Which to me comes off as an attempt to "game the system".

It is my belief that this IP is also in reality the editor that previously went by the the name Warmpuppy and the socks Warmpuppy2, E-Asiegbu, and IP:66.99.23.194. As this IP appeared after the aforementioned editor was indefinitely blocked for the same shenanigans that this IP is engaged in. When I called them on this, they went and used strikethrough on the section of my comment that included the statement and responded with quote: "What Warmpuppy? That ship has sailed.", all of which can be seen here. I am also not the only one that shares in this belief. They have also vandalized the main article at least once as seen here. Their talk page has quite a few warnings from other editors on their actions. Sarujo (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA is designed for situations where it is reasonable to hope that an editor will be responsive to feedback. For situations like this one where any possible assumption of good faith has been exhausted and admin action is necessary, it's more productive to ask for help at WP:ANI. Note that both this page and ANI require that you inform any editor that you open a request about. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In addition, the IP possibly being another editor may be reported at [[WP::SSP]] Gerardw (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

House1090 making personal attacks/civility violations/abuses against the English language on my talk page

Resolved: Both parties ackowledge getting too heated. Based on past experience this is likely to blow up again, but there is nothing more to accomplish here. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thread located here: User_talk:Amerique#Double_Check. I have diffs of other incidents... I would try explaining civility and NPA policies to him personally but don't think he would listen to me. Ameriquedialectics 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit by House1090 (talk · contribs) looks very much like trolling, and this response is completely unacceptable. Given that both House1090 and Amerique have been warned against edit-warring with each other, House1090 is advised that in my opinion these edits are already uncivil enough to justify a block. Even so, Amerique is advised that it would have been better to check for sources before removing the passage in question here. Clearly this is a case of two editors who have a bad interaction with each other, but the behavior by House1090 is unacceptable regardless. Looie496 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What! It was not intended to be uncivil but rather a warning. He's the one that told me to shut up, then I recommended him to read Wikipedia:Civil. He has all ways told me mean and unappropriate things. Honestly, if I do get a block or something, so should he. House1090 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
WQA is not the place to come for blocks, it is the place to come for outside opinions about civility. I don't want to express a view about other interactions that I haven't looked at, but in any case it is not acceptable to carry out vendettas. In this interaction, you started it, you provoked an angry response, and then you responded in a way that is so uncivil as to justify a block. There can never be any excuse for "deal with me like civilized americans or get out! No one needs nor wants you here." That is way outside the limits. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay it was bad from my part but Amerique has never respected me. I am at the point where I dont want to respect him either. I have never insulted him until today, and I admit it was wrong of me. Also how is warning someone provoking a fight/argument? He does it to me all the time and I just learned to ignore it. But you can only push some one so far, and he pushed me that far today. I said things I should of never had said, and I am going to be the bigger person by apologizing first. Sorry. House1090 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
That's nice, House. I concede that my response was less than completely civil, but from my perspective I am dealing with someone who routinely misunderstands what he reads, fails to WP:AGF and then makes accusations or false claims of others based upon his faulty understanding, such as:
  • Here: [45] where he accuses User:SoCal_L.A. of vandalism for editing his preferred version of that portal.
His "complaint" against me on my talk page likewise shows that he doesn't know what the term "revert" means and so he "warns" me against violating his confused apprehension of that, in the process violating the policies he cites. I don't know if this guy knows himself to be consciously lying or if he actually believes what he says at the moment. In real life I would avoid people like this but if the content of Wikipedia I care something about is to be defended I must engage. I am trying to remain as civil as I can in that process. So House, again, "put up" by learning to make coherent arguments or "shut up" if this is impossible. Ameriquedialectics 02:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Cant you say it nicer? With your large expansive vocabulary? To tell you the truth I wont shut up "put up", and I am done discussing this. FYI, I just wanted to tell you to be careful of what you do is all! I did not know you were going to make a big scene about it. House1090 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably not. Check yourself before bringing your bs accusations to other's talk pages and engaging in revert wars. Regards, Ameriquedialectics 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility begets incivility. Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Amerique, the most you can expect at WQA is for the other editor to admit being wrong. You got that, and instead of accepting it, you put yourself in the wrong by poking at the wound. House1090 started the current episode by poking at you for no good reason; after he backed down, you poked at him for no good reason. Both of you need to stop shoving each other. If one of you is behaving so badly that it disrupts the ability to edit articles, the other needs to go to WP:ANI and ask for admin intervention -- there is nothing more that WQA can accomplish here. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
All right. I realize my language was harsh but quite frankly I find what seems to be a form of functional illiteracy errant on WP far more offensive than incivility. This is obviously a deep prejudice of mine... I have a low tolerance for this, and if this is what his behavior shows, how to deal with it? The only reason I haven't gone to ANI is because if allowed to continue editing over the long term he may be able to use WP to learn how to write and how to make evidence-based arguments. However, I don't know if the problem is correctable, if attempts to fix his edits are met with reverts and accusations of vandalism, etc. I've seen that he has been able to do promising work with some other people, that he is capable of editing some aspects of the encyclopedia in ways that are within his means, so I don't really want him off Wikipedia, but I also don't want the content of WP to be... "misinformed" might be a polite way of putting it, when he tries to edit in areas that are outside of his competency.
That is where I am at with this. I say this knowing we all have our limitations, and I acknowledge that I have limited patience for dealing with what seems to me functional illiteracy on WP. Encountering this can lead me to make civility violations of my own. I realize trading incivility for incivility or illiteracy is not the right way of approaching the issue, but I'm not by profession a teacher and view bad grammar in any adult as evidence of the larger failure of the educational system. So, encountering what looks like this upsets me, I have a lot of contempt for this, but I know that taking it out on the bearer does not help the immediate or the larger situation. I would like to be able to change both in a real way. To the extent my apology can progress these circumstances, House1090 has that. I apologize to House1090. I will try harder not to be incivil to him in the future. Ameriquedialectics 06:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That's not entirely satisfactory, but we're not going to accomplish anything by continuing here. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

user:GSP-Rush

Resolved: Editor has been warned that continuation of this style of editing will lead to a block.

user:GSP-Rush has been uncivil at the Samuel Sevian talk page. Here are two diffs: diff1 and diff2. He has since rephrased the first one. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GSP-Rush is strongly advised that any further communications in such an insulting style are likely to lead to a block. This unpleasant interaction style, especially when combined with edit-warring, are not the way to get anywhere. Bubba73 is advised to change his signature ("who's attacking me now?"), which fails to assume good faith, and is obnoxious even if intended as a joke. Looie496 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. "Who's attacking me now? was the name of a segment on The Colbert Report. I changed it. Bubba73 (The arguement clinic), 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hah, I'm probably one of the five people on Earth who wasn't aware of that. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I decided that may be taken wrongly, so I changed it again. Bubba73 (You talking to me?), 00:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • GSP, please be advised that unlike most of the rest of the internet, it is not okay to be nasty and insulting on Wikipedia. Wikipedians are expected to adhere to a minimum standard of decency and civility in conversations. If you are having a dispute with another user, consider taking advantage of a third opinion or other forms of dispute resolution, but please don't resort to personal insults and name-calling. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok this inappropriate yet again. Bubba73 has sent 2 warning that were not justified. One was 3rr, in this case he reported that i repeatedly undid his work. Now that is true but he did same to me. The only difference is that i gave valid point for each one of the time that i undid while as wat he did was go to other wikipedia page, gain support form random editor, whiteout telling them the reason why i want to kept.Witch is just plain misleading people and ther should be a rule in wikipedia against that ( if ther is i would like to now it for the next time he or anyone else does something like this). And then once he gain roughly 2 people he undoes it. So am forced to comeback to the page state that he hasn't given me any reason to remove it and then undo it.

For the uncivil part. roughly more then 2 months ago i did act rude. But this was due to me being unexperienced whit wikipedia ( it was my first month editing ). But since then i have work to try to improve the article. The only major problem whit article was 1 whether it should be delete ( it was majority that it should stay ). 2 whether to remove the listing of tournament. In both case i gave argument and stay civil even tho bubba73 act alot irrational and delete my work whiteout valid reason. The only possible way to i could of been civil is maby, then it stretch. Went i sayed quote : Stating that an article is unimportant shows great ignorance, don't state that any article in unimportant . That the only quote were i have been even just a little bit rude. Also last be not least to Beeblebrox never assume that someone is wrong whiteout looking at the fact. Also i would like to now if ther a rule (like in real life) against editors that make false claims and in dangers someone reputation (ther credibility).GSP-Rush (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The diff from January 7 shows you saying "ROFL are you stupid something" and several other things in the same tone. That's not from two months ago and it's unacceptable no matter what the provocation. I am going to resolve this section now -- you are warned that anything further in this tone will probably cause your account to be blocked. The next step is up to you. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Am starting to notice that alot people on wikipedia tend to not pay attention to everything you write. I will justify wat i wrote since you didn't seem to understand it all. Like i sayed before i had just started seriously editing in wikipedia. And went your unexperienced and people are trying to destroy something you work harder for, it a perfectly normal reaction to get mad. But that sayed this warning had nothing to do whit this quote since, if you pay attention to the date that Bubba73 post the uncivil warning in 22 January 2010. While as your infraction take place in January 7. Whit this sayed it perfectly clear that either this has nothing to do whit the warning or he didn't react in the proper time frame and now these accusation do not stand anymore since it make roughly two week and since then you can clearly see that i have learn to deal whit people that look for problem or reasons why to diminish or remove the article in question.

Working on wikipedia i learn alot. Like if your administrator and you make false claim and block me. Then i make a complain to Jim Walter and you can be removed. So please do not threaten. Make valid claim that are appropriate for the current time frame. The main reason he made claim this is because i undid something that he had no right to delete in the first place. Some people on here tend to get emotion and take thing personnel and it make them act irrational. GSP-Rush (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I just check out, see am still new so i still have to understand everything, and you guys actually made a decision before i even had a chance to defend myself. Yes stating ROFL are you stupid something may be not the best way of dealing whit the problem but that was a few week back after being harassed and harassed and having to battle consistently to make this article approved. For a newcomer to half to deal whit people reacting to every single of his errors every second is alot to handle and ther is certain amount of frustration that creates. I can't believe that you guys expect perfect for the start. And to not even lets me defend myself that just unreasonable. GSP-Rush (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:SlamDiego and accusations of bad mouthing in articles

Resolved: WQA not filed in good faith

Recently, SlamDiego accused me of bad mouthing people in article space, something that I believe is wrong to do (as it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), and that as far as I known, I have never done. I asked him to to justify his statement or to retract it. Instead he has prevaricated, and refused to either retract his accusation or provide proof of his accusation. I have asked him three times over the course of this past week to retract his accusation or provide proof of it, but he has posted long rambling screeds instead. I find this behaviour dishonourable and unacceptable. I have just made a post stating my view of this matter: Talk:Austrian_School#Accuser_refuses_to_retract_false_accusation

In the culture I grew up in, it was a serious thing to accuse someone of misconduct, and it was a serious thing to be so accused. Because of this I may be over-reacting by US standards. However, I think it is reasonable to expect that when someone accuses you of misconduct, that if they cannot provide proof when challenged, that they should retract their accusation. I ask for the opinion of the community on this matter. LK (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no possibility of WQA accomplishing anything here, and Talk:Austrian School#Accuser refuses to retract false accusation makes is clear that this alert was not filed in good faith. Both of you deserve to be trouted for your interaction styles. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

STILL NO REVIEW: Accusations of impropriety...too much, or is this acceptable? You tell me.

I'm being constantly accused of a number of things by User:Jclemens. He started off by accusing me of sockpuppetry, and then when the investigation he initiated came back in my favor, switched to allegations of meatpuppetry. Not just once, but over and over again. Then it was dishonesty. Now its "tenditious editing, editwarring, refusal to get the point, and assumed ownership." He's threatening to "report me." He's calling me "clueless." Two other editors have asked him to stop focusing on my behavior and focus on the issues.

Allegations of sock/meatpuppetry:

All other issues mentioned above:

Personal attacks:

I would love a review of both my behavior and his to better understand where I may have gone off-track, if anywhere, and how I should handle this sort of situation in the future. I am totally open to constructive criticism. Thank you for your consideration. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that filing a WQA immediately after a Medcab case has been opened at your request is a good idea -- in fact if I were the mediator it would probably cause me to close the case. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is that? ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: Case was not opened, as acceptance by all parties was not gained. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 21:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Gotta say, Noraft, WP:PLAXICO certainly seems to apply here. Feel free to take Noraft up on his invitation to review his (and his sock/meatpuppets') behavior.
To answer your question, here's how to get a better outcome next time:
1) Follow BRD, don't try and wikilawyer out of it. 1a) Don't demand that a huge radical change be accepted and then changes made off of your "new and improved" version of a project-space page. 1b) Don't re-revert anyone who's reverted you--an edit summary is not a substitute for a talk page discussion.
2) Don't use IP editors, be they meat- or sock-puppets, to try and gain leverage. If an anonymous IP violently endorses you and edit wars on your behalf, they're simply undermining your credibility. "Not enough evidence tying Noraft to these IPs" is not an exoneration, either.
3) Don't whine (or cry "incivility!") when people call you on either of the above. That includes when people tell you you're going about things wrong, or that you've exhausted good faith. Incivility is saying "Your mother smelled of elderberries!", not "You're not editing collaboratively."
4) Oh, and don't lie. Moreover don't lie, cry AGF when you're called a liar, and then cry incivility when the possibility is raised that you may indeed not have understood the issue.
That should pretty much do it. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that we've heard from the person that led me to post the alert, I'd love to hear from a third party. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 12:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for an independent review. I'm trying to improve here. Can someone please help? ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since nobody seems to have the time to review, I'll go ahead and respond to the above comment here.

1)Asking you to follow a process which you invoke is not wikilawyering, in my opinion.
2)You made an accusation...which does not require me to be "exonerated," as your accusation is not an indictment. A third party checkuser was not convinced, the last unregistered IP to edit has an edit history going back some time, on several different articles, and that user SAID he was the other IP addresses. Let it go!
3) What I feel was uncivil was your continuing to accuse after 1) the investigation found no evidence of a link, and 2) after the unregistered IPs stopped editing.
4) If you accuse someone of dishonesty, and two other users jump in unprompted to defend the user you accused, and say they understand his perspective, you've misunderstood it, and that he's not being dishonest, you are not assuming good faith. If you think there is a possibility that he may have misunderstood something (as you have said) and you choose to assume he's lying instead, you are not assuming good faith. Cry incivility when the possibility is raised that you may indeed not have understood the issue?!? Its not like you said "You know, you may not have understood the issue." I wouldn't have said that was uncivil. I think the "you may be clueless" language had something to do with it. In fact, you were the one who didn't understand what I was talking about, went off half-cocked with your dishonesty accusations, and other people had to jump in and explain it to you.

Someone, can I get a review both of my behavior and the situation, PLEASE? ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 18:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:STICK? All of this seems to be related to WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes header discussion. It's seriously WP:LAME to make such a big interpersonal issue out of that. Pcap ping 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUND from User:Rray

Resolved: Insufficient evidence in this alert to support the accusation of Wikihounding. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See Rrays Contributions here [for today]. I believe that is every single edit or comment that I made today Rray either reverted, commented on or changed. Since I joined Wikipedia in 2008, Rray has been following me around in this way. It is very annoying and discourages me from making edits, because I know there is a very good chance Rray is going to come along and change it. Similarly if I nominate something for deletion or participate in a deletion discussion, Rray comes along, without fail, and takes the opposite position. I have warned Rray here but he denied it was Wikihounding and made it clear he has no intention of changing his behavior. I ask for assistance. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask Rray to simply ignore my edits and leave them to other editors. DegenFarang (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick look over DegenFarang's edits of the past couple of days will make it clear that I haven't reverted "every single edit or comment" that he's made. DegenFarang has an interest in poker articles, as do I, but he seems to think that I shouldn't be allowed to disagree with him, participate in AFD's that he's started, or revert his edits. Asking me to ignore all of his edits is absurd, since all of my edits have been made in good faith. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedians aren't supposed to tell other Wikipedians to "ignore their edits and leave them to other editors." That seems contrary to the spirit of collaboration. Rray (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I am saying that they have not been made in good faith. Your interest in my edits has far more to do with me than it does with the articles in question. Your voting the opposite direction in every single deletion nomination I have made. I made Erin Ness. Are you serious? She got 207th place in one poker tournament and you dismiss my nomination with a half a line quip about her being notable - no proof, obviously no research on your part - simply 'DegenFarang suggested this, I'm going to vote against it'. If that isn't the definition of Wikihounding, it should be. DegenFarang (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't find this complaint very convincing. It took me about 30 seconds with Google to see that Erin Ness has notability beyond finishing 207th in one poker tournament -- also this is the 2nd AfD for the article, the first having ended in a Keep. I am not going to say that wikihounding is ruled out, but the behavior today looks more like an inclusionist/deletionist dispute than a case of wikihounding. DegenFarang, if you want Rray to be prohibited from commenting in AfD's that you start, that's very unlikely to happen. Rray, although I don't see any actual evidence of wikihounding at this point, I would like to suggest that if you base your actions on your watchlist, that's fine, but if you base your actions on looking at DegenFarang's contribs, that would be getting into a danger zone. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl

Resolved: Multiple editors find that this WQA is baseless, and that the filer has used SPA tags improperly and then refused to acknowledge the error. Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To keep this short and simple, what started out as a disagreement on a Cfd has gotten to the point of her insulting and slurring me multiple times. She has done so on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arenlor#Check_your_facts_before_labelling_people and on the Cfd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_23#Category:Skyscrapers_between_50_and_99_meters Arenlor (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was accused of being a {{SPA}}, which a little bit of very simple research would have revealed as nonsense, and am still awaiting an apology for that bizarre accusation, so a complaint about wikiquette is a strange response. I assumed good faith in the hope that a newbie had made a mistake, but since an apology was not forthcoming even after I had wasted my time layonmg out evdence which Arlenor coukd and shoukd have checked before attacking me as an SPA. If if some is acting in good faith, they \apologise for mistakes, and the lack of an apology here means thata I cannot susstain the assumption that Arlenor was acting in good faith.
As to the CFD discussion, maybe Arlenor could explain exactly where I have "slurred and insulted" Arlenor. Arlenor makes an assertion that something is an authoritative source: I want evidence. That's all, and failure to accept repeated claims that because a website exists it must be a world-authority on the subject is not a breach of wikiquette: if it was, we might as well throw out WP:V.
Frankly, the complaint here just looks like more trolling by Arlenor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Arlenor, can you provide specific wp:diffs of what you feel are BHG's insults and slurs? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The greatest sins here by far are by Arlenor. The SPA tags were misapplied, and BHG has a right to be annoyed at how much effort it took to get them removed. Arlenor is advised that a continuation of this confrontational style of interaction will not be viewed positively. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The SPA tags were utterly misapplied, I might add, and were done so in bad faith. Also, BrownHairedGirl appears generally civil in her comments despite this. The troll accusation was still unnecessary but her frustration is understandable, based on numerous unsuccessful attempts to clear up the issue. Swarm(Talk) 01:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl gets a few fish scales, Arlenor gets the rest of the WP:TROUT. Pcap ping 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reporting personal attacks by User:Wikireader41

I want to report personal attacks by User:Wikireader41 which were directed at User:Mughalnz on the following two talk pages. User:Wikireader41's comments appear to be based on his perception that User:Mughalnz is of Pakistani nationality. He accuses User:Mughalnz of being an "Islamofascist", being sponsored by the I.S.I. (a Pakistani intelligence agency) to spread propoganda and being a wahhabi (an extremist sect of Islam). User:Wikireader41 also makes comments about User:Mughalnz being dyslexic. If this is not the right place to file this report, can somebody please direct me to the appropriate page. Thanks.

Diffs from Talk:Al-Qaeda page:

Diffs from Talk:Balawaristan National Front page:

--Hj108 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Although a certain amount of heat is unavoidable in India-Pakistan-dispute articles, Wikireader41 is advised that accusing people of being paid by spy agencies is totally unacceptable. Wikireader41 needs to stop commenting on people's motives and comment only on issues related to content. Wikireader41 is further advised that a continuation of these sorts of personal attacks is likely to lead to a lengthy block. This is not to say that the other parties here are innocent, but even if they had committed offenses on the same level, retribution is not an acceptable response. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hj108, you are required to notify Wikireader41 of this alert; I am not going to do it for you. If Wikireader41 fails to see the report because of lack of notification, it will have no effect. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a message on Wikireader's talk page page alerting him to this report. Is the offence not serious enough for an administrator to take action against Wikireader?
--Hj108 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
WQA is intended as a forum to give feedback to editors in the hope of fixing a problem before it requires admin intervention. Admins often don't look at this page. For problems where admin intervention is clearly necessary, the place to go is WP:ANI. (I am not an admin, in case that's unclear.) Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
user Mughalnz is pushing a stridently wahhabi POV. unfortunately we have had problems with paid editors on WP pushing a particular POV. this editor has a long history of removing well cited info from WP to push his POV. in addition he is a self confessed dyslexic and has a lot of trouble with basic english language hence the dyslexia comment. several other editors have commented on his poor english and his need to do basic spell check prior to posting. I have reported mughalnz to admin. Thanx Wikireader41 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Last straw

Here an editor continues a long stream of abuse. I understand the editor being offended by wp:COI and wp:POV tags on the article. I have complete confidence the editor is acting in wp:good faith. But the abuse must end. Perhaps new voices will help. I have *NOT* notified the editor of this thread, at the editor's request. - Sinneed 02:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice posted on talk page. Calamitybrook please strike out your comment and refrain from further incivility. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Editor has not responded, has not redacted, and has been editing other articles. I would very much like to see the wp:personal attacks removed. Help, anyone? - Sinneed 15:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Gerardw (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. - Sinneed 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Tbsdy lives‎

I urge all admins here to support Wikipedia:Administrators against kitten abuse. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Should this adminstrator be posting insulting images likening other editors to blank canvases, and various primates? Examples - [47], [48], [49], [50]? What should be done about this? Hipocrite (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't be. Gerardw (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? I also posted a picture of two bears fighting... is that also considered insulting? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Meaning depends on context. Where you place the pictures and the captions impute meaning. Gerardw (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
What have you got against Baboons? For that matter, what have you got against canvas? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely you've heard the schoolyard insult "You look like a monkey"? The captions clearly compare the images to your impressions of commentators on your talk page; if you can't imagine anyone being offended by being likened to an angry bear or to the rear end of a baboon... Powers T 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest unwatching Tbsdy lives' talk page in the spirit of DNFTT. For an editor who claims to be concered about poor levels of civility, he has a very strange way of shewing it. Still, it means you can call him a baboon's arse in future and he can't complain. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I commented recently on his talk page, I had it watchlisted - in fact, the only reason I even looked at the talk page again was because one of his edits was to the section in which I approached him. I don't intend to have anything more to do with him after this subject rolls off of this board, but I think it's important that someone pass the message along to this editor that they are causing problems, and that needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Goodo, I made it clear that I didn't want anything more to do with you also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been watching Tbsdy's page at all; I simply saw the notice here and commented accordingly. Powers T 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was any suggestion you were :-) I think that comment was directed at Hipocrite, who had already assured admins that he will leave me alone. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I think that an editor who prides himself on being civil should anticipate how his or her actions may be interpreted by other users. I would be happy to inform Tbsdy of this if he or she isn't already reading this thread. SGGH ping! 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
He's already commented. DuncanHill (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I think adding pictures of animals next to editors who are on the warpath is not really a huge concern. It doesn't seem to me that this it's a huge issue, my next image is probably going to be a kitten or a group of penguins. I thought that the ape images were apt. Given that Hipocrite was emailed, apparently by a number of admins, that his requests for recall information when he's not going to invoke it was harassment I would say that it's even more apt. As for civility... I rather think that I've been quite civil so far. Given the rudeness of a number of editors towards myself with no real action taken against them (which I found suprising!), I find it remarkable that there is so much consternation over these images! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I find it remarkable that you can't see the incivility shown with this sort of mocking. How we handle those who disagree with us is even more important than how we handle those who agree. Even though you know how people view this you're planning what images to use to mock the next person who has an issue with one of your actions?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If the images make the editors look slightly ridiculous, that only reflects their actions. Let's review where I've added the images:
  • Toddst1 left an extremely aggressive comment on my talk page, and has himself been abrasive and incivil towards a number of others (see the alert above this one). I added some bears on the attack next to this - pretty apt, he was on the attack.
  • Hipocrite added a note to my talk page over concerns over my use of tools. Toddst1 also decided to weigh in. When I took it to WP:AN Hipocrite then archived the thread, IMO before my actions had proper review by a number of admins. I can only assume that is because there was no issue. I added a picture of seal with it's mouth wide open, rather apt as I was being yelled at by an unreasonable editor.
  • Hipocrite then asked for my admin recall procedure. It appears that Hipocrite was emailed by a number of admins that his actions were harassment. Given the timing, I added the picture of the Baboon (which I can only assume is his concern, as he hasn't complained about the seal or bear image).
  • Nightscream added a comment to at least 10-15 editors talk page. I added a friendly caution that this could be considered canvassing, but that I wasn't really very concerned about it. Incredibly, he decided to take me to AN/I. I added an image of an agitated Siamang.
  • Later on, I was informed of Nightscream's AN/I thread, so I added an image of a canvas, which is indeed what he was concerned about.
So like I say, in the context of the discussions, had anyone bothered to investigate a touch more closely, I don't really think it's an issue. If they feel that it's incivil, perhaps it may be. But I see it as a touch of friendly humour to counter some of the ridiculous messages on my talk page.
I do note that the alert above about Toddst1 has not elicited as much feedback, yet the diffs I have there are far more concerning. Is there any reason you have only commented on my alert and not the above? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to be very clear - none of my actions were harassment, no one other than you have accused me of harssing you. I strongly suggest you take the loud, clear, undisputed voice of everyone who has reviewed your disruptive use of images to mock other contributors and stop. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Then why did you write on the AN thread that "I was informed by more than one person via email that actually asking admins to codify their recall process in the absence of a desire to recall them was harassment"? Are you now disagreeing with the various people who emailed you directly? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, you are directed not to assume anything about my opinions or beliefs at any point, as you have been disasterously wrong. I am also concerned about your use of the seal and bear image. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Direct away, Hipocrite. What assumptions have I made against your person so far? I don't believe that I have made many assumptions at all. You sent me a message, I didn't go to you! Furthermore, I didn't add any of the images based on any of your personal beliefs (I have no idea who you are!). That is your assumption, which is wrong.
You went on the attack, I decided to use humour to nullify it. If it made you look slightly ridiculous, that's only because you were being ridiculous. After you asked me about my admin actions, I gave you reasons. You didn't accept them, and continued the discussion. I thought this a bit odd, so I decided that if there was indeed an issue it would be best to take to the admin noticeboard. You called this an "escalation", however if you really had concerns then I would have thought that the appropriate place to discuss this in detail would not have been my user talk page, but WP:AN. By doing this other admins could comment and if there were actions that I took that were unacceptable they could be reversed and I could have been advised accordingly.
Therefore, I stand behind my decision to take your thread to AN. It seems that general consensus was that the only real mistake I made was on AFD, but then that wasn't an issue for you because I'd already explained that was an error of judgement. I'm curious as to why you shut down the AN thread so quickly soon after an admin noted that you were making a rather large issue out of the whole business? Not only did you archive it, but you hid it. Why was that? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
So you have people upset. Instead of doing your best to difuse the situation you leave mocking images. I'm sure to you they were apt. But how about the other party. Were you making the situation better? Or were you pouring gasoline on the fire. To you maybe it's "friendly humor". To someone already upset? To a situation where emotions are already high?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Tell me, why do you think the emotions are high? Are you saying that any of the points above were reasonable? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying it doesn't matter. As an admin sometimes you need to apply policy. That may upset people but if policy required it you only did what had to be done. But what benefit is there to then make fun of that person with a mocking image and caption. You've taken a person who may have been upset unreasonably and now given them a damn good reason to be upset at you. Where has there been any gain to any, unless you're deriving some pleasure in making them angry. Isn't that striking at the deepest heart of civility?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm saying that it does matter. When someone goes on the attack, sometimes the best form of defense is humour. It often helps nullify the attack. That was what I was doing. If they feel offended, then so be it. It might have been better had they not decided to leave their messages, or undertake the actions they used against myself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The point Kim made in the small print is what I'm trying to express. If someone is attacking you, it's great to find a way to laugh together. But take care that when someone attacks you, you don't point a finger in their face and laugh AT them. One is diffusing a situation, one is inflaming it.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well, that's fair. I thought that you meant for me to remove all the images. I'll remove the images of the Baboons. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Consider my talk page de-Baboonified. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Why be so concerned about the not-big fish?

Wikipedia needs its humor. Don't we have bigger fish to fry? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC) tbsdy: Do try to make sure that everyone does get a chance to laugh though. If one party isn't laughing, it's not entirely fun anymore. One can't please everyone of course, but try and see if you can think of images&captions that might be perceived as being more funny by more people? :-)

Hahahaha!!! I love it :-) I guess that this is a fair comment, though apparently even an image of two bears fighting is concerning to Hipocrite. Seems a might too sensitive for someone who likes to ask others for their general recall procedure, and expresses a willingness to violate 3RR. I'll choose my animals more careful. What about an axylotl? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A Wikipedia administrator with nothing better to do takes up tossing to pass the time

.

Sorry to interupt your fun and games, but there's still an image on that page calling me a seal. Is this tolerated? Could someone deal with this, now? Hipocrite (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Come now, a picture of a seal can NOT be seen to be offensive. OK, I understand the Baboon (personally, I would think it hilarious if someone used a relatively ordinary image of an animal against a post I added on their talk page, even an ape), but a seal? For someone who appears to be currently preparing to file a user RFC against me, you surely are not that sensitive? Incidentally, why did you edit my talk page to remove the image with the rather cryptic edit summary of RP:RPA? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Humor is such a subjective thing. Personally, I didn't like the baboon picture and found it offensive, in a goatse way (I didn't like having to look at an ass callous everytime I visited your page), so I'm glad it's gone. For the other types of images, perhaps a good guideline would be to consider the caption, and who the image is intended to represent. If the image is being used to refer to yourself in a self-deprecating way, it's probably fine. If the image is being used to refer to someone else in a deprecating way, it's probably not fine. For example, we could consider it uncivil for you to say to someone, "You are stupid." So to have a picture saying, "I think this editor is stupid", is just another way of being rude. Now, if the image is about the situation, but without referring to anyone in particular, that might be more appropriate. Like the "fish" image here is probably okay, and the "administrator with nothing to do" image is probably okay, if it's the administrator referring to themselves. But not okay if someone else is using it to refer to to the administrator. The Suneko image is not okay, because it's directed at another editor. The canvas image is probably okay, because it's referring to a concept, not the editor. The seal image, not okay, because it's referring to an editor. Does that help? --Elonka 02:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, perhaps you could do something to get him to stop, then? Hipocrite (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well... technically the fish wouldn't be appropriate because, as Kim knows, Ta bu shi da yu means "He is not a big fish" in incredibly corrupted and nonsensical Mandarin. And the image of the log throwing could be also construed as referring to me. Personally, I think they are both hilarious and I had a great chuckle - perhaps this is my quirky sense of humour.
The problem with humour is that it can be taken badly even when no ill-intent is intended. Take, for instance, the Australian KFC advertisement where an Australian cricket fan was surrounded by West-Indies cricket fans. Clearly looking uncomfortable and a little intimidated with being surrounded by this group, the Australian fan offers the West-Indies fans some of his fried-chicken. The intended message, which was understood by all Australians, was that it was an awkward moment because a fan had managed to get himself surrounded by the opposition. In the U.S. however, I believe that it is a racial slur to offer fried chicken to an African American (I still have no idea why, I only found out about this recently). In Australia there is no such issue - offering some KFC to a darker-skinned friend would be considered a gesture of friendship, not an insult. Therefore, I find the picture of the bear, the seal and the canvas quite innocent and amusing, while others do not.
Does this mean that I should stop adding the images to my user page? What happens if I added a kitten and a user hates cats - where does it stop? I've compromised on the Baboon image, because I can now see how a number of editors could find that offensive. But really, we have to use some common sense here. I'm not going to have my talk page held to ransom by an editor who is clearly offended by me, and not just the images I used! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I suggest you two leave each other alone. And TBSDY, if you could tone it down a bit with the images, that would be helpful. Prodego talk 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
How about a compromise? Keep the images, but change the captions? For example, on the seal image, change the caption to: "TBSDY is in shock when he learns of the new Fall 2010 television lineup." :) --Elonka 02:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll make some changes. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me, I didn't initiate any of this you know. I'm hoping that Hipocrite will see some reason here and not file a user RFC against me, but if he does sadly he'll leave me with no choice but to defend myself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally support Tbsdy's right to have an opinion and state it. We need a freedom of speech clause for Wikipedia and it needs to be broad in scope. Everyone needs to start letting these things go and everyone should be allowed to call another whatever they want. We wouldnt have to spend all this time on this crap if people just walked away from these things. Perhaps if we had one day a month where you could post on your talk page what you really think about individual editors to let off some steam it would be a good release valve. All this restricting and trying to control human behavior on Wikipedia is having the same effect that overbearing mom's who keep their children from pornography and violent movies ends up creating psycho rapist killers.Camelbinky (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well... I'm always happy to have my actions reviewed, even by someone who dislikes me as much as Hipocrite. I don't really think this is a free speech issue, and I've agreed to be more careful in my use of images. Given how controversial it is, I'll probably only use animal images on my talk page in future for the more ludicrous messages, though I consider some of them on there now to be really pretty absurd. I can't really agree to a day of personal attacks, and I don't really think that this applies to this situation anyway as I didn't add the images to attack other editors, merely to make light of some of their more abusive comments. I appreciate your opinion and support though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the contribs of both Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs) and Hipocrite (talk · contribs), it would seem that both have been spending a disproportionate amount of time over the last few days interacting with each other. Per Prodego's suggestion above, I think the best course of action here, is to disengage. We have lots else that needs doing on the project, can we please get back to it?  :) --Elonka 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Ironically, I've got to get going soon anyway, as I have some things to do. But I do point out that Hipocrite has always been the one to initiate the issues here, and I've been forced to scramble around the project to defend myself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Before you put the pictures up, Hipocrite was here complaining about them? - Sinneed 18:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No - the comment was that in the past few days there has been a lot of back and forth between myself and Hipocrite. That would be because Hipocrite added messages to my talk page about other issues. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Searson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: moved to WP:PITCHFORKS

Has been attacking an unregistered IP user all night, using a rather colourful vocabulary in teh process. He has admitted that he was uncivil on the ANI board. I believe the user should be deleted permanently. See the ANI board for further info, I've been fighting this guy for too long, and don't feel like doing it again here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talkcontribs) 08:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Srwm4 is currently believed to be the IP in question, which was blocked earlier this evening. It appears that he remembered his account and password and is now evading the block and disrupting to get Mike Searson in trouble.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I reverted an edit by the anon IP over a week ago, [51] which appeared to be vandalism and found a thinly veiled personal attack by it on my talk page this morning[52]. I am a US Marine and have worked in the firearms industry/law enforcement/US Military all of my adult life. I took umbrage with this individual's insults as they were libelous, could impact my career and reverted her [53], realized the reversion was incorrect by 2 model numbers and gave back to it [54]. Was it the best course of action, maybe not. My self and this IP address went back and forth over this nonsense all day[55]. I had reliable third party sources to back my claim, this individual did not. I warned this individual to stop deleting sourced material.[56] It refused, it was blocked for vandalism. Four minutes later, this other user shows up after an almost 3 year hiatus, and edits with the same pattern of behavior this other user was editing. Forgetting to sign his/her name, undoing my edit, etc. He/she had me feeling remorse for a second, but this was short-lived. I don't believe Wiki's policy is to delete sourced material based on another editor's "feelings":[57] I did not revert back to the correct version, because I did not want this to escalate. The whole thing is ridiculous and now it appears this blocked IP Address is making a mockery of things by resuming his/her sockpuppet account. I probably should have just ignored his/her personal attacks, but I wasn't raised to run from a bully. The only thing I did wrong was outright call this IP address a few four-letter words as opposed to making thinly-veiled snarky attacks. I won't deny that. He/she caught me at a time when I lost my temper. Had the other editor under its anonymous IP acted rational and had been willing to discuss the changes rather than reverting, insulting, etc...this whole mess could have been avoided and I could have used this time to improve other articles. So, I apologize to the wiki editors who got involved over this and taking up their time. I might have apologized to the original editor in question, but it was too busy typing up reports here and at ANI without trying to talk to me first. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What libelous insults are you referring to Mike? Are you implying that Die Hard 2 is not, in fact, a work of fiction? I cannot comment on any warnings you offered to the anon IP, as I am not involved in that situation. Perhaps the reason that I forgot to sign my name is that I haven't edited an article for a year? As far as I am concerned, the line was causing confusion back to October 2008, and should have been deleted entirely. But the anon IP did, in his last revision, cite a Wikipedia article with an embedded link, it should be noted. And of the 3 documented instances of abuse that I have seen, there were no 4 letter words involved at all. It is interesting though that you classify this account as a sock puppet, given the numerous edits I have made with it since it was created. The fact remains, though, that when I came to the defense of the IP user, I have been attacked by no fewer than 3 other users now. How is it that the three of you can claim benevolence as a motive for intervention, by my intervention must be accountable to a sock puppet?Srwm4 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Using a lot of Glocks in the Marine Corps these days, are they? Is your CO reading this? How many models does he think they produce? But come on, why would I sign in to defend myself? If I was going to do that, why wouldn't I use a more recent account to avoid this suspicion? Why not use my "real" account with "more recent edits" to give me "more credibility"? Why not sign in in multiple accounts to create the illusion of support for my case? The fact of the matter is that Mike was the vandal in my eyes, not the IP user, and I got involved to say so. Nothing more, nothing less. The time that it took Mike to come up with other users to come to his defense was under 4 minutes, by the way! So why am I under scrunity when all I did was come to the defense of a user who was being bullied with someone who obviously doesn't have a life and is able to spend enough time on here to build up his reputation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talkcontribs) 09:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, it would be quite a stretch of the imagination to use the references you have quoted to show any kind of personal attack. Considering what usually constitutes a personal attack, someone suggesting that you grew up believing the movies is pretty tame. It's just not even worthy of being called a personal attack.
On the other hand your first message to the ip on their talk page has the summary "Here you go fuckchop" which is getting a lot closer to the personal attack you mentioned. If you set out to offend another editor you should expect a little incivility in return - far more incivility than has been shown you thus far.
I would suggest that Mike go have a read of the pages to do with etiquette and personal attacks and only return to Wikipedia editing once he is able to follow through on the principles contained within. Weakopedia (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Ps Srwm4 is also not blameless as I see that editor here accusing Mike of having 'no life'. Srwm4 could better go to the Glock website which quickly confirms that there may be 22 distinct model numbers but with each number having multiple variations (eg 17, 17L, 17C, 17MB) that there are 37 or so unique firearms in production, and then apologise. Singling Mike out from all the other Wikipedians who have no life is quite wrong. Weakopedia (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reported user Mike Searson has already been warned and apologized [[58]]. The allegations of sockpuppetry should go to WP:SSP. Gerardw (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it there, in the meantime, Scott continues his harassment:[59]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

More problems with 78.32.143.113

Following on from my previous problems attempting to communicate with 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) regarding content disputes, it appears the user is now refusing to discuss our disagreements at all, and is continuing to revert edits, with rather uncivil edit summaries:

I have previously attempted to discuss these issues with the user on several occasions, to no avail: [62], [63], [64], [65].

I have also posted on WikiProject Business in the hope that some third opinions may help resolve the matter. Letdorf (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC).

I have left a message on the IP's talk page. Let's pause for a short time to see if anything happens. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Has it been long enough now? The editor seems to be proceeding apace. They should perhaps be made aware that WQA is a step in dispute resolution and is best not ignored, since it gets cited in the next step. In any case, it seems no response is forthcoming to this nor the previous WQA...
I've looked at this situation previously. I investigated some of the background facts and previous interactions, I took no position on the content since I wanted to keep a blocking hand free if necessary (and still do). There is a valid dispute here, Volkswagen AG vs. Volkswagen Automotive Group (and the related Volkswagen AG vs. "VWAG") and it is complicated a little since apparently the supervisory boards of the two companies are not only the same people but the same entity. I'll not draw any conclusions since it's more nuanced than my own look at it. IMO Letdorf has been handling this exactly right: patient discussion and explication, forbearance in making reverts, the previous WQA reference, seeking answers at WP:BUSINESS (and Letdorf, what about asking at WP:AUTOMOBILE too?). IMO 78.32 has handled this exactly wrong: ignoring these WQA'a, characterizing others edits as vandalism, edit summaries with "which you know nothing about" seem egregious when the other party is clearly demonstrating knowledge (or at least a well-informed opinion) on the topic.
78.32 seems to be quite prolific with edits on the technical aspects of VW-group vehicles and technology, this is to the good - though I've not examined the content edits in depth to determine their validity. OTOH, I'm not seeing any great proficiency with reasonable discussion when their edits are questioned, nor willingness to develop or abide by consensus. That is a disctinctively unhelpful trait for an editor working on a massively-collaborative reference work. The content work seems mostly helpful, the interactions seem much less so. Perhaps the regulars here can craft some strong advice? Franamax (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, I have now also posted a request at WP:AUTOMOBILE. I agree that WP is not just about volume of contributions, it's about being able to "play nice with the other kids" too. Letdorf (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
No edits for three days now from this IP, which is quite unusual - seems to be lying low for the moment? Letdorf (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

PA and wikistalking

I am in a dispute with MarturetCR (talk · contribs) at Human Rights Foundation. Misleading edit summaries, removal of article flags, insertion of sharply POV material, as I see it. I have warned the editor, restored flags, removed the content. Some has been readded, and I have tagged it offtopic. The editor has followed me to utterly unrelated articles Kripalu Center and Persecution of Falun Gong, making personal attacks and disrupting already-difficult efforts. Perhaps other voices than mine would help the editor. And yes, I know I am abrasive and yes, refactoring the utterly impenetrable posts of calamitybrook (talk · contribs) is less than kind. - Sinneed 14:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm I lost the links. Here they are: Kripalu nastiness and "use wp:BRAIN" and Drama Queen. - Sinneed 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This is pretty clearly a sock. The first post by the account, from Feb 1, says "I have just joined wikipedia...", but even from the first day the account is showing a high level of wiki-sophistication. I don't think WQA will be useful here. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you are correct, but wp:AGF when I can. My thinking runs that warnings only from me, when I am in a content dispute are not going to be as useful as from someone not involved. I suspect there is at least 1 other sock involved, but there isn't enough for wp:SPI yet, IMO.- Sinneed 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Monshuai is accusing me of hypocrisy

Please take a look into this issue, I have asked the user:Monshuai not to discus my person, to discuss my ideas. The user got the message as evidenced by his reply. He continued to accuse me of hypocrisy in the response to my request and in the Talk:Bulgaria, here . Also in his lengthy tirades in Talk:Bulgaria he misrepresented my positions and baited me constantly. I report this here because otherwise I feel that otherwise I will start to breach myself all the civility rules. Or maybe it's OK on Wikipedia to call people hypocrites, please let me know. man with one red shoe 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that User:man with one red shoe has been making rather divisive statements about the lack of notability of Bulgaria's history. One of his comments was, "I'm afraid to say this, but "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians". I am not sure what lands the Bulgarians are occupying, nor why it is even necessary for him to mention ethnicity. He has also stated that I am "delusional" yet feels offended that I said he was hypocritical. Indeed, that is ironic as it is a clear example of hypocrisy and thus helps to prove my point. He has also posted on my talk page to discuss this issue with me, only to then say that he does not want me posting on his talk page. That too is a double standard. In his latest comment on my talk page he has used inappropriate language. If you have the time, please read the entire Talk:Bulgaria article discussion that the two of us have had for more information.--Monshuai (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And here you go again, you discuss my person instead of discussing the ideas, if you were a bit civil you'd have said something like "you seem to contradict yourself, you seem to claim this here and something else over there" and I would have explained, but calling somebody hypocritical is not a way to conduct a discussion. You say "I am not sure what lands the Bulgarians are occupying" I used the word "occupy" in the sense of "inhabit" not in the sense that "unlawful or unmerited occupation" and I clearly explained that in the talk page. Bulgarians inhabit the lands of Bulgaria, big surprise... However, you chose to ignore my explanation and I can see this only as a bad faith act and pick on that particular word, and launch an accusation/insinuation of racism and now of hypocrisy. man with one red shoe 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You came here to discuss me as a person did you not? You said that I made "lengthy tirades", that I "misrepresented you" and "baited you" along with calling me "delusional" yesterday. Who is discussing who? I really hope you learn the meaning of double standards.--Monshuai (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I said what you did, now what you are, that's the difference. Now, people might disagree with me about you baiting me, or how long and tiresome are your tirades, but the fact that you called me hypocrite or implied clearly that I am (as you did on this very page) remains. man with one red shoe 06:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes what I said remains and I stand by it. Indeed, I provided evidence to support my statement about you using double standards. You on the other hand said I am delusional, which according to "psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)." So by calling me delusional, were you accusing me of being sick/mentally ill? Can you provide evidence that I am mentally ill? Is that even something to say to a person? --Monshuai (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I said "I didn't imply that, I'm not responsible for your delusions and imagination", more importantly I said it once and didn't repeat it many times like you did with your accusations. Please don't act like a victim here, I said it once, you victimized yourself repeating that 4 times, get over it. man with one red shoe 08:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I victimized myself? Weren't you the one that said you were offended by my calling your actions hypocritical? Weren't you the one who started this discussion because you stated that you hoped an administrator would punish me? Who posted on my talk page telling me not post on theirs? Who then came a second time on my talk page and used the s*** word? The difference thus far is that I have provided evidence for my accusations. As of yet you haven't provided any evidence that I am delusional. Please be fair and try to back your statements and take responsibility (as I have) for once.--Monshuai (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If I wanted you to be punished I would have referred this issue to another forum WP:ANI, here there no punishments imparted as far as I know. man with one red shoe 08:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have a feeling that based on the evidence presented regarding your use of double standards and vile words on my talk page it is you who may be punished.--Monshuai (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've never interacted with either of you and I have no desire to insert myself into this mess but thanks to both of you for this hilarious post. I don't know what's funnier that Monshuai refers to "shat" as "the s*** word" or that a Man with one red shoe actually wrote the word on Monshuai's talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
lol (that is pretty funny now that I think about it) Although I'm still offended, gggggrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!--Monshuai (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to say "shit", but then I remembered that some Wikipedia admins are morons, I don't know why I censured myself, is not in my habit, in any case I remove myself from this discussion I don't want ever to discuss with this guy. Wikipedia is much better for having him and not having me. Bye. man with one red shoe 09:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WQA has no value if it is used as a forum to carry on bickering. If you want WQA to accomplish anything, state your complaint, allow the other party to answer, and then wait for other editors to chime in. After a tenfold back-and-forth, I see no purpose in continuing with this. Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is good to ask for help but, as Looie496 has indicated, continuing the debate here is unlikely to get you assistance from others. I'd suggest posting an article WP:RFC or WP:3RD. Best to focus on getting assistance is resolving the content dispute and not attacking each other. Gerardw (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1

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

I've noticed that the administrator Toddst1 has been quite rude and aggressive on a number of occasions.

The latest, rather disturbing, comments I've noticed are:

WP:ANI
  • On an AN/I thread, he accused an editor who posted a problem with wikihounding of "tattling". [66]
  • On the same AN/I thread, when myself and Burpelson AFB expressed our concern at the comment, he wrote that we were "full of it", in both the edit summary and in the comment. [67]
User talk pages
  • To me:
    • Overly aggressive comment when I unblocked a user
      • Starts with "unfuckingbelievable" [68]...
      • Then changes mind and changes to "Your action there seems rather more of a Kumbaya than that of a responsible admin." [69]
    • Accusation of wheel warring, when no such thing occured [70]
    • Later the edit summary of a new response reads "You're a newly recycled admin so I'd strongly recommend that you not overrule, revert or second guess other admins until you come back up to speed on stuff" in the edit summary. The comment he made was "I opened this conversation with a sarcastic, cynical comment about you perhaps having naively optimistic views of the world and human nature, so I won't go there again. You're a newly recycled admin so I'd strongly recommend that you not overrule, revert or second guess other admins until you come back up to speed on stuff. Cheers." [71]
  • Accused Jayjg of edit warring on JLS, when it was pointed out that Jay was actually deleting a repeatedly readded article One Shot (JLS song), he wrote "You should know that admins are not exempt from edit warring and some edit summaries would sure go a long way.", with the edit summary "t admins are not exempt from edit warring. Edit summary much?" [72]
Unblock requests
  • "Find somewhere else to harass others and blame them for your problem." [73]
  • "No fucking way" [74]
Accusations of sock-puppetry with no real evidence
  • "I'm not sure whose sock it is, but it's a sock of someone" [75]
  • "Wikipedian7878 (talk · contribs) fails the WP:Duck test. I'll beat you to your point that so far they haven't been disruptive." In this case, the editor he was comparing to a sock-puppet had 3 edits... [76]

I have made a polite note on his talk page after I received the aggressive comment on my userpage (see User talk:Toddst1#Incivility), but his only response was that "You made a bad unblock and I called you on it. Take it to ANI. I'm not gonna sugar coat it for another admin."

I am therefore filing an etiquette request, especially as this contributor is an admin, who I would have thought should be editing more harmoniously. Certainly the abusive comments I received on my talk page were both surprising and unwelcome. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Response from Toddst1

Regarding the "No Fucking Way" response to an unblock request by Fuckingeveryone (talk · contribs): Yes, I used a bad word. I'm sure I didn't offend the delicate sensitivities of that vandalism-only account editor though. I think I had a pretty good discussion with the person I believe to be Fuckingeveryone's sockpuppet about that response right here: User_talk:Toddst1#....

Regarding my interaction with Tbsdy_lives on either his or my talk page, All of those diffs are obviously true. However, what isn't apparent is how many of them were immediately retracted and/or restated. If you look, many of them were. I'm not going to go through them 1 by 1. Frankly, I was pissed off that Tbsdy_lives had been following me around (WP:HOUND?) after we disagreed about whether it was appropriate to bring a complaint ("tattling") to ANI without first discussing the issue on the user's talk page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Ani#Unknown_Lupus. I could have chosen my words better.

Am I cynical? Often. Am I sarcastic? Sometimes. This isn't first grade and gosh, I've heard a few naughty words here and there on Wikipedia. I've even used a few myself.

Regarding the assumptions of bad faith regarding sockpuppetry: Sorry, we have the WP:Duck test for a reason and we have WP:SPI and WP:CU for reasons too. All are appropriate in context. If you disagree with the duck test, fine. I know there are those like Xeno (talk · contribs) who think it should never be used or at least that I misapply it. Is it bad faith to use the duck test? No.

Much of this seems to be a carryover from a discussion brought to Wikipedia:AN#Admin_decision_review after Hipocrite (talk · contribs) raised concerns about a number of administrative decisions made by Tbsdy_lives yesterday.

Whatever the course, I take responsibility for my actions. Toddst1 (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't first grade and I take responsibility for my actions don't actually go together. A person doesn't have to be a first grader to appreciate civility. Inappropriate language is an offense to the entire Wikipedia community, not just the person you're directing it. I'd appreciate Toddst1 would refrain from similar language in the future. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Toddst1 thinks I was following him around. That isn't the case, if he had bothered to ask me politely I would have told him this. Todd, I'm sorry you think this, but I didn't override your decision - I merely noticed that the editor had been blocked (can't recall why I saw it) and I thought that it would be assuming good faith to allow them to make their username change. Many others might disagree with me (and in fact they have), but they have all done this politely and courteously.
With regards to the tattling comment, I asked you a very polite question which you took badly. In no way was I stalking you, as your comment was made on WP:AN/I, which I now frequent often, as I am an administrator. I'm sorry if you took it personally, but that wasn't the intent. I was certainly not expecting to be told to "[t]ake it to ANI. I'm not gonna sugar coat it for another admin"! I was merely asking why you used this comment, especially against an editor who merely stated their concern that, ironically, they were being hounded. Something I note that you seemed to taken a dim view of because they didn't take it to the other user's talk page. Oh but that you would have done the same for me.
I would appreciate it if you assumed good faith, none of this has been taken here because of Hipocrite's concerns. I was merely a bit shocked that another admin would post such a rude and aggressive comment on my talk page. I've noticed your comments all over AN/I, and I have a genuine concern over your abrasive behaviour.
As for retracting or restating your comments, apart for the one that you replaced with an equally abusive "kumbayar" comment, I'm not certain which ones you are referring to. Could you give some diffs? Perhaps I didn't notice these - they would certainly go some way to reassure me that you are trying to deescalate situations and act in a courteous and respectful manner towards myself, which is what I would have expected from an administrator. Certainly the messages on my talk page haven't reflected this, which to my mind is somewhat unsettling. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Observation by NJA

Whilst I hope it wasn't your intention, I believe that claiming (mere minutes after notification) that the admin who filed this report had violated WP:EW is slightly vindictive, and only exasperates the situation. I've commented on why I don't really agree with what you said, though in summary consistent removal of cited material and major changes to an article where the editor may have a conflict of interest is something most experienced editors would revert when talk page discussion isn't taking place.

Regardless, perhaps we can just admit some mistakes may have been made, and get on with things? NJA (t/c) 09:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My goodness... I can't believe that Todd did that! I'm gobsmacked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I agree that I have indeed made mistakes, and will unfortunately probably continue to make more (which is a great pity). In particular, my AFD closure after a closure Jay made could have definitely been handled better. But the unblocking of the editor to allow them to request a username change was not something that I consider to be a mistake. On Wikipedia we try to give editors a chance to edit, and we do not act as badly as the trolls and vandals who frequent this site. I considered that they may have some IPs autoblocked and they may indeed want to edit constructively. A fond hope, probably to be dashed, but as I put some provisos into my unblock comments I don't feel that I was terribly unwise, as I gave them a very short leash. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Response to NJA & Tbsdy's later comment posted at User_talk:Toddst1#Edit_warring.3F. Toddst1 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Which is now archived. Please make your comments here please, you have not addressed any of these concerns and you show no signs of changing the manner in which you interact with others. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion

My understanding is that Tbsdy has been an admin since 2007 but has been inactive until quite recently. I would like to suggest that coming back to an environment where procedures have changed to some degree, and immediately plunging into conflict with multiple other administrators, is a bad sign. Until he has a better sense of how things work he should avoid undoing the actions of other admins without consultation, and when conflicts arise he should assume that he is wrong. Otherwise these learning experiences will not produce any learning. There has already been talk of a recall, and there will be more if this pattern continues. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that I've made a real mistake on so far is the AFD closure. There will be no recall, as I haven't put myself forward for this, however if my conduct is in question others should feel free to put forward an RFC. The only talk of a recall, incidentally, was by Hipocrite. I have been more active recently, however I have been using this account for about a year and a bit now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I also note that this editor has not commented on Todd's behaviour. I would appreciate feedback on this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable response

I'm afraid that I don't believe that Todd's response is acceptable. I have asked for an apology on his user talk page, he is refusing. I don't think I'm out of line here, especially as he has accused me of edit warring, when this is not the case. He has also accused me of errors of judgment, but in each case (with the exception of the AFD) the discussion on the admin noticeboard has been archived with the general agreement that this is not the case.

In particular, I would now like him to apologise for accusing me of edit warring, which was patently not the case on the David Tweed article, and also for the extremely rude "kumbayar" comment on my user talk page. This is not the sort of behaviour I would have expected from an administrator. I am quite annoyed at the way I have been treated.

He has also made a number of assertions that I would like some clarification on. In particular he has said that he reverted or edited previous comments. Firstly, I don't see evidence of this. Secondly, I think that if this is the case then it shows poor judgment for making the comments in the first place. He has said he isn't going to go through each of the edits to clarify, but that is also not an acceptable response as I just don't believe that he has reverted or modified incivil comments. I am happy to be proven wrong. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it from this edit that he has no intention of apologising. Given that I feel wronged, I'm not sure how I can seek further redress. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
RFC user Wikipedia:RFC/USER would I think be the next step, if there is behavior that you think would not be excessive enough to be addressed there then disengaging is an option, sometimes the wiki is a place where two editors can agreeably fall out, it is possible to accept that and move on, remove the other editor from your watchlist and the places where you would meet, sometimes I have found personally this is a good option and down the line a natural resolution may well occur. Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to do this, however so far he has reported me to the oversite committee, and has accused me of edit and wheel warring. This directly effects my ability to edit. How do you suggest that I resolve this particular problem? Is a user RFC still the way to go here? I would just like to have an assurance that Todd will stop his incivilities towards other editors (myself in particular) and will not attempt to curtail my activities in an underhanded manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I happened to find this when I went back to the AN/I thread (now archived) to see if the hounding complaint was ever dealt with. While I can see it was apparently resolved to the complaintants satisfaction, I must say I agree with Tbsdy that Toddst1 is exhibiting some pretty aggressive, uncivil, impatient and downright rude behavior. This is most unbecoming of an administrator. It seems that whenever someone questions or brings up his tendency torwards unhelpful snark and dismissiveness (as exhibited in the "tattling" comment), he responds by becoming even ruder as well as angry (as in his response to Tbsdy and myself, calling us "armchair quarterbacks" and whatever else). I would say that Toddst1 owes Tbsdy an apology and I do not think this incivility should be simply swept under the rug and ignored. Haughty, dismissive attitudes are not a positive quality in administrators. Burpelson AFB (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How to resolve

This is getting on a bit now. All I would like to see here from Toddst1 is that he reign in his more inflammatory comments, and act with civility towards other editors. I should note, incidentally, that I know that Todd does a lot of excellent admin work on areas that aren't really very interesting to many of us - his work on admin backlog is invaluable. I suppose I should have noted this before.

I don't want any sanctions, and I don't want him to be forced into anything. I just want an apology for his rudeness to myself, and also an understanding that admins are really ambassadors to Wikipedia, and that abrasive behaviour towards other editors (even trolls) is not acceptable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you start by setting a good example and removing the photos from your talk page. Gerardw (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps better if you kept that to the alert below. It looks to me like that has been resolved now. I will not be discussing my alert within this one, as it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. And so now back to Toddst1. I repeat, I would like an apology and an assurance that he will modify his behaviour. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Final resolution

Tbsdy lives and Toddst1 have communicated off-line and offer the following joint statement:

  • Both admit mistakes have been made on both sides and this denouement was unfortunate.
  • We both look forward to collaborating with each other in the future.
  • We would like to apologize to the greater community for this escalating the way it did.
  • We consider this issue closed.

Signed


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

Dave1185

Dave1185 (talk · contribs) appears to have a problem with civility. He deleted another user's mistaken but honestly so comment with an unnecessarily harsh edit-summary ("duh! move along now [...] I've got better things to do..."). I politely suggested that he could have moderated his tone, and he reverted this – in the process abusing the rollback tool, which is explicitly only for use in reverting edits which are unambiguous vandalism.

I left him a further polite message noting that he was free to delete comments from his page, but that the rollback policy still applied in userspace; this received the response, "stop hounding me again, I don't like to be disturbed when I'm making improvements to article pages, take heed as it is my talk page, now go make yourself useful for a change, wil'ya?"

He then left me a grossly insulting message on my talkpage in which he insinuated that I "DON'T KNOW ANYTHING", and ended with, "Hope you've realised your own mistake and newness now." (I take particular exception to his use of the word "newness", particularly given that I have been around for almost four years!)

I hope that community input here will help to moderate Dave's style of interaction – his mainspace edits are superb, but his style of conducting himself is, in my view, incompatible with the rigours of a collaborative community. ╟─TreasuryTagvoice vote─╢ 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Dave was notified but seemed not to understand that the template is required by the WQA process, and took it as a personal affront. ╟─TreasuryTagYou may go away now.─╢ 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(Full disclosure: Dave1185 and I have had a prior interaction which resulted in me taking him ("successfully") to ANI [[77]] ). In any event, in my opinion his current behavior is in the WP:Gray Area and best resolved by ignoring it. Gerardw (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm the "victim" in question. Yes, I found Dave1185's comment to be insulting, but I'm not sure what reporting it here is going to accomplish. In my experience complaints about incivility don't result in any effective action being taken, unless the perpetrator is simultaneously breaking other rules. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, WQA works maybe 10% of the time -- in the sense the reported party agrees to do better in the future. If nothing else the "victim" gets the support of the community. Gerardw (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Dave is a good editor, but he suffers foolishness badly, as do many of us. He should have been left alone after the message was rollbacked, but Treasury took affront by that, and had to make an issue of it, then got offended when Dave wouldn't back down. Sometimes it's better to let the other guy have the last "word" before things get ugly, even a revert. Btw, the "rollback" was used on his own talk page, as far as I can tell. To my knowledge, users are allowed to edit their talk pages in any manner they chose. This is also mentioned in the notes section of his talk page: "I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason..." This is there because he knows how he can react in such situations, and is trying to spare the other person some grief, but Treasury didn't take the hint. Yes, Dave should have been more civil, but in my opinion, Treasury is as much at fault here as Dave is. - BilCat (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you quote the part of the rollback guidline which says that making non-vandalism reverts in userspace is acceptable? And could you explain, again, how Dave's use of phrases such as "newness" and "YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING" are in line with the civility policy? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagCANUKUS─╢ 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
That's quite a mis-representation of my comments, so I'm not sure answering you will be productive. However, for truth's sake, I'll respond anyway.
One, I said "To my knowledge, users are allowed to edit their talk pages in any manner they chose." Per WP:UP#OWN: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." Using rollbacks on one's own userspace seems allowable to me, per that guideline. I don't remember when, but I believe that issue has come up at an ANI flied against me, and was upheld by the consesnus there.
Two, I said, "Yes, Dave should have been more civil..." How that implies that I think "Dave's use of phrases such as "newness" and "YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING" are in line with the civility policy" is quite beyond me. - BilCat (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll rephrase my last question: "How is my behaviour as bad as Dave's when he so flagrantly violated the civility policy?" ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 09:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Editor TreasuryTag wrote:
"Could you quote the part of the rollback guidline which says that making non-vandalism reverts in userspace is acceptable?"
Sure. The first sentence in the "When to use rollback" sections ays:
"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space [emphasis mine]; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit."
David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you, I wasn't aware of that exception. Now I am. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with TreasuryTag, he was polite and quite nice in his posts. Dave was clearly rude and incivil. His behavior is unacceptable. Caden cool 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The heinous crime of using rollback on your user page? Maybe you're thinking of me, as I was (falsely) accused of doing that on my talke page. As David Wilson indicated above it is legitimate. Maybe Dave isn't as civil as he should be but hounding him on his talk page isn't the way to deal with it. That was a bad move. Justin talk 13:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I was not "hounding him on his talkpage" – I made an honest mistake about the rollback policy, which in no way justified his response (which anyway didn't address my mistake, it was simply abusive). ╟─TreasuryTagTellers' wands─╢ 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a theme, here. Tan | 39 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Good. ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 14:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
TreasuryTag his response did, he pointed out he wasn't using rollback and as I found out using some of the edit tools some people can't tell the difference. Deleting a message indicates he has read it, continuing to push the matter wasn't helpful. I agree with BilCat that there was fault on both sides here, the problem being you just don't see it. Justin talk 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, at no point did I object to his deleting a message. I objected to his using rollback (or a tool exactly like it), which was an honest mistake. ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 14:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay now I see that Dave has decided to attack me for having shared my thoughts on here. See this [78] where he continues to be incivil along with another well known trouble maker (Bugs). Dave's attitude and behavior is not acceptable. Something has to be done about him. Caden cool 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Some time back, Caden ordered me to stop watching his page,[79] and although he had no authority whatsoever to issue such an order, I stopped watching. Meanwhile, he seems to be watching mine. So apparently he applies different rules to himself than to others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, Caden's block log[80] will give you an idea of the level of his credibility in complaining about other editors' behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes Bugs, I asked you to stop watching my page because you were stalking me. I did not "order" you to stop, I simply asked. Regardless, you have a well known record for harrassment, incivility, and personal attacks. As your block log shows [81], you're no saint and were blocked for a 5 day period. Looks like you learned zero from all those blocks, as it's obvious from your talk page that you continue to make personal attacks. No surprise there. You'll never learn. Anyway, I'm not watching your page. I was told on yahoo that you were attacking me again and so I went to your talk page. Caden cool 03:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"Consider this your first and last warning. Take me off your watchlist. Understood? I don't care man that you have powerful admin buddies. Bullies like you don't scare me. Get lost." Funny, I don't see an "ask" in there anyplace. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There are no saints. And that was over 2 years ago. Your blocks all happened last year, one of which was indef and you were given another chance. Actually, I had forgotten about you until yesterday. I don't dwell that much on past issues unless they resurface. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And I see that after a 9-month hiatus, Caden has managed to get himself blocked again due to - can you believe it - vulgar personal attacks, such as this:[82] I guess he'll never learn, to coin a phrase. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the above, Caden and I have declared peace. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie

Resolved: 71.77.20.26 agrees that the matter is settled. So, sabres yet rattling, we all go our separate ways, into the sunset. Equazcion (talk) 03:22, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) has made a number of false accusations against me of vandalism and harrassment. My edits on his/her talk page have consisted of a standard template about not adding unsourced material to articles here (apparently he considers WP:DTTR a policy that forbids giving "regulars" standard templates), my explanation that he/she should not command others not to give him/her legitimate templates and a request that he/she provide sourced information to back up his edits here, a request (with a template) that he/she stop making personal attacks against me in his edit summaries here, and another request that he stop making false accusations against me in his/her edit summaries here. In his/her edit summaries, he/she accused me of harrassment here and here, and he/she accused me of vandalism here, here, and here. If I have stepped over the line in any of my edits, please advise me and I'll apologize as appropriate. I think, however, that Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs)'s tendency to make false accusations of vandalism and harrassment should be addressed. If you look at his/her talk page it is evident that my situation is not the only one in which this has occurred. Thank you. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just informed Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) about this discussion. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
First of all, this editor removed categories from an article that was supported by a statement by the subject (Tina Turner) that she had Native American heritage, that was also accompanied by an alleged source claiming Turner did not have the same. Rather than approach me about it civilly, the IP posted a warning template to my talk page. Interestingly, since the IP posted a complaint about my reverts, another editor has come forward to state that recent DNA testing did support the Native American categories, as they were returned. [83] At no point did I state that WP:DTTR was a policy, but it is a behavioral suggestion that I reminded the IP about along with explaining that one source did support the content and the other one did not refute it. I removed his post from my talk page with the edit summary of WP:DTTR. His next edit to my talk page characterized me as arrogant and included the snarky comment of "Who died and made you wikiboss?" and went on to say that he would leave a template. I don't know about anyone else, but leaving a warning template such as that is a bit agressive, especially accompanied by the other comments, and yes, I did revert it as vandalism. It was designed to be an affront. He then left a template accusing me of making personal attacks (not by the definition of WP:NPA). I have an ongoing issue with another editor and in fact, the talk page post I reverted saying "deleting unacceptable post meant to harass" was not the revert of a post by this IP at all, but instead the post by the editor with whom there is an issue. I do not choose to go into that here and it in fact is well beyond here. When the IP posted the personal attack template, I did revert it as harassment, because at that point, it was becoming harassment when accompanied with the characterization of arrogance and the question about who died and made me wikiboss. At that point, the IP's actions had crossed a line to aggressive. I also returned to reiterate that one should not template the regulars and clearly explained that the "harassment" comment was not about his post to my page. Apparently, he has still not comprehended that fact. He then came and posted a threat to take this to here [84]. It appeared to me that the IP was more interested in arguing and picking a disagreement that resolving anything, especially after I explained that the harassment revert had nothing to do with anything regarding the IP. The rest of the comments above are well past anything that is any business of this IP editor and I decline to discuss that here when an ArbCom case is about to filed over the issue at stake. It does leave me to wonder why any editor would want to push something to this point when it is obvious something else was going on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
71, if you were a regular here and had ever gotten a template warning, you'd know that it can be very irritating. I've responded not-so-well to templaters before, pretty much in commanding them not to template me. People can command you as such, they have that right, and you pretty much have the right to ignore them. Just understand that it pisses people off to get templates notifications when they are already well aware of the rules. It seems like the rest of this conflict grew out of that, so maybe you could both just agree to disengage and forget about this silly thing, we can mark this resolved. Equazcion (talk) 00:04, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

My concern here is not the content dispute on Tina Turner, despite Wildhartlivie's comments above on that issue. I posted a message on that article's talk page to separate the dispute from my other concerns about Wildhartlivie.
My concern is with Wildhartlivie's accusing an editor of "vandalizing" when, in fact, no vandalism occurs. He again calls my edits vandalism above. He states that my edits were "designed to be an affront". I would like to know how asking for sources (regardless of the actual content in the Turner article) and asking Wildhartlivie not to falsely accuse me of vandalism are "designed to be an affront". Wildhartlivie is reading something into my edits that were not there; hence, his false accusations against me.
Wildhartlivie states above that "the 'harassment' comment was not about his post to my page". Then please, Wildhartlivie, explain why this removal of my comment on your talk page here has the edit summary "rvt harassment". If you weren't accusing me of harrassment when you reverted my edit, then whom were you accusing; and if your weren't accusing me, then why is the comment in the edit summary in which you reverted my edit?
Equazcion, I appreciate your comments, although I must point out that finding legitimate templates irritating is a personal reaction on your part that everyone does not share. I have received templates. If they were justified, I accepted them as a friendly reminder presented in a way that is carefully worded because templates have standard wording that is careful not to offend. In any event, providing a template (that is legitimate, as mine were) on a user's talk page is no reason to falsely accuse someone of "vandalism" and "harrassment". Templates are not forbidden on Wikipedia, even for regulars, and in no way constitute "vandalism" or "harrassment".
Thanks. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

...And I'm telling you that, despite how you see them, they do piss off many regulars here. That's why the WP:DTTR essay exists. You may not feel that way, but many others do. I'm not saying you aren't allowed to use them when contacting veteran users, but I am advising you to keep this in mind, if you want to avoid conflicts in the future. That's all. You can take that advice or ignore it, if you like. As for calling edits vandalism, our guidelines do in fact state that users should be careful when referring to edits as vandalism. Wildhartlivie, I hope you can agree to be more careful about that in the future, as that too can inflame conflicts. Vandalism is only when a user edits an article for the express purpose of damaging it. No good-faith contribution, no matter how misguided or ill-considered, is vandalism. Again I don't think this conflict need continue, if both parties can agree to disengage from here on in. Equazcion (talk) 00:57, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)
It can be irritating, but there is nothing that restricts a template message from being issued to a "regular", nor is WP:DTTR an excuse to respond to template messages with incivility. The anonymous user was completely correct, when they said, "You certainly are entitled to revert any edits made to your talk page, but you are not entitled to make false accusations in the edit summaries". Referring to users as vandals in edit summaries is obviously going to cause unnecessary conflict. Asking someone politely to not "template" you is a much better alternative than saying "rv vandalism" in an edit summary. Regulars should handle being templated in a mature and civil manner. Swarm(Talk) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I've run across Wildhartlivie in the past and have found aspects of their contributions -- for example, blank or inappropriate summaries -- less than civil. Additionally, past behavior indicated to me that simple requests on their talk page would not be effective changing behavior. At that point I felt the appropriate options were writing an RFC or disengaging by working elsewhere in WP; the latter option seemed preferable (less work and aggravation for all concerned). So 71 is not alone in finding themselves frustrated with Wildhartlivie's response to other editors.
I find it ironic the concept that regulars shouldn't be templated because they know the rules when the rule is, as an essay, WP:DTTR may represent a minority viewpoint and is not something to be slamming other editors with. In any event, calling non vandalism entries vandalism is rude. Gerardw (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Swarm and Gerardw. I would like to offer an analogy. It sometimes "irritates" me when the person in front of me in the supermarket checkout line waits until after the cash register totals before beginning to write his/her check. It further irritates me when that person must spend three or four minutes trying to find his/her checkbook. It irritates me even more when that person realizes he/she doesn't have a checkbook and realizes he/she doesn't have enough cash to cover the purchase. I've been in that situation, and I felt like yelling at that person, but I didn't because that would have been uncivil. Some people in my situation might not even have been irritated. But regardless of my or someone else's irritation, that does not justify incivility. If Wildhartlivie finds templates "irritating", that is his/her right. But responding with false accusations of vandalism and harrassment clearly is incivil and uncalled for. Thank you. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If someone irritates you by taking too long at the register, that's a bit different from irritating you in the way they choose to interact with you. When someone annoys you in the way they talk to you, you're allowed to tell them so, and in a place like this, we can state as a general public service what mannerisms tend to annoy users for future avoidance. I didn't come here to debate WP:DTTR, but, in summary, templates are meant to inform new users of rules they probably didn't know of. When you template a regular user, it can feel like they're disrespecting your knowledge, ie. "In case you didn't know, the sky is blue". Again this is just advice. You can agree or disagree on the merits of the essay, and you can think it's silly that some people find this kind of communication offensive, but the fact is that some do, and people would be well advised to try and respect that.
As for the vandalism remarks: I see four reverts, the first three of which were accompanied by "vandalism" or "harassment" remarks. Calling them vandalism at first was inappropriate; however, calling them vandalism after the second or third revert would not have been as inappropriate. After it was apparent that the anonymous user's comments were unwelcome, they shouldn't have persisted, and referring to that persistence as vandalism and/or harassment is warranted.
In the end, like I said, I think both users were in the wrong a bit here, but there's no reason this needs to go on. The content dispute will be discussed on the article's talk page and there shouldn't be any further need to leave messages on each other's user talk pages. Equazcion (talk) 01:58, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)
"If someone irritates you by taking too long at the register, that's a bit different from irritating you in the way they choose to interact with you.": Not in the sense that an uncivil response is inappropriate in both cases.
"calling them vandalism after the second or third revert would not have been as inappropriate": You make it sound as if I messaged him three or four times for one false accusation; that's not the case. If someone falsely accuses you of vandalism or harrassment on four separate occasions, it is perfectly acceptable to respond to each of those occasions with a request that the false accusations stop. That is exactly what I did, nothing more. You appear to be accepting Wildhartlivie's statement that I was harrassing him/her by repeatedly messaging him regarding a single false accusation. The fact that you consider templates irritating does not diminish my right to ask Wildhartlivie (or anyone) to stop making false accusations. I might be able to accept your conclusion that "both users were in the wrong", but please don't distort my actions. Each time I messaged Wildhartlivie, it was concerning a new false accusation, and that is entirely justified. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter that each statement was regarding a separate event. Once a user makes it clear that your comments on their talk page are unwelcome, you should probably stop leaving messages there; and once that is made clear, reverting subsequent communications as vandalism or harassment can be justified. I'm not saying WHL's comments to you were entirely justified. Again, I simply think neither of you were entirely correct in your behavior. WHL should be careful about calling things vandalism in the future, and you should be careful about continuing to leave messages on the talk page of a user who clearly doesn't want you there. I hope we can all take those lessons away from this and move on. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)
A user doesn't own their talk page and saying "don't post on my talk page" isn't enforceable. Of course, a user can always remove others commments from their own talk page. Gerardw (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"reverting subsequent communications as vandalism or harassment can be justified": Equazcion, I strongly disagree with this statement, and I suspect many other Wikipedians also would disagree with you. I also suspect that if someone makes a false accusation against you today, then another one tomorrow, then another one the next day, you would respond separately to each false accusation. You wouldn't, I believe, make one request and then cower into the background if the false accusations were repeated again and again. That is one reason templates are in levels; it is perfectly legitimate to ask someone repeatedly to stop their inappropriate behavior. And if the inappropriate accusations continue, you take it to the larger Wikipedia community, which is exactly what I did here. I respect your opinion, but, to put it bluntly, I don't think you could be more wrong. I agree with you that we can learn from this situation and move on, but I do not believe I was out of line, and if you'll look at other comments on this page you'll see that others agree. But thank you for your comments. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Either way, I think the matter is settled. Equazcion (talk) 03:05, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I agree the matter is settled, unless Wildhartlivie decides to engage in the same behavior (i.e., false accusations). I don't consider the original content dispute settled at this point (although that is not why I started this discussion); if the information I have requested on that article's talk page is not provided, I plan to revert Wildhartlivie's edits in that article, not to antagonize Wildhartlivie, but for the integrity of the article. (Otherwise I plan to stay away from Wildhartlivie if possible). If I do revert his/her edits and he/she again responds with false accusations, then the matter here is not settled. I hope it doesn't come to that. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)