Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive index

2-January-2007

3-January-2007

  • Ilena (talk · contribs) (WQA AN) appears to be back to her old behavior: assuming bad faith of all that hold opinions other than her own, ignoring NPOV completely, being uncivil, making personal attacks, ignoring wiki policy and guidelines as it suits her, ignoring help from others, disrupting editing efforts, edit-warring, etc. An experienced perspective would be very welcome. 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You cite a posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, now archived, that resulted in a very long discussion, with that last comment on December 31st. If the problem is reoccurring, you really should post again to that forum, so the admins and others who were involved in the last discussion can pick up the thread. John Broughton | Talk 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • She seems to be quieting down again after some points concerning her & WP:BLP were finally understood, mediated, and better addressed at Wikipedia.--I'clast 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd rather see it re-examined right away to avoid the possibility of her coming back in full-force attack mode. Thanks for the perspectives and advice. --Ronz 17:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Ronz, she has had some substantial points that have been ignored, derided and may remain unaddressed or unresolved; frankly I want to finish trying to accurately analyze her positions & draw some conclusions w/o the continual distraction & challenges. Who knows, at least Fyslee thanks me for progress.--I'clast 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

4-January-2007

6-January-2007

7-January-2007

  • Crass accusations of bias and racism by User:Darkcat21 on Talk:X Japan, following an ongoing disagreement over the application of capitalization-related Wikipedia guidelines. - 15:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk page vandalism on Talk:Bad Boys Blue (removal of content in a Talk page, see [1]) by several IP addresses from apparently similar netblocks (same location?). I haven't traced the IP-s yet, but I think it's the different fans with their vested interest (or just one) doing the job... 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, your posting is a bit, um ... belated - the last edit to the talk page was on October 31st. I've archived the (restored) contents of the page; that preserves them while putting them out of sight to those not needing to look at old postings. John Broughton | Talk 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've not had a chance to look in detail at this, but I find at least one of your edits to be less than constructive. You put a Template:Unreferenced tag on the Lavenski Smith article despite it having three external links, and you put "cn" tag on the education stated in the article (BA, JD), even though the very first external link (to a .gov website) says exactly what the article says regarding the education of Judge Smith. John Broughton | Talk 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
External links are not citations. I was correct in placing the tags. The easiest way I can explain is to ask that you will familiarize yourself with How to cite sources and Biographies, which neatly explain how to properly cite a source. (It does not involve the External links section.) This may be surprising, but placing citation tags was the most constructive thing I could do, other than removing the unsourced material outright -- an action which is actually encouraged! The article currently violates the official policy of No original research, which is what citation tags are used to highlight - information that needs verification. Joie de Vivre 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully aware that references are different than external links, thank you. I also agree that the unreferenced template can be used even though there are valid external links in an article. That doesn't necessarily make placing the template constructive, however, particularly if it's done in the middle of an argument between editors. On the other hand, if you think that placing a "citation needed" tag on the sentence listing the education of a judge - information that was available via the first external link - was appropriate, and if you think that such information is "controversial" - a requirement for removing unsourced material that you didn't mention - then we don't really have anything further to discuss. If you want to acknowledge your mistake on that, then I'd be happy to look at the situation further. John Broughton | Talk 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not place the ((unreferenced)) tag "in the middle of an argument" -- placing the template was part of my initial edit. User:Smashingworth responded to this first edit by calling it "absurd" and reverting it, despite the fact that citation tags are required. I made a single attempt to reinstate the changes, because it is especially important in biographical articles to cite all sources. It was my understanding that placement of citation tags on unsourced statements requires no discussion, especially when no content is being removed. Currently, without the tags, the article violates Wikipedia:No original research. What are you saying that I did wrong? Joie de Vivre 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Okay, I stand corrected - you continued to argue over whether the article was adequately referenced when the central argument is on the use of "pro-abortion" versus "pro-choice". That's "less than constructive", in my opinion.

From what I can see, the vast bulk of the article was never "original research", as its current state (footnoted, courtesy of another editor) attests. Further, I have no idea why you believe that without tags, an unsourced article violates WP:NOR. Creating information without a reliable source violates WP:NOR; failure to provide references is simply failure to provide references. Until someone researches the situation (or, in this case, fixes the dead links, which I did), it may not be possible to tell the two apart (although OR is virtually never the dry recital of facts that makes up most of the article), but the two are fundamentally different.

As to what you did wrong, you placed "cn" after the following sentence: Smith, a life-long Arkansan, received both his B.A. and his J.D. from the University of Arkansas. You did that despite the fact that the important information in the sentence (his education) could be found by clicking on the first external link in the article, with is fully WP:RS compliant.

I am in no ways taking sides here - I just left a note on Smashingworth's user talk page about what I consider an improper posting on the article's talk page, and another note on the article's talk page about what I consider to be an incorrect labeling of one of the footnoted sources. I'm simply saying that there are better and worse ways to have an argument, and this seems to illustrate some of the latter, although I wouldn't nominate it to join Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. -- John Broughton | Talk 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Followup to previous request: User:Smashingworth is becoming outright abusive at Talk:Lavenski_Smith. This user actually created a top-level header titled "Joie's Record of Editing Hypocrisy Reveals True Motives for Crashing This Page", and proceeded on a long-winded, accusatory rant about my edits in other articles, threatening "discipline" for the "crusade" they imagined as being behind my actions. Despite maintaining complete civility, this user has described me as "a shill for Planned Parenthood" and as the "Politically Correct Thought Police". I would like to request that someone other than User:John Broughton assist on this. It's nothing personal, but my last request, which was answered by this user, was met only with discussion on this page, and no input at the article itself. Joie de Vivre 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Suit yourself. I don't work full-time here, so sometimes things take a bit of time. The section of interest on the talk page that you mention was created, oh, about 66 minutes ago. 22:35, 8 January 2007 John Broughton | Talk

8-January-2007

  • User:Dking says on talk page Talk:Lyndon LaRouche that those who disagree with his edits are "programmed" and cannot understand his ideas.[2] He has engaged in a revert war to insert material that goes against consensus at Lyndon LaRouche. 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sheesh. If "programmed" were the worst that someone called me, I'd be living a very happy life indeed. Please give strong consideration to ignoring such comments.
    • As for the reverts, which are more important, the rule is that an editor get three in 24 hours in any article (see WP:3RR, and after that it's an automatic block if someone reports that editor for excessive reverts. I'm not encouraging anyone to use their full "quota" - an editor should go to the talk page as part of the process, as minimum, to try to work things out, after it's obvious there is a disagreement, but the policy does mean that a single editor can't indefinitely hoist his/her view of an article on everyone else. John Broughton | Talk 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

10-January-2007

  • Pretty much your standard edit war, Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss#Response sums it up: about whether or not subject can be called rabbi as per every r s on the guy, or if unsourced opinions about him should determine content. certain amount of prevarication on the part of some participants, refusal to discuss reversions etc. thnx in advance.  ⇒ bsnowball  18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Boy, that talk page is a rat's nest. No one apparently believes in intenting, and much else in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines seems also to be ignored. As best as I can tell, there are three main discussions going on (rabbi or not; scandalous sex; and some fine point of Jewish law [custom?]); it might help if the talk page were refactored accordingly. And, of course, accusations of improper behavior everywhere.
    • I posted a warning at User talk:Lurgis regarding one egregious posting, but that isn't likely to make much difference. You've mentioned (on the talk page) taking this to arbitration, and I think that's probably the right answer once mediation has been tried - you really need with mediation you get someone who's willing to dedicate a few hours to getting to an agreement on language like Weiss is addressed as and uses the title "Rabbi", but the source of his rabbinical ordination is unknown. -- John Broughton | Talk 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The scanadalous sex rumors concerning Mr. Weiss were posted once. No one put it back on until they find an appropriate source (I would add that these rumors are as widespread as those concerning Liberace's sexuality during his lifetime--just to give you illustration of the restraint honest editors are exhibiting in their faithful adherence to Wikipedia guidelines). The problem is that the other side insisting that Rabbi Weiss is a Rabbi and that he was not condemned by Neturei Karta (therefore making it impossible for him to be an adherent of Neturei Karta proper) and it is exceedingly inappropriate for them to remove the helpful fact-based edits because of their political and possibly racist agenda. I believe it also very likely that these "editors" are the same four of five followers of Mr. Weiss. Whatever the case is, this should be addressed and Weiss (or his editors) ought to be appropriately sanctioned. 66.93.254.200 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • This is the page to discuss editor behavior. For example, using the phrase possibly racist is a borderline violation of WP:NPA; putting "editors" in quotes is a violation of WP:CIVIL.
        • As for sanctions, content disputes - is Weiss a rabbi or not - fall under the provisions of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. There are no sanctions in Wikipedia for content disputes that do not violate other rules (such as the ones I just cited). An editor can be stupid or ill-informed or misunderstand WP:RS or whatever, but there is no one here authorized to make such judgments or to issue "sanctions" for them. Rather, the policy on resolving disputes that I just cited lays out an incremental process for escalating the dispute, all the way up to the Arbitration Committee if that's what it takes to block one or more disruptive editors and let reasonable editors continue to edit and discuss improving articles. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • MidiUser (talk · contribs) has restored some copyrighted material that was removed from Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc., as well as reverted and spread a list of companies across various articles. It looks like MidiUser may have been restoring his own edits as 24.46.106.121 (talk · contribs). Advise and comments are appreciated. 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 24.46.106.121 claims to be a part owner of the company. [3] --Ronz 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 70.19.3.194 (talk · contribs) claims to be the same part owner. [4] --Ronz 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This doesn't rise to the level of needing administrator intervention. In fact, I'm a bit concerned about WP:BITE, although I agree that the three accounts appear to bave been using Wikipedia as an advertising forum. While there is certainly a problem with copyrighted info on the main article in question, I think the real question is whether it meets notability standards per Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). If not, there shouldn't be an article at all, and no cross-posting in other articles.
      • I think you've got two options. You can leave the copyright notice up, which will probably result in the article being deleted on that grounds, and deal with a least one unhappy user. Or you can take the notice off, and AfD it. Given that there are all of 9 google results for the company name, including two from Wikipedia, the likely results of the second approach are pretty clear. But that might make the user(s) feel a little better, since they'll get their day in court, unlike the copyright evaluation process, which seem like a black box to me, at least. Your choice. John Broughton | Talk 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the advice. I'm going to remove the tag, document what's going on, and wait awhile to give the editor(s) involved a chance to weigh in before considering an AfD. --Ronz 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

11-January-2007

  • This user has a long history of personal attacks against me (see his talk page and his userpage), and now writes this. Randroide 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The edit you pointed me to says (where the user most violates WP:AGF): He is not the polite person he simulates to be. He is a fanatic of conspirationist theories as he has proofed doing what he has done. I'm going to post a note about that on the user's talk page. Some advice to you: (1) there are major personal attacks that are unacceptable (see WP:NPA for the list) and then there are minor personal attacks. This is clearly a minor one. The right way to deal with such minor matters is to ignore them. (2) The best way to spend your (limited) time is to focus on improving the content of Wikipedia articles. If you spend time arguing with other editors about what they think of you, or say about you, then neither you nor the other editors are doing anything to improve articles. (3) The last posting on the user's talk page was November 27th, so the personal arguments seemed to have stopped. I'm going to post what I hope is a very polite note to the user, because I don't want to contribute to this personal argument starting again. John Broughton | Talk 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your intervention, John Broughton. My fear is that, ignoring offensive remarks, I would allow the other user to smear my reputation. Well, the "user contributions" tool is there to show who I am, but... Randroide 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Good editors will pay attention to what the content changes you are suggesting, and won't pay attention to attacks - in fact, many editors, including me, tend to think less of the comments of someone who makes personal attacks, because such people don't seem committed to Wikipedia values.
        • Also - do keep in mind that there are 1.5+ million Wikipedia articles. When you make an edit to an article you've never edited before, you're probably an unknown. And what editor has time to check the contributions and user pages of every other editor? The probability is overwhelming that you're going to be judged on what you say (your edit), not who you are Only if you get into a fight will someone (more) likely look at your past (to see if you seem to be a reasonable person or not, and therefore how seriously to take your opinion). John Broughton | Talk 01:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • User:KazakhPol's been warned numerously to be civil, but continues uncivility, accuses other editors (1 which is new) of being members of the organisation which is being disputed, (which is not an argument for or against the disputer). He regularily accuses others of vandalism, despite being told to look up the definition of a wiki vandal. He keeps 'throwing the rule book' at others but hardly ever gets it right, and violates it himself. He threatens to block, or ban people that disagree with him, although he is not an admin, and continues to edit war. Of serious concern is his insistance on keeping a libelous article about a British Lawyer Makbool Javaid (see decent version: [5]), quoting references that contradict what he claims, giving them a pretense of legitimacy see:
- Talk:Hizb_ut-Tahrir, - User_talk:Aaliyah_Stevens#Vandalism, - Talk:Terrorism_in_Kazakhstan, - User_talk:SlimVirgin#User_KazakhPol 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference is made to the following [talk page] and the comments made: "They are free to expound on their fantasies in the creationism articles." It is generally felt that no alternative points of view can be submitted to the page and a suggestion for mediation was rebuffed by the same user. It was pointed out that 46 percent of Americans have a similar opinion, making it a substantial showing worthy of mention in the article, but this has not resulted in a change in the user's stance. A prominent authority has been found critical of the proposed views on the current article page, which should permit inclusion into the topic under the NPOV guidelines. It is possible that the user has violated the 3-revert rule as well. Please advise.17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the introduction of creationist arguments into a page about radiocarbon dating is in fact a fantasy, and comes close to being covered by WP:FRINGE. The only purpose of such an argument is to claim that radiocarbon dating is totally unreliable, something that would come as a shock to the thousands of scientists who have used it, relied on it, and found it to be extremely useful. As for the 46 percent who "have a similar opinion" (this presumably is rejection of evolution), a large percentage of Americans at one time (for all I know, still do) believed in UFOs, despite the absolute lack of any reliable evidence. Public opinion polls should be cited only when the content of an article is about what the public thinks. If "fantasy" is the worst comment that a creationist encounters here at Wikipedia, he/she should consider him/herself to be fortunate.
    • Regarding mediation, you can ititiate a mediation proposal without the agreement of other editors, if you want.
    • As far as 3RR violations go, the information at the top of this page has a link to the place to file a 3RR complaint. Generally, however, stale complaints (where the most recent revert is at least a day old) are rejected. And, quite frankly, there is a good chance that the reviewing admin would consider attempts by an editor to insert creationist arguments into an article on radiocarbon dating as nonsense/vandalism, and reject the 3RR complaint on that grounds. But you're free to file a complaint if you want. John Broughton | Talk 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

12-January-2007

  • Editors expressing hostility and abhorrence towards another user at [6]. Possible intent to be disruptive. 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've posted a note on the user's page about wising up and stopping the kind of petty things he has done. If this continues, please consider dropping me a note on my talk page, rather than here, with another diff. John Broughton | Talk 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed multiple and extended personal attacks against me from [7] and left a template stating:
    Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. The personal attacks were restored as if they were so-called "vandalism." They are not vandalism. The removal of such personal attacks against me is a legitimate deletion of material that violates the stated template's guidelines and rules against personal attacks "anywhere in Wikipedia." --NYScholar 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am happy to see that those personal attacks have now been removed via an administrator's aid. --NYScholar 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeating material posted yesterday, due to the reverting of the personal attacks: An administrator already agreed that they were personal attacks and that they needed to be removed; they were removed "as per CSTAR" (the admin.), but then today someone else has restored them. Please removed these personal attacks as per Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you..

<<*I have removed multiple and extended personal attacks against me from [8] and left a template stating:

  • Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. The personal attacks were restored as if they were so-called "vandalism." They are not vandalism. The removal of such personal attacks against me is a legitimate deletion of material that violates the stated template's guidelines and rules against personal attacks "anywhere in Wikipedia." --NYScholar 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am happy to see that those personal attacks have now been removed via an administrator's aid. --NYScholar 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

>>

  • [Updated complaint]: I am not happy to see that those personal attacks have now been restored by another user or sockpuppet named "Yandman" at [9]. Moreover, my earlier attempt (which was reverted several times by Morton_devonshire) who then reported me for my reversion of the personal attacks (blanking them out, ultimately blanking out the user name), eventually led to me (the complaining party) being blocked (for a few minutes, which accidentally led to over an hour, due to the block not being removed when the administrator requested it be removed.
    • Due to the problems relating to blocking, I am not posting (or editing out the personal attacks) any further on User_talk:Morton_devonshire, as he and others clearly were conspiring (irony of ironies, given messages on his page) to draw me into an argument so as to get me "banned" from Wikipedia (!). I suggest that these users need to be warned against such behavior in Wikipedia and perhaps that they need to be blocked and/or banned for apparently engaging in it.
    • Just blanking the references to a user's name (or users' names) in the personal attacks does no good now, as the personal attacks remain and due to my complaint and posting of this Wikipedia:Etiquette notice referring to them, it is clear who they pertain to.
    • Nevertheless, such behavior needs to be addressed and the offenders need to be warned and/or blocked and/or banned from continuing in such behavior. Users' talk pages in Wikipedia are not for making personal attacks on other Wikipedia users. That is against Wikipedia:NPA, which says that personal attacks should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia, which includes users' talk pages. Thank you. [Updated: I have now also requested assistance with this matter on the talk page of CSTAR, who helped yesterday. Perhaps CSTAR can help again. Thank you.] --NYScholar 00:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I do note that references to a specific user seem to have been deleted; that is only marginally better than a "named" personal attack; it is still tantamount to taunting. I will leave a message on that user's page.--CSTAR 01:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The user in question M-d claims now on his talk page not to have composed that material himself (untrue; he signed [some of] it originally), and yet it is currently now moved to his archive (page 7). That is pure deception and does not solve the problem of the (now-archived for all posterity) personal attacks. Once again, I refer to W:NPA and add the template (as I have done before): Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. This is still outrageous. [The user (M_d) is now removing large portions of text from an article tagged re: neutrality and clean up issues w/o concern for other users and previous consensus discussions on its now-archived talk pages (4).] I repeat: such behavior needs warnings and/or blocking and/or banning. For the record, I have not been "blanking" that page (since my initial attempts on Jan. 11 to remove the personal attacks).--NYScholar 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I repeat myself: "Just blanking the references to a user's name (or users' names) in the personal attacks does no good now, as the personal attacks remain and due to my complaint and posting of this Wikipedia:Etiquette notice referring to them, it is clear who they pertain to." The fact is all that material still resides in Wikipedia, now in the user's archived page (all the same as before) and in "history"; I request that an administrator delete the material completely from Wikipedia (from the archived page and also from the history of changes). It amounts to slander. Thank you. [Sorry: typo corrs made; Updated: CSTAR please see your talk page for updated request for assistance. I thank you for warning, but the warning is doing no good, as the user has archived the material rather than totally deleted it. It's his talk page; clearly, he can delete it. If he doesn't, I ask an administrator to do so, to issue a strong warning and/or block and/or ban, and to delete all vestiges of this abusive material from the history of all talk pages. Thank you.] --NYScholar 04:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the material from the talk page archive. That is clearly in keeping with CSTAR's warning to the user; it should also be removed from all the talk page histories by an administrator (CSTAR or someone else). Thank you.--NYScholar 05:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

13-January-2007

14-January-2007

15-January-2007

What to do with such edit summaries, like this: [10]. Some guys (Juro, Tankred, PANONIAN) tend, and love to call me vandal/sockpuppet of somebody. I reported it many times on the since dismissed WP:PAIN, but I met only incomprehension, and/or frigidity, no matter that the use of the word vandal/sockpuppet/troll/etc is strongly restricted, and - at lead by the guidelines - without proiding evidences, can be considered as personal attacks. I just did that. My warnings were removed [11] under the same summary. Common thing happening to me day-by-day. --Vince 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:VinceB has used sock puppets in a disruptive way and has been blocked for it after my suspicion was confirmed by CheckUser. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB. As to the supposedly removed warnings, VinceB put them on my talk page in violation of Wikipedia's policies and he was blocked for it again (see User talk:VinceB/Blabla1). Both blocks were applied by previously non-involved administrators. Tankred 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry are not considered by most admins, in and of themselves, to violate WP:NPA; saying so in edit summaries is not disruptive per se. Responding to such "accusations" by posting warnings on user pages is disruptive. John Broughton | ♫ 18:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Following edit summary on Taj_El-Din_Hilaly 08:56, 15 January 2007 88.113.137.249 (Talk) (reliable; whose opinion? in any case, as long as the group is not named or referenced in any manner, your site means diddly squat. stop being a stubborn moron (even though youre a self-hating white)). This appears uncivil. 10:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

16-January-2007

  • [12] It´s not the first time: See also User Talk Page and User Page. User contributions could also be relevant Randroide 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • For non-Spanish speakers, in the link provided in my comment that has been reported by Randroide, he coordinates with Gimferrer (who was blocked forever in Spanish wikipedia) to make the article about the Madrid bombings of 11 March 2004 say what they want it to say and they prepare an edit war thas is happening now after the rest of users have exhausted patience.--Igor21 11:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've already had discussions with Igor21 and one of his supporters. I understand that there is a long-running dispute here. I'd encourage (a) some thicker skin here - if I were to fight over edits for months at a time, I wouldn't be surprised if someone called me a "fanatic", and (b) following Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
        • Just a little remark for the records. Southofwhatford is not a supporter of me. Southofwatford was an editor who started time ago a process of discussion with Randroide to agree on the text. Because agreement was imposible in spite of the fact that more than one page of talk was filled each week for many months, they started the elaboration of a RFM. Randroide boycotted it when was ready to be presented. Then southofwatford started to elaborate an RFA, He said that he needs some time and I suggested to let pass by Christmas time to everybody calm down. Using this period of rest, Randroide completely changed the article while southofwatford warned three times to not do so. Then I restored the original statement in the introduction and you know the rest of the story. I want to apologize to southofwatford since 1)he has always followed the rules to the letter and because I suggest the waiting Randroide destroyed unilaterally the original article 2)my dificulty to remain impasible in presence of Randroide maneouvers has caused southofwatford to appear in this page without having done anything wrong.--Igor21 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not personally going to intervene further here unless I see significantly worse behavior than was just pointed out; other editors are welcome to involve themselves if they and to. Randroide - if you really think much is going to come out of repeatedly asking for chastisement of another editor - as opposed to you trying to work constructively with others - you're dreaming. John Broughton | ♫ 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Randroide 10:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) John Broughton mentioned "Thicker skin". LOL!!! XD. Thank you very much for the naked downeartherness in your suggestions. I just bought a set of Dragon Skin, so there will be no furhter "asking for chastisement".
        • You just established what is the "acceptable" (ahem) level of personal attack in the page, so I will accept that level (always in the "receiving" end) as a minor nuisance. Offensive remarks about me in "the real world" affect me nothing, the problem is that Wikipedia is a private venue, and I thought there were some standards of civilty here, and that one is supposed to be the "Neighborhood watch" to guard those standards. It seems that´s not the case. Cheers.
        • AFAIAC, this case is closed. Randroide 10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Fine. If you want a better understanding of why policing civility is so difficult (and limited), you might look at the (now defunct) WP:PAIN process. And may I suggest that you stop putting your signature at the beginning of your remarks? John Broughton | ♫♫ 15:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

17-January-2007

19-January-2007

20-January-2007

  • User:Ebizur calls a user an idiot for restoring information that Ebizur deleted: [13]. User talk:Ebizur shows that Ebizur had previously been warned for using personal attacks by User:Kjoonlee. 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've posted a note on his/her talk page. Having said, that, please back off. I really think you should be a bit more thick-skinned; every minor transgression of Wikipedia rules (and there are a lot of rules) does not merit something resembling a strict warning on a user talk page. Yes, he's been warned once before, but in the overall context of his contributions, a minor, occasional flare-up of temper really merits very little attention. That's not a free pass - if he were running around insulting lots of people, or spewing strong invective, I'd certainly post a much stronger note. But that's not the case here.
    • And yes, I've read his posting on your talk page; my note to him commented on that as well.
    • As I said to Ebizur - I really hope the two of you can cooperate - you both bring something valuable to the article. It would be great if both of you continued to contribute there and elsewhere. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I am thick-skinned enough. I just believe that users should not violate the rules which keep wikipedia orderly. Perhaps I should have said 'notice' rather than 'warning', but the remnants of the WP:PAIN noticeboard do say to post a 'warning', so I did so. I note, by the way, that Ebizur has made multiple personal attacks recently (subsequent to calling the other user an idiot), so this is not just a single minor violation. I hope that he will cease doing so now. As for the related content dispute, an agreement has been reached. HalfOfElement29 04:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm glad an agreement has been reached on the content dispute. As to Ebizur has made multiple personal attacks recently, I looked at his edits (all of two) since I posted a note to him, and saw no problems. If you see anything egregious in the future, please feel free to drop me a note at my talk page; I'm always willing to say if I think someone has crossed the line, and that includes a posting to their talk page where appropropriate. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

21-January-2007

  • User:Laurence Boyce, in pushing his own anti-christian agenda, has included internal and external link titles on his user page which the majority of Christians would find offensive. Specifically he refers to Christians as Jesus Freaks.23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

23-January-2007

  • User:Threeafterthree, in using a purely arbitrary, childish judgment in removing my links in all of my contributions throughout the last year to Geocities-hosted pages with relevant content, as well as in replying to my inquiry -Just the kind of guy I am I guess.
Here is a copy of the exchange:
QUOTE:There is nothing wrong with pages hosted on geocities. What's your sanctimonious reason for taking upon yourself the crusade of removing these pages? Bo Basil 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Just the kind of guy I am I guess??--Tom 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)UNQUOTE
The links were:
http://www.geocities.com/teflonivan/2idf.htm (A rare glimpse into the IDF), on the IDF article,and
http://www.geocities.com/teflonivan/1entencookies.html (The Original Entenmann's Chocolate Chip Cookies Recipe) on two relevant articles.
again - the pages contain meaningful, useful content, and I intend to restore them to the relevant articles. Bo Basil 12:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We can do better than geocities for sources can't we?--Tom 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have maintained the site myself. The content speaks for itself. It is imperative to analyze instead of performing underinformed censorship. Desist from the practice, and thank you. 16:51, 23 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs)
      • And you are whom?--Tom 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I am somebody that uses concrete, factual information, and has a site that serves people who want to know. Since you had such an easy time hunting down my URLs, then please replace the links. It should take you very little time if any. Thanks. 18:49, 23 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs)
          • geocities.com is not considered a reliable source as far as I can determine. I actually remove those links whenever I see them, so nothing personal. I am sort of a mindless pileus as it were. Carry on.--Tom 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, a third-party evaluation:
    • Both of you would do well to reread WP:Talk page with regard to indenting.
    • Bo - please sign all posts to this page, per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages (yes, this isn't a talk page, but there is a dialog going on)
    • Tom - the And you are whom? posting was either catty (not constructive; please stop) or indicates that you should (re)read Wikipedia:How to read an article history. I'm inclined to go with the former, given other things you've said, above. Catty remarks might not violate the letter of WP:CIVIL, but they certainly violate the spirit of that guideline.
    • A large part of the problem here, I'm guessing, is the failure by Tom to cite WP:V and WP:EL and WP:RS. Unless policy and guidelines are cited to support an action by an editor, the discuss inevitably looks like just a difference of opinion between two editors - and that isn't easy to settle. What should be discussed is whether the links do or do not meet those these policies.
    • In general, geocities links do not meet these three policies, but there are exceptions. Wikipedia just blacklisted any links to blogs.myspace.com because it was decided that there were no exceptions that justified any such links. I mention that as an example of why a blanket shoot-on-site rule is not appropriate for geocities links, although it's fair to start with a presumption that they are probably inappropriate.
    • Article talk pages are the right places to discuss deletions of links (assuming edit summaries don't suffice -- usually they should). Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lays out a process whereby content disputes (like this) should be settled, starting with informal discussions. Please do not post anything further here arguing that the above two links are or are not appropriate (among other things, that depends on what article they appear in, and whether they are used to support text in an article or are used as an external link, which has weaker requirements).
Thank you for your time. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Very well said John. I will try to cite the proper Wiki policy guidelines in the future. I usually do but did not in this case. Sorry for being catty if I was. Cheers! --Tom 13:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

24-January-2007

  • 70.23.199.239 (formerly 70.23.177.216) violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF repeatedly (IMO). The editor continues to use the terms "vandalism" and "censorship" in talk pages & edit summaries when describing their disputed re-insertions of content about race to the Nadine Gordimer article. That issue went to an RFC and outside editors pretty much uniformly agreed that neither the incident nor the racial makeup of the participants were notable; 70.23.199.239 is the sole advocate of the material & reinserts it without addressing suggestions. On the user talk pages and on Talk:Nadine Gordimer the editor repeatedly assumes bad faith, uses aggressive language, speaks disparagingly of "wiki norms", conspiracies to conceal information about Black attacks on white people, and so on. --16:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If you're dealing with a disruptive editor, you pretty much have to take the matter up the line until the problem editor either stops or is blocked by an Arbitration Committee hearing, although sometimes the admins at WP:AN/I will step in if there are violations of something worked out via mediation. Mediation is the next step after an RfC - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
    • I will say that after reading the talk page, it appears that a number of editors agree that this user's arguments are unpersuasive. If so, an edit summary of "revert per consensus, see talk page" is adequate for reverting article edits by 70x (but do see if there is anything useful you might keep before reverting). Because there are several of you, you should be able to keep the article under control without violating WP:3RR. I strongly recommend that if you take this approach, you simultaneously offer mediation to 70.x, who presumably will become frustrated because his/her edits don't last long, and because of the 3RR limit he/she faces. (And do post a 3RR warning once he/she hits 3 reverts within a 24 hour period.) Offering mediation is, in my opinion, the strongest evidence there is that this isn't just a clique trying to "own" an article, but rather several editors trying to deal with one problem editor. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks John Broughton. I did post a "3RR notice" on the user's page when they reverted 3x in one day, and it unleased a torrent of complaints ... It sounds like mediation is the next step. --19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay. As for as 3RR warnings go, I'm not sure how you responded, but basically you don't need to. A 3RR warning is simply letting an editor know about a policy. He/she may think it doesn't apply at the moment (that the reverts weren't reverts, or were justified as vandal-reversion, or whatnot), but you shouldn't argue about that. You've complied with the process; the user can delete the warning (perfectly acceptable), chose to ignore it (probably stupid), or say anything he/she want, but he/she has been warned, and that's all that an admin looks like if there are in fact 4+ reverts within 24 hours and the 4+ reverts have been properly reported as a 3RR violation. And you don't need to repost the 3RR warning each time (if it's more than 60 days, I'd probably do so again as a courtesy); the assumption is that a once-informed editor is an always-informed editor).

25-January-2007

  • User:NE2 keeps going against consensus at WT:NYCPT. He keeps on listing unilateral Xfds, and this is the second time he has done so, and makes unilateral edits without seeking consensus. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to respond to this except to say that Imdanumber1 is the one in the wrong here; he has removed listings on TFD several times. --NE2 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And you keep on making unilateral decisions without seeking consensus, and that is acting in bad-faith. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to wade into all of the details here (because I'm not going to research who did what to whom when); I'm just going to make a few points and hope they suffice:
  • Content disputes, such as "going against consensus", should follow the process Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
  • Anyone is free to do an XfD at any time; this is disruptive editing only if the editor has agreed not to do so, or if the editor does so repeatedly for the same page when (essentially) nothing has changed since the last XfD. There is no requirement that any other editor agree whatsoever before an XfD is done. That's not to say that all XfDs are constructive, but editors are allowed to make mistakes without being chastised for them.
  • More generally, I fail to understand the implied problem in making "unilateral decisions". Per WP:BB, editors are supposed to take the initiative. They are, of course, also supposed to stop being bold when they run into someone (reasonable) who disagrees (see, for example, Wikipedia:One-revert rule), but "unilateral decisions" are only disruptive when they're part of an edit war. Per WP:OWN, no group of editors owns an article (in the sense of requiring prior approval for edits). Again, this is very subjective - an editor can be unconstructive by making edits he/she knows others will revert, and thus are going to have to be discussed on the talk page anyway, so I don't encourage that, but editors need to remind themselves of WP:AGF and act as if any such edits were well-intentioned, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that they were not.
  • Removal of someone's else's XfD is, in my opinion, absolutely crossing the line unless the editor who posted the XfD is a known vandal, sock puppet, or under ArbCom probation. That one editor feels another editor's XfD is unconstructive - or even if the XfD in fact IS against consensus - is in no way a justification for removing it. An XfD is a discussion; if an editor disagrees with the XfD, the appropriate action is to participate in the XfD.
  • I strongly recommend that you do not use words like acting in bad-faith. In fact, I strongly recommend against commenting at all about another editor's motivations, ever, anywhere on Wikipedia. You should comment only on edits - that an edit was not helpful, not constructive, not what was agreed to, not in accordance with X or Y policy, not a good idea because of reason 1 or 2 or 3; not as good as doing it M or N or P way; whatever.
  • I believe Talk:Jung Myung Seok needs outside attention to keep it moving along. I'm especially concerned with user:Uptional who I believe has made no attempts to reach consensus with other editors and mostly ignores attempts to discuss specific issues. His first edits on the username deleted most of the article [14] and left this message [15]. Uptional is a follower of Jung Myung Seok and very probably his PR guy. I'm especially concerned now because both sites linked as "supportive sites" in the article contain unfounded defamation on people who criticize Jung Myung Seok [16][17]. My patience is getting tested because I don't know what wikipedia has in place to deal with this sort of thing. Please advise. 06:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Removal of an extensive amount of well-sourced information is vandalism. If you revert the removal and the user puts it back, eventually he'll need to stop or violate WP:3RR. If he does 3 reverts (removal of information) within 24 hours, you should warn warn him, since that's a required step before admins will block him (typically, for 24 hours, first offense) if he does 4 or more reverts in 24 hours.
    • I have removed his last comment to the talk page (see edit summary of the removal for explanation).
    • I have posted a message on his talk page that puts him on notice that his postings on the article talk page have violated a number of Wikipedia rules.
    • With regard to the RFC, that is sufficiently old to have fallen off the RfC page, so it's really a moot point. I agree that the language was hardly neutral, though generally that's not that big a deal - editors typically make up their own minds when they get to the article, so an RfC, no matter how badly worded, is usually constructive in that it get bring other editors to the page.
    • With respect to the external links section, Wikipedia isn't responsible for what other websites say, even though we link to them, as is the case pretty much for any website that has links to other websites. On a larger note, the preference of a lot of editors would be to remove all the links that go to blogs or other sources that fail WP:RS and WP:EL. That would be both of the two favorable links; I don't know (without looking in depth) how many of the six unfavorable external links would also go if this approach were taken. Your choice.
    • Finally, as to "what Wikipedia has in place", the various processes for solving a content dispute (as opposed to personal attacks) are laid out in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is a message at the top of the Template disambig page reading "For the kinds of templates used in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Template messages" disallowed by WP:SELF, or is this too strict of an interpretation? See history for discussion. 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Since Template is an article, you really should discuss issues of its content at Talk:Template, not here. But I'll give you my two cents, for what that's worth - I think you're confusing a disambiguation link with a "self-reference", the latter being where one article quotes another. A disambiguation link is no more "self-reference" than is a wikilink in an article, in my opinion. (I will concede that the fourth example in WP:SELF is quite poor; you might want to post something at Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references page about just deleting it or coming up with a better example. [That talk page is another place you could discuss the issue if you believe you are right and can't convince others at the article's talk page, by the way.]) -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

26-January-2007

  • BenBurch and FAAFA have been persistently inserting and defending libelous material in the Free Republic article. I have tried to remove this libelous material pursuant to WP:BLP. The Free Republic website was a sole proprietorship prior to mid-2001. Therefore any article about it is a biography about a living person: its proprietor, Jim Robinson. Other events, notably the City of Fresno calling Free Republic a "hate group" and being sued, indicate that Robinson will not hesitate to take legal action. Any doubts about me, or that I am trying to act in the best interests of Wikipedia, may be resolved by reading this official ruling. These two editors have chosen to ignore that ruling, call me a sockpuppet, call me a liar, and attempt to have me blocked. They have made an endless litany of false accusations at WP:ANI, WP:RFCU and the Free Republic article's Talk page. I would like to resolve this dispute and continue making good faith efforts to remove libelous material and protect Wikipedia from needless litigation. Warning them does absolutely no good. They have been warned again and again on their Talk pages; check their archives, including FAAFA's prior username, NBGPWS, where he was blocked for a month. Someone needs to step up and do the right thing. Thank you. Dino 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Untrue. Free Republic has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....
[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire]
[www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More claims from this time period]
And even speculated that the US. Gov, not Al Qaeda, bombed The USS Cole : "IMO the Cole bombing, if not another American Reichstag event, is AWFULLY convenient for a lot of Clinton goals.." [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a208ce00453.htm Cole bombing - An American Reichstag?]
And the owner of the site himself was so extreme and outside the mainstream that he threatened he would 'take up arms' and 'be ready for war' if Bush were elected, calling him a 'cokehead and a felon'. [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm JimRob calls Bush cokehead and felon] I have never added anything to the Free Republic article but documented claims [see] Free for all at Free Republic - Salon.com from verifiable secondary sources. Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This page is not, repeat, not the proper place to debate the content of an article. Nor is it the place to discuss content disputes. Allegations of libelous information should be posted to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. (Dino - this was pointed out to you on the 25th.) Content disputes should be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. This page is only for reviewing the behavior of editors with respect to guidelines such as WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. FAAFA - please note that regardless of whether an editor is acting properly with regards to content that he/she wants to put into or remove from an article, there are also procedural rules for editing articles, and for interacting with other editors that are just as important. I therefore warn all editors involved in this matter that the Arbitration Committee does not evaluate the validity of content when it decides whether to ban users or otherwise enforce procedures; it looks at whether Wikipedia procedures were deliberately and repeated violated, particularly after warnings and blocks.
  • I'm going to draw a line in the sand here - since Dino has expressed an interest in ending the personal aspects of this dispute, I will put the matter on hold for the moment. If there are further problems after today, I ask that the matter be posted on this page again, as a separate alert (with a reference to this alert), but this time focusing solely on behavior such as personal attacks. [I will also look at any postings of negative information without adequate sourcing, if those are occurring, since adequate sourcing (see WP:RS) is absolutely critical for articles about living persons and existing corporations and other such entities, though, again, the proper place for initial reports of these is WP:BLP/N.] Other editors are free to review this matter and respond immediately, below; this paragraph only applies what I personally am going to do. -- -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

27-January-2007

  • User:Naylor182 made a personal remark on another contributor regarding their "professionalism" in a thread about an AfD, and then ignored the message on his talk page. This started when he stated that the South Park WikiProject produces alot of fancruft and then User:Mr._Garrison then made an unfriendly comment. This is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sheesh. He said For someone who wishes to be a Wikipedia administrator, you do not show much professionalism. That's about as trivial a violation of WP:CIVIL as I can imagine. This is where cultivating a thicker skin is the best approach. There are literally tens of thousands of discussions going on every day on Wikipedia talk pages, and there isn't a corps of full-time editors on call to chastise an editor - particularly a constructive one - for the slightest possible infringement of any and all rules.
    • And as for not responding on the user talk page, the posting wasn't a question. It would have been more courteous to reply (the post included a request regarding future actions), but it's not a major breech of protocol to not reply, in my opinion. (I, personally, would probably have replied by putting up a post that said something like "Noted.")
    • WP:CIVIL includes the following advice for reducing the impact of incivility: Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor.
    • In summary, it's understandable to be irritated by remarks of others, but such minor matters are an opportunity to practice handling poor choices of language and minor slights in real life - that is, to practice handling them correctly by ignoring them. Somebody wise once told me: Pick your fights. None of what has been mentioned here is worth - in my opinion - starting or continuing a fight. I suggest moving on. -- John Broughton ☎☎ 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Editing differences at the University of California, Riverside page. Myself and other fellow contributors have been talking about appropriate edits and changes in the talk page. However, one contributor has been blatantly ignoring discussion talks about the article, and in turn has gone from anonymously editing to making an account OCDpatient (talk · contribs) to revert deletes or changes of anything the user has tried to add. Cosecant 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The problem with the user name is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, with strong consensus emerging to disallow. --Ginkgo100talk 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with my version? i have a feeling that you two are the same person who has two accounts. and you are making personal attack by calling me "problematic." you should apologize. --OCDpatient 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry are very serious and should not be made without good evidence. It's also a bit ironic for you to make this sort of accusation casually, considering you were falsely accused of being a sock no more than a couple of hours ago. --Ginkgo100talk 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I also posted a note on the user page strongly recommending a username change, I suppose that would make three of us as some sort of very unusual sock puppet trio. I'm pretty confident doing a checkuser (it would never get that far, of course) would prove our separate identities. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

30-January-2007

31-January-2007

  • Does someone have an advice for me regarding User:GLGerman#Really bad experiences with and User talk:Irmgard#Evangelical - as you see, this is going on for months now. His German user page is very similar to this one. We do indeed have different viewpoints, judging from many discussions in German Wikipedia: he supports pro gay issues and liberal churches, I personally share regarding homosexuality the view of my United Methodist Church and am theologically close to Paleo-orthodoxy (both in my view not really right-wing evangelical positions). I would rather not escalate this issue to a major war, but I can't feel that such statements are furthering the Wikipedia community. Generally, I appreciate working with users who do have different views (also regarding gays or religion) and I see such collaboration and mutual correction as an improvement of articles - here I feel somewhat helpless. What can be done? Irmgard 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • First, the rules for things like civility and personal attacks and even how to resolve content disputes differ completely depending on the version of Wikipedia (German, English, Dutch, whatever). So it would be inappropriate (and pointless) to comment on what is going on between the two of you on the German wikipedia.
    • Turning to en.wikipedia.org, would it be possible for you to list an article or two in which you've had differences, and in which you'd like advice? (I've looked at your user talk page here, and don't rally see anything very egregious - nothing that I'd suggest anything more than shrugging off.) The only article I see mentioned is Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist), and there isn't anything on the article's talk page about content disputes, which I where I'd expect things to be thrased out, so that didn't provide any obvious clues to what you see as the problem here. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • In English Wikipedia there is just the fact that I added some references to the Spitzer article which was followed by his "accusation" on my user talk page that I did write these articles (I have no connection whatsoever to the articles or the organisation) - and, yes, on my User Talk page I told him and another guy to stop bickering on my User Talk page. So, on the English Wikipedia there has IMO nothing happened worth mentioning. But still he writes here that he had really bad experiences with me, and as a generalization that I get critized a lot as Evangelical in the German wikipedia (I do get criticized by him and two or three of his cronies, that's as far as it goes) - is there anything to be done about this "internationalizing" of a local antipathy on the German Wikipedia? Irmgard 12:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the answer to your last question is basically "no". I also think that what is posted on your user page isn't going to make any difference one way or the other in how other editors react to your edits here on the English Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd simply delete the section entirely (that is allowed here) and continue trying to make constructive edits to articles. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 07:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Peakdetector apparently has issues with Deadspin and rest of Gawker Media. It started with vandalism of the Deadspin and leaving uncivil comments on talk pages (i.e. Talk:Deadspin, but now leaving Afd tags without completing the process (see Deadspin, Gawker, Will Leitch, Nick Denton). Could be ignorant of Wikipedia policies, but might just be trying to be a nuisance. Either way, he is disruptive and I've left him messages, none of which he has responded to either with words or behavior. I'm not sure what to do, since not knowing how things work isn't necessarily against the rules, and there's only so far WP:AGF can take you. Ytny 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Let's start with the easy stuff: putting AfDs on obviously good articles (I've not looked, but I'm guessing these are) is a violation of WP:POINT, and the fact that the complete AfD process was not done (which would have brought this to the attention of a lot of people, including admins) is probably evidence of posting tags to disrupt. Again, this depends on the article, but if (say) an editor put an AfD tag on George Washington, that isn't anything but vandalism.
    • For vandalism, the standard procedure is to (a) revert it, and (b) post a warning on the user's talk page, starting at level 1 if it is minor, and at a higher level if appropriate. The list of warnings is here. After the user has received a level 4 warning, if he/she vandalizes again, then the next step is to report the user to WP:AIV. That usually results in a block (if the report is recent, and if the reviewing admin agrees; it's ideal if the AIV report contains diffs if the user has some constructive edits).
    • This warning, then block process doesn't require any response or acknowledgement by the user who is being warned; it doesn't matter if he/she deletes the warnings (that's not a violation per se; it's assume he/she read what he/she deleted); and it doesn't matter if the user posts a rebuttal on his/her page or attacks the editor doing the warning (e.g., warnings are "uncivil", warnings are "personal attacks", warnings are "violation of AGF", warnings are "harrassment"). It's up to the admin on the AIV noticeboard to decide the validity of the warnings. (Note: the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is relevant here.)
    • I'll try to take a closer look at this; I hope this helps in the meantime, and other editors are of course welcome to comment. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It looks like this has attracted the attention of other editors (not surprising if these were in fact bad faith AfDs), and Peakdector hasn't posted since the 31st, so I'm declaring this matter closed. If there are further incidents, please start a new thread. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive10&oldid=1171232996"