Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive61

User:Ks64q2

This user is becoming incresingly uncivil, largely surrounding an AfD for an article he wrote, The Motley Moose (AfD here [1]). He is canvassing while railing against "deletionists working feverishly to delete it" (here [[2]] here [[3]] and here [[4]]), has "voted" on behalf of an IP that left a comment here [[5]] in a pointy, if not deceptive manner; and has consistently attacked the motives of other editors, i.e. "This may have been an ideologically-driven submission" "disingenuous" "changed your story several times in response to my counterpoints, rather than address them directly" "your analysis in that regard was fatally flawed" "strikes me as being completely disingenuous." "In fact, none of the people that participated in the last AfD have even cared to correct their blatant misinterpretation of the events" (etc... no diffs, it's all on the AfD).I then nominated for deletion a related article i tripped over after participating in the original AfD, and Ks64q2 chimed in with "This AfD appears to be motivated by the user's actions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose, which is unacceptable if true" [6]. I responded "What's unacceptable is attacking the motives of other editors" and asked him to desist.[7] I asked him again here [[8]] and here [[9]] yet he persisted "That's what builds the perception you're acting out of a motive other than to strictly improve Wikipedia." [10]. In response to another editors request that he desist from canvassing he responded "what a jerk."[11]. Since he won't stay focused on content rather than other contributors, all I'm seeking here is an uninvolved party to remind him (and get him to commit to) the same. Keep it on the content, stop speculating about the motives of others, and generally tone it down. I'm not seeking major drama, but his canvassing, allegations, and endless berating of the people who disagree with him on that AfD is becoming disruptive.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And now this charming edit summary "Editing changes made in the intermediate by those wanting to delete the page have completely distorted the size, scope, and look of the article; this is a clear COI." The COI allegation is ridiculous; I'd never heard of any of these people til today, don't run a political blog (or any other kind) and would love to see some evidence for that allegation.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[12]

More recently - "If Themfromspace wants to bring more drama into this argument, I suppose that is his own forte, but it seems needlessly messiantic (sic)to me."[13] Bali ultimate (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet again "I noticed they also went through and completely trashed the main page of The Motley Moose, obstensibly to make it "better" though they removed several of the citations even ... they'd rather than spending hours doing all this crap editing and petty BS."[14] Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Response As the user in question, I would be happy for any administrators to review my fellow editor's accusations. I have nothing to hide; and user "Bali ultimate", as I said when I apologized for my first response in the Peter Jukes] AfD thread, I didn't have any doubts to your motivations; I knew you were not acting in ill faith, I simply did not pay attention to who created the article- thus why I laid out my reasons for how I perceived things. I still believe you are only acting in good faith; and if this is what we need to do to resolve this issue, I am more than happy. As for the COI comment, well, sir, it seems odd the entire premise of the page, including it's format, layout, references, etc would change so radically whilst it was undergoing an AfD discussion by the people who voted to delete it. If you don't think the page is worthy of inclusion as-is, and have already voted for deletion... what is the motive here? Ks64q2 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Just to respond here, too; the user above, "Bali Ultimate", has now re-edited the page. I will change it back, list my reasons why on the talk page, and then will defer to an admin for further editing. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't own that or any other page. I gave good, clear, policy based reasons for all of those edits. And you reverted every single one of them while attacking my motives. Desist with the attacks -- on me or anyone else, for any reason.Bali ultimate (talk)

• Comment from involved I posted evidence of his WP:CANVASSING and this user did what he's doing here and other places: throw the argument back at the person. I've been accused of "bringing drama into this argument" by posting a heads-up about his inappropriate behaviour. I think this editor needs to step away from the Motley Moose article for a while and let the debate take its course as his voice is already overly prominent in the debate. ThemFromSpace 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Response' I'll happily address that! Here's a pertinent quote:

  But what I was wondering is if you'd take a look at the arguments I'm making and see if they are cogent and make sense- just so I can better get an idea of what I need to address. No more, no less- the better I know my strengths and weaknesses, the better I'm prepared in the future.

  ...and while the current consensus is (barely) keep, it seems like my points on rescuing the article keep getting ignored. If you had a free moment, could you take a look for me? Rather than have you actually contribute to the AfD, to avoid the appearance of meatpuppetry, I would appreciate a review of my own points/counterpoints, so I can improve my own article writing style and help rescue more articles in the future.

Again, this all seems very much like things are turning into a WP:Battleground. I would appreciate the assistance of any administrator to become involved with this, though it saddens me that we have to engage in this sort of parlay; how much time and effort have we detracted from bettering Wikipedia? Ks64q2 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm seeing a lot of bad faith edits from this user as well. First, he made up something about "forwarding my actions to an admin" on my talk page,[15] and after I posted a warning tag about about him deleting speedy deletion templates as a creator of an article, he faked the same tag, warning me for restoring the template.[16] Further, here's a comment the user posted about me on another user's talk page.[17] Talking about other people's butts is just way over the line. ;) --Sloane (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment:Here the user seems to be making another vague threat: "Never fear, gentlemen, I have brought this to the attention of the proper authorities." [18] --Sloane (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: And he doesn't give up, now he's trying to make me and User:Bali ultimate look bad on other users talk pages: "You've noted "Sloane" and "Bali Ultimate"'s behavior in pouring through other pages I've done, as well as of user "PeterJukes", and I noticed they also went through and completely trashed the main page of The Motley Moose"[19][20][21]--Sloane (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from another involved party. User Ks64q2 has edited or refactored the comments of other editors more than once – including, I only now see to my horror, the AfD nomination itself. (diff). User Ks64q2 has unceasingly badgered every single !delete commenter (as is immediately obvious at the AfD). Has engaged in very thinly disguised canvassing, as pointed to above. Continuously engages in destructive debating techniques, including (my personal favourite) putting words in the mouths of those who disagree. Worst of all, user Ks64q2 has wasted an enormous amount of time on the part of editors who could have spent it better. 9Nak (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not assuming good faith here. I cannot much see evidence of this. --neon white talk 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right; I am indeed no longer AGF on the part of his user. There comes a point when an assumption is trumped by actual data. 9Nak (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed the editor advising him to try to be as concise as possible in the AfD. With any luck, this should aid civility. Computerjoe's talk 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is a point when the vigorous defense of one's views degenerates into harassment and childish bellyaching. User:Ks64q2 has certainly reached that point; his further involvement both here and at AfD is only hurting his case. User:Ks64q2, you need to desist from further comment and disengage. I appreciate, however, that this is unlikely. Hence, as this is only an informal dispute resolution procedure and as the user is apparently unable to consider that his actions may be questionable, I suggest that this go to AN/I where a remedial warning, block or temporary editing ban from AfD can be considered and enforced. Eusebeus (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's way over the top imo, all editor's simply need to assume some good faith. --neon white talk 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• He should be allowed to voice his views in AfD. It should be watched and the user should be advised by administrators if his tone becomes uncivil. Computerjoe's talk 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not convinced is a good idea to edit a page too extensively during an afd and edit warring alone disrupts the process. Adding needed citations and addressing issues is all that really should be done. Anything else should wait til it's closed. Informing other editors of the dispute is acceptable canvassing, although some of User:Ks64q2 comments arent entirely appropriate, they stop short of actually asking anyone to vote a particular way. They are borderline acceptable. The only thing i object to is the lack of good faith in comments like "we have some headstrong deletionists working feverishly to find reasons to kill it". User:Sloane, do not make accusations like you did at the afd these will only inflame the situation. If you suspect canvassing take it to the proper place. User:Ks64q2 needs to calm down and remember not to comment on other editors and to assume good faith. --neon white talk 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neon - everyone he notified was an article rescue squadron person, who you know basically vote ideologically to keep almost everything. Should i selectively canvass all the people who argued delete in the last AfD (of course i shouldn't, but that's the problem).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I must have not hit save page... lost a bunch of text here. Anyway, Neon White, thank you for your kind words. I will admit, I was a little short with the language sent in those talk pages, but I was simply following advice found on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution; it suggests finding uninvolved editors to get feedback from, which you can see I did; and the one editor who then did contribute, I softly rebuked. Truly, resorting to canvassing at this stage would have destroyed any legitimacy my arguments might have. I was simply perplexed why so many people were getting so worked up, spending enormous amounts of time ignoring the counterpoints and arguments I was making, and I wanted some honest feedback from people who've experienced the process before. If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bali, but that isn't true at all. He spoke to me—and not only am I not in the article rescue squadron, but at the February 28th DRV, I endorsed the first closure as deletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, S Marshall, your claim of my comment being not "true at all" is untrue. [22] [23] [24] [25]. Who else did he contact before their involvement in the whole thing? Bali ultimate (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I also take issue with the idea that article rescue squadron people "basically vote ideologically to keep almost everything". I think that remark was unfortunate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, it wont affect the outcome of the afd. Remember afd is not a vote it's based on policy points. Numbers mean nothing. It don't think it's appropriate to suggest that members of the 'rescue squad' vote keep on principle, it's not assuming good faith. --neon white talk 02:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ks64q2 contacted you after you had already contributed to the AfD, Marshall. Nobody is saying he canvassed you improperly.--Sloane (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what prompted my response was the phrase "everyone he notified was an article rescue squadron person" and I wanted to set the record straight on that. The user's first contact with me was after the February 28th DRV, when he asked me to change my mind (which I did not). See my talk page for details.—I think he's been guilty of a minor breach of wikiquette in overenthusiastic responses to the AfD, and I was moved to mention that on his talk page, but I think bringing the matter here was a bit strong and some of the representations that have been made here are over the top.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You think accusations of harassment and "trashing pages" and are ok?--Sloane (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I specifically said "overenthusiastic responses to the AfD", and as I've I pointed out, I'd mentioned these on the user's talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont

• Comment Yes, I believe User:Ks64q2 could be more succinct in his responses, but I can perhaps understand his frustration when his arguments appear (to him) to be ignored... this perhaps due to WP:TLDR? Though getting too close to that border, he has remained more civil than many others in similar circumstances, and I believe he might benefit from adoption rather than blocking... to the subsequent benefit of all wikipedia. And I also and with respects, am a member of ARS and quite often option for a delete. If an article is within my field of knowledge or I can understand that it is somehow worth salvaging, I will offer my efforts and opinion. But I do not consider myself ideologically set to vote "keep" on everything. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ks64q2 is continuing his attacks on me and Bali Ultimate: [26] & [27]. Anyone have any advice whether this is best taken to User conduct or ANI?--Sloane (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He's asking advice from other editors. i don't see these as attacks. However i do expect that to end when this is closed, hopefully with some kind of resolution. --neon white talk 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from (previously) involved Oh the drama! Ks64q2 does seem to be skirting the boundaries of good practice, particularly in regard to WP:CANVASSING as mentioned above, but I don't think that he should be classified as uncivil. Mind-bogglingly verbose, perhaps, and maybe a touch biased and blinkered (ignoring arguments goes both ways), but none of those things add up to uncivility. I think he's just a (relatively) new user who has jumped in with both feet, rather than skirted around the edges of some parts of WP before adding his voice (AFD a good case-in-point). I'd echo Michael above and say that adoption is good idea rather than blocking. He seems to be going great-guns at the Blogging Wikiproject, so let him continue as he is now demonstrating a willingness to improve WP. Good faith is crucially important to WP, as without it the focus is put on the editors and not the project, which is not good and certainly what is going on here. Everybody (Ks included) needs to calm down a little and perhaps let their comments rest in the AFD, rather than continuing to rake over hot coals. onebravemonkey 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, it appears he has been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR. onebravemonkey 15:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Too bad that less than an hour after that block expired, he made this post (about me, so I'm not neutral in this :-) ). Perhaps it's time to classify him as "uncivil" after all, even if he does it behind my back instead of in my face? Fram (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

user:Davidruben is stalking me

After we argued in Talk:Metformin and he threatened to block me, he is now following my edits, editing basically where I last edited, like here, here and talking with a guy I just had argued with. I don't fell like to contribute with someone hounding me and basically just doing that as his Wikipedia activity.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You have shown a propensity to edit war and not follow Wikipedia policies. Some of your actions have been borderline disruptive. You validly received a standard template advising that you could be blocked for edit-warring (not a threat). Due to your potential for actual disruption, your edits are being looked at closely. This is not yet a problem. If you had done nothing wrong, it could be WP:HOUND, but until you do start following policy and accepting responsibility for your errors, your edits may be monitored closely. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice day so, and now you don't have excuses to not contribute with actual content instead of diminishing others. I'm out.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read any of what I wrote...or what WP:HOUND says? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just been notified of this thread, and observing Nutriveg's edits not been "just doing that as his Wikipedia activity", although formating this note and its edit links taken much of my time tonight :-) Nutriveg acted against consensus on Metformin and repeatedly reverted against other editors and then, dismissing views raised, threadened to act outside of consensus. The content dispute was over whether one or a few preliminary primary source research papers should mention Alzheimer's when this is not yet accepted by the mainstream (i.e. issue of WP:PRIMARY). Original submission 23:05, 9 March 2009, and subsequent reverts 15:45, 10 March 2009, 20:15, 10 March 2009, then related shift to amyloid deposition (the characteristic of Alzheimer's disease) 21:50, 11 March 2009, 23:10, 11 March 2009, 16:18, 12 March 2009. I think Nutriveg sailed very close to being WP:3RR blocked here, hence my advice of {{uw-3rr}}, but their edit summary on deleting my posting indicated a complete failure to understand the concerns raised by 7 other editors (not including myself) of whom 2 are admins and all members of the Pharmacy &/or Medicine wikiprojects, and thus have extensive experience editing such articles and seeing discussions on related article development (assuming they follow the projects' discussion pages).

Question arises whether isolated editing disruption or wider editing problems. Overall I'm not yet sure if contribuitions sum to a net benefit to the project - I think probably so, certainly some good antivandalism catches[28] and citation additions ([29], [30] and similar to other banned fungicides), but there are too many poor (for want of better term) edits:

• Using single isolated primary research sources as if existing therapy (per my revertion reasons [31]) or as if fully accepted knowlege (per my revert reasons [32])
• nutrient-as-therapy promotion without any source (per this edit of another editor [33])
• subtle rephrasing of the conclusions from those papers that is misleading (eg recent edit to Overtraining changes poor functioning immune system to statement of low levels of lymphocytes (one component of the immune system), yet the source given has in its abstract "lymphocyte function" which is not same as reduced numbers - perhaps the full aricle specifies this, but unknown if Nutriveg has such a journal subscription).

I've not had the time yet to look far enough into past edits to finalise my overall view (and certainly whilst Talk:Metformin quite heavy with views and guideline links, there has not been 2-editors to the user's talk page to justify a RfC). But to reiterate, there has been some very good contributions of content & references, so if Nutriveg would like to have some of these concerns discussed and hopefully allayed then I'm happy to work with him/her on this - would feedback on edits to their talk page (without obligation) be seen as helpful ? Or alternative ask this of another editor whom you respect (or Wikipedia:Mentorship#Voluntary mentorship) ? David Ruben ^Talk 04:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

David...my apologies that I neglected to see if the complainant had notified you of this WQA...it's usually one of my first steps, but life's been busy around my life these days (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but no appology was needed :-) David Ruben ^Talk 12:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "Spastic"

Stuck

 – No agreement concerning this specific issue and the larger issue has generated way too much heat already. Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm requesting that a phrase using the word "spastic" be removed from a conversation on WP:ANI, per WP:ATTACK.

I have learnt during this incident that the word has a different connotation in the USA to the UK; in Britain, it's a very offensive term, perhaps equivalent in offence to the word 'nigger'.

18 March 2009, events as follows;

• 12:54 "Uh. All I see is Ks64q2 going spastic over AFD's" posted to WP:ANI by User:seicer (diff).
• 13:14 On User talk:seicer I asked them to please remove their comment. (diff).
• 13:15 User:seicer did not reply, but removed this section of their talk page with edit comment "(That has to be the lamest "personal attack" if it would even be classified as such.)" (diff).
• 13:45 On User talk:seicer I asked them to please reconsider. (diff).
• 13:53 User:seicer replied "Please find something else to complain about." (diff).
• 14:06 I removed the single offending word, with an explanation and sig (diff).
• 14:09 User:seicer reverted my edit with summary ""spastic" is not an attack: get a thesaurus for fuck's sake (see my talk))" (diff).
• Other users then discussed the issue in this talk.

From spastic;

"a BBC survey in 2003...found that "spastic" was the second most offensive term in the UK relating to disability"

"In 2007...one of the most taboo insults to a British ear"

WP:ATTACK states;

"...never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ...or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities)

I find this term extremely offensive, and would like it to be removed forthwith.

Thank you. --  Chzz  ►  20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I concur that "spastic" is a vile and extremely offensive word, and that Seicer's look at a dictionary protestations are formulaic, repetitive, unoriginal and invalid. It offends real live people, he knows it does, there were/are literally millions of other words he could have chosen, so it's inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yup, but - to be fair - I doubt very much that even 1% of US contributors would have any idea of how offensive the word is in the UK, and I wouldn't expect them to either. Having said, that, when it was pointed out, a little bit of investigation wouldn't have gone astray. (Here's a good example, by the way)Black Kite 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• While he shouldn't have expected to know when making the comment about how offensive it is, Seicer should have handled the situation much better. I'd expect better from an administrator to be honest. It's not just American's that use WP, and sometimes people need to respect that rather than think the world revolves around the US. His edit summary left much to be desired too. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Hey Chzz, thanks for inviting me into commentary regarding me. Since you chose to ignore my comments, and chose to ignore an English thesaurus that I referred to, I'll kindly recuse myself from commenting in this worthless thread. Apparently, you find the word "fuck" to be one of those agasped words in the Nanny State -- you know, "fuck" that wasn't applying to your behavior, but to the entire situation. I think it applies here again as well. No, I was not aware of the phase's usage elsewhere, but it is a legitimate term, and my comments were not in any way referring to some disability. If you actually believed that, then I suggest you please refrain from reading more of the comments in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• S/he hasn't ignored the thesaurus you referred to. Various people have pointed out that the word offends people, thesaurus or no thesaurus. You have chosen to ignore the BBC's classification, and the UK government licensor's classification, as far as I can see... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, you have slightly now! ... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Er ... "spastic" as an adjective can be used in a valid manner, such as "I have a spastic colon". To be called "a spas" is certainly insulting, however, that is using spastic more as a noun...as is calling someone the long form, that is "a spastic". "Going spastic over X" effectively means "turning apoplectic over X", and is a valid usage of the term. If someone had said "so and so is turning into a spas over X" ... different story. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my link, did you? That's exactly the usage that is offensive, and just because it isn't offensive elsewhere is completely irrelevant. As I said, there's every excuse for (especially) US editors not to realise this, but there isn't any excuse once it's been pointed out. As an example of how it sounds to UK ears, replace "going spastic" with "being retarded" and see how that reads... I'm not going to sound high and mighty over this, but really - once it's been pointed out, just find another word, yeah? Black Kite 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I read the link, thanks for asking. Interesting of course that there are 2 examples in the article - the first is a slightly incorrect usage, the second was obviously stupidity taken to the nth degree. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still a personal attack. It really doesnt matter that the word has a valid meaning. So does 'ape' but if you accuse someone of having the brains of an ape, it's incivil. --neon white talk 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you are creating drama to simply create drama. If I labeled you as a "spastic fuck," that would certainly raise a few ears. But if I labeled your actions as being spastic, or "irregular/random/broken/erratic/etc." (or the countless other synonyms), then that is entirely different. Stop taking words out of context, and stop being perpetuating drama. I'll be out during the evening, so if you need me, well, I'll be flying a kite (really). seicer | talk | contribs 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I'm not even talking about your usage of it now, I'm talking in general terms. If a term can be taken as offensive - even if the intention is not there - why use it? That's not creating drama, that's just common courtesy. Black Kite 21:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack WQA contributors. That is unacceptable. --neon white talk 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Neon white, this is not going to be the first time I've called you out as beyond unhelpful here [34]. Everything has a context, and it is clear that seicer wasn't attempting to attack anyone in the comment you responded to - she merely explained to Black Kite why felt there was no offense in her comments, and what sort of comment she felt would by contrast cause offense - discussing one's position is not attacking WQA contributors. It is unacceptable to continually engage in unhelpful and counterproductive commentary (frivolous accusations) - the real purpose other editors are meant to be here for is to resolve disputes. Please stop escalating disputes rather than helping to resolve them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying someone is indoctrinating drama into our noticeboards isn't a personal attack by far. seicer | talk | contribs 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• The problem here is not Seicer's vocab choices, but the tone and attitude displayed. If someone is offended by what you're saying, the least you could do to maintain the civil and collegiate environment is to rephrase your words. This edit summary is rude, inflammatory, insulting, and disruptive to the editing environment. Edit summaries are not there for you to be rude to others. As an administrator you are called upon to diffuse disputes, not inflame them. I also reiterate the comments I've already made here. What you should do is apologize. What is expected of you as an administrator, is that you make an effort to change your behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Seicer's usage of 'spastic', in the context in which it was written, was not intended or can be considered an attack. The expression of the entire comment was more informal, to the point I could find other alternatives (eg; 'crazy' - if this example was used, I doubt we'd be here, but, I don't doubt that some people would nevertheless consider usage of that word highly offensive - it just so happens I know some people who are affected by any of these type of words). It's really a matter of interpretation and perception. There are people that are also offended by the usage of "swear words", even on Wikipedia.
  • In effect, I find that the best way to avoid this problem is to use terms that are likely to not touch so deeply on some people's sensitivities. Some people also believe that this is the courteous thing to do. This is probably similar to Black Kite's view in a sense. But other people have their own views, and as long as those words aren't used to attack others or to be uncivil, I don't think it's difficult to respect the fact that people carry their views too. There is no immediate need, in this case, to remove the word as an attack or as something that is unacceptable. But remember, care needs to be taken in the future to avoid finding yourself in circumstances where it does need to be. That covers the crux of the dispute.
  • All that said, there is an important point regarding administators and responding to criticisms/concerns - however, Tznkai has already covered that in enough detail so I need not repeat it. I trust that everyone can agree that this could've/should've been better-handled. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Unk I actually thought seicer's choice of wording was out-of-order too, but to be honest I think the AFD and associated other pages have set enough knickers in a twist already, so decided to let it slide, to try to minimise the (already over-blown) drama. That said, I agree with vocalist's points above. onebravemonkey 09:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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

• Comment I've been watching this discussion; I've nothing to add at this stage, except to thank everyone for taking the time to consider the issue. --  Chzz  ►  17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, not an alert

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Oi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and this isn't an alert- just a question, but I didn't know where else to take it- so here I am. If this is the wrong forum, point me in the right direction, and I'll head that way. I'm working in tandem with another editor on an article- though not in collaboration- and his work has largely been of the hack-and-slash variety, removing links, wording, etc. Which actually worked well in several cases on the article, he did improve it considerably as fas as making it an encylcopediac tone, etc. Except that he slashed out some citations and noted he couldn't find any- but I found them within a few seconds of searching on Google. Now, obviously, he's under no obligation to actually add links in, I suppose; it's his own editing style, which is fine- again, he didn't do anything wrong. Maybe he's better at the hack and slash, and I'm better at the exposition, right? Perfect team. But if we delete an unreliable source, is it generally expected we try and find another one to add in there to fit the citation? Just FMI. Thanks. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, if someone sees an unreliable source cited in an article, they should at least try to find a better one, but you are right, there is absolutely no obligation for them to do so. You could suggest they try to find better sources if they don't like the ones provided, but you certainly should do so in a way that they won't feel harassed or feel like you are giving them demands. Often, it is quicker to find the source yourself than to ask them to find one, so if someone removes a genuinely unreliable source and fails to replace it with a better one, it is usually not worth the effort to ask them for a new one (usually if they have a better one they would have already included it.) This of course is completely different from an editor removing a reliable source to information in an article; that should be reverted if the information cited is still in the article, is supported by the source and no other source is provided. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As you suggest this isn't really the right forum for this. Using Wikipedia:Editor assistance is probably the best place for this kind of advice. --neon white talk 05:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:78.40.231.225

Resolved

 – Editor has been blocked for edit waring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Developed_country#Summary_table

I also think you should see a psychiatrist, by the way. 78.40.231.225 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough... How old are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Developed_country&action=history

he attacks me. -not just this time.- probably he angry because turkey removed on list of developed countries. and 78.40.231.225 edits without discussion. - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Developed_country —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnaniua (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Gnevin making it difficult to assume good faith while accusing others.

Stuck

 – neither party seems interested in altering their behavior

User:Gnevin was the first to not assume good faith by accusing me of "attempting to neuter a proposal"[35], deliberately pushing me to the point of breaching civility. Now has the nerve to threaten me and demand an apology for calling out his deliberate attempt to hide consensus that didn't go his way by putting a separator in the middle of the discussion as if it was a whole separate discussion right after the part where another user agreed with me [36]. In the same edit he belittled my objective arguments by referring to them as "meaningless catchphrases." Oicumayberight (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can 'deliberately pushing you to the point of breaching civility', you're a free individual and it's your choice how you respond to other editors. Accusing another editor of a "deliberate attempt to hide consensus" is not assuming good faith. I see no problem with the other editor's comments on your proposal. "meaningless catchphrases" is fair comment as far as i am concerned. --neon white talk 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why then is "Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" listed as one of the acts of Wikipedia:CIV#Engaging_in_incivility? Also what value does calling someones debate point "meaningless catchphrases" add to the debate. And there is no other excuse for separating the discussion at the point that he did. The discussion was no longer than any other discussion on the page. He knew it was all relevant because he was a part of that discussion prior. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any deliberate taunting or trolling going on here. This is not a forum for discussing indidual debating skills. "meaningless catchphrases" may or may not be a valid point, it's not a civility issue. The fact that you cannot assume anything other than bad faith is an issue you need to work on. You must assume that other editor are acting in good faith until there is evidence otherwise. --neon white talk 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And if I find evidence, it doesn't matter anyway, so I should just shut up. Understood. Thanks for your help! :) Oicumayberight (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• What this looks like to me is a prolonged content/policy dispute, with Gnevin being only one of various involved parties. "Attempting to neuter" is not really incivility. If the placement of the section break really bothers you that much, move it to a better location. An even better idea might be to leave this matter alone for a day or two, the world's not going to end as a result of the discussion of this relatively minor point of the MOS. You could always initiate an WP:RFC if you feel more input is needed from more users. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oicumayberight can you please agree to stop attempting to personalise the discussion. Your issue is with the guideline not me, can you stop name dropping. Stop accusing me of double standards ,feigned incomprehension while linking to WP:CIV , can you stop accusing me of dirty trick, of attempting to hide con, of being heavy handed. Can you please stop directing comments at me , I am getting tired of these personal attacks Gnevin (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's always a content dispute when User:Gnevin is involved [37]. Accusing me of "attempting to neuter" is assuming good faith, but anything I say is uncivil. No double standard here. I should just never report User:Gnevin, because he knows just what he can get away with [38]. The Wikiquette alerts forum is really helpful. Thanks. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand policy here. It's completely acceptable for an editor to be critical of another editor's arguements. There is nothing in "attempting to neuter" that is accusing you of acting in bad faith. Bad faith means you are deliberately trying to harm the project. User:Gnevin has been critical of your arguement but has not accused you of acting in bad faith, yet you yourself have made several comments both on the talk page and here that suggest User:Gnevin is being deliberately underhand when there is no evidence of such motives. --neon white talk 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. So "neutering the proposal" wouldn't be deliberately trying to harm the project, and an act of good faith. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what exactly it means, i can only assume he was objecting to a proposal being made more neutral. Without clarification we don't know and must agf. --neon white talk 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the meaning of neuter was clear in the context. So if he was objecting to WP:NPOV, how is that good for wikipedia? Oicumayberight (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I get away with it because I remain civil. Any comments on my above request? Anyway I'm tired of attempting to deal with you. I have decided I will not reply directly too any comments you make on WT:MOSICON.Gnevin (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that's progress!!! ;) Oicumayberight (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just like to repeat that you should probably calm down and back away from this issue, try to get some perspective. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you put a stuck tag on this. If it is a content dispute as claimed, then the matter of civility is not an issue unless incivility continues. My continuing to work on the MOS is in no way uncivil. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• (sigh) I tagged it as stuck because several users have tried to tell you this entire report was probably not needed and that you are making too much of this, and you have roundly ignored them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the issue you are referring to this Wikiquette alert or the MOS guide? Also are you suggesting me, Gnevin or both should back away? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No i think the suggestion is that you both dispute civily in good faith even if the debate gets heated. maybe Gnevin could agree to tone down some of the comments however nobody is trying to disrupt this article. You both have different opinions and views, respect the differences and work towards a consensus and agreement.

• Be prepared for other editors to be critical of and even dissect your proposals.
• Be prepared to respond to defend your position without getting incivil.
• Be prepared to ask for outside help such as a third opinion if the discussions are not progressing.
• Be aware that changes to policies, guidelines and style guidelines are required to have a wide community backing and often take months of arduous negotiations to reach agreement.
• --neon white talk 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Neon which comments do you believe need to be toned down ? Gnevin (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You might phrase certain comments better to avoid offense. For instances "meaningless catchphrases". Ask the editor to elaborate on the points you feel are meaningless and then see if he can provide meaning. The other one was "attempting to neuter a proposal", i'm not sure what was meant here. If an editor doesnt agree with a proposal simple discuss why. --neon white talk 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's difficult to say whether Gnevin deliberately pushed you to the point of breaching civility - his comment certainly could provoke such a response, and does give all appearances of assuming bad faith regarding Oicumayberight's suggestion. However, I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate either way - whether it was deliberate or not. Despite this, even where a comment provokes such a response, you are expected to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion.
• It is most important to, whever possible, comment on content rather than the contributor. If you need to comment on the contributor, then it either needs to be at your talk pages, or while utilising dispute resolution mechanisms. It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. Ad hominem name dropping needs to be avoided.
• With regards to hiding consensus, the issue of bad faith on whether it was deliberate or not becomes insignificant; the issue is whether the description that it was 'an attempt to hide a consensus that didn't go his way' is accurate - I find that it is not.
• Overall, I find problems with both of you. You both need to make an effort to interact in a more collegial manner. Please behave reasonably, calmly and courteously in your interactions, with a constructive and collaborative outlook, and most importantly, be considerate of each others sensitivities. If you both cannot maintain an atmosphere of camraderie and mutual respect among contributors, this isn't likely to end well for either of you. I would also suggest taking neon white's 4 points above into consideration.
• Finally, as this is largely a result of a content dispute, I would recommend you both also avail yourselves to mediation for future content disputes that arise between the pair of you, or for any unresolved ones.
• For now, this has rightly been marked as stuck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Which of my comment would you consider to have pushed Oicumayberight and which suggestion did I assume bad faith with and where do you find problems with me? Gnevin (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See Neon white's response above; his response summarises the bulk of my concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Help. Another editor has threatened to block me...

Resolved

 – Template used was a little WP:BITEY, but partly needed. Original editor notified. New user welcomed and discussion ensues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kateorman

"This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to The Stolen Earth, you will be blocked from editing. Sceptre (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stolen_Earth

Uh... can this guy actually do this? He's angry because I threw out his long, pointless summary of a review and replaced it with a concise one. I guess that's understandable, but isn't the point of Wikipedia that we rewrite and improve on each others' contributions?

Also: I've provided evidence of a misquote, but he insists his version of the quote is correct.

I guess we need a third party to arbitrate, but I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateorman (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, he was correct to give you a warning, but possibly not that specific one, these are pre-written templates, and most include a block warning. Regarding your edits, they were not entirely constructive. Its worth remembering it is a featured article you are editing, and has already been assesed and judged to be ok by many editors as part of the featured article assessment, substantial edits (particularly to an article such as this) simply aren't required there. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

However, the follow-up blanking of this section deserves a separate warning of its own, however, I don't want to be overly WP:BITEy here. Instead, I have left a nice welcome with a link to the policies you need to know (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur that there was a legitimate concern to warrant a warning, or to escalate the warnings over a period of time per above. However, the filing party is relatively new - his contributions are, relatively, near negligible. Prior to the warning, his user space or user talk space was never edited. Newbies are usually given a welcome with links to the our policies and guidelines; in this case, the one-and-only warning was not just too brief in failing to explain the problem with the edits, but also only linked to blocking policy - this can appear bitey, but I'm not sure if that was deliberate. As a result, I've posted on the subject's talk page requesting for a couple of assurances. The other half of resolution rests with posting a welcome message to the talk page of the filing party - BMW has already done so, and I endorse this action. I expect that this thread can be resolved relatively swiftly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User Awickert and Personal Attacks

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

 – while there was borderline incivility here, this was reported in multiple places and admin action has been taken, closed to reduce drama

Awickert is personally attacking me repeatedly after I asked him not to.

User Awickert is personally attacking me because I challenge his POV for the sake of NPOV.

For example "what you say is WP:PSCI bogus. Awickert (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)"

This is implying that everything I say is WP:PSCI. Furthermore, even if what I was saying were WP:PSCI it would still violate Wikipedia policy which states the following:

The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:

Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." Sophergeo (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately I checked his contributions and found this report, as he neglected to notify me. As you can see at talk:subduction, I tried to work politely, but Sophergeo threw up a smokescreen and refused to answer a single question that I asked. When I say that it is WP:PSCI bogus, it is becasue the expanding Earth theory does fall under WP:PSCI, and "bogus" is a category therein. I have tried to debate that it is more questionable than "questionable science", but not a single one of my comments have been responded to with anything other than a blanket criticism that I am trying to "suppress information" due to my POV. In addition, after I reply to comments, Sophergeo copies and pasted the un-replied-to text on another talk page, which is frustrating. I feel I have been polite, and more than patient.

Sophergeo continues to accuse me and others of being WP:POV, when all I feel we are doing is trying to address factual concerns. These accusations grow tiresome, and I feel his ignoring the comments of myself and others to support his POV is disrespectful. He has also accused me and another editor of sockpuppetry, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sophergeo reported by User:Woodwalker(Result: 24 hr.).

Awickert (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly, this page is for discussion of breaches of civility, so let's keep it confined to that, and not carry on the content dispute here. After looking over the talk page in question, it seems you were both perfectly civil and rational for quite a while, but when it became apparent you were at an impasse, you both made the mistake of continuing to go around and around in circular debate. What you should have done is to seek outside input through WP:3O or WP:RFC. Once two editors are clearly not going to agree, the right move is to seek outside input. My strong advice to both of you is to initiate an RFC on the talk page, and let the conversation take it's course with minimal comment from either of you, as you have both stated your positions multiple times. There are remarks from both of you that border on incivility towards the end of the thread, but it seems this was just brought on by your mutual frustration at being unable to sway each others opinions on this subject. In the future, try to keep cooler heads, and remember, the world isn't going to end if you take a break and come back later with a fresh perspective, and always seek community input instead of endless head-butting. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• As this is one of several places this matter was reported, and administrative action has already been taken against one of the involved parties, I'm going to close this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Bad-faith assumption by User:Bci2

Resolved

 – Warnings provided

I've nominated the article Florentina Mosora for deletion, as I believe it fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:PROF, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Here and here, the page's creator, User:Bci2, accused me of having sinister hidden motivations: saying I have political reasons for the nomination, that I am resentful of her for being successful after fleeing Romania's dictatorship, that I am trying to apply "Stalinist scissors" to history, etc. Never mind that these accusations are absurd (I'm an avowed anti-Communist), they're also in gross violation of WP:AGF. Here, I asked Bci2 to cease making such allegations, but he followed up with "Thou protest too much" [sic]. I would appreciate it if he could acknowledge the falsity of his allegations and let us move beyond this silly episode of mud-slinging. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have given the editor 2 warnings: 1 about not signing their posts on talkpages, and the other for AGF. (As an aside, I can't for the life of me see why the AfD hasn't been withdrawn after its improvement). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As an add-on, I NAC'd the AfD. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluedogtn versus Tennis expert!

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Currently in SSP

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

Tennis expert is trying to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, which I am not because I have tried in good faith to get it out their I have multiple user accounts and s/he keeps on removing them. Tennis expert does take Ip address that are harsh about his edits and attributes them falsly to me, which I am not using them. The only Ip address that I have ever owned is User talk:69.247.19.250, and not these

• 04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.231.58.8 ‎
• 04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.103.79 ‎
• 04:22, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.201.186.107 ‎
• 04:21, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.58.128.61 ‎
• 04:21, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎
• 04:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.99.162 ‎ (Undid revision 275673778 by 76.16.99.162 (talk))
• 04:20, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.29.32.11 ‎
• 04:18, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎
• 04:17, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎
• 04:17, 22 March 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.16.96.234 ‎ _BLuE^DOgTn 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: the rule of thumb about accusations of sockpuppetry is to either file it, or STFU about it. Tennis expert is doing the right thing, and has filed it...they appear to be doing this out of what they consider a significant pool of evidence. Rather than do tit-for-tat filings of incivility, and if you honestly have nothing to fear, then let it happen. If you protest about a sockpuppet investigation, then it appears you have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide, you get to sit back and laugh quietly to yourself. If you have actually been "caught" then your best way to avoid blocks is to start being 120% honest. I warn you though, whether the investigation is found to have merit or not, do not attempt to get vengeance later. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do as you say Bwilkins, and not respond that way I can sit back and laugh till the investigatory work is done, which I hope will only take a week or two! _BLuE^DOgTn 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Mockery of my proposal and me

Resolved

 – Both parties advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

On WT:RFA, several users mocked me in unveiled personal attacks the likes of which amaze me that they would occour. This is a gross violation of our NPA policy. I ask all of them to redact their comments imediately.--Ipatrol (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And how are those personal attacks? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I can see some condescending and snide comments there. Doubt any of it is actionable though. I'd probably just take a deep breath and chalk it up as a <sarcasm> "thanks a bunch guys" </sarcasm> type of thing. Sometimes you have to have a little bit of a tough skin around here - especially if you're posting to pages like RfA, AN, AN/I, etc., etc., etc.. If you try to push it Ipatrol, it's probably just gonna get nastier. Take the high road and chalk it up to experience. I don't think there was anything that awful, just keep working, and trying. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 09:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The response to your proposal was certainly a little rude, but it wasn't really a violation of WP:NPA. The basic meaning of "no personal attacks" is essentially "address the edits, not the editor". Most of the dismissive responses seem to be along the lines of "this is a bad idea" rather than "you are a bad editor". Ironholds's responses were perhaps over the top in places, but still seem to be more summarised by "you have produced several bad ideas, of which this is one" rather than "you are a bad editor and should be summarily ignored". When proposing controversial policy changes, you do have to be prepared for a somewhat outraged response sometimes, though obviously it should not be encouraged. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Several editors were not just attacking the proposal, they attacked me, here are some quotes from the section:

“ My thoughts Ipatrol are to wonder whether you've discussed this idea with your parents, and whether they allowed you to stay up late and post this rubbish ” — Malleus Fatuorum

“ Malleus: around IRC Ipatrol is fairly well known for silly policy proposals [...] ” — Ironholds

I am not the only user who complained about the incivility in these comments:

“ What an appallingly contemptuous response to a good-faith suggestion. I hope I won't sound outmoded if I point out that as Wikipedians, when we disagree we are obliged to do it civilly, or else not to say anything. ” — Rdsmith4

Now, I've been here for six monhts so I wouldn't say I fall under BITE, but these people have been here for far longer than me. Perhaps it's "biting people with less expirence"? As part of WP:POLICY, I can make proposals, and as part of WP:CIVIL I should get mature and civil responses to proposals, even if the user thinks that they are rediculous (of course, bad faith proposals are the exception). This proposal was not to make a point, I think that comments that adress the user as a whole and not as a user of the tools are not constructive and have little to do with the user's qualifications to be an admin. Now, some users have obviously made it clear that they oppose this because they think such comments are valid, but they could have said it as something like "I oppose this because I think that is important for an admin to be a well-rounded user" or something to that effect. The insults were not needed in the discussion and I do ask for a redaction of the attacks I mentioned here and perhaps an apology for breaking our core behavioral policies.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how my comment was a personal attack; you are known for suggesting silly things. Here's how to tell the difference: Ipatrol is a moron (personal attack). Ipatrol is acting like a moron [example of moronic behavior 1] [example of moronic behavior 2] (sarcastic, but not an unwarranted attack). Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take this comment in good faith, but I feel that you bring a lot of problems on yourself. Amongst the community there is a lot of bad feelings towards you because of the way you act in situations, your tone towards other people is less than impressive, especially on IRC. You seem to like a lot of "process for processes sake" (Clarification: I normally describe situations like this as "admin for admins sake", but that may be misinterpreted in a WP context), which can really rub people up the wrong way. I feel a long look at yourself and how you act may help understand why some editors act the way they do towards you. My first experience with you was less than impressive. You do make it very difficult for users to assume good faith. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Ipatrol: please don't deliberately misquote people to boost your argument. Rdsmith was replying to Malleus's comment and his comment alone; he didn't take issue at "these comments" only "that comment". Ironholds (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ipatrol, "several users mocked me in unveiled personal attacks" is a little bit unhelpful because it doesn't define who the users were and what posts were attacks. You've subsequently given two examples, if those are the only attacks you want covered here it would be helpful if you struck the word several and replaced it with two. Its long been a concern of mine that there seems to be a local consensus at RFA to exempt that area from our usual norms of civility, I regard that as a mistake but as long as it continues both comments have at least some defence; However I agree that Malleus's comment was inappropriate and suggest that an apology would be in order. I don't do IRC so won't comment on Ironholds. ϢereSpielChequers 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• The worst remarks came from Malleus, and he promptly came under fire for his incivility. Since this is far from the first time he has belittled others whose stance he doesn't agree with, I'm not sure what WQA can do. Ironholds remark about IRC was a little rude, and certainly an ad hominem argument as opposed to a direct response to your proposal, but I'm inclined to agree with other editors who have suggested ignoring it. The only other thing I would mention here is that IRC is not part and parcel of Wikipedia, and, while things that happen there may impact Wikipedia, they have no place being discussed on Wikipedia. The IRC channel is a discussion of happenings at Wikipedia. To then discuss those discussions back here on Wikipedia is just plain ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that WQA cannot block, but if there is an admin here, I would like them to look at Malleus' comment to see if it deserves anything.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly don't feel it deserves a block, yes a stern warning, but not a block Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean another stern warning? How many warnings does he need? Majorly talk 21:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it takes. A block should only really be used as a last resort, I really don't feel it has come to that yet. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it wasn't the most pleasant comment, and I think the reaction that Malleus got at WT:RFA indicates that others think so too. However neither do I think it is blockable (especially 20 hours after the event), and I really don't think shopping around for one (here and at ANI) comes across well either. Black Kite 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted to ANI because I thought here is to bring an issue to attention, ANI is to request admin action. I now know that what I did was not accepatable and I admit that. Now, This all reminds me of a (lightly paraphrased for civility) quote:

“ Eliminate the arses, nothing drains the life force from your company than the arses. Of course, some arses may have important skills you would like to keep, my advice is it's never worth the tradeoff ” — Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle

Of course, Malleus could not ever be called an arse and I would never accuse Malleus of being that, he's certainly not a vandal or blatent troll. However, I think that toned down a bit it makes a good point: people who constantly work to the impedement of other cannot possible contribute constructivley to an organisation, be it Wikipedia or Whatever Company. In this sense, Malleus is a wikidiva: he uses his past contributions to get others to come to his aid in disputes so he can bully others into submission with impunity. That is how he always draws supporters at ANI, admins into wheel warring over his blocks. We must understand that if Malleus continues his modus aperendi, we would be better off without him. That is why I think a block is warrented, we must make him realize that his crying to his supportes won't work, that he can only survive here if he improves his conduct. We need something that will get the point across, a block of at least a week or more. We must realize what is important to us, we must all work together in a civil atmosphere. Users like Malleus do not help with their mini-cabals and pleading. We must not let the divias win.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus is a wikidiva: he uses his past contributions to get others to come to his aid in disputes so he can bully others into submission with impunity....We must understand that if Malleus continues his modus aperendi, we would be better off without him.

I'm not sure which is a real diva here.--Caspian blue 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say I completely agree with you there. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify those last two comments?--Ipatrol (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

An observation

I can't help note the irony of IPaton's various remarks above when considered in the context of the topic he started here, which triggered my (one) comment to him—note the singular, not plural as he fancifully claims—in which he effectively proposed that all negative comments at an RfA should be considered as "personal attacks" and dealt with by blocks increasing from 12 hours upwards. Leaving aside the issue of who would be the judge of "personal attack" or "negative comment", I apparently use my past contributions to get others to come to my aid. When have I ever done that? I wasn't the one canvassing others earlier this evening in an attempt to have me banned. I apparently also go crying to my supporters? When did I do that? Here are my recent contributions. Where am I crying to anybody? Apparently I'm also a wikidiva? Is that not a negative comment?

I think it would be more convincing if those screaming "please sir, incivility over there, ban him" actually practised what they so loudly preach. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ipatrol, you should stop forum shopping and demanding an immediate answer. The rest of you guys: permission granted to cease fomenting drama. IMO, Ipatrol is forum shopping because he's frustrated. And frankly, he has every right to be frustrated. Malleuos should now better. He doesn't have special license to talk to people like that and if the conclusion from WQA is that he does, then WQA is fucking up. We should all put this behind us, but remember that content creation is not a free pass to behaving callously toward others. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What gives anyone a "right" to feel frustrated, or indeed to harbour any emotion? IPatrol is, in my opinion, guilty of exactly the same behaviour that he is so vociferously complaining about to anyone to will listen, everywhere he can. I made one remark that you consider to have been "callous", over 24 hours ago now, yet this firestorm is still smouldering, even taken to AIV. That's what's got to stop.

I note as well that this WQA didn't start off about me, but as it developed it began to appear to IPatrol (no doubt as a result of IRC discussions) that I was the easy target, and someone had to be made to pay for his hurt pride. That's just not good enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond the point that either party pointing fingers is appropriate. Please disengage from the sniping. Experienced administrators are not going to take Ipatrol's multiple complaint venues any more seriously than we would have at a single location. He's been notified to stop spreading it around. You are not in a position to be saying "That's what's got to stop".

Step back and stop poking him. Disengagement is the only way to resolve and calm this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, your commentary was certainly out of line from that which is expected from an established contributor. And to answer your question: the lack of action that was taken over such commentary was what seems to have frustrated Ipatrol to the point of forum shopping - however, forum-shopping was also out of line, as well as some of the comments he made about you. In effect, neither justifies the other. I agree with GWH and echo; "disengagement is the only way to resolve and calm this". I don't think that's too much to expect from either Malleus Fatuorum, or Ipatrol, or any other participants in this thread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:MickMacNee

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – No blocks can be done from this forum - racism is blockable - off to ANI

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

User:MickMacNee has made incivil racist comments on Talk:Newcastle Central railway station#Requested move:

Newcastle Central railway station is a fictional name made up by Wikipedia. The station is correctly called Newcastle Central Station by all national sources when they are not being as lazy as a tabloid, and it is known as Central Station to the entire North East of England, even the scum down the road when they are escorted in and out of it. It is abbreviated by the Welsh and other provincial peoples simply as Newcastle, lazy as they are, because they don't have the intelligence or the culture to know any different.

User has been blocked 13 times before, 7 times for incivility and harrassment[39]. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks blockable to me, but that is something for ANI rather than here. I'd advise moving it there; this place is completely informal, while a user with that history making those kinds of comments really deserves formal sanctions. Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Having problems with 97.106.54.153 (talk · contribs)

I'm having problems with an anonymous user who is currently using the IP 97.106.54.153 (talk · contribs), although he also posted with the IPs 97.106.45.136 (talk · contribs) and 97.106.44.199 (talk · contribs) in the past as well. I explained to him why I changed his edits to Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops and he continues to revert my changes, with no justification to include them, while making rude remarks such such as "yeah well quit removing this boy wonder. God, you are so anal" on one edit summary and "Mind your own business" on my talk page. His rude behaviour doesn't seem to be limited on this article alone. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the user discussing the issues on the talk page? --neon white talk 08:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I attempted to discuss his edits on his talk page and as you can see by the comment he left on my talk page, he blew me off with no attempt to argue my point. Its not the edits bothers me, its his overall behaviour. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If the editor refuses to discuss the edits or be part of a consensus, an option might be to request semi-protection. --neon white talk 04:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly quite an uncivil remark. I think the best place to pursue dispute resolution is at Talk:Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Discussing with an IP editor can be problematic - you never know, from one day to the next, if they're still at the same address. Keeping discussions at the article talk page gives everyone a central, persistent venue, and it makes consensus easy to see for every editor of that article. Now, consensus can be established whether or not this particular editor is willing to discuss matters, and if they continue to revert against consensus, they can be blocked for disruption (or the article semi-protected). But I think it's a little early to ask for either of those sanctions just yet. Open a talk page discussion, be polite, cite wikipedia policies if you know them, and see what develops. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Already at WP:AN

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

User:Malcolm Schosha's comments at Talk:Gilad Atzmon (on me and others) are wearying me. Am I too thin-skinned, or can somebody have a word? Rd232 ^talk 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I know this complaint is here is because I have this board on my watch list. There was no notification. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the comments at Talk:Gilad Atzmon, it seems that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black (or for those unfamiliar with that saying, it means that each editor is as much at fault as the other). RD232, my advice is that next time you wish to file a Wikiquette alert, please provide diffs to highlight the behaviour you wish to highlight, and please follow procedure by notifying the other involved parties. I can find no breach of policy. I recommend that this complaint is closed. --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not following procedure, I wasn't aware of it and I thought this board was like most others (NPOV board, BLP etc). And I don't want to argue with you, but I'm surprised by your "pot/kettle" comment. Also diffs weren't relevant as I was pointing at the Talk page, not talking about article edits. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this is a superlative example of an aggressively trivial matter heating up as a result of the tenor of engagement between editors. On content, all editors need to be aware of our BLP rules and be sensitive to them. Otherwise the disputed material will likely be eliminated. As for the exchange at the article's WT, I would encourage all involved editors to cogitate over the disconnect between the risibly insignificant issue at hand (barbed trifles from obscure dark corners of the web over a saxophonists views on the middle east, oh yea!!) and the ridiculous level of heat being generated by this disagreement. Disengagement for a period from all sides would be salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quite - it's the usual POV-warring over Israel matters which is annoying but Wikipedia SOP for that topic (I don't normally touch it with a bargepole), carried over into the BLP of a Jewish anti-Zionist jazz musician who's got strong views on the subject and is being misrepresented as a Jew-hater, anti-semite, etc. I only got involved because of the WP:BLPN post, and now I basically wish I hadn't. Let the POV-warriors libel him, if it gets in the news, at least I tried. Rd232 ^talk 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 has been forum shopping. He is also dragging his POV on the article into discussion on this board, which I think is inappropriate. There is an editing dispute, which means that eventually there will have to be a compromise. It is a normal situation for this type of disputed article. Actually, I think it is better than the average article with Israel/Palestine issues. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't hear you complaining when THF forum shopped to Wikiprojects Israel and Judaism. But me responding by posting to Wikiproject Biography (plus an RFC), ooh I'm a POV warrior me, clap me in irons and haul me away guv. And the post here was about your behaviour, not the article content. Rd232 ^talk 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How could I complain about that when I was not even editing the article at that time?

On the other hand I did make significant changes to make the lead more neutral. I also proposed removing most of the content critical of Atzmon here, and you gave me no support at all. So the suggestion got shot down. It was what you said you wanted done, but you ignored it. Now you are here complaining that the article is not the way you want it, even though the place to argue content is in the article talk page, not Wikiquette. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot I did also post today to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. Just trying to get more (hopefully neutral, I know Malcolm doesn't believe me but I really don't know what to do about that) eyes on it, because I'd really like to drop this thing from my watchlist, it's really starting to tick me off. PS Malcolm you still haven't bothered to apologise for effectively calling me an anti-semite over your misreading a comment of mine. (I'm not counting your non-apology response "I was criticising the quote" BS - quotes don't have COIs.) Rd232 ^talk 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, give a diff and we shall see. The issue was a quote from Atzmon that I thought was written by Rd232. So I said I was sorry about the mistake. But the problem was that Rd232 thought Atzmon's antisemitic statement was perfectly ok....so how much should I apologize for? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NB: I added my last edit (it seems) just ahead of its being closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs)

NB: Not according to the article history :-) Besides, you of all people knew it was closed because it was already at AN (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the NB to explain. But if you think I am in error, feel free to remove my last edit. It not a bid deal to me. (Sorry about forgetting to sign.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that the dispute being on another AN mattered here. That is news to me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, you know the smiley face means it's not a big issue ... besides, you know me well enough by now. You've also seen this page enough to know we don't duplicate efforts from another resolution forum (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is elsewhere (several elsewheres, not sure which one BMW means), but it's this sort of thing that made me post here: Malcolm claims bluntly above (last item in the closed section) "the problem was that Rd232 thought Atzmon's antisemitic statement was perfectly ok". So not only has he not apologized properly for his misunderstanding which led to him calling me an anti-semite (I don't call this a proper apology for this and this in response to this comment of mine) but he's repeating the same egregious falsehood. As substantial discussion immediately after this exchange shows, I was arguing that on a careful reading of the entire paragraph Atzmon's statement was not anti-semitic, not that it was anti-semitic and that that's AOK. Others disagreed as to whether it was anti-semitic, but that's not relevant in regard to Malcolm's egregious mischaracterisation of my views. Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You reported it at WP:AN as you already noted ... forum-shopping (looking for a "more neutral" opinion because you didn't like the first one is considered disruptive... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful; I know forum-shopping is bad and I didn't do it in response to getting input I didn't like. As noted, another user had already forum-shopped at non-neutral venues (unlike me) so it's extremely hard to say where the new commenters (mostly supporting me) have come from. And I don't appreciate the scare quotes around "more neutral". You're treating me as a POV-warrior and I don't like it. As noted, I came to the article from the BLP issues raised at WP:BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 00:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have no horse in this race - procedurally, you're out of line by opening this WQA. It's closed because of that. Do not ever accuse neutral personnel with treating you like anything. Don't play the "he did it first" because that's not the issue. I am going to move the CLOSE brackets here - go back to AN unless the editor in question begins new incivility, at which point I will investigate deeper, but there are only so many volunteers helping on Wikipedia - duplicating someone else's work takes time away from what we're supposed to be doing: editing articles. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, sorry. Rd232 ^talk 12:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Being accused of vandalism

Resolved

I'm trying to remove a large amount of promotional text which breaches multiple wikipedia policies. My edit has been classed as vandalism by User:Kingpin13. Given the time they've had to reconsider, I think that's bad faith and a breach of civility. The end result of this is that they have successfully prevented me from editing, which I believe is a breach of Wikipedia ethos.

Conversation [40] Edit history [41]

Thanks 212.84.103.183 (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've just left a note on your talk page. Sorry about the time it took me, I was expecting you to reply on my talk page. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, resolved AFAIC. Now to do battle with Cluebot :-( 212.84.103.183 (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:BobaFett85

Hi. Would it be possible to have a warning issued to User:BobaFett85 regarding his repeated lack of civility and personal attacks? It's fairly clear that nothing I say will have any effect.

"Hehehe, listen buddy don't try being all high and mighty on me,"[42]

"Listen man, I realy have no idea what your problem is,"[43]

"For God's sake are you listening anything I say?!"[44]

"Listen, I'm going to say this now and for the last time and get it through that thick skull of yours."[45]

"Now listen to me realy carefull,"[46]

"I know that there is a rule here on Wikipedia about insulting other editors and I have never insulted anyone who didn't deserve it, but I am just going to say it. Anonymous Canadian user - You realy are an ASS!"[47]

Thanks. 76.68.251.162 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

4 & 6 are incivil, the others are borderline. But i think a reminder about discussing civily is in order which i see has already been done. I also urge both editor to pursue further dispute resolution with regards to the content dispute. --neon white talk 05:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Being called "an anonymous Canadian" is not that insulting :-) ! Being called an "ass" is indeed the only uncivil statement above, and neon has warned. I recommend the use of a userid in order to actually give you more anonymity. I would also be careful to not escalate issues, and follow the policies of Wikipedia - once you have a userid, let me know what it is and I will give you a nice menu of policy links! (PS: was BobaFett advised of this WQA filing?) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify a warning had already been issued by another editor almost at the same time this was filed. Not sure what the editor's involvement is but it seems to refer to recent personal attacks so i just added a small line asking them to persue further DR with regards to the dispute rather than resorting to PAs. --neon white talk 06:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer

Quite frankly, I have had it with this guy. He has reverted every major edit I have made to the List of wars and disasters by death toll page over the last two years. PBS continually comes up with new reasons why he thinks certain sections of the article are WP:OR or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Negotiation or compromise appears to be impossible - he doesn't seem to know how, he just endlessly repeats his own POV with minor variations while continually reverting back to his own preferred version. It's like talking to a brick wall. I have pretty much given up trying to negotiate with him because I suspect he is no longer reverting for rational reasons but only because he is determined to win the dispute.

I did outline the basic parameters of the dispute at the OR noticeboard but got no response. Meanwhile Philip just keeps up his reversions. Please somebody help me resolve this dispute because I have run out of ideas on how to do so myself. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing here if anyone would like to contribute. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. This board is for etiquette issues only so i think other boards might be more appropriate, possibly ask for a third opinion or comment at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --neon white talk 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think there's a behavioural issue when someone continues to revert to his preferred version in the face of opposition, in an attempt to impose his will on the page by force rather than persuasion. I also think that when one's every suggestion or attempt at compromise is rejected out of hand over a long period of time, one is entitled to a little paranoia. However, I have no desire to personalize this dispute or any other. As someone observes below, I have simply become exasperated by the situation. Also, please note that I took this to the OR noticeboard first, but got no response. I was hoping to at least get more eyes on the page by bringing the issue here, but it appears it's the kind of thing no-one wants to get involved in. I guess if Philip and I cannot come to some sort of agreement over the next few days, the next step is mediation. Thankyou for your suggestions. Gatoclass (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that, I'd ask Gatoclass to be wary of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. "I have had it with this guy" sounds very hostile! Computerjoe's talk 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds more like exasperation than anything even remotely hostile. - Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with that comment either. --neon white talk 05:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• This editor (PBS) has generated similar conflict by his actions at several venues such as Big Ben, WP:BOTANY and WP:PRESERVE. I share his POV on some of these issues but his manner of pursuing them seems too willful and his unbending attitude tends to generate conflict and fury of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue with administrator User:Orderinchaos

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – No incivility; if it is to be escalated, try the reliable sources noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had an issue with this administrator as seen here. It seems that when I reach a point in a debate where there is nowhere left for this administrator to turn, he lashes out at me. This is not the first occasion he has used the same lines against me. He says I am arguing for the point of it and creating spot fires. Nobody likes to debate more than they need to. I don't want the debate to go on, I want the outcome. And now I am being accused of a lack of content development which I find very offensive given my editing history, and nothing to do with the content dispute occurring.

I am opting out of this particular argument, because I actually do have better things to do, and I'm pretty convinced you are just arguing for the sake of it. Even Antony Green himself does not maintain the ABC Elections is a reliable source in the sense we mean - it's an information resource for the benefit of the general public and has some predictive capacity at a point when little information is available in the initial stages of counting - so you're actually trying to argue something he isn't. Seriously, get into some content development sometime, instead of bickering over minor points and starting random spot fires in an attempt to prove other ones. Much better use of your time, and mine. Orderinchaos 06:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this attitude very unbecoming of an administrator. This is the standard reaction given when there is nowhere left for the administrator to turn as far as content disputes and debates over policy go. Admittedly that is my own point of view. These run-ins do not happen all that often but when they do, and I feel as though i'm the one in the right, the admin flies off the handles. I would appreciate some feedback on this. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Read "ex-personal friend who got tired of his bullshit" for "administrator" and the above starts making a lot more sense. Timeshift9 has a knack for attracting drama - a look over his editing contributions, while revealing some good work, also reveals a disproportionate amount of attacking, point scoring and generally aggressive behaviour, especially in the Australian political arena - usually over decidedly non-political issues, such as image placement, the use of a particular source or even word usage. Most of his disputes have not been with myself. His block log is an interesting read.

For most of the last two or more years, since I first met him at the FAC for the South Australian state election, 2006 article in January or February 2007 and helped Timeshift9 and SandyGeorgia drag it over the line into FA territory, we have been personal friends on MSN/email/phone. He and I have trusted each other to a significant level at times - stuff about relationships, personal anxieties, jobs, studies and all the sorts of things that friends discuss. On Wikipedia, while I firmly maintain an independent line in the sense that I only support things on objective grounds, I've more often than not defended him when I've felt that he's making a reasonable point to the point where, as recently as November, I was accused of being a sockpuppet of Timeshift9. Someone even made a big noise about that at Wikipedia Review. When people have been trying to delete images he has uploaded, I have vociferously defended them, too, when I feel they are useful to the subject (I have abstained when I can't support, on the general belief, which I think Timeshift9 would share, that the enforcement of fair use is getting insane on WP at present).

I've also variously been accused of being in a cabal with him, or of even enabling his behaviour. Certain users on the other side of the political spectrum from both of us would be able to attest to the fact I have defended him offline as well. [48] is but one example of such - I'm sure others could find many, many other examples.

However, over time, it has become clear to me that the style has come to overwhelm the substance. It has, unfortunately, got worse rather than better with time, and numerous Australian admins and users who are generally considered trustworthy on the project refuse point blank to deal with him, and the words "aggressive" and "uncooperative" (among others) have been used in description of him to me many times, both before and after our offline friendship ceased in January 2009. I have had hardly anything to do with him since that time - in fact, the current debate, where he effected his usual style of starting a debate in one place, then moving it to an unrelated place when not getting his way, is I think only the second time we have interacted since. I would much rather it stay that way, as I have a busy offline life and like to spend my time on Wikipedia dealing with stuff I can achieve with, as one can see from my own recent contributions history. Orderinchaos 07:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i don't think your comments are particularly incivil, i think the best advice if you feel this way about an editor is not to get involved. --neon white talk 07:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I admit that my annoyance overtook my good sense in the quotation of me that TS raised above in the original post. The only reason we have engaged at all is that the Queensland election article, of which I have over recent days been one of the two or three principal updaters, has become his current focus of attention with regards to whether it should be said that the Greens lost a seat, or whether they never held it in the first place from the point of view of calculating gains and losses. It was an interesting point, and I was initially prepared to concede it even though I didn't feel it to be right (see the QSE talk page), but when others came in with a broadly similar point of view I thought the matter closed. Then it shifted to the project talk page, which I only noticed when two people emailed me to let me know I had been namedropped (and, in fact, misquoted). Orderinchaos 07:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, you were warned about this particular matter several months ago. And only now you decide to take issue with it? I suppose reality is hard to deal with when it slaps one in the face. Remember, you helped create the monster. Shot info (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with it in parts, I won't deny you have a point there. I'm capable of admitting my errors. Orderinchaos 07:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please try to stay on-subject OIC. None of your response relates to the issues i've raised. I did not move the debate to another place, you were the one to come there and restart the discussion there. I simply stated to the User:Frickeg that the ABC's Antony Green is not a WP:RS according to your (an admin's) criteria - anyone who reads it will see I did not make any attempt to move the debate there. Your long post was the first post there to mention the ABC elections site. I have been civil and debated the issue in regards to this content/wikipedia policy dispute, you were civil and debated the issue until you turned to being uncivil and debating me rather than the issue. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This Antony Green argument is actually a clear diversion - it's your attempt to impose your particular point of view on an article, namely, Queensland state election, 2009. When you don't get your way arguing the actual point re the -1 on the Greens (the three main contributors across the Australian political project have all disagreed with you, for different reasons), you start trying to turn the thing inside out and find minute inconsistencies in unrelated issues, per WP:POINT, in what the words say, and then try to abstract a meaning which is not within the words with a view to re-establishing your original point (or tiring your opponents out so they give up). I've seen you do this time and time again, both offline and online, and I came to the conclusion a long time ago you just like arguing a lot. Anyone who follows the chain of your contribs over the last 12-24 hours can see the pattern emerging - I'm not making an indefensible allegation here. Orderinchaos 07:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Points made by sides in a debate are debated in attempts to come to an agreement. The sticking point between you and me is whether ABC elections is a WP:RS. You really need to stop playing the man. Nobody likes to debate more than is needed. I continue to take offense to your accusations that I like to argue. Who likes to argue? The debate got to a point where I caught you on a contradiction, and you then proceeded to turn away from the debate and attack me, which is what you often do. Anyone else would have said, yes, there is a contradiction there (re different Antony publications, both non peer reviewed, but one RS and one not?), and retract what they said, in attempts to continue a good faith and civil debate on a point of disagreement in an article. It seems you are not interested in this, rather you are interested in making accusations against me. I'm off for the weekend, try to stop attacking me please and concentrate on the point of contention. Timeshift (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I assure you I will not be concentrating on it - I have much more interesting and important things to worry about. Orderinchaos 08:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil in the original post by OiC. There is also no public attacks. What I read is frustration and annoyance. Indeed, walking away from the discussion was probably the right thing for OiC to do whether as an editor, or as an admin (indeed, as an admin, they took NO ADMIN ACTION in a conflagration that they were involved with - the CORRECT and ADMIRABLE way to handle it). Your issue is therefore about an EDITOR and not an ADMIN. If you want to discuss reliable sources, head on over to WP:RSN. If you want to take a behaviour complaint further, your next step is request for comment as there is nothing blockable, de-sysoppable, or even mildly actionable here (indeed, I highly recommend RFC, as BOTH the actions of both parties will be scrutinized, and the community will make a decision, and this clash will be over once and for all). To start this section with "issue with admin" and then list nothing that was a violation of admin tools, priviliges, or even the "spirit" of action we expect from admins was misleading. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. There is simply no issue of incivility here whatsoever. This should be closed as a non-issue. Eusebeus (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur that there is no civility issue to address, and recommend that it goes to the reliable sources noticeboard, if this dispute is to be escalated any further. But, I disagree with some other points raised by BMW; RfC/U would be inappropriate here in the face of clear conclusions that there is no conduct issue, and the lack of attempts at dispute resolution over the actual content issue. Further, the suggestion that there must be an admin action in order to warrant questioning administrator status is a noble dream; admins are elected on the basis that they can reasonably maintain basic standards of conduct, and should they fall short of those standards, then it's legitimate to question whether they should continue to use their tools in the face of their issues. However, this is more of an academic debate, given my first sentence with regards to the actual complaint filed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hateful edit summary by User:Shiham K

Undid my edit using the following edit summary [49]. Gross violation of civility. This user needs to be taught a lesson in manners. --Athenean (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that that's highly uncivil. I'm not sure that saying he 'needs to be taught a lesson in manners' will do your own case or image much good, alas. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, but still, I think a civility warning for this individual is definitely in order. I have never come across such behavior before, and I've been editing wikipedia for a while. --Athenean (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notified user of this alert. Please note when filing a complaint, you should notify all involved parties of the complaint on their talk page. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do in the future. --Athenean (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the remark is very offensive; since it was used as the edit summary of a revert, it is difficult to imagine it being directed at anyone other than the editor being reverted. I am inclined to issue have given a warning to the user. I hope that there won't be any repeat of this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you. --Athenean (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some doubts that the remark was intended as uncivil. I think it might mean something like "it is necessary to have people who clean things". (A hamam is a Turkish bath, and a tellak is an attendant who scrubs and massages the visitors.) Since Shiham K is Turkish and as I understand all Turks visit Turkish baths, I can't quite see how this could have been intended as an insult. But of course I might be missing something. Looie496 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the tellak article, you'll see that he's effectively calling the other user a whore. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kids In Need Foundation

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

A new editor, user:Buhealex01 is having difficulty with maintainging a neutral point of view with article Kids In Need Foundation. Discussion to date can be found at Talk:Kids In Need Foundation. I, user:whpq, am the oly other involved editor. -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you post some diff's where incivility or public attacks have occurred? If this is a content dispute, the you might need to look for a neutral content opinion instead. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted here based on "Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies" and the otjher editor being a new editor. But the dispute is primarily over neutrality of article content. If you feel this is better placed at WP:THIRD, I'll take it there. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is supposed to refer to WP:etiquette and WP:civility policies only. Possibly needs clarying. Either WP:30 as suggested or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might work. --neon white talk 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see I've misinterpreted. I think this probably makes most sense at NPOV noteiceboard, but I think I'll take another stab at it via discussion before taking it there. Thanks, and please consider this matter resolved. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism and unjustified threat

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – A warning of some variety was warranted, however, the discussion continues elsewhere

I have received the following message on my talk page:

March 2009 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Ting Tings, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop trying to push your image into this article. It is not relevant to the "early years" section. If you continue to re-add it without discussion, you will be blocked for vandalism. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 12:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I placed the photograph of Katie White next to her name, which is an appropriate place for such a photograph. I consider that my behaviour does not meet the definition of vandalism and does not merit the imposition of a threat, which has made me feel harassed and bullied on this website. I would like this matter to be investigated and the allegation and threat to be formally withdrawn. For further information, I have now moved the photograph further down the page in response to this message which the author could have done himself if he was unhappy about the positioning of the picture, rather than deleting it entirely. Please let me know if any further details are required. Holly har (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now received a further allegation of edit warring from the same person who has not withdrawn his previous allegations and threat. It is clear that I was not engaging in this activity and this further allegation has further added to my feeling of being harassed and bullied on this site. I would request that this be withdrawn as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly har (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the accusation was improper. I will warn the editor in question. Any editor can "warn" anyone for anything, and some editors are unfortunately clumsy in handling such matters. Others try to place fake warnings as intimidation. I don't know the thought process involved, but we should always assume it was well intentioned. Even if well intentioned it was clearly wrong.

Your actions could, however, be described as edit warring. Of course so could the actions of the person who "warned" you about it. I'll point that out to them as well.

Resolving disputes means sometimes you just have to ignore people and let the past be the past. You probably won't get a formal apology, but if the improper warnings cease then you should count that as a victory. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add to what DreamGuy said; both "sides" in this have been edit warring, which means continually reverting one another. This is a blockable offense, even if you are technically not violating the three revert rule. It is, of course, blockable for both sides as it takes two (or more) to edit war. Next time someone objects to an addition to an article by reverting you, do NOT revert them, but instead ask why they disagree with your addition on the talk page. The WP:BRD essay has some helpful pointers on this issue. Edit warring will usually lead to flashes of temper, which is exactly why it should be avoided. Whenever you are reverted, stop and ask "what harm will come of leaving this version as is until the discussion is over?" If it is an issue such as wording or the placement of an image, the answer is none, so discuss, don't revert. Again, I agree with DreamGuy about the vandalism accusation, and agree with his warning to that editor, but edit warring is not acceptable. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To avoid this discussion getting fragmented, I've replied here. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:EmilJ

User added an unsourced news item to Portal:Current events/2009 April 1 which I removed because current event guidelines state "Only list items with news sources; stories without links will be removed." EmilJ then reverted my edit and added a source but said this in the edit summary "OMFG, so find one if you want one, or just read the bloody NATO article" [50]. I have attempted to explain on EmilJ's talk page that he should use a civil tone and assume good faith. Tomdobb (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

After notifying EmilJ of wikiquette alert, he accused me of bullying other editors.[51] Tomdobb (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no real public attack, except perhaps them suggesting you were being a bully. Although the editor in question doesn't fully understand policy, especially as it relates to current events and verifiability, it's better to teach than further scold a fairly inexperienced editor in this case, I believe. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly call a user with a few thousand edits dating back to 2004 an inexperienced editor. Tomdobb (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tnaniua

This user has been engaged in content disputes at various Korea-related articles, including Developed country, Goguryeo and Balhae. Unfortunately, he has repeatedly characterized edits that go against his point of view as "vandalism" [52][53][54] [55][56] and in some cases, has (incorrectly) reported them at WP:AIV [57][58] [59]. Spacepotato (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Tnaniua's page to cease the edit warring and calling good-faith edits vandalism. If he continues, you should report him to WP:ANI as a block will be in order. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:R. fiend

This name calling was uncalled for [[60]]. Also his third revert.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, you are clearly both engaged in edit warring. This must cease at once. If two editors find themselves in conflict, they should seek consensus. Ask for an opinion from WP:3O or initiate an WP:RFC, but don't revert war. Secondly, yes, calling someone a moron in gross incivility and is not acceptable. Childish insults and name-calling are all well and good on a playground, but this is an encyclopedia. So, both of you cut the edit war, and let the article stand as is while you try to seek consensus on this issue, and please, no more name calling. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the notice board for incivility. Edit Warring is when there is a violation of 3RR, which I have not violated.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, edit warring is any reverting and counter-reverting of edits, it doesnt necessarily need to breach the 3RR and blocks can be issued regardless. "3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) --neon white talk 08:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to edit-war to insert a picture of Barack Obama to illustrate "cult of personality", you need to be ready to put up with some hostility. Looie496 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility requires that all editors are treated with respect and good faith is assumed regardless of their views. An editor should be prepared to explain why the picture is necessarily on the talk page but should not be "ready to put up with some hostility". --neon white talk 08:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton, your previous edit summary was "Can't prove it, but you revert, like you own the article", which is uncivil its own right, as accusing of ownership in this situation was intended as an insult. Although "moron" is often uncivil, "prove that you're not a moron" does not indeed call you a moron. This appears to be a tit-for-tat commentary in the middle of an unencyclopedic edit war by two disagreeing editors whose passions had inflamed. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Using that logic, then just about anything can be considered an uncivil personnal attack--Jojhutton (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Neon and Bwilkins can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think the point we are all trying to make to you is that you have both engaged in behavior that is not constructive, including multiple reverts and edit summaries that are not actually a summary of your edits but rather personal comments to one another. The discussion on the talk page makes it clear that you two are not going to agree on this point, meaning that more input was needed. I went ahead and filed a request at WP:3O and there has been a response. If that isn't enough to solve this, you can initiate an RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that User:R. fiend is acting uncivilly on Talk:As I Lay Dying ([61], [62]) his unconstructive swearing is unneeded nor is it appropriate. And so far, he has not expressed any intent on stopping this uncivil behavior. Also, this behavior is not new, in fact, they were once an admin but due to civility issues they resigned at their own request during a request for arbitration. Jerry teps (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More inappropriate comments, [63], [64], [65], [66], plus many more which I feel would be nit picking if I included them. Jerry teps (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper

Stuck

 – User advised and no additional commentary seems fruitful

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

The matter arises from conflict at WP:DICDEF. This user described a good faith edit of mine as vandalism. (diff). I asked him to retract at his talk page and he continues to develop his incivility. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, and I find this regretable to say, but it's an accurate characterisation. A vandal is one that vandalises. Note that he changed a policy page without any discussion at the time, while claiming that it had been agreed and discussed. He only changed one tiny part of the wikipedia's policies, and left all the other references to it being a policy dangling and unchanged. I consider this to be self-evidently an attack on the wikipedia, and given the deception involved, this can only really be considered vandalism. As the policy says:- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The facts of the matter are not as Wolfkeeper states. The edit which he describes as vandalism was accompanied by postings to the corresponding talk page immediately before and after the edit. (diff, diff, diff) Colonel Warden (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case really; none of those are a proper discussion of a change to the policy at all.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While the term "vandalism" may not b technically accurate, User:Colonel Warden's edits were clearly disruptive and intending to take a fight he's been having in multiple locations to the page describing why what he was doing was wrong to change it to justify this action. A lot of these pages are unfortunately not watched very well, and a couple of people can end up distorting longstanding policy just by stealth edits (if successful) and edit warring/tag teaming (if necessary) and then try to use that as an excuse to ignore policy. I've seen a lot of similar disturbing edits on lots of similar pages. While the vandalism accusation is regrettable, this whole report (and a number of other such actions the complaining editor has made over the years) seems nothing more than an attempt at WP:Civil POV pushing. Demanding a retraction for a relatively minor infraction under threat of escalating disputes is not a good faith attempt to resolve situations, it's an attempt to egg fights on for self-serving purposes. The editor in question also typically demand retractions for actions that aren't infractions at all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The long history of DreamGuy's incivility is currently under discussion elsewhere so we should not digress. The salient point here is that even DreamGuy acknowledges that Wolfkeeper is at fault. Our policy on the matter states that it is non-negotiable and so Wolfkeeper should please cease his self-justification and retract. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with both DreamGuy and Colonel Warden. "Vandalism" is a very serious accusation and involves the vandal's bad faith. Colonel Warden might have been disruptive, but I haven't looked into the matter nor will I since that is beside the point of this WQA. If his actions were done in good faith then they weren't vandalism per se. I think the cry of "vandalism" should be taken back and friendly discussion resumed on the article's talk page per the BRD procedure. ThemFromSpace 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the subject line, it's clearly in bad faith, since there was no such discussion on the talk page for months.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And given that it was bad faith you simply have to consider whether it is an attack on the wikipedia. Is changing the very first policy on WP:ISNOT into a guideline not an attack on the wikipedia? I say yes, of course. If that edit had been left there for longer it could have actually been considered a legitimate change to the wikipedia's policy, away from being an encyclopedia. It would actually constitute consensus..- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Any way you cut it, it's a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the wikipedia. There may be people out there right now that really do think that that policy is only a guideline, because that's what it said, and they don't have to follow it. This really is a vandalism.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is becoming apparent that you have issues with assuming good faith. However controversial an edit may be, please assume that it was done to improve the encyclopedia. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this was done in bad faith. My advice to Colonel Warden is that the change the status of a page really needs a consenus with wide community participation. --neon white talk 05:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Just for the record the vandalising edit is: [67] and the state of the talk page at the time was: [68]. If you read the talk page as I did before reverting the vandalisation, you find there is no significant active discussion at all; and the subject line (reduce to guideline status per talk) is, not to put too fine a point on it, a deliberate deception. I also remind you that I am not forced to maintain good faith when there is clear evidence of wrong doing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of vandalism or bad faith in that edit. Calling something vandalism assumes bad faith. I advise you to stop using the term in relation to this dispute and stop the bad faith accusations. Neither are helpful to the project. Read Wikipedia:VANDALISM#How not to respond to vandalism. The discussion is not necessarily on the articles talk page we need to wait until Colonel Warden clarifies this. Until then we assume good faith and as you have no strong evidence of disruptive editing it is required. --neon white talk 05:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong there had been no discussion to see on the talk page for months, there had been no proposal to change it, no polling, nothing. The subject line stated that it had been discussed, but there was nothing to see on the talk page at all. That makes the subject line an actual deception; a lie.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"The discussion is not necessarily on the articles talk page". Discussions about policies and guidelines require wide consensus, it's possible it may have been discussed at the village pump. --neon white talk 07:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• User:Wolfkeeper again misrepresents the facts. The edit summary for my edit was reduce to guideline status per talk. This accurately describes the edit made and indicates that more is said about the matter on the talk page. This is fully compliant with the advice given at WP:FIES. And, as I made corresponding posts on the talk page, there was no deception. If I had instead said something like "per consensus" then Wolfkeeper might have a point but I did not. The matter in question has been under discussion for over a year now and there are other editors who support my general position. User:Wolfkeeper seems to have a contrary position on the matter and his language seems to poison the well rather than helping us to arrive at a good consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any proposal to change the pages status. Can you proved diffs? Ultimately, good faith should ahve been assumed and as suggested above, accusing another editor of vandalism is not recommended. --neon white talk 12:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I started some discussion on the matter but that fizzled out inconclusively. I returned to the matter and took action as it seemed that there was no consensus for the policy. No-one responded to my action or talk for many weeks until Wolfkeeper reverted. I take the position that this page does not work in practise as a policy and that too few editors participate in discussions about it for it to represent community consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although this has nothing to do with the etiquette issues, the article seems to have been policy for at least 4 years now so it is well established and any downgrading of this really needs a community wide consensus. I'm not sure whether you need to go to the village pump as you would to establish a new policy but it's probably advisable. --neon white talk 12:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy is not well-established - this is where I came in. I tried centralised discussion but this attracted few editors. Compare with the original elevation to policy. This seems to have been a drive-by categorisation by an editor based upon his personal opinion. He did not engage in talk and does not seem to have been following any community mandate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4 years seems well established to me. Have you look in the village pump archives to see if it's status was discussed? Either way any major change needs wide consensus however long it takes. --neon white talk 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see our editing policy which was equally long in the tooth but which has become quite a football lately. There is, in practise, no bar to any editor creating or amending any policy and quite a lot of this goes on. I have myself amended other policies. Some changes pass without comment while others are contested and so it goes. In any case, none of this is vandalism/incivility, which is our topic here. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing the wording of a policy or guideline is very different to changing the status of it. You cannot simply create your own policies it needs community consensus and i would think the opposite would too. I have alreay stated that i believe the edit to be in good faith but now you must go back to discussion per Wikipedia:BRD. --neon white talk 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SILENCE which seems applicable to this case. Your reference to WP:BRD is correct but note that this has been followed in this case as I did not edit-war over the change, which took place some months ago, and have started and engaged in much discussion before and since. My actions have been quite restrained and so do not warrant the outrageous incivility and threats which User:Wolfkeeper continues to make. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, carry on lying in your subject lines about non existent consensus, and you'll find that there is indeed a bar for amending policy, the one where you get barred for repeated violation of editing privileges.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Posted a warning on User about assuming good faith as this editor continues to make bad faith accusations. --neon white talk 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is not even close to vandalism (but I don't think the accusation is worth Wiki-alerting about, either.) --Boston (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The major problem is that this editor is unwilling to accept that this is not acceptable under civility policy. Colonel Warden has explained his actions and they seem quite reasonable and done in good faith as far as i can see. Despite it being explained that the edit was not vandalism and therefore the accusation was not appropraite and good faith should have been assumed, Wolfkeeper has continued not only with the accusations, including the one above ("lying in your subject lines"), but also is misrepresenting Colonel Warden's actions (Colonel Warden has never claimed there was a consensus for the edit). An editor with the preconceived idea that anyone who makes an edit he/she doesn't like is a 'vandal' and a 'liar' is only going to cause disruption. --neon white talk 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I try to keep to main space and out of "complain space" but I recognize User:Wolfkeeper from the latter nevertheless. You are both correct in that this user won't just let it rest at an accusation of "vandal" and then move onto something else. This user will keep disrupting Wikipedia with shouting, bluster, threats, accusations, etc. User:Wolfkeeper says below "I've said all I'm going to say". I wonder how many hours that will last. --Boston (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• 3.1 :) Colonel Warden (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related topic, it's crystal clear that neither of you are assuming good faith on my part, and if this behaviour continues I will raise a wiki-etiquette alert on both of you.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• User:Wolfkeeper threatens to have me sanctioned for the action which he misrepresents as vandalism. His user page declares that his hobby is getting vandals banned. I tended to shrug off such vexatious threats from other editors in the past but find that this results in increasing impudence and so I now try seeking dispute resolution to see if that works better. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to enter into that, and I've said all I'm going to say.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears that Wolfkeeper is suffering from WP:IDHT. He is refusing to get the point. Colonel Warden clarified above that his comment "as per talk" did NOT mean there was consensus on the talk page, but rather that he was explaining his action on the talk page. That is perfectly normal, correct and uncontroversial usage of the phrase "as per talk." As noted above, if he had said "as per consensus on talk" or some such, that would be deceptive and dishonest. This was not vandalism. Continuing to characterize it as such is disruptive. I also would note that it would be a bad idea to raise a retaliatory WQA or other such complaint and I, as an uninvolved third party, believe the scrutiny would be focused on your behavior, as it has been less than stellar. Just to prevent accusations of supporting Warden because I agree with him, I in fact don't think that policy downgrading was a good idea, I don't agree with it and think he should have opened a RFC or some such before taking action, but do NOT think his action was disruptive, and it certainly was not vandalism. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Anon 86.25.18*.* contentious editing and misleading edit summaries at History of Terrorism

Some of the IPs are:

• 86.25.182.135
• 86.25.183.157
• 86.25.180.130
• 86.25.183.212

And possibly others. He has repeatedly accused me and other editors of vandalism for putting tags on a the article that at least one uninvolved reviewer said had merit. I have tried several times in the talk page to ask him or her to not use misleading edit summaries, to engage in substantial debate, and to refrain from personal attacks against me and other editors.

I will provide diffs if requested, but the recent history and the talk page (including the recent archive) speak for themselves. Accusing other editors in an content dispute of vandalism doesn't strike me as productive, in particular when good faith attempts at discussing the matters are subjected to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT refusals and personal attacks over substantive arguments.

There are other issues that make editing in good faith or develop any consensus hard, but this is the main one.

A secondary one is that these IPs might be bad-hand sockpuppets of an otherwise registered editor, but I would ask uninvolved admins to opine on this matter. The editor in question has had a low level of activity in this topic, but there is weak evidence to support the claim. I will not name the editor until further comment. I will also refrain from editing until this is either resolved or further dispute resolution is required. --Cerejota (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerekota is the only person ignoring other editors i have posted on their talkpage and the userpage asking cerejota to defend specific points of the tags, which cerejota ignores please examine the talk page its archive and cerejota own talkpage, where you will also notice the previous incidents with cerejota that lead to them being blocked.

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect some to offer justification for the tags they add, particularly when challenged they remove about half of those they initially added then will not respond to questions about the rest.

as for sockpuppets I do find it funny that the only editor that "agrees" who's notable for several POV pushes turned up not long before you "Haberstr" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.24 (talk • contribs) 16:41, March 24, 2009

I would suggest requesting semi-protection from RPP (surprised it isn't protected already due to the controversial nature of the topic). Once that is in place, the IP will be forced to either discuss it on the talk page, create an account and have a single "user" to deal with rather than a dynamic IP, or just walk away from the article if he is not willing to discuss it. The Seeker 4 Talk 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? wikipedia supposed to be open encyclopedia, and before cerejota and haberstr we've never had a problem with vandalism, i have worked on the article consistently and discriminating against those who chose not to have IPs as you do above is a breach of wikiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.24 (talk • contribs) 16:41, March 24, 2009

I agree with semi, but the issue is that s/he does post in talk, usually with personal attacks or plain ad hominems, addressing the editors and not the content. Could an uninvolved party consider doing the RPP? I do not want to seem as I am trying to gain an edge on an editing dispute by silencing an anon.--Cerejota (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota you are the only person not address content as that is ALL ANYONE HAS ASKED YOU TO DO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.24 (talk • contribs) 16:41, March 24, 2009

I have also received numerous abusive comments on the talk pages and inaccurate edit summaries casting aspersions on my good faith edits by 85.25. The record speaks for itself, I'm open to suggestions, and will push on politely. . . .Haberstr (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• The page in question is now fully protected for a few days. 86.25, please stop with the incivil tone and baseless vandalism accusations. All of you can use this time as a chance to calmly discuss these content issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

86.25.x.x, please sign your contributions. You can do so very easily by typing 4 tildes at the end of your text, and if you don't do this you present other editors with the unnecessary chore of sorting out where one comment ends and the next begins. If you intersperse your comments between contributions of other editors you should also place a separate signature at the end of each part of your comment which is separated from the others.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

86.x.x.x continues to refuse to sign his/her posts. He/she continues contentious edit warring and abusive name calling (e.g., calling other edits "vandalism" in edit comments), and now has moved on to harrassing me with the same behavior at wikipedia's "state terrorism" site. How do I ask for "semi-protection from RPP," as suggested by Seeker4 above, assuming that means protection from anonymous editors when they are abusive and so on.Haberstr (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, this is the type of behavior in that talk page: constant accusations, off-indent and unsigned talk, accusations of vandalism or policy violations etc. Now, does anyone see value on pursuing WP:SOCK? Or am I over reacting? I have serious issues with assuming good faith at this point. How to proceed?--Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon users continues with personal atatcks, and refusing to sign posts in talk.--Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Same anon user continues with personal attacks and refuses to sign posts in talk.Haberstr (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to, no rule says you have to, in fact you should check the last of the 5 pillars!

Apparently same anon using now a different address range from the same provider ( 80.5.41.89 ) has again acussed me of vandalism for placing tags, continues to not sign edits, and refuses to address substantive point of content. Please someone do something, this is really making it impossible to have substantive discussion on content, because we have to focus on this trollish behavior and lame edit warring around tagging instead of improving the article.--Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The only troll is you cerejota, you have contributed nothing to the article place tags you can't defend, evade all questioning and avoid any substantive discussion.

new in April

Apparently same anon using now a different address range from the same provider ( 80.5.41.89 ) has again acussed me of vandalism for placing tags, continues to not sign edits, and refuses to address substantive point of content. Please someone do something, this is really making it impossible to have substantive discussion on content, because we have to focus on this trollish behavior and lame edit warring around tagging instead of improving the article.--Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

all anyone wants of you cerejota is for you to MAKE A SUBSTANTIVE POINT!

After I noticed this in the talkpage, the user insists on calling this vandalism, removed the tags, and was reverted by another user. How can we proceed, this person is not being productive at all, claiming false things, and refusing to listen to substantive points being raised, arguing that "his questions are not being answered" when they in fact have been answered extensively by me and other editors. I hope someone comments soon. --Cerejota (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The only unproductive person is your cerejota, you refues to engage in any discussion on the article and are generally evasive when questioned about your fluctuating choice of tags you can't justify.

User:Gjr rodriguez

This guy is incorrectly adding templates and categories and has been told by multiple editors to stop - he continues to revert these corrections and does not care that people tell him to stop [69], calling them names in the process - most of the articles he has created are up for deletion due to lack of notability, and a number of people are getting annoyed with him at WT:BASEBALL. No baseball project admins seem to be around, so I am bringing this here. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's late here so I can't stay up to watch this, but i support an (indef or otherwise) block by whoever decides to make one. If there's no block in the morning and no objection to one I'll do it myself. Wizardman 06:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• This probably needs admin attention. Both editors are edit warring here, there is obviously a civility issue with comments made by Gjr rodriguez, however JustSomeRandomGuy32 has a previous blocks for edit warring and made a 1RR agreement [70] which, if still binding has been violated. I've ask the admin (User:Lankiveil) that issued the previous block to comment. Ultimately both editors need to discuss the edits, Gjr rodriguez - If an editor objects to your edits then stop and attempt to gain a consensus. Personal attacks will not help. JustSomeRandomGuy32 - It is simply not enough to continually revert edits saying they are wrong you also need to discuss them. --neon white talk 06:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted - asked him to stop (just check his and my talk pages....) - he said he would continue anyways because he didn't care what I said. He responded to others the same way. He doesn't care that that the template and categories he adds don't belong, even after I tried explaining them to him... I posted on the baseball project page asking for help - found another editor who reverted one edit of his to help (Gjr then insulted him as well and ignored him) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find evidence of any other editor being involved. Ultimately it's content dispute and both editors need to discuss, use further dispute resolution and refrain from reverting until a consensus is clear. A recommend a rfc at the project. If the consensus is to remove the edits and he continues to add them then go to ANI. --neon white talk 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We could nicely deal with incivility, but as you know from the top of the page, if came looking for immediate admin action via blocks, then WP:ANI is the right location (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Skywriter

Skywriter was adding OR to And you are lynching Negroes. I, along with several editors, removed the content. Instead of adding a template, I left a message on Skywriter's talk page. My message was not insulting or "preachy", but a reminder to follow WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Skywriter responded with this comment. It contains numerous insults (ex: "you don't know what the hell you are spewing about") and insinuations that I'm a racist. The worst insult is that I think the murdering of black people is a joke. (all this because I removed some OR?...apparently, it's a trend) I asked Skywriter to retract the comment, but to no avail. This user seems intent on slandering and intimidating others with insinuations of racism. My hope is that someone else can get through to her/him. Just because someone has been editing since 2005, doesn't mean they can get away with this kind of uncivil behavior. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 01:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm offended by Skywriter's statement "It is perverse that people like you believe that the lynching of black people is a joke" in relation to this debate. In the United States, accusing someone of being a racist is approximately as vile as accusing someone of being a child molester or a muderer. To make such personal attack over an editorial disagreement is reprehensible. Please note that from the talk page and the edit history that not one but six editors are in disagreement with Skywriter. --Boston (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is a lack of clue and a refusal to "get it." I don't think the user is blatantly incivil as much as he simply doesn't understand the point of the article. The "joke" is really an insult to America, meaning it isn't a "punchline" as much as it is a come-back to criticism of Communism. The Soviets held up the lynching of African Americans not as a point of humor, but rather as a source of shame for America. Skywriter needs to understand that while the lynchings are definitely racist (obviously), the subject of this article, the Russian phrase, is attacking, not joking about those racist acts. I think Skywriter will understand the point of the article better, and why his edits were inappropriate, if he understand this background. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker4, I respectfully disagree with part of your analysis. It's not just about Skywriter not "getting it" in relation to this article (note: the insinuations are taking place after more than one article dispute); it's about him/her making extremely insulting statements that go beyond normal personal attacks. I can't believe that an "established editor", especially someone who doesn't know me at all, would say I think people dying is funny. That's the most uncalled for and hurtful thing anyone has ever said to me on WP. The more I think about Skywriter's rude comments and attitude towards others, the more I realize it needs to be addressed immediately. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You very well may be right, and I am not diminishing his personal attacks. I only had this one incident to base my opinion off of after all. He may be a tenditious editor, only there to cause problems and ignore anyone else's opinions. If that is the case, he should be blocked. If he continues to fling racism charges at anyone with whom he disagrees, he should also be blocked. If, however, he realizes his misconception and apologizes for the accusations of racism, I think this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Which happens will now depend on Skywriter. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Racism is a touchy subject. Perception is a difficult thing to get over. If someone percieves that a specific statement is racist, then it takes great pains to fix that. Until then, the belief will be firmly entrenched. Therefore, anyone who defends the "awful" statement is therefore also a racist, at least until the perception is changed. This is a good example of the ABC model. Until we can show Skywriter that the article is actually not racist (as I have tried to do on their talkpage) then they will believe that any defender of the article is also racist. Change the antecedant, the behaviour will hopefully follow, leading to a new consequence. You're right however, calling someone a racist is one of the most vile and disgusting of personal attacks - let's change the "A" first. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've made some recent edits that hopefully hammer home the fact that criticism of American racism rather than "lynching Negroes, har-dee har, har har" was the original point of the phrase discussed in this article. Since Skywriter has expressed the opinion that the article itself is an "ethnic joke...told at the expense of African Americans" and has no place on Wikipeda, I'm not optimistic these edits will cure this bout of mastadonia but as Theseeker4 said, "(what) happens will now depend on Skywriter." --Boston (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Whilst there are some incivil comments here, editor expressing an opinion about an article is not in itself incivil just misinformed, i think the major issue is a misunderstanding of the project and WP:NOTCENSORED principle. Just because wikipedia contains an article on a subject it doesn't mean that the foundation or any editor endorses it. The article seems to be a russian Matthew 7:3. --neon white talk 06:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter slandering me is not the result of him/her being misinformed. It's an editor making accusations of racism in an attempt to intimidate people (several people, actually). We all have content disputes at some point, but that doesn't mean we can throw a temper tantrum and claim someone thinks people dying is funny. I might not "get" an article's content, but that doesn't mean I have the right to act the way he did. The fact he won't apologize or retract his comments is the worst part. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 14:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That has been noted but the root of the problem is the misunderstanding of what wikipedia is. --neon white talk 05:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea this critique of my editing existed until one of the combatants in this argument used it to attack me in another dispute. Let me say that if anyone examines the content and history of the article in question, And you are lynching Negroes, you will see that at its heart, this is a long-running content dispute. Proponents of keeping the "joke", which is how the phrase is described, have, over several years not provided any evidence to substantiate why it should continue as an article in an encyclopedia. There was a poll taken and it ended with the result that the issue of whether the article should be deleted should be revisited, after giving proponents of the "joke" time to add material to substantiate why it should be an article in an encyclopedia. Until I began editing this article, black people were the butt of the joke that was this article. I raised bold objections to this practice, and added material showing that lynching was a very real factor in the social and historical fabric of the United States. Before I added this material, there was nothing at all included to indicate this wretched history and after I added it, the material was repeatedly reverted as "irrelevant." I was the butt of comments indicating that I can not take or understand a "joke" such as was this article. Much of the material that I added was deleted by some of the very people who are attacking me in the lines above. I held my ground and eventually, the article changed to reflect that yes, lynching African Americans is a very real part of United States history and not merely the "joke" that the article writers demanded that it continue to be. Problems with the article continue and I worked on it recently, deleting dead links and copyediting it. My contributions to this article have been constructive; the attacks on me are unwarranted. Skywriter (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

user:cerejota

this user Has continued to behave in bad faith, and generally insult or ignore anyone who challenges him.

• NB - Per [71] this complaint by editor who has unhelpfully decided not to sign comments ("I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to, no rule says you have to") is part of this disagreement already being discussed on this page. --Boston (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Gwen Gale

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – No forum shopping please. The complaint is at WP:AN.

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

Another editor with clear prejudice against those who don't engage in the community aspect. It is essentially harassment, as can be seen by her actions on this very page.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#user:_Gwen_Gale. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• NB - This is another scattershot counter-complaint by editor who has unhelpfully decided not to sign comments ("I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to, no rule says you have to") and is being discussed above. --Boston (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to ask me or any other admin for semi-protection on mainspace pages disrupted by the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the editor "decided" not to sign? It could be the user just forgot. The real problem is it is a complaint without specifying anything, just general unhappiness with Gwen Gale. Even if there is a real problem, there is no way to know if it belongs here; and it could be the user has been forum shopping. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, in this very thread, the IP says "I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to..." The IP is not forgetting to sign. Moreover, Malcom, I suggest you think more about stopping your own highly disruptive and unhelpful behaviour. If you wish to carry on with a discussion about this, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that Gwen Gale has attacked me for "disruptive and unhelpful behaviour" when I did not have a single word critical of her in my edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there is some past history disagreement between user User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Gwen Gale (is there?) , I also find User:Gwen Gale's comment about disruptive behavior puzzling especially as it seems they are on the same side of the discussion against the angry IP person. Unless given indication otherwise, let's assume User:Gwen Gale just misread User:Malcolm Schosha's comment and let's cheerfully move on. --Boston (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Read Malcom's block log.--Cerejota (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavens. --Boston (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Lucius Sempronius Turpio

The abovementioned user posted this following uncivil remark on my discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=281717595). Despite explaining politely to the user about the conditions leading up to his article being deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lucius_Sempronius_Turpio&oldid=281461957), he continues to taunt/take potshots at me on his discussion page where I had move the discussion to. -- Dave1185 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User: Mitsube

User:Mitsube is reverting all my changes to any articles that he himself is also working on, even though he has given no good reason as the content I am using is valid and the sources I refer to are WP:RS. He seems to have a personal bias against me, though I am not sure what I have done to deserve it, and have edited other articles without this kind of treatment. Sometimes user:Sacca steps in to back him up. I have tried talking to Mitsube (and Sacca) on their talk pages, to no avail. I can also see on Mitsube's talk page that other editors have similar problems with him. I keep trying to put my edits back in with explanations and without aggravating him (or her), but he keeps going ahead and reverting them again. Please help. Is it possible to block him for a while so he has time to cool down and stop trying to start an edit war with me? (Truthbody (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

User:Scjessey

Stale

 – This is for ArbCom to deal with now. Admin noticeboards should be utilised for emergency intervention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User is exhibiting uncivil behavior, not adhering to AGF, and generally appears to be turning up the rhetoric, when turning it down would be the better course of action to decrease the level of hostility at Barack Obama and its associated talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

An agenda-driven editor stood up on a soap box and claimed I had been editing "improperly" - a lie he has been repeating all over the place. I told him that was bullshit. Furthermore, I regard this as a bad faith alert. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can we have some diffs? --neon white talk 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a process fork of the Obama Arbcom case here. I have filed an AN/I report here to try to calm the revert warring and incivility on the Obama talk page. ChildofMidnight is indeed a prime offender but that quickly gets to the larger matter under arbitration. Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• QueenofBattle and Scjessey, given that Obama articles are currently at ArbCom, there's no point in escalating a separate dispute from here. Please present any issues you have with each other in evidence at the case. Though, for swift, necessary or emergency intervention, the administrator noticeboards may still be utilised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Actually I object to this thread being closed. Scjessey's comment is clearly inappropriate. It's not right that it just get dumped off onto an Arbcom decision that may be a long time in coming. The diff provided seems very clear to me, and if there's some ambiguity over whether it's appropriate I'd like to know what the policy basis for that interpretation is. And discussion at Arbcom has noted that the notice boards are the appropriate place to deal with particular incidents like this. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the ArbCom has been open for almost three weeks, and results are hopefully closer than you believe. Grsz¹¹ 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Fastily

Removed comments and topics from this page, without reason shows clear prejudice against users who chose not to engage in the whole community business http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=281806669&oldid=281806490

User:Boston notified me of the mistake I made while reverting vandalism - I did not realize there was a discussion in process going on, thinking it was only IP vandalism. I'd like to apologize for the error and confusion. - Fastily (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Majorly

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

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

I'm posting this here because I think an apology is in order for the way Majorly acted towards me at a discussion at AN and his refusal to apologize for his bad-faith accusations on there. His comments towards me at AN were follows: [72], [73], [74], [75], and [76]. His comment You're merely supporting allowing a user to continue disrupting Wikipedia. So in effect you are at fault, in my opinion, though not at all directly. Thanks for dropping by, your opinion was highly appreciated. was nothing but thinly-veiled sarcasm and a violation of WP:AGF. His commentary towards me and User:A Nobody, the only other editor to oppose his idea, constitutes badgering which violates WP:CIVIL.

In response to his actions, I left Majorly the following notice on his talk page: [77], which essentially pointed out my issues with his etiquette and asked for an apology. Shortly thereafter, Majorly posts on IRC about my suggestion: <Majorly> "Please issue a sincere apology to me and acknowledge that I am acting in good faith." I'm not going to dignify that with a response ;).

I'm inviting the community to review his actions towards me. Per the evidence above, I feel an apology is in order and I'd like Majorly to refrain from assuming bad faith when editors disagree with his ideas. ThemFromSpace 03:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. There's nothing to address here. If we brought everyone who was a bit snide towards everyone else in discussion to here, then WQA would be overloaded with trivial complaints. In any case, what do you honestly think you're going to get out of this? He's not going to apologize and there's going to be practically nothing concrete that will stop his behavior, so this report is fairly pointless. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's so pointless about it. This is clearly a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. After all, isn't that what this board is about? I've seen many such cases on here. This is also good as a document in case he continues this line of behaviour. ThemFromSpace 07:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's pointless in that no one is going to do anything concrete to him because of a few snide remarks (hell, it's hard to even call them snide). There's a big gap between the uncivil trolls usually brought to WQA and Majorly's comments here. This report borders on being trivial in comparison. Could he be a bit nicer? Perhaps. Are we going to block him, slap him on the wrist, or institute a civility parole? No. Let it go. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're demand for an apology was really pointless. Discussing things are fine, but when you stomp onto somebody's talk page demanding an apology, do you really think they will apologize?  iMatthew :  Chat  12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is going to apologize, unfortunately. иιƒкч? 12:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One can ask for an apology, but not ever expect one. To insist on one is ... well, pointless? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• The complaint here is frivolous in that there are no assumptions of bad faith or incivility or personal attacks. Difficult communications is an issue that could be looked into I suppose, though is there really a need? Rather than beat a dead horse, if either of you can disengage on the topic for a while (agreeing to disagree), that would resolve this issue much more quickly. Whether Majorly's conduct may warrant review at some point is a question that may be worth asking, but certainly not over this. Also per BMW, expecting an apology is pointless - I would say particularly when there is very little to apologise over. But you are welcome to request for an apology in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• I am going to archive this since additional commentary seems unnecessary. I remind all editors that to make unfounded accusations of incivility is itself a breach of our civility guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Black N Red

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This discussion was also filed at WP:ANI, even though this was originally the correct forum

This, this,this, and this are completely uncalled for. We were having a disagreement about the location of C.A. Monarcas Morelia, and the aforementioned diffs were his responses. If something could be done about this, I'd really appreciate it. Regardless of the issue, this kind of behavior is unacceptable. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Right after those diff's, you provided a warning yourself ... that was, of course, the correct idea. Did the editor continue those comments in a place that I cannot see? You warned them, they acknowledged it by removing the warning ... if they continue, then you will need to take it further. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

After the third diff I and others warned him, they deleted the comments, indicating they had read them, and then started again with the fourth diff like nothing was said. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)