Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive63

TruthIIPower part 2

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

TruthIIPower is edit warring on the pages abortion, Religion and abortion and the Catholic League. She has made at least 1 personal attack and, in my opinion, seems to be something of a bigot as seen in this edit summary especially in this one. Could someone please have a conversation with her and try to redirect her to more productive ends? - Schrandit (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a bigot just because I favor neutrality is uncivil, and referring to me as female after I mentioned I was male is just silly. Maybe you need to look at your own behavior, not mine. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, please actually click on the alleged incivility and see for yourself that it is only alleged. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing here is some very mild incivility in some edit summaries related to a content dispute. These are very sensitive issues and emotions tend to run rather high around these topics. That is why any substantive changes to such article need to be discussed on the talk page of the articles in question. If the two of you can't come to an agreement, you should ask for a third opinion or initiate a request for comment in order to get more input and form a consensus. TruthIIPower, you should probably drop the WP:SARCASM, it isn't very conducive to productive debate in a written format. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been active on the talk pages. In fact, the "strong" remarks were towards an anonymous user who has been making biased changes, leaving no edit comments and refusing to participate in discussion (or even answer messages on their talk page). TruthIIPower (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mr CatholicBot" is a personal attack. Several of TruthIIPower's edits are written in an angry/condescending tone that is not conducive to cooperative editing. This should be toned down. Also the flow on the talk page is also showing a pattern of refusal to accept consensus that is going to call for counteraction if continued. Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I've already said, TruthIIPower, drop the sarcasm, and if you guys can't find consensus easily on the talk page, solicit outside input through WP:3O or WP:RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• TruthIIPower, I agree with you completely that the use of "mother" and "unborn child," in the context in which you have been deleting them, are POV and factually incorrect. I just think you hurt the case by edit warring - if people start to see you as a vandal, they won't listen with an open mind when you try to make your case. Wikipedia works by consensus, unfortunately that means that we don't always get our way, and that "truth" (whatever that means) doesn't always win out. I also think that you haven't done anything that earned being called a bigot, and I agree that calling you a girl if they know you're a guy is just silly - it's so junior high. To everyone - what can I do to help? I mostly edit Wikipedia just to revert vandalism, so I'm not sure what to do to help out in a content/NPOV dispute. I've tended to just disengage and stop watching pages where I disagree with too many of the edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:18, 28 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: Roux

Resolved

 – Grutness advised to respect others' requests to desist from posting on their talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I have always, in the past, found User: Roux to be a fine, level-headed editor. However, (s)he seems to have got a bee in his/her bonnet about my perfectly standard piping of a category (s)he made. Things seem to have gotten out of hand between myself and him/her on his/her user talk page - I have tried (under duress) to remain calm and point out why I did what I did, and also pointed out the correct forum to discuss such issues - (s)he in response has made it clear (s)he regards this as "condescension" and "rank hypocrisy", and says that (s)he is willing to treat similar edits from me in the future as vandalism. I don't want this to become an edit war, nor do I want to get offside with someone who I regard as a good Wikipedian in every respect other than this one. I would be grateful if someone would look at this and try to at least talk some sense into him/her (or me, if needs be). Up until now I've always though Roux would be good admin material, but this has somewhat changed my opinion. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update - User: Roux has now begun to simply revert any edits I make on his/her talk page. At this point, I'm not going to have anything more to do with him/her than I have to - it's too much like hard work (I've already been away from Wikipedia once this year on medical grounds because it became too stressful - I don't want this to make me sick again). Some input from other editors would be worthwhile, though. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You were told to leave me alone. Do so.//roux   02:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're finding wikipedia so stressful that it makes you sick then it's time to walk away. Your health is much more important than anything that happens here. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did - I came back only once my health improved, and now only get involved in generally non-contentious areas of editing. Unfortunately one area which seemed straightforward and non-contentious appears in this case to have got Roux's back up. I'm at a loss to see why, but thought it was worth bringing up here for the reason that Roux is a good enough editor that - as I implied - sooner or later s/he is going to be nominated for adminship. I wouldn't be happy to have that happen while s/he still fails to understand such fundamental and straightforward things as consensus and standard practice. Someone who reverts attempts at dialogue and suggests that further attempts at dialogue will be regarded as vandalism needs to change their attitude towards community discussion. Grutness...wha? 05:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just to clarify, he already was nominated for adminship. Do you mean nominated again? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't know about that - I see from the number and quality of the oppose votes that I'm not the first to have run foul of Roux's lack of understanding of how to conduct a discussion. Indeed, some of the links on those comments (e.g., this one) look remarkably familiar. It seems (s)he has not learned. Grutness...wha? 06:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not even going to touch the details of the content dispute you two are having except to say it is a lot of arguing about a fairly minor point. The fact is you were both somewhat dismissive of each other. When two editors come into conflict, the right move is not to simply go around and around in a never-ending debate, you should seek consensus by asking for outside opinion, even if you "know" you are right. Roux, like any other user, has every right to delete messages from his/her own talk page. When it became clear Roux no longer wished to discuss the matter, you engaged in edit warring over the removal of your messages, and that is not acceptable. My suggestion is that you let this go for now, it's not worth making this big of a deal over it, and clearly Roux does not wish to discuss it at this time. If this matter persists, consider initiating a request for comment in order to find consensus as opposed to arguing and edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair comments - though with due respect, the comment "the right move [is to ask] for outside opinion" is a little bit strange, given that that is exactly why I brought it here. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grutness, you may have indeed had a valid point. However, at this point you were asked to leave User:Roux's talkpage. You did attempt to resolve the issue directly with the user. It failed. Further attempts to discuss with the user directly had been declared unwelcome, and you should never have reverted their changes to their own talkpage - that's a very aggressive act. The increased animosity in your discussions on roux's talkpage should have been a hint to cut and move the discussion elsewhere...in this specific case, either the talkpage of an article where the template was in use, or template talkpage itself in order to obtain new consensus. The request for you to use RFC had nothing to do with incivility, it had to do with "proper use of piping", as that cannot be dealt with in this forum. Overall, roux's incivility began and increased as you chose to continue what he considered an unwelcome debate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grutness may not want the trouble of initating an RfC on user:Roux, whom I personally find the most annoying of all WP editors I have run across. However, such an RfC might be a means of reining in user:Roux. The pattern of his passive-aggressive behavior in responding to reasonable comment from reasonable editors in tones of highly aggravated "injured innocence" and quickly escalating a dispute into operatic drama is something that I have experienced personally and seen user:Roux engage in with other editors as well. In my opinion, it is not conducive to a productive editing environment.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't suggesting that an RFC on Roux was in order, but on the content dispute that started this disagrement. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• The reversion was my mistake, done in the heat of the moment, and I regret it. However, I was under the impression that another editor's comments on a talk page should not simply be removed - even if those comments are on a user talk page.That was certainly what I was told when i first became a Wikipedian, and I haven't seen anything to refute that anywhere. Please also note that I twice tried to get Roux to move his/her comments objecting to the piping to the appropriate forum for such discussions - s/he did so on neither occasion. RfC is a complex process and one which I find does little as far as user behaviour is concerned. Given that it requires two people to have run foul of an editor - and at the time as far as I knew I was the only editor having trouble with User:Roux - it would not have been appropriate when I brought this here. Also, why does one editor finding a debate unwelcome mean it should be terminated? I found the debate unwelcome from the beginning - but felt that it needed to be had. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that user:Roux escalated the issue into hostility at a pace that is hard to fathom; however, if an editor is asked to refrain from further engagement on an editors talk page, then that request should be respected, little matter how aggrieved one may feel about it since stubbornly reverting an editors talk page is itself a breach of civility. Eusebeus (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Per Eusebeus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree as above, once an editor has told you they don't want to talk about it, nothing more positive can come out of trying to discuss it at that moment. Dayewalker (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we get rid of the stub categories entirely, given the proliferation of article assessments. Any takers? --NE2 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest, Grutness, that if Wikipedia is causing you so much stress that your health is suffering, maybe you need to find a much less taxing hobby. Either that, or stop taking it so seriously. Nobody wants to see a productive editor leave the project, but it's simply not important enough to worry yourself sick over. —Travis^talk 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out, that's exactly what I did do (and it wasn't only Wikipedia that was causing me stress - there were other issues which I don't want to go into here). When I returned I reduced my editing from several thousand edits per month to a few hundred, and stuck predominantly to article edits rather than administrative tasks (see the reduction in Wikispace pages between December and now here). My edits are now almost all to what I regard as non-contentious issues. I was amazed that Roux would find this a contentious issue at all (it seemed pretty straight-forward and non-controversial as far as I was concerned), but apparently s/he did. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 29 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:Stifle disingenuous template at User talk:Lucian Sunday

Stuck

 – this has gone on long enough, consensus on who was incivil and who was not is abundantly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

At 17:01, 28 April 2009 I made this edit. Earlier that afternoon, I had initiated a discussion on Talk:Rakt. I made no further edits but contributed to the talk page. An RFC was initiated with one of the aims specified as To avoid getting further into reverting cycles. I contributed, again without editing the article further. User:Stifle was Canvassed by another editor. Despite the existence of the RFC, his first action was not to comment but to Revert. The reason for my subsequent Revert, while poorly presented, is perfectly understandable. I am a regular contributor to wikipedia and the above was my first edit in over 24 hours. I was 3RR Templated by User:Stifle who then made his second revert that day (who is edit warring?). Considering I both started the talk thread and have commented at the RFC, the 3RR is unnecessarly provocative. I believe (1) the comments between User:Dougweller and Stifle here and (2) Stifle ignored his own advice with This edit indicate the templating was disingenuous. It was calculated to insult or provoke and his actions are worthy of reproach. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a case where a decision has gone against you, and now you are trying everything you can think of in the hope of getting it reversed. This is disruptive. It won't work, and if you push it much farther, it will get you blocked. Time to drop it and move on to something more productive. (Note: I am totally uninvolved.) Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article in question was an evident attempt (by TharkunColl (talk · contribs) to bypass an AfD close as Delete. The RfC was initiated by someone else who may not have known about the AfD. Stifle had been involved in the AfD and was the first editor's name I ran across who was active at the time I was posting - given the AfD it isn't surprising he reverted. Here's the diff where the complaining editor wrote "if you want to comment on editors set up a specific RFC where you can disappear up your own self important arse. " [1]. This was before the incident that Lucian Sunday is complaining about. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Quantpole initiated the RFC Here is his contribution to the AFD. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From evidence above this reports looks like a case of a WP:KETTLE violation. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to answer for here. If the consensus of users suggests otherwise, I will take further action. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucian: as a general rule, being templated is not a violation of WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL - it is indeed, a standardized warning that something is potentially up. As such, there is no violation of those two core policies.

Now, for the portions that are unrelated to this forum: First, you need also re-read WP:CANVASS - I ask a trusted editor (or two) for advice or a second set of eyes all the time, and that's not canvassing, however trying to sway an AfD or similar !vote by violating WP:CANVASS is bad. Therefore, asking advice was not bad.

Second, it does appear that a table was re-added to an article multiple times by one specific user - this qualifies as edit-warring. 'Round here, we go by WP:CONSENSUS, and the very key concept is be Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle: you were bold, it was reverted, you DISCUSS it before adding it ever again.

If you have issues with what I've said above, or if I have misread the article histories, please correct me with diff's please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for BWilkins for your considered comments. My contribution history shows that I did not breach the maxim DISCUSS it before adding it ever again. The 3RR template remains unjustified & Stifles use of it remains worthy of reproach. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• If adding a neutrally-worded template to your talk page is insulting and deserving of reproach, surely this: [2] is worthy of much more. That is a egregious personal attack and blatant incivility. Again, you should consider WP:KETTLE before posting here in the future. As for your assertion that you never added back anything without discussing it first, this comment by you [3] directly contradicts that statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blatant incivility on my part should tackled appropriately. My point remains unchanged. Stifle Templated an experienced editor with You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war both when this was not the case and before commencing an edit war himself. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view, Stifle and I were simply trying to enforce the AfD decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt (2nd nomination). Rakt was created in defiance of the delete decision-- when created [4] it was simply the deleted article plus 3 lines on the village. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt your views re the AfD are genuine. My view that the new article is not inextricabley linked to the AFD has been expressed on the talk page. An RFC was issued by an AFD participant - not as a result of edit warring by me. Stifles use of the 3RR template was, at the very least unnecessary. Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- Lucian, please come down from there lest you find yourself with an involuntary Wikibreak. The football scores have no place in the village's article. Furthermore, the only incivility I see was issued by you, so I strongly advise you to drop the matter. Regards —Travis^talk 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR template remains unjustified. The above mixture of valid points and baiting do not alter the fact that Stifle has templated a regular editor inappropriately Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe templating a regular editor was ill-advised, but it's not uncivil. You may have found it annoying or rude, but do please lighten up a bit, okay? If you still insist that this is a WQA matter, please be so kind as to point out the specific policy or policies that Stifle violated. Thanks —Travis^talk 21:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• No one hates being templated more than me; I have a link to WP:DTTR on my talk page. However, it is laugh-out-loud ridiculous to suggest it constitutes a personal attack or civility breach, unless done repeatedly to provoke, which is not the case here. Moreover, in light of the diff posted above, which DOES constitute an unacceptable engagement with other editors on the part of User:Lucian Sunday, this "complaint" seems even more absurd. To be blunt, to file such a frivolous WQA, when the complainant has himself been directly uncivil takes a lot of balls. And not in a good way. Eusebeus (talk) 23:32, 30 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:H8erade

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

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

I'm concerned about the edits of User:H8erade. Since December, he seems to have had quite a few deletions. One, Artfag, seems particularly offensive. His recent edit to Rights look like vandalism, but I can't quite tell. I don't want to recomend any course of action, but would someone take a look at his talk page? Piratejosh85 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a civility issue. WQA is for dealing with civility. The edit that he/she made to Rights is not vandalism, as far as I can see, but then again, I'm not 100% sure. I think this needs additional input on whether this shall be closed or not. —Mythdon t/c 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) What, specifically, are you alleging is vandalism to Rights? In the previous 500 edits to the page, he only edited once, and that was an undo of a questionable edit by an IP. Also, have you seen the actual content of Artfag? Agreed, the title sounds bad and the article was not suitable material for an encyclopedia, but the contents were innocuous - mostly paraphrasing of material from urbandictionary.com. In any case, this is not a WQA matter. —Travis^talk 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably suggest WP:AN or WP:ANI for such incidents. —Mythdon t/c 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

However, as far as I can tell, there isn't an incident to report. The edit to Rights was not vandalism and the Artfag article was deleted back in mid-December. —Travis^talk 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Then should we wait for an uninvolved editor to close this alert? —Mythdon t/c 20:49, 30 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.

Sockpuppet?

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/134.50.92.122

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

Sorry this is probably the wrong place...every page refers me to another location to report this. I have notices from the same person on both my talk page and user page that I'm a "sockpuppet." When I click on the "refer to" page I get a page that doesn't exist. The guy that placed these messages is an admin that I've had problems with before. Now it happened by accident on some high school pages that I've been working on that my IP address and not my username were logged for edits. And now I'm sure I'll be banned soon for it. So what can I do to finally end all this nonsense? Should I just use an ip address from now on? I never had any problems until I got a user name. Also, if someone else wants to bring this to that admins attention I would appreciate it. I'm not going anyway near his page because I'll undoubtedly get in further trouble. Beantwo (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Because there is no case page and no evidence has been presented, I have removed the tags from your user and talk pages. uh, oh, after looking a little further, the case was moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/134.50.92.122. You should make any further comments on this case there. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 1 May 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.

Retaliatory blocking by TravisTX

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – user filing this report has been indef blocked as a WP:SOCK Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This poster blocked my friend's account (fredd7271) after they had a disagreement. Basically, TravixTX warned him for vandalizing, fredd7271 responded on his talk page and TravisTX reacted by by blocking him. This seems counter to wikipedia's blocking policy and seems to be an abuse of admin powers. (User:lawreviewy) 02:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• This should be reported at at the administrators noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 1 May 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.

KeltieMartinFan

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This incident is already at HERE at ANI and cannot be in multiple forums. First portion contains content issues unrelated to this forum

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

I have been recently accused by this user of being a non-constructive editor, a vandal, a "social reject", "punk"... you name it. I think reading the diff itself should cover it, at least as far as false accusations and personal attacks go. Normally, I would not come to complain here since I've already reported this user to other boards. However, I have done some basic research about this user, and here is some of what I have learned.

I apologize in advance for the next couple of paragraphs being poorly formatted, as I have copied and pasted it from a text file I made. Below are some examples of KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs)'s contributions (note that most of them have empty edit summaries).

• [5] poor grammar (including a multiple disambiguous "she" instead of her name), highlight: "came to MSNBC in 2003 where she spent four years there"

• [6] poor grammar

• [7] poor grammar

• [8] non-constructive, reduced grammar quality + removed co-host name for no apparent reason

• [9] sub par grammar, highlight: "Hot only did he worked at the anchor desk, but he also reported..."

• [10] removal of info, no justification

• [11] unsourced and poorly worded speculation

• [12] kind of a useless "word lego"

• [13] another useless "word lego" - no constructiveness in the latter two by a long shot

Notice that all the diffs above are from the latest page in this user's contribution history. I am positive that had I gone deeper, I would fill this page, which is not exactly what would have helped the case :-)

Now we have come to the really interesting part. According to this diff, KeltieMartinFan claims that "[i]t is never in [their] nature to be uncivil here on wikipedia"... please take a look at the following (again, my apologies for the crude formatting):

• [14] blast of personal attacks
• [15] [16] [17] restoring unwanted attack on another user's talk page THREE TIMES in spite of those being repeatedly deleted by the owner of the talk page

• [18] another referral to user as "obnoxious"

• [19] [20] [21] multiple attacks on (apparently) the same anonymous editor

• [22] deleting someone else's contribution from someone else's talk page, in other words - vandalism

I have found all these in the first couple of pages in this user's contribution history. If the case will require me to "dig deeper" I will.

P.S. Considering the heavy insults I had to put up with last time I tried to place a civil warning on that user's page, I am not going to do it this time, even though this is technically against regulations. Due to the special situation that has been created here, I am asking that an admin do that. Thank you very much in advance. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Send Keltie my way and I'll kick his ass for you. Just joking. No, but seriously this dude has behavior issues and an admin needs to look into this asap. Caden ^{is cool} 07:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment this situation is also under discussion at AN/I. Tonywalton ^Talk 08:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read everything before jumping to conclusions. The situation that is under discussion at ANI is that user's specific personal attack on me. The discussion here concerns his or her own misconduct during edits. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: You placed a warning on the user's page. Unless they have continued the behavior, what else do you need? The fact that this issue is at WP:ANI - a forum that looks at the actions of both complainant AND the "offending editor", plus has admins with the authority to issue blocks does indeed mean that this entry could be considered forum-shopping. Why in the world are the first few diff's linking to grammar, etc that has nothing to do with civility? This only serves to water down any arguement afterwards as it approaches WP:TLDNR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "NOTE": Please do not act biased. I have raised the issue of that editor's non-constructive edit patterns and continued personal attacks towards other editors. I have removed the tag you have added as well, as I would like admins to review this situation thoroughly. Please don't do it anymore, it is mostly unfair towards me. The first half of the diffs serves to show that while that user vividly accuses me of being non-constructive, his or her own edit history is somewhat ironic to this situation. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not run to accuse the only person who is trying to advance your position in a rational manner as being "biased", TYVM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Biased" does not mean that someone disagrees with the outcome you desire. It means "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation". I don't see any of that here. Throwing around such terms really damages the credibility of your position. Chillum 00:55, 2 May 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:LibStar

Resolved

 – LibStar is now aware of violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Additional violations should be brought forward should they occur

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

Let me start out by saying that I think this user is doing a fantastic job with cleaning up the bilateral relations articles mess. My quibble with this user is not with the substance of their edits, but rather with the way that they've gone about doing things.

User:LibStar has recently nominated a large number of articles for deletion. These articles were created by a single, now-banned user, who specialised in creating stub articles on the bilateral relations of countries that didn't have a whole lot to do with each other. Some of these articles have since been expanded, but most have very limited scope for expansion and are being slowly worked through via the PROD and AFD mechanisms.

My concern is with the language and tone of LibStar's nominations. For instance, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Iceland relations, he declared that the article reflected:

"another completely laughable combination (one of the worst I've seen) from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies and google news search turns up nothing except that both countries share economic problems [1]. and if you're going to say keep with the standard text of wait for centralised discussion, seriously ask yourself is Iceland-Argentina notable?"

This is not an isolated incident, for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations we have:

"another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. last agreement in 1963!"

It is not difficult to find further examples if you look through this user's recent posts to AFD. Now, I'll be the first to admit that occasionally I've made smart-alecky comments at AFDs where I thought the result was a foregone conclusion, comments that probably toed the line of civility, if not walked straight over them. However, there seems to be a pattern to LibStar's nominations where all of them have this rude and condescending tone to them. The problem is made worse by the fact that many of these 'completely laughable' articles are attracting either keep !votes or actually being kept; these comments could be seen as an attempt by the user to belittle and intimidate anyone who thinks that these articles are worth keeping on.

Not wanting to make a big fuss, I dropped a note on the user's talk page asking them to tone down their comments. In response, the editor replied on my talk page, attempting to justify the comments by essentially saying "everyone else does it!" and that it was okay to be rude if the victim of the rudeness was absent and banned (which, as I said previously, does not explain away the "chilling effect" that such comments can have on people freely offering their opinions). The user then attempted to imply that the article creator had Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, despite later admitting that they had no proof for this allegation. This is the point where it went from polite disagreement to crossing the line - implying that someone (even a banned user) without the power to respond has a mental illness is not only cowardly and unnecessary, it's also potentially defamatory. Needless to say, I suspect that LibStar has no intention of reining in his comments in order to create a more professional and friendly editing environment.

Now, if anyone thinks I'm being overly precious about this, I'm happy to back off. However, I note that I'm not the first one to take exception to the tone of this user's comments, User:Bearian here and User:Jake Wartenberg here have both had something to say within the past 24 hours on the topic of LibStar's civility.

As I'm at the point where I think that continued one-on-one discussion with LibStar is unlikely to produce any further progress, I therefore bring it here for further comment by the community. Note that I again emphasise that I have no problem with the substance of this user's edits or the work that he's doing (they're doing a fantastic job identifying the articles which need to go), it is merely the way that he's going about doing it that I find objectionable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

• Response I never made the accusation of mental illness, nor is the issue of providing evidence the behaviour was consistent with one aspect of illness but without meeting this person I am not to judge further and even if I did provide evidence what does that prove?, the issue with the banned editor is that their behaviour was disruptive and broke wikipedia rules. was banned twice for "excessive stub creation" and again for sockpuppetry during their ban. might I add I used the word laughable to describe X and Y country relations not the creator. one editor said in an AfD that I should nominate some of these country articles for WP:FREAKY which is a collection of humourous articles. you might have noticed I've even put up one article for deletion since Lankiveil contacted me without mention of words laughable or obsessive. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Malaysia relations. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How about focus on edits and not editors in PROD's/AfD's from now on. Maybe the originating editor was indeed "obsessive", but there's never a need to say it - especially when they cannot reply due to blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already started to as per my last sentence above. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - even if he were still around, Groubani could not have replied - he didn't know English. That said, while I totally agree with your characterizations, LibStar, there are of course people who will take offence at anything, so just drop "obsessive" and "laughable" and let the case speak for itself. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Editor LibStar seems fine to me from our limited dealings and anyway seems to have stopped using the questionable adjectives. I agree obsessive is not a civil word to use and very possibly not accurate either. Editor Groubani may well have been a visionary who appreciates what a treasure trove a complete set of Bilateral relations articles would be. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I'm Peter Pan with a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:22, 1 May 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:Pink-thunderbolt

I do not feel that User:Pink-thunderbolt has been acting in good faith and I don't feel they have been civil in discussion regarding a WP:BLP issue on Jon & Kate Plus 8. The user has also been reported on the edit warring noticeboard for issues regarding this here.

After reverting my revert of unsourced, controversial information about a living person, I reverted them again and left this warning on their talk page. The user then added this message in response and then replaced everything with this message. Every time Pink is warned, they replace it with this message and, at some point, added this to the end of it: "And now, hopefully, they understand why whitewashing a page of possibly negative, but accurate, information is a bad thing to do." (Despite refusing to engage in the civil discussion that was occurring on the talk page in which we found reliable sources and were trying to figure out if it should be included in the article and how).

On the page in question, Pink has used edit summaries claiming we are trying to "whitewash" the page. On the talk page, Pink has left these messages: [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27]. None of these are particularly welcoming to discussion (more of an "I'm right, you're wrong, this is how it's going to be") and some of them are downright rude. Thanks for any help or advice. --13² 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have now alerted both Pink and User:Scjessey (who has also been involved) about this report. --13² 17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly, please notify the person being reported in the future. I have gone ahead and done so for you. As to the civility issue, there is certainly some overt rudeness occurring. I would advise Pink-thunderbolt that being right does mean it's ok to be rude. Like it or lump it, this is the way Wikipedia works, things must be discussed, and information must be sourced to be included in an article. Disagreement is fine, it happens all the time, but there is no need to use language like "poorly referenced my dick" or resort to name calling like "fruitcake". Since you brought up dicks, you should probably read WP:DICK. To be clear, I'm not suggesting you give in or stop editing this article, just that you should be more civil in your remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I was literally notifying the user at the exact same time you were. I would have done it sooner, but my fiance just had to show me this cool new thing on his new Mac. XD --13² 17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I would also add that while many of the remarks you linked on Pinks talk page are a bit rude, most of what I'm seeing on the article talk page does not cross the line of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I mostly added the stuff about the talk page because I felt it was in line with the other messages they were leaving and that they show the user is not really assuming good faith very well. --13² 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the other user involved in the disagreement is not arguing in good faith, namely, he states that he is deleting information because it was not sourced when everyone else, including 13, agrees that there are multiple sources referenced, further, he had no proposal as to where this valid, accurate, verifiable and relevant information would go. He has argued with a large number of other individuals who have attempted to make the same or substantially similar additions to the article, and used inconsistent grounds for said arguments. So 13, for you, I do assume good faith, for Scjessey, I did assume good faith, but my assumption was undercut by his behavior. He also threatened my editing by saying that it could be considered defamatory, which I did not feel was at all appropriate.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• This page is not for re-hashing the content dispute, but rather for discussing breaches of Wikipedia policy on civility and personal attacks. If there is contentious editing taking place on the page and the talk page, there are several remedies. Consider initiating an request for comment, posting a notice on the biography notice board, and maybe asking at WP:RPP that the page be protected until consensus is reached on what should and should not be in the article, and please refrain from calling other users "fruitcakes" and making other unhelpful and rude remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro and editors generally

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Use article RfC for content issues. Filing party warned to avoid abusing this dispute resolution mechanism. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This issue concerns the behaviour of User: Scuro - (talk ▪ contribs) and the editors generally at Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder.

I have recently become aware of this user and the ongoing dispute at the aforementioned article when responding to an edit war report. After considering the ample warnings regrading reverting, I blocked this user for 24h. The block is now up and again there is general bickering between users on talk pages. From the article's talk page there seems to be a history spanning 3 months of this issue with tags being added to the article. The content of those discussions seem to suggest a general consensus that issues have been addressed, though this is not the view of Scuro.

I hoped for some comments on appropriate actions needed to attempt to resolve this issue or at minimum stop the disruption to Wikipedia, especially after this recent comment by Scuro to user Abd (who appeared to be trying to sort things out). Nja²⁴⁷ 12:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• User:Abd helped resolve things between Scuro and I last time they got out of control. He also attempted to help with Ss06470 I think but without any luck. Scuro has asked he to not edit ADHD pages or to help.[[28]--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• User:WhatamIdoing also tried to help. [29][30] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Scuro has asked me not to edit his Talk page, I think he may have done so in the past, if so, I forgot about it. I have not examined the content dispute in question. I highly recommend avoiding unnecessary contentious discussion with this editor, just act as needed with adequate explanation for other editors, so that your actions can be seen as justified or reasonable. If he makes disputatious discussion on Talk, ignore it. With consensus, the discussion can be collapsed to keep the Talk page cleaner, or sometimes early-archived, but avoid this if possible, there is no sense creating dispute over the Talk page. Deleting it as vandalism, no, do not do that, it is not only very rude, it can get you blocked. "Disruption" doesn't happen much from a single editor, it takes place in the interaction between more than one. If Scuro makes continual assertions of the same edit, that can be handled with minimal disruption through normal dispute resolution procedures. Read the manual and follow it. When direct discussion fails to resolve a dispute, involve another editor, and preferably one who is likely to be seen as neutral, which isn't me in this case, even though I truly would advocate for the consideration of his POV. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. This WQA is part of the dispute resolution process, and is the natural next step as discussion and consensus forming on the talk pages has seemed to hit a wall. As immediately noted in my opening paragraph I'm an admin who just got wind of this ongoing situation (3 months+) three days ago. The hope now is for specific comment and guidance from the community on how to proceed, especially due to the recent incivility displayed. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me first say that I have never seen the consensus approach taken, over many months on the ADHD talk pages. I've seen editors post that consensus is reached, but no attempt at compromise is ever made, no quarter is given, and points are disputed to the most minute details, while I am called names and accused of multiple offenses. I am not allowed to edit on any of the ADHD pages either. Virtually every edit that I have made in this time frame have been reverted. Yesterday my posts on the talk page were also reverted. One entry was a "how to" plea to seek consensus. There are huge ownership issues on these pages, as documented by an administrator who was a joint applicant of a behaviour RFC. But please don't take my word for it, go to the RFC and the controversies talk page yourself.

I did take a two month break from Wikipedia. When I returned nothing had changed on the page. I have gone through four separate wiki processes to attempt to solve this issue and still ownership is a huge issue. Nothing was resolved as the contributor backed out of mediation twice. The only edit that I have made has been to put a POV tag on what I consider to be an article with several issues. The POV tag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)". At no time did anyone try to resolve anything. What did happen is that the tag was removed about 6 times. In all cases it was removed unilaterially, sometimes justification was given AFTER the revert. In such an environment of lawlessness, the break any rule if it is good for wikipedia comes to mind. For more details read my response to the ban on my talk page. I'm glad this situation is getting more attention.

Abd has always been a very negative contributor, who also had ownership issues on these pages. There are quotes where he states that I need to be controlled. I have probably asked him not to communicate with me at least a half dozen times. I am surprise that he remembers little. I ask that he not communicate to me personally so that conversations don't spiral downwards. He has a way of goading you that I find very irritating. Ss who Abd also refers to, was threatened by an administrator to be banned from wikipedia if he didn't stop his highly offensive personal attacks against me.

So here I stand, not able to edit on pages for many months, attacked personally all the while. I do hope that an administrator really looks into this because this is a travesty. --scuro (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Note this WQA is generally about your actions, though I do appreciate the link to the RFC about a different editor, who has recently admitted past mistakes and now wishes to handle things correctly (see here). Secondly I've just came into this three days ago and I definitely believe there's issues to sort out, and unfortunately some of them are your civility issues (thus this WQA). Nja²⁴⁷ 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above from Nja247) I don't think that anyone who looks at the relevant article, Attention deficit disorder is likely to conclude I've got ownership issues with it, I can't remember the last time I edited it. I have ADHD, which does give me some opinions, for sure, but not to the extent that I'd be biased, I follow WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, with some special attention to making sure that minority POVs are fairly covered. Which, then, means that I supported a fringe editor whom Scuro opposed, even though I didn't share the opinions of that editor. In another matter, with SS06470, I supported an expert in the field, a published psychiatrist in private practice, who has a somewhat iconoclastic view of the field (probably quite close to mainstream, in fact, but not so much reflected in drug-based research, which is where the money is!), based on clinical experience as well as theory, and Scuro's behavior with this fellow was atrocious. And the psychiatrist responded to Scuro with frank opinion, experts commonly do that. In no way would I turn over control of articles to experts, we do need neutral decision-making processes here, but, on the other hand, experts should be respected and their opinions carefully considered when we are so fortunate as to have one participate. I don't want to see Scuro blocked, because he can provide needed balance, but he can definitely be too aggressive in promoting his POV. I have no opinion as to whether he has done this in the present case, and I attempted to calm things by agreeing with Scuro on a behavioral issue. You can see the response; Scuro, to be able to continue here, must learn to detach from his personal reactions to people and work with them, all of them, as fellow contributors to the project. If he needs assistance, he can find it, as long as his positions are reasonable. I'd help, in fact, but he's not likely to ask me!

As to him asking me not to communicate with him, I remembered it, but only after being reminded, and I haven't bothered to look back to confirm it, because details would matter if push came to shove, which it won't. The communication over this, cited above and seen here as well, gives a pretty good picture of what's going on with Scuro, so I don't need to explain more. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, the RfC mentioned above, which didn't attract enough participation to be conclusive about anything, nevertheless had a stated purpose: That jmh649 earnestly commit to the wiki guidelines of etiquette, especially the tenants of good faith and consensus building. Have you ever directly acknowledged this commitment? If not, why not right here, right now? Acknowledging it is not an admission of error, and, indeed, you don't have to accept the "tenants." Just the tenets. Assume Good Faith is about how we act in relation to others, it isn't about what we think. If you are convinced that an editor is totally biased, in the pay of the drug companies, or out to destroy article neutrality over some personal agenda, pretend that the editor is not, until and unless it's your responsibility to disclose convincing evidence to the contrary! "Assume" means "act under the assumption of." "Consensus" means that we can be most confident that we have found true NPOV in text when all editors agree it is fair. While we may not be able to reach that ideal, we should always continue to seek it. How about it? --Abd (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added the above - it appears germaine, AND does appear to show an editor who has accepted a past error and is moving forward, which is beneficial in many ways. A brief response may go a long way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro will not use or produce reliable sources for his dispute nor discuss citations of the article. He was turning the talk pages into an internet chat forum debate as well as agressive editing. I believe that abd was incorrect in saying that I was wrong to revert scuros talk page comments because abd is looking at one revert in isolation. Abd is not looking at the huge volume of talk page content which really is unproductive and disruptive. Scuro is not using reliable sources or discussing content of existing citations so really there is no dispute to resolve, which is what I mean by turning talk pages into internet chat forums. He greeted me with hostile abuse of warning templates. As I have said before scuro is welcome to edit articles and talk pages using reliable sources like everyone else. I do not believe he has a special right to turn talk pages into internet chat forums and debating clubs unless he is using reliable sources for the debate. There is a specific warning template for using talk pages as a forum after reverting which I used. The template exists for a reason and I think that I was justified in using it and I feel that I would be justified in using it again if the disruption continues. Scuro is an established editor so I see no excuse or reason for why he is not using reliable sources to try and bring neutrality as he sees it to the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read this Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. My use of warning template of using talk page as a forum was correct when you examine the pointless discussion after pointless discussion which has been going on and on. All he needs to do is produce citations instead of just pointless debates going nowhere. I don't want to spend my time debating with scuro unless it is about reliable sources. I could join an internet chat site for that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Update, consensus seems to be that reverting talk page edits is not best way to go but I still think warning templates are warranted if unproductive postings continue on the talk pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

James did state that he would commit to the consensus process during his RFC, as defined by the wiki page on that topic. [[31]] For a while there it looked really promising during the RFC.

ABD did have ownership issues and pinned me into a box as tight as James has. I could produce the evidence if anyone really cares. When I go back and look at the history it's been well over a year that I have virtually not been allowed to edit the ADHD page. First there was ABD and now Doc James. Abd's viewpoint of past events have a notable subjective bias, from my recollections.

As to my my current "behaviour" on the talk page. From many many months of experience, I have learned to keep my focus incredibly narrow. Even with this narrow focus, it's amazing how little of the talk is on content. I simply found one citation which at first glanced looked biased and I challenged this citation. My instincts have proven good. Another contributor has called the link a "denier" citation. I don't have a problem with such citations but believe they shouldn't be used to support factual information. No one on the page recognizes that I have a point and I'm not willing to be drawn into a firestorm of citation - counter citation debates until the end of eternity. It is my right to challenge a citation and stick with one issue to completion. It is my right to post a POV tag if I can demonstrate that biased material exists on the page and page ownership makes sure it stays there. Not one contributor on that page has attempted compromise or sought consent, since my return from a self imposed 2 month absence.--scuro (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you give the citation you speak of, or the statement that's now in the article which is POV that you have an alternative view for that is supported? I'd like to look over this in detail please. If it's too much for a post here an email will suffice. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 01:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nja: Thanks for taking this on, and please don't give up too quickly. There's an atmosphere on these (adhd and adhd controversies) talk pages, a chip-on-the-shoulder which seems to be contagious. The motto seems to be "Do not assume good faith." The problems you're aiming to solve should and must be solvable; that will require both wisdom and time. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the "suffer the restless children" citation [[32]] It supports this sentence which would require extensive scholarly research to determine with any certainty, "Only 20% of children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have hyperactive behavior in the physician's office". Other contributors posted other citations which they state supports the sentence. My point is that an object fact shouldn't be supported by a citation with bias. The citation should be removed from this context. It could be used in other parts of the article that are subjective. From what I have read the sentence isn't accurate either, but I knew better then to go there until there was consensus about the "suffer" citation. I've had a number of painful experiences of discussions that go off on several tangents, never to fully focus back on the initial issue. So talk never got past the point of me stating the citation should be removed because it wasn't appropriate for the fact it was supporting.--scuro (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Suffer the Restless Children: ADHD, Psychostimulants, and the Politics of Pediatric Mental Health" citation is not at all biased. It's a lecture given by one of the authors of Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health, a book which received glowing reviews. So "citation with bias" is no reason to disallow that citation at all.

That said, as far as I have seen, the lecture does not support that 20% sentence. That ref was, in fact, in the article before the sentence "Most children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have normal behavior in the physicians[sic] office." was added in front of it on 17 Nov. 2008. At that point the 'suffer' ref stood alone; the Sleator and Barkley refs were added later, as was the percentage.

So, Scuro, I can support disallowing that ref for that fact (the 20% statement). But not for the reason(s) you've been arguing.

The 20% claim is found in the Sleator (1981) ref, which is cited in the above mentioned book, there as "a minority", not as precisely 20%.

Nja, for more discussion see adhd controversies, talk, search the page for Mayes. - Hordaland (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a conversation where facts are being shared. I have learned that the citation was never meant to support the sentence it currently supports. Two other citations were added at a later date to support the 20% contention. But what is better then this conversation is an attempt by Hordaland at compromise, which is the basis of seeking consensus. Hordaland, states he can support the removal of the "suffer" citation but not for the reasons I've stated. At this point I have options, i) I can concede the point and the citation could possibly be removed, ii) I could contest the point if it was important, ie if I still believed that ADHD children display clinically significant behaviour within the doctors office and I thought the fact in the sentence to be wrong. If I go for option two the ball is in my court and I have to put up or shut up. If I go for option one, other contributors would have to contest the point for it's inclusion or we could move on to the next issue. When Hordaland makes a concession as he just did, I am much more willing to compromise. If I do not compromise in this instance, then I may very well compromise in the near future. If a contributor never seeks consensus and never concedes a point, it's a whole different story. It's been my experience on this article, for well over a year now, that I have dealt with several contributors who fall into category two. Here is an illustration of giving no quarter.[[33]]--scuro (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Interrupt What I see here now is admissions by editors in general, and a lot of discussion that would be best served back on the article talkpage. Some monitoring of the ADHD pages may be a good idea, but I would suggest at this point that there are no violations of WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA to be dealt with, so this WQA filing can be closed as resolved. I advise all editors to stay cool, especially when editing "challenging" topics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but please give advice of what I should do about page ownership? This is now my 5th wiki process and it's could very well still be virtually impossible for me to edit the page without any edit being reverted. It's been over a year since I have been able to edit normally on this article. How can I make this stop in an expedient manner if occurs again, at any point?--scuro (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on WP:Consensus, and relies heavily on the WP:BRD cycle. On controversial articles it may take a lot more work to achieve consensus than on simple articles - that's the nature of the beast. If you are being "bullied" out of participation, then additional action can be taken. Feel free to contact me if you're in doubt or having issues, and I'll try and come in as a neutral party. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, Nja and BWilkins, if the 2 articles and talk pages are to be normalized, I believe it will require guidance over time. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

... which makes it a content issue, which is beyond the scope of this forum (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-opened, proposal

Sorry to re-open this, however there seems to be a rush here lately at WQA to mark matters resolved. The user still has civility issues and has failed to comply with my request first made here (and made twice thereafter) to supply details of what he disputes with sources. If this isn't forthcoming, then it may be right to assume no intention to work towards consensus, but rather to disrupt Wikipedia. Below are some recent examples I think are noteworthy:

• Here he made a big deal over someone properly inserting a direct response into the middle of a paragraph (to address the question at immediately at hand).
• This statement clearly shows that he needs to step away from the situation or possibly be removed from the topic al together.
• Further he continues to play a victim here. The fact of the matter is he did violate 3RR and secondly I opened the WQA and no one lobbied for it. Overall, he doesn't seem to realise that this has been a long dispute for everyone involved.

Generally these examples show that tensions are still running high, and a temporary agreement to step away from the topic may be in order. Though, I'd settle for it to be marked as resolved if:

1) he complies with my completely valid request for details and sources. Note that here and here did not address my query as I'd like specifics on what's disputed (ie line by line) with sources; and

2) he acknowledges that the others involved are likely just as frustrated and it's slightly antagonising for him to claim to be innocent and the only victim. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you are re-opening a content dispute inside the wrong forum, and I am concerned with your personal use of the out-of-context diff's. The user was 110% fully and completely correct to gently poke someone who inserted their OWN comments in the middle of someone else's talkpage post - this refactoring cannot occur, as those comments then appear to belong to the original person - personally, I would have given them a templated warning for that one. Their later frustration at how someone "ran to the cops, only to be found wrong" is understandable. Stop filing unfounded reports left right and centre, and please go back to consensus-building and article-writing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't see to whom your last sentence is directed, BW. It's not Nja's article; s/he is only involved in this/these article(s) because of the user conduct issue which involves endless wordy policy discussions (disruption) and little or nothing concrete about article content. - Hordaland (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"endless wordy policy discussions" have nothing to do with violations of either WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, and are therefore not WQA material. If you need a third opinion or WP:RFC to assist, then please do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. There can, clearly, be differences of opinion about wp:civil. The page in a nutshall says:

* Participate in a respectful and considerate way.

* Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. - Hordaland (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The user conduct is at the heart of the content dispute, per WP:CIVIL. I would hope the recent examples provided show this to be the case. My proposal is clear and I'd like for the user in question to decide whether they're willing to accept it so we can move on. Further I find it hard to believe an experienced editor would have warned someone with a template, especially a regular, for doing what was shown in my example. This process, which is part of dispute resolution process generally, continues to be sidetracked from addressing the issue at hand. If I, as an uninvolved 3rd party up until last week cannot get support from the community to get agreement from the user that enough is enough and admit he's not the only person affected by this behaviour, and further to provide details of what he disputes with references, then there's a very real problem here. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"endless wordy policy discussions" have nothing to do with violations of either WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, and are therefore not WQA material. If you need a third opinion or WP:RFC to assist, then please do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Walk a mile in my shoes Nja247. Try being blocked off a page from virtually editing anything for well over a year and be personally attacked all the while. Then go through 5 processes to resolve this issue....is this number 6?

I have to ask, if you had experienced what I have experienced, would you do a line by line correction of a very flawed article? Most people would start small as I have done. They would seek consensus on one small point like a citation which I am attempting to do. If there were other contributors who were communicating, you might go onto the intro, state what is wrong with it, as was requested on the talk page. Now if I point out that the intro is completely one sided, and that a controversy always has a minority opinion, that would appear to be a enormous gapping hole for an intro. Do I need a citation to state the obvious?

I have to ask Nja247, why are stepping into the middle of this and disrupting the very first shoots of consensus building? I understand that you want citations. But, not every step of the editing process requires a citation. If other contributors dispute that there is no minority opinion in this controversy, I'll find citations. If editors continue to state that the "suffer" denier citation is a great citation to support scientific research, I'll seek citations. What I am trying to tell you is that editing is a process, and after getting burned many times, I'm still editing defensively. It's been many months since I actually put content on that page. There is a time for everything. Citations will come, especially if true consensus building actually looks like it might be followed for the first time in well over a year.--scuro (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Again you are avoiding my direct request to supply information and acting as if you're the only person affected by this long running dispute. Further I'd appreciate if you could provide links to these five processes you speak of, as it'd be very helpful for other editors to consider. As for my request, if you truly wish to move forward then I would think you'd be happy to comply. And yes, wikipedia needs reliable sources to function, so please provide them. As for my 'disruption', I do hope you could provide examples of it. The only thing I've done was request information from you so I can help. That's how I view my role as an admin. I could have ignored it, like a lot of other admins have, but I am trying hard to help, but as someone who only become involved last week I too feel as though you're stonewalling and as noted above in the examples it really seems as if you are perpetuating the continued disruption. In addition, the fact that you admit to be editing defensively and are of the view that you don't need to state what you actually dispute and provide citations completely justifies the view that you're conduct is disruptive, and therefore maybe a topic ban is in order. Alternatively, consider my proposal; ie state what's wrong with sources, and seriously take into account you're not the only person affected. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me go back then.

• Nja, you provided this diff where he added "I would kindly ask you not to do that again" into his original post regarding an editor refactoring comments. Again, if you'd like me to go back and template that editor, I can ... this seems to be a polite way to explain the situation, so I see no incivility whatsoever.
• You then provided this diff expressing that they should be topic-banned for this. So, an editor explains consensus, and discusses how due to a lack of following consensus he was forced into an edit-war, and then someone filed a WQA, and that deserves a topic ban?? Seriously?
• You then provide this diff and contrary to WP:AGF and what is close to being a violation of WP:NPA in your own right, try and claim that this shows the person "claiming to be a victim"?? Where's the incivility in what he said?

Trying to use any of the above to show behaviours in the editor are as far of a stretch as can possibly be done. You can't corner an editor, slap 3rr and WQA filings and not expect a little bit of frustration - and frustration is all that is being shown: no attacks, no swearing, no bullying. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Per BMW. This sort of abuse of this dispute resolution mechanism is unacceptable, and the claims of disruption personal attacks and "claiming to be victim" amount to incivility in itself - the claims are unjustified. Further reopening of this thread by Nja247 should result in a block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 6 May 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.

Sourcing in Oom Yung Doe page

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – sorry guys, this is a content dispute and outside the scope of this page. Consider WP:RFC to resolve it

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

Some time back I noted that it was not logically possible for a statement in the Oom Yung Doe article to be supported by the court document that was cited in support of it. The editor in question, CJim63, then [modified] the citation so it simply cited the entire court case instead of any particular document. I complained that this makes no sense, since a court case isn't a specific document someone can request (although particular documents from court cases obviously make good sense to cite in some situations). I took this to WP:RS/N and the editors there seemed to agree with me. In any case, both CJim63 and another editor, Jmcw, have since refused to fix these citations to point to any particular documents, and they've [reverted] a couple of my edits removing these non-sources.

I don't see any particular reason to doubt the accuracy of this information, but this sourcing seems obviously unacceptable to me. I can't fix the sources myself, because I don't have these documents in front of me and don't want my name to go into the edit history as the person describing what's in them. CJim63 claims to have the documents, but has so far refused to update the article, limiting his explanation of what sources are being used and how to discussion on the talk page. In the course of that discussion he's made some statements about the source material that seem bizarre or contradictory to me. For example, he claimed that the fourth amended complaint against John C. Kim accused the School of Oom Yung Doe of violating the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, and twice referred to the consent decree as a "consent form". That makes me doubly reluctant to update the sources cited within the article myself.

This is not the first time I've had a question about CJim63's use of sources; some time back, we discussed a statement ([diff]) that bore a citation to an article that it seems may not even exist. CJim63 said that the statement had sprung from a conversation on the talk page and would not discuss the citation at all, and after some wrangling my edit removing the citation was accepted.

I don't intend to toss around accusations of falsifying sources lightly, but to me it's getting hard to draw any other conclusion from the above events. In any case, it seems reasonable to me that at the very least, specific statements in the article should be sourced to specific documents so that those citations can be verified, and that the people who claim to be in possession of the documents should be the ones to do so. Can I get some backing for my conclusion that these sources need to be fixed or removed?

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would value the opinion of anyone who has the time to read through the talk page of this article. I long to hear some nice words about "assume good faith" and "collaboration". jmcw (talk) 12:48, 6 May 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.

Template warring?

Article Plumping - this article was tagged essay-like and the creator of the article User Talk:Notoplumping keeps changing this to a template that doesn't exist. I have supplied him/her with a list of actual templates. I don't want to end up in a 3RR - I wasn't the person who originally tagged it in any case, but I'm not sure how to respond to someone who just keeps on repeating the same markup error.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was already involved with editing this article, so I'm not sure I'm the person to respond, but I undid the addition of the non-existent template, and warned Notoplumping about edit warring and sockpuppetry, as there is a mysterious WP:SPA whose only edits were to add the same template. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. Thanks for taking a look--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping clean this up, all. I'm looking through the links you sent me (much appreciated) to try and edit this to fit Wikipedia standards. I still don't quite understand what you mean by the templates. I've contacted a potential adopter to help with this. If either of you would like to help with this, I'd appreciate it as well. Thanks Notoplumping (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Notoplumping

Explain what you were trying to do, and I;m sure someone can help you achieve it. I thought you were trying to insert a template to say that the content wasn't encyclopedic. If you were just trying to say you thought it was, then just erasing the template **and explaining why you thought so on the talk page** is the way to go.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here [34] and here [35] are examples of what we are talking about. You changed the template from {{essay-like|date=May 2009}} to {{encyclopedic|date=May 2009}}. The essay-like template causes a template box to appear on the page, while the encyclopedic template does not exist and merely produces {{encyclopedic}} on the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• You should probably file a sock report though the disruption is minimal. The only other thing to suggest is adoption. --neon white talk 15:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – dispute resolved, no action necessary at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Could an uninvolved editor please review Hammersoft (talk · contribs)'s recent behaviour? (Most notably this, which is pretty self-explanatory). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really uninvolved, but my experience of Hammersoft was extraordinarily unpleasant and uncomfortable too. Majorly talk 15:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• And my experience with you equally so, since you persist in addressing me as a sock puppet and refuse to open a case about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• When I feel there is a need to comment more extensively on an AfD, I will [36][37][38][39][40]. A casual review of my editing at AfD by this administrator would have born this out. He failed to do that. Instead, he took me to task over one edit. Then, not liking my response, he suggested I refrain from commenting at all. When I asked him to stop hounding me, and indicated how he was hounding me, he drags me before this board? Nobody has a right to force anyone to edit things any more than they want to edit them. I contributed to the AfD in question. the closing editor could choose to ignore my comments if s/he so chose. If I felt it was necessary to expound further, I would have. I didn't feel it was necessary, and I didn't. Julian, please be more careful in the future and review an editor's similar contributions before castigating them over a single edit. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• This thread isn't just about the AfD. It's about your recent inappropriate conduct in general, including this uncivil comment towards Xeno (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• That's not how you started this thread. The matter you now bring up has been discussed by Xeno and I at User_talk:Xeno#XenosLaw, and as I made it clear there I am not baiting him, trolling him or otherwise trying to do anything but highlight his inappropriate block. Do you have some dirty laundry to air or no? If my conduct is inappropriate in your eyes, perhaps you could explain to me how I could be described by one editor as the most ignorant and disrespectful editor on Wikipedia and then be told it's not a violation of WP:NPA? You might not like me, and frankly I don't care; it's your opinion and I'm not here to win your opinion. But, I am acting perfectly in line with Wikipedia ideals. I've insulted nobody. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not here to win a battle. I'm simply requesting a third opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a third opinion: having looked at the diffs and contribs, I agree that Hammersoft has recently been making minimal contributions while repeatedly showing disrespect for other editors, and that this pattern will call for sanctions if it continues. I have no previous involvement with Hammersoft to my knowledge. Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have no experience with Hammersoft (that I can remember) and am not contesting the assertion that he can be difficult to deal with (no personal experience one way or another) but the two diffs provided do not seem to warrent any action. The first seems like it would have been better handled if Julian had simply told Hammer that his !vote would likely be ignored by the closing admin if he did not provide a policy-based argument, and that would be that. As far as I know, there is no policy that says someone must either explain themselves fully or be barred from !voting in the future. As far as the situation with Xeno, it seems to me that if Xeno has a problem he should bring up the issue himself, but barring that it is an ironic comment about an admin's actions, not a personal attack or even blatant incivility. Just my opinion, I am not an admin and don't even play one on TV. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I felt it would have been disrespectful to simply say "your opinion will be ignored". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see I got brought into this with a diff as well :-) (Having looked back at those diff's, the original ANI complainant posted about 9 long diffs ... I admit, due to WP:TLDNR, I looked at the first 8. The last one does, indeed, appear to have some incivility). Regardless, when someone asks you to explain your response a little better, the best option is not to be snarky, but to indeed reply - that's the way the community works. I see nothing actionable here, other than reminding Hammersoft that this is indeed, a group effort. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that this archive contains the entire incident. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Bwilkins. I do want to note that I did reply, noting it was self evident it was a neologism. We have a guideline on neologisms at Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Perhaps I could have linked directly to that guideline, but I didn't feel it was necessary. Further discussion on this at User_talk:Juliancolton#You_.26_me. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ... so, with the discussion that Hammersoft links directly above, and the discussion he's having with Xeno ... is there anything else, or can we close this by saying "please don't do it again, because it's easier than apologizing later"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I second BW's suggestion to close this thread, was about to suggest the same myself after reading the discussion on Julian's talk page. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• With the amplification that I don't feel I did anything wrong in the first place. If I had, I would have apologized for it. I think Julian and I clarified things between each other. It was a misunderstanding, and neither of us has need of apologizing for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 8 May 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:Riwnodennyk

User:Riwnodennyk reverted an edit in the article on Ukrainian language made by User:Glebchik with the following edit summary: "Rv Russian fascism". Prior to this, Glebchik already did replace an ethnic map with a language one and gave a reason for it in an edit summary. Riwnodennyk having been asked to comment on his edit, responded in an inconclusive manner. --Ahnode (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Use the article talk page to discuss and gain consensus for the edits, if necessary ask for outside assistance. --neon white talk 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not about "consensus for the edits" but about calling someone a fascist without a reason, which is insulting and unjustifiable. --Ahnode (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however there's a discussion on his talk page already and I've also given a more formal warning about it. Wikipedia is not a battle ground, thus please drop the grudge and get on with building an encyclopaedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Constructive edits being repeatedly called "vandalism", block warnings posted without any attempts of discussing the matter

Resolved

 – Closed by filing party.

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

[41] [42] [43]

While the first two times were reverted with either a blank edit summary or illogical reasoning, last time I found sources for the obvious fact the Jerry Seinfeld is a Jew (gotta love Wikipedia for that). The last edit, which as I mentioned is properly sourced, got reverted with a "last vandalism warning" before blocking [44]. The previous (and first) warning was on level 3 [45]. As far as I know, you should try and discuss the matter before even issuing level 1 warning. I know that I myself hurried into templating the user here, but I apologized here. I don't think it's a proper way to welcome a new contributor, especially considering my edit history, which contains mostly constructive and useful edits. Drone2Gather (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1) The link already existed in the article, there wasn't a need to move it. 2) The link specifically calls him "American Jewish" -- you can't ignore the "American" part simply because you were raised with a particular viewpoint ("it is a part of what I am and how I grew up"). Please, again, use a verifiable link to a credible source that says exactly what you're saying when you reference it when changing the nationality of a living person, in accordance with WP:BLP His nationality is not solely "Jewish", he is a citizen of the US. I notice that you haven't mentioned the discussions that have occured on other users pages and on the Jerry Seinfeld talk page -- there were several attempts to discuss the matter. Banaticus (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• "American Jewish" consists of two words: American – his place of residency and citizenship, and Jewish – his nationality. As you said yourself, "he is a citizen of the US." Yes, his citizenship is American, but his nationality is Jewish.
• A discussion that starts with "stop vandalizing pages or you will be blocked" is bound to go awry. I made that mistake myself, but quickly apologized; besides, I carefully chose the template so it has the least aggressive wording to it. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why can't his nationality also be at least partially American? You seem to think that it's an either/or situation, that he can't have both Jewish nationality and American nationality. But he lives in, works in, has citizenship in and apparently doesn't have a problem with the US, at least you haven't shown a reference that says otherwise. Why can't the article continue as it currently is, why does it apparently have to be an either/or situation? When you say, "I carefully chose the template..." which template are you referring to? Banaticus (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to take my words out of context and to generally misapprehend me. Why does he have to have a problem with the US? What does this have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that a Jew is born a Jew, simply because of having Jewish parents. I don't have to remind you why it is so, historically speaking. Seinfeld is an American, no doubt about that, and he's been proudly representing the US worldwide. Still, "American" refers to his citizenship, while "Jewish" refers to his nationality. My Israeli identification card indicates my citizenship being Israeli and my nationality being Jewish (it's fairly old; the nationality's been omitted from Israeli ID's for several years now for privacy reasons). Growing up in the USSR, I always knew that while my citizenship was Soviet (Moldavian, to be precise), my nationality has always been Jewish. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep having what's becoming the same discussion in two places at once. You pick the place, either Talk:Jerry_Seinfeld#.22Jewish_American.22 or here, then I'll continue that discussion in that place. Banaticus (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please post a clarification on my talk page regarding your "stop vandalizing or you'll be blocked" template. I've erased it, but it still looks bad on my history. When we're clear on my good faith, I'll gladly continue the discussion as we both want the best of Wikipedia's interests. (I gotta sleep soon, so it'll most likely be tomorrow.) Drone2Gather (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Take content discussion to the article talk page, this is not the place for it. Vandalism means a deliberate attempt to compromise the project, good faith edits are not vandalism and use of the term is best avoided. --neon white talk 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although your quote about the term being best avoided is the point I'm conveying here: I am not a vandal and let this be noted, crystal clear. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• • For the record 'nationality' should be what it says on a persons passport. It should not be subdivided on the basis of ethnic origins, political affiliation, religion or anything else. Such info can go in the article. --neon white talk 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When one is born to a Jewish mother, they are automatically considered Jewish by nationality. You are more than welcome to conduct a research. Drone2Gather (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's ethnicity not nationality. There is no sovereign nation known as jew, jewish or jewland etc. like there's no italian america, native america or african america. They are all just American nationality regardless of what ethnic group they belong to.--neon white talk 10:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Jerry Seinfeld must be the holder of an American passport, it carries the wording: "Nationality: United States of America." I suggest that User:Drone2Gather's frequent reverts of the Jerry Seinfeld article, though they are not vandalism, are very close to edit warring. If Drone2Gather is concerned that a vandal warning will look bad on his record, his repeated reversion of a highly-visible article to a version that only he supports will not look good on his record either.EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

All parties please note' This page is for discussing breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. While it is good that you are discussing it now, please keep the content dispute on the article talk page where it belongs. (give me a minute to review diffs and I will comment on possible civility issues) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, it does not seem that Drone was acting in bad faith, so vandalism warnings probably are not appropriate. However there is edit warring occurring and all parties should cease and desist and go to the talk page. If you find yourselves having trouble reaching consensus there, get help from WP:3O or WP:RFC. If edit warring does not stop, request protection at WP:RPP. As is often the case, this is a fairly minor point that is getting blown up into something bigger than it needs to be. May I suggest that the involved parties take five. The world isn't going to end if this article doesn't read the way you want it to for a few hours or days or even forever. There are several million other articles that could use some help, and also a handy "off" button on your computers that can help you get some perspective on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote on the Seinfeld talk page – Jewish American it is. Closing discussion due to requests. Drone2Gather (talk) 05:22, 11 May 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:Landon1980 Incivility/Personal Attacks

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Although this IS a WQA topic, you have forum-shopped this into WP:ANI. Don't do this again

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

User:Landon1980 has been attacking me recently. The issue began with an editor who wanted to change a lead sentence for Thousand Foot Crutch to say they are Christian rock instead of just rock. Landon responded claiming that "When a band is listed as being many genres you put the most general one in the lead sentence, not pick on of the many and place it there." Seen toward bottom of this thread. I responded that "I'm certainly not opposed to keeping it as just "rock" if it is indeed policy to list the most general one in the lead sentence." I went on to say that I did agree with the other editor, but I would side with policy. Here's where Landon gets offensive.

Landon stated: "I'm not having another brick-wall discussion with you, nor am I taking the time the educate you regarding the common practice of genres on wikipedia. Use some common sense, Christian rock is one of three genres that are listed for the band, all which are some type of rock. I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion with you. If you have problem with the current version request a third opinion, or seek some other type of dispute resolution. Now I think I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer."

1. Describes my point of view in discussions as being consistent with a brick-wall.
2. Insults my knowledge of Wikipedia policy/practices when I simply/politely asked for the policy he was claiming.
3. Said I don't use common sense.
4. Compares our discussion as beating a dead horse and pointless.
5. Ends by implying he'd rather bang his foot with a hammer than have a valid conversation about article content with me.

I responded and told him that the comment was disrespectful and told him not to insult me again. I also left a comment on his talk page stating: "I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by categorizing my input and consensus in discussion about an article (which was entirely appropriate and polite). I honestly have NO PROBLEM at all adhering to any policy (whether it by spirit or letter of policy) that specifies to word the lead sentence a particular way. I do, however, object to you just blurting out that this is how we do it without any justification or grounds. Have a great day."

He then removed the comment from his user page, which I understand is allowed although not preferred. However, in the edit summary he insulted me again by writing "I would appreciate if you would learn how to read, and how to use a talk page."

1. He implied that I do not know how to read (although I'm not sure what it is he was expecting me to have read).
2. He also implied that I was incorrectly using the talk page, by warning him of his incivility. However, he has in the past used my talk page to warn me and falsely accuse me of incivility. (This was quite some time ago, and this complaint is not related to or in response to that event).

Also, he went on to respond to my comment on the Thousand Foot Crutch talk page by stating: "Seriously though, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot as talk to you."

There have been other, recent personal attack incidents involving Landon's hostility. They were filed in the wrong place and may or may not have been correct, but it might be beneficial to look at. This can be seen here.

None of this is helpful in fostering a hospitable environment for editors. It should be noted that Landon did go on to revert my edit without gaining consensus (the only two opinions other than his were mine and the editor who originally suggested changing the lead-in sentence). Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:23, 11 May 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:Jza84

Stuck

 – Jza84 has made it abundantly clear on his talk page that he will not respond to this thread, and wqa cannot force him to apologize anyway.

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

I really don't want to do this, as it's probably a bit of a storm in a teacup. However, Jza84 insinuates here([46]) that I am a sockpuppet.

The background is a discussion over a merge of Leeds and City of Leeds, which went on for a while, and of which I was an active participant. Jza was also involved, and disagreed with my (and several others') viewpoint. The merge went ahead, which Jza has been annoyed about, and has since been saying that it was a 'backroom decision' etc, and has made his accusation against me. He has made these comments without any sort of proof, and apparently without referring to my edit history or anything. Not only am I not a sock, but I wasn't actually involved with the merge at all. At no point did I say that there was consensus to go ahead with the merge, so if he's annoyed at the decision he should be focusing his attention elsewhere.

I have approached him on his talk page User_talk:Jza84#Random_accusation, which was met with a rather snide response. I have further replied, asking that he remove his allegation and make it clear that it was unfounded, but have yet to receive a response.

I am unhappy that Jza has gone around talking about me. It was only by chance that I stumbled upon the conversation in the first place, and am concerned that it will tarnish me in the eyes of other users. I wouldn't be so concerned if it weren't for the fact that he is an admin, and a user who has, to be fair, done a lot of good work. I don't want him hung out to dry, but at the same time, don't want these allegations to still be out there. I don't think I'm being oversensitive, but I'm sure you'll all let me know if I am :-) Quantpole (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be one thing to insinuate being a sock, but if the behaviour becomes more of an accusation multiple times it is uncivil: the basic rule of thumb is "file your SSI report, or STFU". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying I have no right to ask him to rectify his comments? I wouldn't be bothered if it wasn't an admin, as their opinions generally carry more wait, and they are held to higher standards of behaviour than the general user. Quantpole (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe he is saying that without a report, it has no meaning, and that Jza should either file one or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he should have asked for a SSI, however, it's not like he's saying it all over the place. But given that I've expressed my concerns to him, I would at least expect him to remove (or strike) the comment, preferably with some sort of explanation. For some reason he hasn't done this. Quantpole (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All he says is there's a slight coincidence ... that's not even insinuation. It's only insinuation if you're indeed socking :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• He's not going to come here and respond, strongly suggest you just forget it and move onBeeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 13 May 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:DreamGuy Incivility/Personal Attacks

User:DreamGuy has twice reverted my attempt to create a reference on the original Psychopathia Sexualis book by Heinrich Kaan, falsely attributing it to Krafft-Ebing (who wrote a book with the title Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia Sexualis - New research on the field of Psychopathia Sexualis). While this is just an academic dispute, when asked for explanations on the issue, he's answering in an obviously abusive and offenssive way (see [47] and [48]). I ask for help. --MaeseLeon (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything too incivil there. --neon white talk 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the underlying content dispute goes, I agree with DreamGuy 100%. However, he could have been a little bit less direct in his choice of language. One has to be really careful when an edit, or an idea, seems "silly" or "pedantic" or "anal" - it is all too easy to give other editors the impression that such terms are not being directed at them. I don't think that was the intention here, and I hope DreamGuy will take this on board in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the extremely aggressive tone MaeseLeon approached me with right from the start and the extreme mischaracterization of both the dispute and my actions, it's a bit ridiculous for him/her to run off here to try to complain about my behavior. But then that particular tactic is one that others have tried in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be extremely interested in knowing what "extremely aggressive tone" I used to approach DreamGuy, enough to justify his calling me "pedantic", "attempting to give article space to an unknown book" (by merely mentioning a well-known book in the History of Medicine), "ridiculous" and so on. Also, I would also be interested in knowing what "tactics" are you speaking about, and how am I trying to "bully" you, because it's me who is feeling bullied here by simply sustaining a position. --MaeseLeon (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Extremely aggressive tone is your initial post to my talk page, the article talk page and edit comments. "Pedantic" is trying to insist that the title of a famous book is something other than what it actually is because you saw one edition with an extended title and ignored all the others with different extended titles. "Unknown book" because it is just that: unknown, especially compared to the famous one of the title. "Ridiculous" is a combination of the above. "Tactics" would be going straight to reporting me here instead of trying to make some sort of real justification for your edits. DreamGuy (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to revise my position somewhat in the light of the above responses. Both parties need to tone down their belligerence and aggressiveness. It should be possible to come up with a compromise as far as the content is concerned (indeed I have some ideas along those lines) but that does require both parties to be willing to talk politely, without accusations, and with an assumption of good faith on the part of the other. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a suggested compromise, by all means make it on the article talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Kingoomieiii & 67.242.56.62

Resolved

 – Kingoomieii has said he will attempt to remain civil throughout his and 67's discussion. I will keep an eye on it.--Skater (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon these two when I was on a rather sucessful vandal hunt. I discovered that on The Ip's Talk Page That these two were engaged in a Flame war and violating WP:NPA, I left them both warnings and proceded to use WP:TROUT. Kingoomieii has since deleted my edit with the edit summary of "Skate on Outta here."[49]. Which I understand he has the right to delete warnings from his own Talk Page, however I replied with [50]. I don't know if this is the right place but I believe this could need some looking into. Happy editing, --Skater (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me they have stopped after you warned them. If they don't continue the behavior, no further action is necessary as they responded appropriately to a warning by discontinuing the actions that prompted the warning. If they resume obviously more action would be necessary, and it should be brought up here again. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look above my warning Kingoomieiii continued the flame war, and made it look like he didn't by posting above.--Skater (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted above the warning so I could indent below the comment I was responding to (pretty standard, I'm doing it right now), not for some deceptive purpose. Don't presume to know my intent. Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He has also accused me of insults,yelling and brought my age into this, he continues to violate NPA. [51]--Skater (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read my response to you before expanding on this report further. There's clearly been a misunderstanding. Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't look closely at the time stamps, you are right of course. Well since he obviously ignored the warning you gave him if he continues nothing but a block would be able to prevent the disruptive behavior. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A person's age should have nothing to do with the points they bring up or the warnings they issue. Bringing age into a dispute and speaking in a condescending way based on age differences is inappropriate.   M  23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and find his argument against me to be innapropriate, but I'll let it go as this isn't about me and him. It's about him and the IP, and he has claimed that he will try to remain civil with him.--Skater (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's harassment

Resolved

 – Seems so, at least. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sevearl times over the last year or so I have asked Neutralhomer to stop referring to me by my previous username. Here are three examples of when I've asked him to stop: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Complex_thread_from_WP:AIV, User_talk:Willking1979/Archive_2#Re:_Guess_Who.27s_Back, and this most recent one (posted 5 days ago). Despite all this, and telling me he's not going to deal with me any further, he continues to refer to me as such. He's been asked to stop at least three times, and yet, he continues. Something needs to be done because this amounts to harassment at this point. There is absolutely no reason to continue referring to me that way, especially after I've asked him to stop. He gets upset when people refer to him by his past names/socks, so why should he refer to others in that way? either way (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all I saw was lots of bickering back and forth. But I do agree with Metros to some extent. I wouldn't mind it if some called me Kingrock, but after being asked to stop, it does amount to harassment.--(NGG) 11:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For the love of Pete...everytime you get a wild hair somewhere, you fire off an ANI post or a Wikiquette "alert". This needs to stop. Are you going to file one against NGG above for calling you "Metros". If you are going to be fair, you should. If not, this is just standard hypocrisy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A user should not hide previous identities unless he's got a legitimate reason for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no attempt to hide here. I prefer to be called this now, and request that others respect that and stop bringing up my past name. either way (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting that people "stop bringing up my past name" shows you definitely have something to hide about your previous name. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The 'wild hair' thing could indicate either touchiness, or persistent conflict/harassment among involved parties. Users should be referred to by either their sig or their username (which should be similar). Not only is this plain courtesy to that editor, it's also plain courtesy to other editors, who may be wondering who the heck 'Metros' is. Further, if the user wants to distance themselves from their previous identity, and perhaps some of the previous conflicts, then this should be respected. If the old identity is relevant, then "Either way, who was previously Namehere," should be used.   M  23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The example of "Either way, who was previously Namehere" is the reason I use "Either way/Metros". Most people know him as Metros or his previous Metros232. I don't do it out of malicious intent, just letting people know that he was once under a different moniker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many reasons why an editor would want to change their name, such as simple personal preference, having been outed, harassed, or having a murky history that they want to hide. Considering that a bureaucrat saw fit to honour this rename request, and that Either way is an admin in good standing, I don't think that the latter is the case, so any unsubstantiated insinuations in that direction are - at best - unhelpful. In the absence of a good reason for doing so, insisting on referring to a user by their old username is distinctly impolite, particularly after having been asked to stop.

For those unfamiliar with the participants, User:Neutralhomer recently certified a user conduct RfC against User:Either way, which was recently closed with the conclusion that there was no basis for the complaint. This may account for some of the animosity between these two editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on Sheffield's post...the animosity between "either way" and I goes back to his "Metros232" days. We have a long standing animosity/feud/whatever. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

At the cost being called uncivil, can I give you some friendly advice homer? Please shut the fuck up and go edit something. Your trolling this page watching for user's responses. Please go edit something, I'm tried of seeing this thread go on.--(NGG) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NGG, please tone it down. I know your contribution was well-meaning, but phrases like STFU really shouldn't be directed at other editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, but this is really uncalled for. All homer has to do is apologize and say he wont do it again it this will be over. Sorry i had to say stfu but really, this is out of hand.--(NGG) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL 10-4, Roger Wilco! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol you get my point then, good lad. Sorry had to be that bold about it.--(NGG) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you're concerned about other editors not knowing who Either way used to be, the best solution might be for you to politely ask them if they wouldn't mind putting a note on their user page: I used to be User:Metros - and accept that they are not required to do so. Continuing to use "Either way/Metros", after being asked not to, and in situations where (as user M pointed out above) it may not be relevant, is probably not a good idea, since it may seem like a deliberate attempt at provocation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

After numerous edit conflicts, it may be time to call this closed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Aggressive User:202.89.167.125 (anonymous editor) on homebirth page

At the homebirth article we are having difficulties with the aggressive tone and counter-productive edits of one anonymous user, IP address 202.89.167.125. I have posted a note on his/her talk page in an attempt to mitigate the aggressiveness and to provide appropriate links to WP etiquette. I referenced this on the homebirth discussion talk page that he/she checks almost daily [52]. I have received no response in more than a week, and the uncooperative tone of his/her comments has not improved [53]. I don't think this can be blamed on being a newbie to WP, because it has been ongoing since August 2008, despite suggestions and comments from several editors [54] [55] [56].

We are locked in a significant edit war because of this editor - he/she is unwilling to work with the other editors but demands that the article be made to his/her specificiations or he/she will revert all changes rather than reach consensus [57]. Most of his/her attacks are against one editor whom he/she has labeled "pro-homebirth" and has denoted as inappropriate to work on the article [58], but he/she is also quick to attack anyone else who contradicts him/her [59] [60]. Unfortunately, he/she does not contribute any text to the article for us to comment on or discuss, but deletes and reverts what others write and demands that we "do better" or "try again". The article is currently protected due to the edit warring, but as you will see from the discussion page, we are no closer to consensus, even after significant discussion.

A minor point to add, he/she is unwilling to use the 4 tildas to sign his/her comments despite several requests to do so, making the discussion slightly more difficult to follow. Many thanks to any and all who help us resolve this and move forward with this article. Lcwilsie (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you can do to help such an editor, clear misunderstanding of policy especially WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. All editors need to leave the article alone until the dispute is resolved. If the incivility continues and enough warnings have been given i'd take it to ANI unless you feel something like adoption might help? Personally I have little patience with agenda driven SPAs. --neon white talk 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks from 9Nak

Resolved

 – Sadly, user has retired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Would like assistance to ask the community to intervene against 9Nak from continued abuse and personal attacks e.g. You are an even bigger idiot than I had previously thought. 9Nak (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Julius.mampara (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You've already warned the editor and the behaviour has not continued so there's not much more can be said.--neon white talk 22:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that "Julius Mampara" is a derogatory name for a South African politician named Julius Malema. This editor is in fact a troll, and I'm about to file a report at UAA; just commenting here first. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst this editor is incredibly incivil, it's too early to label as a 'troll', so i ask you to assume good faith on that matter and avoid accusations that could potentially inflame matters. --neon white talk 11:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith has long since been trumped by action. Specifically, this diff. 9Nak (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you posted the wrong diff there but that seems to have no relevance to this at all. --neon white talk 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the right diff. Julius.mampara identified himself as responsible for the edits of that IP in his first two edits after registration. Sorry, I though even a cursory examination of the edit history (to determine whether this is a troll or not) would have made the link obvious. 9Nak (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing there that really suggests bad faith. You need to remember not to make assumptions and assume good faith if possible. Accusations of improper behaviour require strong evidence not supposition. --neon white talk 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You don't see strong evidence of bad faith? I find that utterly astonishing. Indulge me and let's just run through the series of events here.

* User posts that claim of HIV, which links to a source that has nothing at all to with the content posted (dif).

* User undoes the vandalism reverts by two different editors – then changes the claim from a false source to personal knowledge while harassing a reverter. (IP contributions)

* The page gets protected and the IP blocked, so the user registers Julius.mampara, an insulting username, to evade the block. (creation log)

* In order to evade the page protection, user creates the entry Julius Mampara (deletion log)

* User approaches me to insert a link to a (newly created) website that implies HIV infection of the subject in the original entry. (dif)

I see a troll trying to start an online smear campaign. But I'm 9Nak (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have every intention of continuing the behaviour. I will not be civil towards morons who attempt to use Wikipedia in online smear campaigns. Trying to use fraudulent sources to claim HIV infection in a BLP is, in fact, idiotic. On the basis of that and subsequent actions I'm also comfortable with calling this editor a cretin, an imbecile, a dunce and a lamebrain. 9Nak (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires you to be civil towards all editors. If you come across articles which are not written from a neutral point of view then work on them with other editors to improve them. If you come across editors that disagree seek outside help to gain a consensus. Text that violates WP:BLP should be removed immediately, if it continues to be added there are several ways forward. Firstly, speak to the editor, explain wikipedia's policy on bio info without resorting to personal attacks, you need to assume that the editor is unaware of the policy. If it continues to be added you can request protection or bring a particular editor to the attention of an admin. All this can be done without the need to be incivil. If you can't do that then you are harming the project and will likely face a block. Issued a final warning if it continues file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --neon white talk 11:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

9Nak, your approach and outlook is not constructive to this project - it is important you follow Neon white's approach in order to avoid being blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, from this discussion it would seem that my approach is indeed in conflict with the values of the community. I'd never have thought it. 9Nak (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community is largely made up of people from countries where directly criticizing someone in a workplace is considered the highest form of sin. The accepted course of action is not to directly confront them but to bring other people around to your side and thereby ostracize the other person without ever making an impolite comment. This is all laid out in far nicer language in Wikipedia's policies, but that is the gist of it. I would recommend playing along - I see that you've decided to retire, and I'm sad for that. Esn (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this project is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camraderie and mutual respect among contributors - the community values furthering this purpose as a whole; not just part of it. I'm sad to see that you have retired as I think you could've changed your approach with just a bit more time and effort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• As evidenced here, there's incivility on both sides. I urge both of you to cut it out or risk being blocked to prevent further disruption. Move on and get back to building an encyclopaedia please. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Notes for reviewing party: ANI report from two days ago and UAA report from today.

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:Deathmolor

Stuck

 – Both editors said they wanted to put this behind them, but clearly they have not. Closing per WP:STICK

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

• Talk:Timeline_of_file_sharing#Prior_Work_Before_Napster
• User_talk:Old_Death#File_sharing
• Talk:File_sharing#Napster_First_Issue (and sections below)

I removed vanity content, user reverted, 3rd+4th opinion was against the content. Throughout this process, Deathmolor has been accusing me of writing 'revisionist history' and 'being involved with Napster', demanding that I out myself, stating that he's checked my contribs and I'm only interested in one article, and so on - generally trying to discredit me as making legitimate contributions to WP. I've tried to remain civil and to stay on topic, have asked him to stop repeatedly, have linked the relevant policies. This is becoming unmanageable now, especially since he writes volumes, usually in response to his own messages. I'll need to take the content issues to rfc, but it would be nice if his editing was civil (and much more... terse) by the time that started.   M  01:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• It seems you are correct, every time consensus seems to be against him, Deathmolor resorts to attacking your motives and credibility. That is not acceptable. Content disputes are about content not the persons creating the content. And you are also correct that many of his responses are overly long. That is not a violation of any particluar policy, but being long-winded is often counter-productive, as many will simply say they won't read it because it is too long. (By the way it is usually considered polite to inform someone they are being discussed here, I have notified him now.) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is continuing. He is now "considering legal action", presumably against me, at Talk:Timeline_of_file_sharing#Third_Opinion (WP:LEGAL).   M  19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've warned him for legal threats. Since it appears he is ignoring this thread, there isn't much more we can do here. If incivility continues, consider a user conduct WP:RFC or an WP:ANI report. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're right, and thanks for trying. As far as wqa, I think this is as good as resolved.   M  20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I undid the resolve just so i would have a chance to comment myself. Also the resolve information was in error. I was not blocked indefinitely and the incorrectly perceived legal threat was retracted. I want to add also M was not completely innocent as he professes to be. But i do believe this is resolved. We have both decided to stick to the topic and i will no longer say rude things to him and i suspect he will no longer say rude things about me. Which i believe he did. I hope he will comment here and at least agree to disagree and stop what he does towards me also. Deathmolor (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's great and I hope everything works out, although I hope you take to heart what was said about legal threats. I'm not sure how else it could have been perceived. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, resolved. I don't mind if you leave comments about me on my talk page - if you seriously think I'm working for napster, for example, you can just ask me (nicely) at my talk, and I'll respond in some way there. Talking with other editors is usually the best way to clarify these disputes. You mentioned on your talk page that one of your concerns was being called vain - the WP:VANITY policy might be poorly named, but I don't mean to call you vain, but only to inform you of a policy that deals with adding information that might be related to yourself, or things you've created, and so on. Anyway, I'm glad that this is settled.   M  02:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well also communicating me as wiki stalker for following you around to pages where your talking about me and then everyone wondering why i didn't show up here to comment is a little difficult as well. I almost didn't catch all this and i could have gotten a ban from it. As for legal i will explain further by saying the intent is to invoke another to watch how personal one gets not to seriously consider legal matters. I will say again, the threat was not a threat and i am absolutely sure M used this as a mechanism of issuing a ban forward rather then any serious threat of legal action. He pushed the threshold of personal jabs and just watched to see if i would say anything about its legal murkiness. He was trying to take me out of my anonymous position by force and i did not appreciate that. Honestly though i get the impression the wiki games are afoot and its a battle as to who executes the wiki rules the best. It's really sad behavior. Deathmolor (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what to say about this. You were notified about this promptly,[61] though you continued to edit rather than coming here. Would you mind linking me to the personal jabs at you, or where I tried to force you out of your anonymous position? I'm not sure that you understand that 'well I was just trying to get you to watch it' is not an excuse - in fact, making threats for this reason would likely be much worse than if you had a legitimate legal concern.   M  14:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Again there is no threat. Lets not try to stir the pot on that again. I just wanted to communicate the obvious that calling one a stalker for going to pages in which i am the subject of it prompted me not to come here. So there is fault on your part. But i highly doubt you would ever admit any fault. Your not that type. I admitted fault but again that would not faze a person such as yourself you might just want to move on but you wont I am sure you want the last word also. I highly recommend flagging it as resolved now to help him out but that is highly unlikely to happen either until he has had his say to which it will be promptly be set as resolved right after. Let the games begin. Deathmolor (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Deathmolor, if you are still asserting personal jabs at you, or a forcing out of your anonymous position, or any other wrongdoing on my part, please provide a link to the diffs. Given your accusations (currently unsubstantiated personal attacks), and your 'let the games begin' comments, I doubt that this is resolved, but I don't want to continue discussing this with you until your comments become more sensible. I can only hope that some editor will do a better job of explaining appropriate behavior than I have.   M  08:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Both of you should stop. Right now both of you have said you want to be done with this and move on, so stop posting here and move on. Any further comments here are pointless, and any new issues not brought up in this alert should be posted in a new thread. Anything further posted here can only be beating a dead horse, trying to have the last word or trying to bait one another, none of which are acceptable behavior. Please follow your own stated intentions of moving on, so this doesn't escalate to the point of disruption. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:20, 16 May 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:Legolas2186

Hi,I think that the user Legolas2186 have had a very uncivil and disrespectful behavior against some contributors calling them "idiots". You can see it in his edit summary where he, while reverting some edits called the contributors of those edits idiots.

Thank, and sorry for my English --♫Smanu! 11:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No real persistant problems with inciviliy, if you must leave a polite talk page message asking him/her not to use insults in edit summaries. --neon white talk 12:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems at Noahs Ark

I recently ran into some troubles at the talk page for Noahs ark. The dispute quickly escalated, first to EAR and then to ANI. During the conflict I was the target of several personal, and one blanket attack. The diffs are here both in the edit summary, and in the last few lines of his post. Here the user attacks another editor and creationists in general in the bottom paragraph. Here is a cyber improv satire directed at me. And here in the edit summaries of Dreamguy at 20:54, May 16, 2009, and at 22:16, May 16, 2009.Drew Smith What I've done 03:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew appears to have missed out a couple of links: (i) where he calls the other editors on Noah's Ark "a group of self proclaimed atheists" and (ii) where Christian Skeptic is the first to raise the accusation of "religious fanaticism". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And I quote " Not to invent any Cabals that weren't already there, but it appears that a group of self proclaimed atheists are controlling the article. I may be reading to much into this, and perhaps my judgement is still clouded by personal beliefs". This was a request to have a neutral 3rd party give advice on whether my suspicions could possibly be correct. Not an attack.Drew Smith What I've done 04:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"The article is about the boat itseld, not it's task, not who commanded it, and not whether or not the flood happened."

The Genesis narrative tells how God, grieved by the wickedness of mankind, decided to destroy all flesh upon the Earth with a flood. However Noah, one righteous man who "found grace in the eyes of God", was instructed to prepare for this flood by building an Ark and to retreat to it with his family and male and female representatives of the animals that inhabited the Earth. As the flood waters rose, all were killed but those sheltered inside the Ark. As the waters reached their height, "God remembered Noah," the waters abated, and dry land reappeared. After the family of Noah and the animals left the Ark, Noah offered sacrifice, and God was pleased and decided never again to kill every living thing.

— 2nd paragraph in lead of Noah's Ark

Is the disconnect, between Drew's claim and what the article actually says, a Wikiquette violation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And no Drew, this is not a "content dispute" it is a behavioural dispute over your misreprresentation of the content -- a misrepresentation that a couple of editors commented upon ([62][63]). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be primarily a content dispute at heart and all editors involved need to cease the name calling and accusations of bad faith and use all means to sort out the dispute. --neon white talk 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple of choice comments by User:Drew R. Smith to give an indication of his idea of proper behavior: "Learn to read genius" (as part of a comment in which he is ostensibly apologizing to User:KillerChihuahua for being snippy) and, amazingly, "Jesus Christ man, read the fucking page! Up there/\ see it? No? Further up there/\! Keep going, did you find it? Good numbnuts, now lets come back down here and have an intelligent conversation without backtracking." (to User:Baseball Bugs, who was actually sympathetic to the edit he originally wanted to make). This from someone who recently nominated himself for a Mediation Committee spot with the claim "I want to be on the mediation committee because I enjoy solving conflicts between two parties". And the content dispute that started this began when several editors opposed him adding POV content to an article and then trying to justify it with horribly misinformed claims, like that all Christians believe that Noah's Ark is literally true and that Christians represent half the world therefore his personal religious belief must be presented in the article as the majority view. Between refusing to admit any wrongdoing, failing to understand the basics of our core policies, and extensive forum shopping to try to get his way, this editor is probably in need of a mentor to set him straight so he can start making positive contributions. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is totally a content dispute, and as sometimes happens, the wikiquette complaints are an unconstructive distraction. The complainant griped to me that I seemed to be switching sides - misunderstanding that this is about article content, and that the only "side" I'm on is trying to improve wikipedia, or at least trying not to make wikipedia look stupid. The complainant in this case has no grounds for complaining about wiki etiquette. The items he complained about originally were very mild, especially as compared with the hot-headed stuff he came back with that you note above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with Baseball Bugs on this one. This is a mere content dispute. Baseball bugs is doing a great job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horneldinkrag (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, this account is a brand new user whose only edits have been to enthusiastically support BB in multiple places on multiple topics. It's a bit over the top to be a sock of BB, but it bears watching. DreamGuy (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's an obvious sock of someone who bears a grudge against BB. He attracts those. One was blocked last night for attacks, this one's back to try and make by with a spoonful of sugar, it seems. Just ignore him, he'll be blocked again soon. Dayewalker (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to the sockpuppet case that concluded that? --neon white talk 10:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies, for anyone who's witnessed the cult of new accounts that follow BB around. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I told my roommate/sibling/friend/parrot to be a little more subtle than that. I tell ya, it's hard to get good help these days. I'll probably have to lay him/her/it off now. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratualtions, you have sufficiently turned a discussion about ettiquette into a joke. Honestly chihuahua, I don't know how you ever got on the MedCom, and I have no doubts that our recent conflict had now sway over your vote. @BB I apologised almost immediatly after I said those things, and explained that I was merely frustrated that you were bringing up things that we had already gotten past.Drew Smith What I've done 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius and Locke Cole

Resolved

 – Filing party advised to refrain from making vexatious complaints of this nature. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I announced my retirement from Wikipedia in protest of the date delinking mess, and these 2 users have brought some nastiness to my talk page here. They have longstanding civility issues at the whole Date Delinking Request for Arbitration; my complaint here is solely their bringing it to my talk page when one editor tried to politely wish me farewell. My retirement from editing does not mean I don't still use the site to look things up and therefore saw these messages on my talk page. User:Septentrionalis' comment is not a problem - I did not take it the way Ohconfucius and Locke Cole apparently did... I took "better spirited" in good faith to mean when I am feeling better, as I had mentioned being in a car accident recently. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 07:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason for asking anyone else to intervene, particularly when you are aware that their conduct is under scrutiny by ArbCom - if there's a problem, please add it as evidence at the relevant ArbCom pages. You can resolve this yourself by reverting/removing any posts that are made to your talk page, and letting them know that you would not like them to make (certain) posts to your talk page. If, despite a reversion or message requesting them not to post on your talk page, they continue to leave such posts on your talk page, then report it to an admin noticeboard. I cannot appreciate you posting this vexatious complaint here (as a retired editor) that literally wastes the limited time many volunteers have to spend on-site. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I thought this was where we reported incivil users, and now you accuse me of wasting your time. Just another way Wikipedia is broken, and more incentive for me to leave. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 03:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not excused. You were not reporting incivility so it's not Wikipedia that is broken; you were simply wasting others time with a complaint about something you'd already resolved, and that's being resolved in another venue (this could amount to forum-shopping). Bringing this vexatious nonsense here simply highlights your ill-considered judgement, and a sense of unwillingness or inability to work within the community's framework and norms - when you consider that as incentive for your departure, I can't imagine anyone else uninvolved being ready to convince you to stay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that Sept's original comment was not uncivil ... "in better spirits" does indeed mean "in a better frame of mind". To be honest, however, this really is in many ways not the right venue for the issue, whether it's being looked at by ArbComm or not. Ohconfucious (according to WP:AGF) misunderstood Sept's comment. LC then took a swipe at them. None of those 3 people took any form of public attack against you - they were snotty to each other, but not you. IMHO, I would have simply responded "if you guys want to misunderstand the original post and fight, then please don't do it on my talkpage", and then delete it if they continued. Rule 1: always try to resolve issues directly with the users - advising Ohconfucious that they misunderstood would have been a good first step to avoid the drama. Happy ... "retirement"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourtildas

The above user has made comments that are offensive (antisemitic?) on the Israel discussion page Talk:Israel#A_Nation_State. This is not the first time he has appeared. Telaviv1 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried just ignoring him/her/it?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the sort of thing we should ignore. Race-baiting and discriminatory language are not acceptable. Users should make their case using rational argument and citing sources, not by hurling hate speech around on talk pages. Disagreements are never solved by name calling. This article, and anyone who edits it are subject to sanctions for a reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have taken the unusual step of refactoring the offending remarks as I firmly believe that hate speech has no place on Wikipedia. Neutrality is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and this sort of talk has no place here. Feel free to disagree on a talk page, but keep it WP:CIVIL. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I will keep this in mind should I come across any instances of same.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually ignoring him was effective last time but as the comments were not directed towards me and this was not the first time I thought I would make a complaint. This is the first time I have made a complaint and I was curious to see how things work. Thanks for your time. It will be interesting to see how he responds. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

Many comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab are bordering incivility and personal attacks and many appear to be in breach of WP:AGF.

Ironically, many of these AGF complaints I have are about AGF complaints made against us. They claim that by my nominating the project, I am failing to assume good faith; a claim I disagreed with here. Brangifer claimed the nomination was 'based on a failure to AGF, which is itself a policy violation, thus rendering the nomination illegitimate', when in fact a number of valid concerns had been made. I believe that this in itself is a failure to assume to assume good faith in me. And the later part in my opinion is wrong and calling something illegitimate is wikilawyering.

Many arguments by editors in support of the project are ad hominem against those who oppose it. Editors have claimed argues against the project are based out of 'ignorance' [64] (User:BullRangifer, a comment that is clearly directed at the project's opponents. Drew R. Smith claimed that 'it almost seems like you were skimming for keywords and didn't read his post at all' to an editor, a claim which in my opinion clearly violates the assumption of good faith. Drew R Smith disagreed with me that this could be seen as incivil [65] after I rose the issue on his talk page [66]. Drew actually suggested I raise the topic here.

I would very much like all editors, perhaps including myself, to be more civil but this is problematic when users refuse to acknowledge that their actions could even be seen as incivil. Computerjoe's talk 14:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I failed to see the reply on User talk:BullRangifer, where he justifies some of the words used. I still find them a little strong, though, and still contest his assumption of good faith. Computerjoe's talk 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed a section from the WikiProject's page that takes a very hostile tone and really very much fails to assume good faith. [67]. Computerjoe's talk 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it too much, but I don't know who put that there. But I agree, that needed to go.Drew Smith What I've done 20:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer put it there it would appear [68]. I invite his comment. Computerjoe's talk 22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I most certainly have doubts about the person who invented this project, but that doesn't diminish my support for the project itself.Drew Smith What I've done 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the notice and tweaked it so as not to offend the extremely sensitive sensibilities of the one who raised this issue. This board should not be misused to complain about small perceived slights. That's not proper. This board is for more serious matters.

As to my comments about "ignorance", a bit of context is needed to avoid being misled by the comments above. My comments at the MfD were clearly framed to be specifically about the ignorance of my comments that has been going on. I started the project in good faith, and many false statements and speculations have been made, so I have made specific replies in the MfD to set the record straight. Then the same false statements have been made and repeated by a number of editors, showing that they have been ignorant (in "ignorance" of) of my comments. I have not accused anyone of being dumb, just in "ignorance" of my comments. Any other interpretation, considering my specific comments, is an assumption of bad faith aimed against me. They should be reading my comments and accepting them, instead of replying as if I was lying or as if they had not read them. I think the latter is the case. If I had stated that they had "ignored" my comments, that would have been a strong accusation of deliberately acting in bad faith. I did not do that. My comment was accurate, and the one who started the MfD has taken offense. I suggest his sensitivities need to be adjusted up a notch to an adult level.

This matter doesn't even rise to the level for an accusation of incivility. We're adults here and should be able to talk straight talk without fearing that we'll be censored. Already the starter of this thread has attempted to intimidate me and Drew R. Smith with warnings on our talk pages. That's not a nice way to deal with the situation. He has the nerve to attempt to prevent a fledgling project from getting established and showing its true colors, then he and his sympathisers attack it with speculations based on their own fears, not actual facts, and he expects his attack to be met with abject submission and kowtowing? No, we have a right to respond and defend ourselves, but he doesn't like that. Too bad. I have responded in a civil but direct manner, and see this thread as yet another attempt by him to silence all opposition.

Now that Drew R. Smith has expressed his doubts about me (for some unknown reason), I'll leave him to deal with this and the project. I will not work in an environment of distrust and assumptions of bad faith. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not for an unknown reason. I expressed doubts after learning that you were the one who posted the attack. This doesnt mean leave the project though.Drew Smith What I've done 04:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll oblige you out of curiosity. What "attack"? (BTW, I consider the MfD an "attack".) -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<---- This attack [69]. This kind of thing is unacceptable.Drew Smith What I've done 04:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how grammar and parsing works in your part of the world, but if you read that again, it is a response to an attack, IOW a notice akin to the one at the top of that page. Since someone questioned it, I reworded it, since someone apparently has overly sensitive sensibilities, can't take being disputed, and actually admits he doesn't know!. He can dish it out by starting a premature MfD, but can't take any contrary response or defence. It was a notice about an attack. If one were to be pendantic about it, it could be considered a counterattack, but it wasn't the first attack. I'm not considering your starting of that matter an attack, but the following use of it by enemies of the project. Those are the attacks I was referring to. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The MfD wasn't premature. I nominated it based on the content at the time. Whilst some concerns have been addressed, not all have. I do not know the action plan your project has so I thought it would be inappropiate for me to answer that user without redirecting them to you. Your tone is remarkably rude, in my opinion. Calling people enemies and such really isn't suitable for Wikipedia; all Wikipedians have the same goal! Computerjoe's talk 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what I said. It seems the only way this could be offensive is if the editor really did skim the post, in which case, he/she deserves to feel offended.Drew Smith What I've done 18:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda

User:Jacurek calls an edit made by me, referenced with reliable secondary sources in Strategic bombing during World War II as 'clear Nazi propaganda', when mediation was asked for, he refused any discussion, and implied that I am the same category as Holocaust deniers. Kurfürst (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Remind the editor that while they have no obligation to take part in disussion or dispute resolution, if they choose not to they simply have no input and a consensus will be formed with or without them that they will have to accept. Also notify the editor of the alert. --neon white talk 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look at your edits and try to avoid using Nazi propaganda sources and repeating its claims on the talk page - this should help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, British Student Television and Glasgow University Student Television

I don't know whether this is the right place to raise this, but the situation surrounding these two articles is becoming untenable.

The contentious issues began over the Glasgow University Student Television article. JMalky and Tomisaac and myself became involved in a notability conversation with Sherzo. There was no consensus and after a period of time had elapsed, Sherzo re-directed the page towards a new article British Student Television, mostly taken from Tomisaac's sand box. I recreated the GUST article and nominated it for AFD and that's where the trouble really started.

After the AfD ended, Sherzo nominated me for a RFCU (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TorstenGuise) with a group of other editors as they had previously not been involved in the article. The RFCU was thrown out on the grounds of fishing. After which, one of the users involved, Bluecord in his own conflicts with Sherzo stupidly created a sock-puppet to attack Sherzo (which I have condemned).

Since then, there has been a serious level of incivility by Sherzo towards any editors having a position in favour of the GUST and the British Student Television. Sherzo is acting as if he owns the articles and any change made by such editors are usually marked as vandalism.

I've come to the end of my tether with all of the abuse and almost left the community for good. JMalky is currently suffering the abuse from Sherzo and I'd like the community to try and mediate here. TorstenGuise (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence in the form of diffs and notify the user about this alert. Sounds like another avoidable situation created by an improperly closed afd. Seen as it was some time ago, if the article is still contentiuous then i'd suggest another afd is needed. On first glance the article is severly lacking in notability and reliable sources and, in it's current state, would be unlikely to survive, solves all the silly edit wars. So i'd go with that first. --neon white talk 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User notified. The simplest evidence is the articles history. The majority of edits made by this user are reverts. I'm not going to comment on notability, but the AfD was unopposed, which was probably why an admin closed it. I created the AfD for that purpose. to establish notability and end the edit warring. However, it was following the closure that the abuse really started. For the start of the abuse, please see Here. The relevant statement that began the abuse is:

wikipedia is not a democracy,and your hopes of it existing ad infinitum because no one cares is poor form

The counter debate is here. A report was made, by Sherzo, on the administrators noticeboard that can be found here and the response made by multiple editors over his actions are here.

Other that that, just check the history of the articles noted. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"just check the history" or "just check his contributions" are the quickest way to get it ignored. We're all so busy building an encyclopedia, we don't have time to fish. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think another AfD is the best and quickest way to settle this. Strike that actually. At the moment the argument is over references in the article. A second opinion on those would be a better place to start. JMalky (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of etiquette it is laughable, since I have frequently engaged in debate despite the hostile tone that has been taken by Tortenguise etc, both Tomisaac and Jmalky have admitted that personal involvement has lead to misleading information in an attempt to overstate the notability of such groups in the hopes that they can remain on the sight, with little or no reliable sources. This is yet another part in Jmalky and Tortenguise in what A Man In Black said was "seems that he's trying to get support to bully an editor to prevent a merge" Sherzo (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, the article has been through two AfD's, and attempt to merge it with a very poor 'british student television' article. Having not had your way in those arguments, you've been carpet bombing the page with 'citation needed' tags, cleanup tags etc, and posting anti-vandalism notices on my talk page. You've got a bizarre vendetta against the GUST article which I honestly can't get my head round. Tomisaac has come to the point of leaving wikipedia because of your bullying behaviour, and I'm considering doing the same. Finally, I can't speak for Tomissac but yes, I've been involved with GUST and student television in the past. But I wasn't aware that being involved with an article's subject precluded you from contributing to it. AfD's, merge discussions etc are between many editors and I thought reflected an objective consensus. JMalky (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I see you're reverting edits/adding threatening notices to the talk page of a third user, Cloudo, as he's making an honest attempt to improve the page. JMalky (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for you. Accusations of impropriaty need strong evidence otherwise they are personal attacks. Nothing at all disruptive about tagging an article for clean up or requesting citations. --neon white talk 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. On my talk page there are discussions going back over a year involving further users who've complained about your editing on this topic, and in the last AfD discussion you accused all the users who voted to keep the article (100% of the vote, incidentally) of being sock puppets, and posted abusive tags on their user pages. JMalky (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for far too long. There are a legion of editors in Sherzo's wake. Xrateddan, CR7 are two I can name at the drop of a hat and the tactics have mostly been the same: Either abuse or marking edits as vandalism. This is a prima facie breach of WP:OWN on both articles. It needs to end so we can continue to constructively build an encyclopaedia!. TorstenGuise (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Again you all need to stop the accusations and work with all editors on a solution without the edit warring. --neon white talk 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you can name as a quick look at your edit history shows you are engaged yet again in an attempt at vote stacking, perhaps you should try improving the articles rather than playing games which is only a detriment to this encyclopedia. Sherzo (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of impropriaty need strong evidence otherwise they are personal attacks. Stop now. See WP:CANVAS for the guidelines on this. --neon white talk 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Informing editors that have been previously named as suffering abuse in this debate has been made out of courtesy and not votestacking. TorstenGuise (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lack of help. JMalky has left Wikipedia because of it. TorstenGuise (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User: Nuberger13

I've encountered a particularly difficult individual in editing the Sand Mountain (Alabama) article, who engages in personal attacks, and labels my good faith edits as vandalism. Being told "burn in hell you little communist" is laughable, but it's rather disruptive to getting a good article put together. There seem to be only the two of us interested in this article, so there is no third party help involved in article discussion. Examples of User:Nuberger13's lack of civility are at Talk:Sand Mountain (Alabama), particularly the final entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sand_Mountain_(Alabama)&curid=10669367&diff=292795444&oldid=292776328. An example of his labeling my edits as vandalism is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sand_Mountain_(Alabama)&diff=292794886&oldid=292776935. I note that Nuberger13 has various other warnings for civility and vandalism at User_talk:Nuberger13. Please take a look at this so I can get back to the business of editing. Eastcote (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism diff was clearly a misuse of Twinkle. He also appears to display ownership mentality with respects to the current article. Anybody may edit a Wikipedia article, even if you do not live in the town the article is about. His remarks about Kumbaya show that he doesn't understand our policy about assuming good faith, yet your response that he "seek help immediatly" was a bit patronizing and I suspect only added fuel to his fire. His response to your warning about the policies that he has broken was unacceptable. Nuberger must realise that he can and will be blocked if he continues to make such personal attacks. ThemFromSpace 03:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

addendum I just looked through his contributions and this edit summary (for the most minor of mistakes) is a doozy. This overreaction is highly disruptive and will most definitly lead to a block for civility in the near future if he keeps it up. Nuberger13, you have to stop this immediatly. ThemFromSpace 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, this kind of insulting conduct has no place on Wikipedia, and needs to stop right away. I have left a warning note on users' talk page and removed the worst of the personal attacks from the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This user obviously has ownership issues with this article and meay need to be banned from editing it. I cleaned up the article and removed several ambiguous statements, but I was reverted with no explanation. I think a ban on this article for this editor is in order.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not something that can be asked for in WQA ... you will need to present a case either in WP:ANI or open an WP:RFC on him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I did not revert his reversion of my additions, but I did edit the article a bit more. So far, I have not been reverted. Hopefully he is ready to work on the project as a team, or he just may be away from his computer. Who knows?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I'm grateful for the responses and assistance. We'll see how he behaves for a while. If the objectionable behavior continues, what's next? Do I just report it to WP:ANI and link back to this page as justification for requesting a ban on his editing? Eastcote (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They have not edited since 11-ish Eastern this morning. this is a brutal use of an edit summary. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)