Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Shortcut:
WP:WQA

Wikiquette alerts are a streamlined way to get an outside view about possible problems with how editors are working with each other.

A single posting per alert is sufficient. Please avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page. Instead, continue discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to you.


Are you in the right place?


Procedure for this page

At the bottom of this page,

  • Post a single link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting [diff] or section of a talk page).
  • Describe the problem or issues as neutrally as possible.
  • Do not sign your comment and do not use names. Instead, type ~~~~~ (five tildes), which gives only a timestamp.
  • Please avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page. Instead, continue discussing it wherever you originally were — editors responding to posts here will come to you!

If you would like to get an outside view on your own behaviour, you may post an item here about that, as well.

Editors who follow the link provided in an alert are encouraged to make a constructive comment on this page about any Wikiquette breaches they see.


Archiving

Items posted to this page should be removed after seven days.


Contents

[edit] Archived alerts

[edit] Active alerts

[edit] 21 February 2007

User:Icar has been repeatedly describing me as "a Stalinist", "a communist", "a pest", "a disruptive editor", and comparing me to persecutors of the 1950s and himself to a victim (see this, this, and this). He has recently harassed me on my talk page, re-posting a personal attack he had made on another user, and one which I had erased (here and here). His contributions are almost entirely connected with a group of articles to which I have recently contributed, where I had initially removed the POV and insufficiently verified information he kept pushing, and his disregard for basic wikipedia conventions on neutral tone and reliability (see, for example, Talk:Leonte Tismăneanu). Dahn 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually in those 3 quotes he didn't describe you as "Stalinist", but your position as "Stalinist stance". I also couldn't find it where he called you a "communist".
Moreover, I doubt he is chasing your contributions, a much more fairer assessment would be he's interested in the history of Communism in Romania (unless you have solid evidence for your claims).
On the other hand you also have a long track of POV pushing (see your numerous edit wars in Vladimir Tismăneanu , Leonte Tismăneanu and others - which perhaps are not relevant now - plus the interference of User:Khoikhoi who occassionaly reverts all the changes of other editors to the last change made by you and that without absolutely no reason as he is absent from the debates and he is not adding content whatsoever in those articles), so unless you'll find a mediation/arbitration to decide where the middle ground is, I personally do not find your accusation solid (though I disagree(d) with many things Icar added). Daizus 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Now, I'll wait for neutral users to become involved, if you don't mind. Dahn 00:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
After carefully reading Dahn’s report and following step by step the development of the story I am very inclined to second Daizus’ conclusions. As for Icar, his article edits appear to be much better than his talk page contributions, where he sometimes seems to be unwary in the choice of his vocabulary. Nevertheless, he is a valuable contributor and there is no apparent reason to doubt his good faith. --Vintila Barbu 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As I have said: I'm still waiting for neutral editors. Dahn 09:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It is strange that Dahn resorted to complaining. In fact I am basically persecuted by Dahn, who systematically removes my contributions on all pages. There is something wrong with the way he deals with editing conflict. Instead of discussing and then changing, immediatly he reverts. He may or may not leave a dismissive note ("rv vandalism" is his favorite, which I apply to him only in retaliation). Another dishonest behavior is enlisting the help of people unrelated to the article in question. User:Khoikhoi did a few reverts at Dahn's request without having the slightest idea what he was doing, just beacuse he and Dahn do such services between themseves. Then three other users Mardavich, User:Domitius and User:Artaxiad also joined in reverting to Dahn's versions. None of these users ever made any contributions to related articles. My personal opinion is that User:Dahn suffers from the WP:OWN syndrome. It is a lie that I posted a personal attack on his page. I posted there a reaction to user Khoikhoi's acknowledging that he just acted according to Dahn's wish and blindly reverted to Dahn's versions. Dahn has the habit of erasing comments he dislikes. I repeated the comment on Khoikhoi's talk page. He did not erase it and it is really not a personal attack. In fact, aside from the obnoxious treatment I receive from Dahn, I find WP quite a friendly place...(Icar 14:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
Mardavich sided also with Khoikhoi in an edit war he had with me in Albert Wass article (with the same symptoms: Mardavich hasn't contributed in any way to that article or to its talk page, moreover I addressed his behavior on his talk page and I got no response!). I believe these are "friendships" over Wikipedia translated as mutual support to avoid 3RR violations. I will look if this falls under the incidence of Wiki rules, if so, this POV pushing should be exposed. Daizus 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
To all parties involved. Please avoid continued discussion of the issue on this page. Editors will come to you when responding to this. Defense and additional accusations are not necessary; an experienced editor will be able to help out based on the original posting alone. Sancho McCann 17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone take a look here? Repetitive revert changes, WP:OWN behavior and uncivil attitudes by Viriditas has caused one seasonededitor to leave the article completely and caused others (including me) to lose their tempers at the user's unwillingness to work within a group, He has been active in edit-warring for almost a month, breaking 3RR at least twice (no action taken due to the edit summaries concealing the reverts until it was too late to report them). Independent, informal evaluations had been asked for in the past, yet Viriditas pays no attention to their conclusions, and has edited vitually every edit (not just mine) that is added to the article.Arcayne 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 22 February 2007

  • User:Pakalomattam added content to several articles ([1], [2], [3]) using a five-digit system for numbering the years (e.g. "02007" instead of "2007" - like the Long Now Foundation). I changed the dates to the standard four-digit style, but he reverted them. I explained on his talk page why four-digit years should be used for both technical and aesthetic reasons, but he insists he is free to use five-digit years because WP:DATE does not explicitly say not to use them. Following some discussion he posted a rather confrontational ultimatum on my talk page ordering me to change his edits back or change the manual of style by Saturday, and that the issue was simply a case of my opinion versus his. I feel I have made it quite clear to him why four-digit years are the accepted standard on Wikipedia, but he is clearly not accepting this. I feel he is straying into WP:DE territory and would rather not continue arguing the toss alone. 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 23 February 2007

  • I would welcome outside input at my comments on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#My response on the matter. I think User:Durin might be going a bit too far in his methods with not just me, but others who he contacts about images, etc. Clearly investigating family members of Wikipedia users is a bit beyond the line. I am also concerned about an unresolved threat, where another user stated he had friends who lived in my area and that he'd been in touch [4]. As far as I can tell, no action was taken against the person who made that statement; a statement which scared the hell out of me and made me fear for the safety of myself and my family. I actually no longer edit Wikipedia from home or work because of this, only public locations. Please note that I'm not filing any complaints against Durin and dont want to get him or others spun up. I just would like some neutral comments about the conversation on the pump page to see if I myself have done anything seriously wrong. Thank you -Pahuskahey 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are upset about and accuse me of supposedly contacting people (including government agencies) to investigate your family members, but have no desire to spin things up? For the record, as I have now stated multiple times, I investigated the source of the image Image:Soninafghan.jpg which you uploaded, by using statements made by you about this image and the person displayed in the image (age, service, location of service, rank, and death). I used these statements and compared them against these resources:
  • I could find nothing that matched. Nothing. That is why I call into question the veracity of your claims that this was your son, killed in the war on terrorism. I did not contact any government agencies (as you claim). I did not contact anybody in the "real world" regarding the veracity of these images. I used the information you gave and information publicly available on the Internet, and that is all. Period. Images on Wikipedia are routinely reviewed for their source, attributions, and copyrights. I am sorry you find this troubling. --Durin 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No one is making accusations, I am asking for neutral people to give an opinion; I thought this page was for that purpose, not for you and I to hash it out further. No intent here to stir things up, just wanted to hear other songs and not just the same old tune. -Pahuskahey 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You have repeatedly accused me of investigating your family members offline. You have zero evidence of this and have been shown multiple times now how I ascertained the results that I did. Yet, the accusations remain. Casting about on various forums and continuing to maintain that I have made such a gross violation of privacy is not a positive process in any respect for you, me, or the project. I have requested you begin an RfC. Please do so. That is a preferable forum for this; you would surely get considerably more input. --Durin 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • RfC says you have to have two people and have an unresolved issue which has failed to be resolved through other methods. It also says an RfC should not be taken lightly and only used as a last resort. Since the photos themselves have been deleted, that issue would seem to be resolved. After reviewing the situation, I will admit you that based on what you have said, you appear to have only used the internet and not contacted government agenices. Although, at first, it seemed like this was what you had done. And, also, what would have happened if these internet sources had given you a confirmed name? You then would have had my son's name and thus my last name, easily tracing it to me. I also do not accept that you ever had enough info to ID him. You took a lot of info pieces from the picture and the shadow box program, assuming a great deal which I never verified. The picture is gone though and I will not re-upload it, so no further need to beat it death. I was hoping for 3rd party opinions on this page, not a continuation of the debate. -Pahuskahey 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Stevenstone93 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has 233 edits, almost all of which are to his own User and User talk pages (he seems to be using the latter in part to communicate with his schoolmates). He has made edits to only three articles, but in each case his edits were reverted as unhelpful and/or vandalism. I'm not sure if all this warrants a block or perhaps just a friendly warning that Wikipedia is not a personal web page or a social networking site. I leave it to the more knowledgeable folks here to deal with. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive185#From AIV. —Psychonaut 20:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I see now that both the user page and the user talk page have been PRODed. If anyone wants to take a look at this report, s/he should best do so in the next couple days. —Psychonaut 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at Nomenclator's behaviour on the Veganism Talk page. Specifically, behaviour such as: editing someone else's comments[5], generalized belligerence towards other editors and repeated [6] personal attacks [7]. S/he has been warned/cautioned on more [8] than [9] one [10] occasion and it is still happening. To make matters worse, the his/her new argument is that it is impossible to have a NPOV [11] article on veganism. 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24 February 2007

The behaviour of user Gravitor is becoming more and more disruptive. Violations appear to be WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:Civility. This user uses edit summaries such as "reverting to last NPOV. Discuss on talk page" when he is the one that refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. A poll was taken, showing that his viewpoint was in the minority opinion, yet he continues to make dramatic reverts to a very old version of the article without commenting. It was explained that one should attempt to modify the text, as opposed to revert, in order to help acheive consensus, but this was to no avail. A summary of his behaviour is given here, as well as above in the same talk page. His personal behaviour is most clearly seen here: Talk:Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Please look at the edit history of the article. This user is also deleting my complaints from his talk page. While others must share some of the blame, he appears to be engaged in trolling, and is bringing the worst out in everybody.

In short, I would like to know if there is anything that can be done, or if I should accept this type of behaviour as being inevitable form time to time at wikipedia. 15:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 25 February 2007

[edit] 27 February 2007

  • Dokdo wars heat up. In "The Dokdo wars heat up" section, a user has intentionally spurred the fire of the dispute at the Dokdo talk page by introducing a biased anti-Korean link and a malicious comment about enjoying the fight between the two parties. 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I contend that the link was neither malicius nor spurring dispute, nor was it directed towards any users. As I noted on the talk page itself, the link may have been found on the pro-Japan section, but the quoted sources themselves are Korean. The time period contended by the external link also happens to be missing in the actual Ryukyu Islands history section, which starts in the 18th century. I'd also note that this user has also made both personal attacks and ethnic attacks towards me previously (see Talk:Baekdu Mountain. Judge for yourself whether or not his comments on that page were made maliciously and in bad faith. He has accused me of "extremely provocative and insulting battle spurring comments", but perhaps he should read some of his own comments and see if they were made with exactly this intention he accuses me of.--Yuje 04:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a general comment toward both the Korean and Japanese sides and the style and wording of the comment is enough to heat up the battle even more. Good friend100 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 3 March 2007

Provide evidence, or stay away. Provide here all links from the history where you think it is a personal attack. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
My Talk Page
[[12]]
[[13]]
[[14]]
Karlovy Vary Discussion Page
[[15]]
[[16]]
[[17]]
[[18]]
[[19]]
User:Piotrus' Talk Page
User_talk:Piotrus#EN_nomenclature
User:Rex Germanus' Talk Page
User_talk:Rex_Germanus#Renaming_articles
I've asked him to stop here, and he refused here.
kthx. Antman -- chat 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, I hope some administrator will take a look on it very quickly, that's ridiculous, it's nothing uncivil. Also why don't you tell them about your attack userbox and about this [20]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You removed a lot of context, liek this [21] - it is the complete conversation. Your edits are disruptive, you are saying that you will ignore consensus and a couple of editors noticed that (like Rex Germanus, Piotrus and me) but all what you can do is to cut some edits from the context and report your version. You have two userboxes claiming you as a german imperial patriot and that you support Danzig isntead of Gdansk. If someone notice that in the middle of the discussion about Carlsbad/Karlovy Vary (exactly the same as Danzig/Gdansk) you claims him as a personal attacker, that's ridiculous. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What? Antman -- chat 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What what ? Suddenly you know nothing about your uncivility, what a surprise ... ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I am having trouble reading your English. Antman -- chat 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry Tulkolahten, this wouldn't be the first time Antman wasn't able to back up what he claimed. He once claimed I called him a nazi, I said I would leave wikipedia if he showed me where ... I'm still waiting.Rex 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm as I see he is not able to be so patient and read non-native english, any native speaker can do it, if not, then it is something wrong there. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I just don't feel like taking the time to try to read what you are writing, as it is just an attack anyways. Antman -- chat 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't even read that and you are blaming me, uf ... too much for me ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 March 2007

  • Can someone look into User:NawlinWiki? He seems to be deleting articles without considering their notability properly - from the comments on his discussion page it seems as though he is only considering whether articles are notable to him personally.
Can you please provide a link to an example or two of this for someone to evaluate? --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • New personal attacks by User:Dking. In this edit he says that editors who dispute his edits are "programmed by LaRouche" and have "memorized a lot of empty cant." --Tsunami Butler 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree; he is commenting on the contributor(s), not on the(ir) contribution(s). Seems to me that the mediation process should address such comments: they seem to create an unproductive mediation atmosphere. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this is the place for this. User:Matthew is currently having an argument with several editors about content at Talk:Family_Ties. While the discussion is a legitimate one I find he is being deliberately inflammatory. --16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There was possibly a very minor violation of WP:AGF on his part, but he was only pointing out the Wikipedia policies that govern appropriate article content in a non-wikilawyering way. He probably should have referred to WP:POINT instead of WP:SPIDER, but I see no significant Wiki ettiquette violations on his part. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A Mandriva wiki (not part of Wikipedia or Wikicities, AFAIK) had some outdated information, so I asked in Mandriva Talk for someone to make an update there, since contributing to its Talk page requires registration. I made a short announcement about it, if someone could change the wiki there, but User:Chealer removed it and branded it as offtopic. As far as I know, content in talk pages should not be removed. Comments? -Mardus 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • User:TVshot appears to be skirting a very fine line of uncivil behavior, and his userpage and contributions seem to indicate that he is editing with disruption in mind. 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm sure people have their eye on him now. I would recommend disengaging for now. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 March 2007

  • Davémon appears to be WP:TROLLing the Image development (visual arts) article or has a personal competitive business interest in monopolizing terminology. His edits are not in good faith. The user is rejecting the community input after an AfD discussion. The page history shows that the user is in clear violation of disruptive editing WP:POINT. The user is taking advantage of the fact that art-related wikipedia articles are easy to label original research because they consist mostly of WP:POV. The user is also scrutinizing the article with a double standard. When the article was not sourced, he added a {{Original research|entire article no doubt}} tag but then put a soft {{Not verified}} tag on the corporate image page which has alternate use of the term. The user threw every argument in the book against the article, and then archived the failed arguments and the note to "keep" after the AfD before requesting a third opinion so at a glance, the only arguments that appeared on the page appeared to be a dispute between two users. Clearly this person is gaming the system. If this person is allowed to scrutinize POV to this level, wikipedia will be nothing but a bibliography. 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Just an update on my suspicions. The way Davémon request and harshly rejects sources on harmless statements in which the accuracy and neutrality of the statements are not disputed, leads me to believe that he wants to horde the information. Once it's posted on the wikipedia, he can use it to his career knowledge benefit, and then get it removed easily by accusing it to be original research so that competitors may never find it. To me, there is no other explanation as to why someone would be so quick to use wikipedia rules at the strictest level against harmless material. Oicumayberight 08:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 6 March 2007

  • I am not sure where to place this; I have been falsely accused of a personal attack by Longend. on Homer slips. page for making a comment on his bad language on his discussion page. Longend removed my comments, homer slips thanked him on Longends discussion page and a friend of homer slips told them to check me for sock pocket. Why am I made to be into a criminal for telling homer slips to stop using bad language and name calling?
Saintrotter 6 March 2007
  • At Talk:Frank R. Wallace#Request for Comment: acceptable sources (see e.g. this revision), user Bridge & Tunnel has been throwing out random nonsensical ad hoc arguments regarding the admissibility of certain sources. Even after his arguments have been rebutted in detail, he still repeatedly insists he's right. Someone please look into this and put a stop to it. 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7 March 2007

  • Per the talk page at Talk:Firestop_pillow, user User:Ahering@cogeco.ca is having trouble understanding the Attribution policy ("I'm referencing real experience and the pix to back it up in reality, not some fancy stuff a professor wrote in a book", "my knowledge on the subject matter is not book knowledge, it is hands-on"). Could someone else help explain ithe issue to him there? 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Two editors, User:Kemor and User:Payne2thamax are engaging in a flamewar via the edit summaries in the history page at N.W.A.; this has been going on for over 24 hours. 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Both editors warned at respective talk pages (level 3 for Kemor and level 4 for Payne). --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9 March 2007

  • User 200.168.32.36 has removed particular content from the trance music article five times, despite being reverted each time and warned twice. Refer to his talk page for the diffs. I'm not sure this qualifies as vandalism, but it is repetitive disruptive activity and should be stopped. 11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn by poster; will be treated as vandalism. 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the talk page at Talk:Tin Oo, user User:Okkar is having trouble understanding the Attribution policy ("Read the source... pay attention when you read the article, it is historical fact, you should take a visit to Defense Museum in Yangon... have you ever been there?"). No one can make a change to one of his poor edits without having their own contributions attacked. When the fact tags he places are addressed (see Tin Tun, Ye Htoon, and Scouting in Burma), he removes them and places the fact tags once again, it is repetitive disruptive activity and should be stopped. 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Okkar has also made personal attacks on other editors accusing them of bias and favoring Burmese opposition pro-democracy groups. This is one on Hintha: ("Here we go, everytime the likes of you get caught redhanded, you scream personal attack, yet you expect to get away with the misdeed by trying to overcloud the issue at hand with personal attack claims. It is truely amazing to see this form of mentality in Wikipedia. Not only people cheat, lie and do all kinds of misdeeds, they have the audicity to claim to be victim. No wonder there are soo many sorry stories about Burmese refugees, this is just one fine example of the propaganda tactics of opposition groups - hit first then pretend to be victim .. amazing, truly amazing!! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myanmar
Here is another comment made by Okkar: ("Finally, the common sense has prevailed and triumphed over destructive mindset of opposition groups and their minions who are using this project as a political propaganda tool. It is a victory over those who seek out to degrade our country by insisting to use the old colonial name of the country as the name of the project and the axe handles who colluded with foreigners with mob mentality to remove anyone who don’t support or share their politically biased views from this project by any means necessary, even if it means they have to cheat or lied. Okkar 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Myanmar_%28Burma%29#Political_Agendas
In both quotes, Okkar is neither assuming good faith nor is he avoiding personal attacks on other editors. This kind of behavior and language is clearly counter to Wikipedia's standards. I've not witnessed any apology by Okar for this behavior. His pattern seems to be to cease temporarily this kind of behavior then start up again later. Based on this constant bad behavior, I raise the question of whether he should be banned from editing Wikipedia. SimonBillenness 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12 March 2007

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Porphyry_of_Gaza: The commments made in support of large-scale reverts seem very inflammatory, and involve personal attacks. Nor do they describe what was done to the article accurately. Can neutral editors take an interest? 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 13 March 2007

At (Wikiquette) #Informal Request for Comment on debate tactics: Editor A objects to Editor B's debate tactics, and claims that Editor B is using private rather than dictionary definitions of words such as "misinterpretation". The dispute has culminated in Editor B editing Editor A's posts. Editor B claims this is justified. Editor A is informally requesting comments on the debate tactics at the page above (or wherever it gets moved to), and seeks advice on whether to file some kind of formal complaint about the claim of justified editing of another's post. (Please note that page host User:Will Beback is not directly involved in the dispute.) 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 March 2007

User:Dking has been warned about this sort of thing, but the behavior persists and seems to be getting worse. 14:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 16 March 2007

User:Faranbazu has been warned regarding personal attacks such as those of this post, where he calls other editors fascists and accuses them of racism (or more specifically glorification of the Aryan race), but the behavior does not seem to change. 12:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Case was reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, with new evidence added. Shervink 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Could someone look at User:Alan2012's recent behavior, especially [22]. 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally: [23] (to which he didn't respond), [24] (to which he didn't respond), [25] (to which he didn't respond), [26] (to which he didn't respond). There's much, much more, but there seems to be a pattern. 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies, but it looks like I've escalated the problem by trying to intervene myself ([27] resulting in him attacking [28]). I'll avoid interacting with him further until this is looked into. --Ronz 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • His behavior is worsening. Since no one is responding here, could someone at least suggest other venues? There have been two AN/I's on him that have also not been responded to. --Ronz 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm going ahead with refactoring his comments. --Ronz 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 17 March 2007

Please can someone look at Ludgershall, Wiltshire#White Trash The Movie, particularly the second paragraph. I removed it under "Lack of notability" and it was returned. I would like another opinion. Putney Bridge 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 18 March 2007

I have encountered some personal attacks arising from a dispute with User:SU182 in relation to some major revisions that were done to the OS-tan article (see Talk:OS-tan#Revision_to_March_5.2C_2007. He has since also started looking at articles that I have not edited in over a year and nominating them for deletion or merging in bad faith. Any advice as to how to handle the situation would be greatly appreciated. --Darkstar949 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering what to do regarding an unregistered editor who has constructed an identity that includes a user page and a signature that implies they are registered (Jan talk). The fourth principle of WP:EQ is "Please register yourself" which includes the subpoint that says "If you have not registered yourself, do not construct a signature that might make it appear that you have". The user is engaging in controversial edits and when reverted the person's lack of registration has come up on the talk pages, e.g., [this diff]. Any etiquette advice on what to do in this situation? Buddhipriya 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Hexe1998 and the user’s edits to the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma article. The source cited by User:Hexe1998 is not neutral, and, in IMHO, does not qualify as a reliable source. I also do not believe that it complies with neutral point of view and by him commenting on the contributor and not the content and calling people racist is in violation of no personal attacks policy and WP:CIVILITY. 23:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 19 March 2007

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I became involved in an edit war before I learned about civilility. From that point I talked user Tilman about personal attacks and incivility. He continues to do it. I have been accused on an article talk page [[29]] of lying by omission and among other things. I have asked Tilman to stop the behavior, but he has not stopped. Can someone view those section and provide some feedback to see is if there is actually an incivility issue? Thanks John196920022001 05:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20 March 2007

  • Help; anyone! For a week now, I've been discussing the pages Total Chaos and Team Chaos with User:GreatGianaSister and User:SuperfrogJumps. I've been putting up with their uncivil comments here (here and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Chaos, and defending myself against accusations of bad faith edits (they highlight some 'vandalism' edits I've done).

But now they've crossed the line into personal attacks. I left a message on their talk pages to try and diffuse the situation, but these have been rebuked.

If anybody can give a third opinion on this, or help diffuse the situation that would be appreciated, thanks. I feel like I'm on my own trying to defend myself. Marasmusine 07:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 21 March 2007

  • Joseph McCarthy, Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Violations of WP:REVERT, WP:CIVIL, WP:TEND, WP:NPA.18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I would welcome any commentary on my own behavior as well. 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well it looks like RedSpruce at least wants to discuss the edits; perhaps reverting them was a little uncivil, but it doesn't make you look like a vandal and I would assume good faith. Hear out his explaination and remember to keep your cool! Marasmusine 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 23 March 2007

Use of profanity here by longterm problem editor/suspected sockpuppet. 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:NOT censored, I don't think the mere presence of a "dirty word" is itself a violation of the rules, though the comments in question might count as a personal attack under WP:NPA. *Dan T.* 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It is most certainly a violation of WP:CIVIL.--Gene_poole 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed here I also tried to smile to him, but I see it's unworthy. He suspects everybody that doesn't agree with his personal opinions, so everybody is avoiding to have discussions with him at Ambient music, New Age music and Space music. He regards himself as the only legitimate owner of those articles. I don't care, honestly.--Doktor Who 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The above comment would appear to violate WP:NPA too. --Gene_poole 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks *Dan T.*, for taking the time to respond, and please accept my apologies for this late reply, I am very, very busy in my life these days, and I have no spare time to come at this site. I don't want to be thought of as a "problem editor". I take your point and have deleted some comments that I posted when I had no time to carefully check, becouse, due to my job as a pc techie, I wasn't using my usual pc. Doktor Who 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Green108 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) crapflooding a talk page [30] with agressive rant that seems to indicate a strong bias against the subject and editors associated with the BKWSU. Some choice quotes include, "by 'wikilawyering' I quote what the BKs have been doing here to control the article", "was brahma baba too emotional or not good enough for you appledell ?" [31], "according to your agenda as a bk" [32].

Since the article is under probation I have reported this to the arbitration noticeboard. Thatcher131 has requested the case be reviewed as he is currently not empowered to deal with this particular situation [33]. He has suggested that I follow normal dispute resolution process [34]. Although it was concerning a slightly different issue I am assuming the same applies to this editor also.

Although many useful addtions have been made to the article by this editor (after de-biasing [35]), I would appreciate that some basic assumption of good faith and appreciation of NPOV is established. 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would advice that we discuss this in the talk page of the Brahma Kumarisas most of the issues can be resolved there. I think since Green108 is fairly new at this process it would serve all to mentor him, rather than bite him:don't bite the newcomers. There are gentle ways to bring about folks and I do note that Bksimonb once accused me of "ranting". We have a good working relationship now and I am sure he can also do the same with this fairly new (not too experienced user). I have no issues with this user and will help where I can to offer my two pennies so as to help him along as I noted that he has made some good edits with well researched citations. Please note that all my participation in the arbitration committee case revolved around sources for citation/use and not of issues with editors as I see this as a distraction and not leading to any positive outcomes.PEACE TalkAbout 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi TalkAbout. I appreciate the mediating role you are playing on the talk page. I think this really needs the input of a non-BK such as yourself as Green108 certainly seems to have sensitivities in this area. I guess I was just a bit disappointed with the response I got to trying to establish a good working relationship [36] and I haven't seen any positive changes yet [37], but if you believe a turnaround is possible then and you can help then I'll post you a barnstar :-) I've heard it said, and agree, that arbitration cases here are almost always do to behaviour problems with editors. Even if they say they are content disputes. The BKWSU case also demonstrated that uncivil user behaviour results in the toughest sanctions. Do you really think Green108 is a new user?[38] Regards Bksimonb 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do think he is fairly new as per his edit counts. I do note that once before he was bitten by another editor (An orthodox BK) and he went away as he was rather sensitive at that particular time. Please note this link[39], and I don't think I need to touch on why I am advocating on his behalf. I note that wikipedia has tags for individuals that perhaps may need a little more understanding, or gaidance in an effort of wikispirt/cooperation. I often seek out the help of other editors with technical issues, and for guidance on the admittance of information. I think since he is getting his feet wet and has done his home work (research) we should mentor him and give feed back on the talk page of the article. I note that you and I have come a long way, I do have great respect for former centrewasis and current ones too. You cooperation/understanding would be most appriciated. PEACETalkAbout 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24 March 2007

  • In the course of an edit war on Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Sulla16 has been making what I think to be personal attacks against me on the talk page. I've put in bold some of the parts I think to be attacks. Of course I have to accept my share of blame for the edit war, but I've found Sulla16 to be uncooperative and inflexible. Since the start over a month ago he's been abusive and insulting; I'm tired of it but I can't encourage his behaviour by walking away, as graceful as that would be—he'd just attack someone else later. Would someone please have a look? 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi. Over the last few days my edits over the last few months appear to have been targetted by a fairly new user who seems insistent on dishing out warnings to me based on false assumptions, incorrect information and assumptions of bad faith. Currently it appears to be just the two of us in disagreement, and following a recent edit I made to the person article, she trawledd through my contribution history and now appears to be devoting her attention to repeatedly reverting my recent document merge of nephology and cloud which was done after reaching concensus (i.e. no objections nor activity since 2004). Despite nephology containing one sentence only, this user seems insistent that it warrants its own article despite not having tried to gather anyone else's opinion. --Rebroad 15:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 25 March 2007

[edit] 26 March 2007

Seeking some 3rd party input regarding conduct of MBHiii, particularly as it applies to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. User has been warned against attacking the credibility of other editors in AfD and DRV debates multiple times, see [40] and [41]. User was further advised against this kind of behavior on his talk page, and has responded that he feels entitled to continually discredit people as he sees fit.

Given that the user has on more than one occasion been warned not to violate WP:NPA this could be escalated further, however I feel that an RFC is not warranted at this point. I am hoping that some input from uninvolved 3rd parties might help the user to understand why attacking the credibility of other authors is inappropriate behavior, and lead him to avoid from doing so in the future. Thanks. 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 26 March 2007

Could someone comment, perhaps intervene, in the argument between Levine2112 (talk • contribs) and Ronz (talk • contribs) here: User_talk:Levine2112#re:User_talk:Warrior_Poet. There are accusations of harassment, biting newbies, assuming bad faith, and use of hostile language. 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 29 March 2007

Could someone please assist in an edit war that has become a admin war. Shell Kinney is allowing a user, jeanclauduc, to vandalize web pages and reverting articles back to innacurate versions. Other users have already commented on this PLEASE HELP

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiquette_alerts_4982.html"
In other languages