Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Archive index

Contents

Archived reports based on format of Wikiquette Alerts prior to April 10, 2007

02 April 2007

The article on British Isles and particularly the discussion page is again having difficulty with accusations of POV pushing, accusations of bad faith, etc. This comes after a long period of calm and started at about the beginning of March. It would be nice to have some outside views. 12:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] Notifying a few active members of a project that the project is up for deletion. Is this a violation of WP:CANVASS, or is it covered as a "friendly notice"? Is it fair to presume that an active member of a project would want notices about the project's status? 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Bubba_the_love_sponge is going through continual changes to two sections. The bubbathelovesponge.net website is trying to keep itself on the page, despite its removal from one of the bits and it no longer being claimed as the "official" Fan Site by Bubba. The talk page keeps having the discussion about the .net deleted due to a refrence to a bubba recap (on the official bubba site, btls.com) that bubba said he wanted it shutdown. 71.126.108.231 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

03 April 2007

I had had recent difficulties with User:Loremaster on the Transhumanism, and Human enhancement pages (and later on my Talk page). He has reverted my edits and stated that he will continue to revert them. He has responded to my requests for discussion with the following:

I don't care what you find rude. I've explained my reverts or rewordings and I will continue protecting the article from your undiscussed, unsubstantive and clumsly contributions. As for comparing your work to mine, you are forcing me to point out that my work is in fact more important than yours since not only have I been the main contributor to this article for years but it is mostly my work that has ensured that the Transhumanism article became good enough to be featured on the main page of Wikipedia. Are we done?

I am certain that his actions violate Wikipedia policy. -- Noclevername 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my response and my actions. --Loremaster 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster has a disturbing announcement on the Transhumanism talk page, in which he proclaims people who aren't "primary contributors" to his article need to clear edits on the talk page or they'll be reverted. This includes useful edits like some by Noclevername: [2]. His comments on his reverts back to his version of the article include such gems as "(rv: please discusses change on the Talk:Transhumanism page since the article is considered complete)". If another editor has something useful to add, the article isn't complete. NO article is EVER "complete".Alvis 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* Putting aside the fact that I have explained why most of Noclevername's minor edits were not useful, my point was simply that since the article is "complete" in the sense that it is a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article (which was featured on the main page of Wikipedia), new contributors (who not often unaware of all the collaborative work, as well as settled disputes, which was involved in producing the current version of the article) should be mindful of not radically changing the article without discussing it on the talk page to avoid a dispute or, worse, a revert war. I confess that I didn't explain myself properly but I stand by my statements and actions. --Loremaster 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And how does automatically reverting edits by new contributors to an article of yours, regardless of what useful material they may contribute, just because the edits don't fit your vision of the entry, AVOID an edit war? Alvis 07:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted edits which were either obvious acts of vandalism or edits which were undiscussed, unsubstantive and clumsly, especially if they went against the consensus surrounding the article. --Loremaster 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

08 April 2007

  • Many articles which have something to do with cosmetic surgery, Gynecomastia, Breast, Macrotia, Panniculus, Pannus, etc. are having references added by a party invested (I can provide information that establishes this investment in the site for the user in question) in the listing to a site called plasticsurgery4u.com, which is at least in part a business site owned apparently by the user who is doing the reference adding. I will not name names since this is not the etiquette here. Some editors friendly with this editor are asserting that since the links are sometimes informative they should stay. Other editors are asserting that the links are spam. Having a communal opinion would be a good thing here. I personally am undecided whether this kind of behavior merits an RfC or not. The helpful links (some are just ads, but appear to most likely be bad or old links redirected to a general information page that is more commercial) are indeed helpful, couched in advertising though they are, so I am torn as to wether this site serves as an irreplaceable resource of primary source material self-published by an acknowledge expert (see WP:A), or whether it qualifies as spam (see WP:SPAM). To find more example articles, determine the editor's username in question, search Wikipedia for the link text ("plasticsurgery4u") and then check an article's history to make sure that user is to be credited for the insertion of the link. 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to semi-anonymously second this opinion. I found this user to be willing to discuss (See Talk:Umbilicoplasty) but they didn't seem to understand. 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have had difficulties with User:Maurice27. The details of the discussion are at Talk:Valencia (autonomous community). Basically, there is only one official name, in Valencian, for the region, in spite of the fact that Spanish is also an official language. I edited the infobox accordingly, wrote the arguments behind the edition in the talk page. He reverted them. I asked him to participate in the debate instead of reverting. He did not do so, but accused me repeatedly of "xenophobia", and violated 3RR, today April 8, 2007. I did not revert the page back, otherwise I would have violated 3RR as well. However, his unwillingness to cooperate, as I repeatedly asked him to, but his insistence on reverting without explanation or justification, and his insults of xenophobia, are a clear lack of etiquette. --the Dúnadan 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

09 April 2007

User:SlimVirgin has deleted and protected Darvon Cocktail for being "dangerous." A Darvon Cocktail is a mixture of drugs for effective and painless suicide. I believe that this is censorship and she seems reluctant to discuss/explain the deletion, as her response on her userpage was simply "wow." If there is a better place to discuss this, please let me know. 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Better to post this in WP:ANI. Are you the article name is right by the way? Because I don't see anything in the deletion log. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Under active discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review which is the forum for review of this type of decision. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

10 April 2007

69.254.29.248 has been harrassing and threatening a few Wikipedia users. After being banned for a 3rr violation, he belittled the user who brought the violation to his attention, as well as the admin who banned him and the project as a whole. After his block was over, he started editing the articles listed on the afformentioned user's talk page, adding semi-protected tags and unreferenced tags to pages which did not qualify to either, and then blaming the problems on the user. After these were removed, 69.254.29.248 threatened to ban the user for removing tags, even though they were considered vandalism. 69.254.29.248 has been harrassing the user for nearly a month now, and continues to assume bad faith, committ personal attacks and be genuinely uncivil. 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:The_Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association and to a lesser extent the members of US Water Rockets (User:4.156.114.228) have repeatedly taken part in personal attacks against two independant editors on Talk:Water_rocket and [[3]] in an apparent attempt to discredit legitimate corrective editing on the associated articles. These attacks have been of a personal nature directed against User:Radiotrib and User:HenningNT and have taken the form of direct and/or inferred accusations of several activities including Slander. Please take action to stop this activity. 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Addendum - Reference Talk:Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association The above people have now enlisted another of their people to continue with these personal attacks on me. Will somebody please take action. Thanks - 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


archived reports follow in new Wikiquette Alerts format

April 8, 2007

Problematic references in cosmetic surgey-related articles

Resolved.
  • Many articles which have something to do with cosmetic surgery, Gynecomastia, Breast, Macrotia, Panniculus, Pannus, etc. are having references added by a party invested (I can provide information that establishes this investment in the site for the user in question) in the listing to a site called plasticsurgery4u.com, which is at least in part a business site owned apparently by the user who is doing the reference adding. I will not name names since this is not the etiquette here. Some editors friendly with this editor are asserting that since the links are sometimes informative they should stay. Other editors are asserting that the links are spam. Having a communal opinion would be a good thing here. I personally am undecided whether this kind of behavior merits an RfC or not. The helpful links (some are just ads, but appear to most likely be bad or old links redirected to a general information page that is more commercial) are indeed helpful, couched in advertising though they are, so I am torn as to wether this site serves as an irreplaceable resource of primary source material self-published by an acknowledge expert (see WP:A), or whether it qualifies as spam (see WP:SPAM). To find more example articles, determine the editor's username in question, search Wikipedia for the link text ("plasticsurgery4u") and then check an article's history to make sure that user is to be credited for the insertion of the link. 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to semi-anonymously second this opinion. I found this user to be willing to discuss (See Talk:Umbilicoplasty) but they didn't seem to understand. 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the articles and talk pages; one of the parties has exercised the "right to vanish" from Wikipedia and there seems to be no active disagreements on those talk pages. It seems the links mentioned above are no longer present. --Parzival418 06:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute in Talk:Valencia (autonomous community) with User:Maurice27

Stale.
  • I have had difficulties with User:Maurice27. The details of the discussion are at Talk:Valencia (autonomous community). Basically, there is only one official name, in Valencian, for the region, in spite of the fact that Spanish is also an official language. I edited the infobox accordingly, wrote the arguments behind the edition in the talk page. He reverted them. I asked him to participate in the debate instead of reverting. He did not do so, but accused me repeatedly of "xenophobia", and violated 3RR, today April 8, 2007. I did not revert the page back, otherwise I would have violated 3RR as well. However, his unwillingness to cooperate, as I repeatedly asked him to, but his insistence on reverting without explanation or justification, and his insults of xenophobia, are a clear lack of etiquette. --the Dúnadan 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

April 9, 2007

Questionable deletion on Darvon cocktail

Resolved. DRV1 and DRV2 resolved that deletion was valid per article's unsuitability (i.e. an AfD would have rejected it, so DRV consensus was to keep article deleted).

User:SlimVirgin has deleted and protected Darvon Cocktail for being "dangerous." A Darvon Cocktail is a mixture of drugs for effective and painless suicide. I believe that this is censorship and she seems reluctant to discuss/explain the deletion, as her response on her userpage was simply "wow." If there is a better place to discuss this, please let me know. 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Better to post this in WP:ANI. Are you the article name is right by the way? Because I don't see anything in the deletion log. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Darvon cocktail. But yes, the Deletion review is the active discussion. --MalcolmGin 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Under active discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review which is the forum for review of this type of decision. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
DRV1 and DRV2 established (by supermajority in the first case, and administrator judgement in the second) that article should stay deleted because the article would have failed AfD for WP:OR reasons, primarily. Some argument asserted that policy/procedure was not properly followed in original deletions, but this was not judged to be sufficient reason to retain/undelete article. Additionally, article was userfied at User:Greener grasses/Darvon cocktail but that effort seems to have been abandoned. Probable explanation: No editor was able to find reliable sources during Deletion Review. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

April 10, 2007

Harrassment and threats by IP user

Stale.

69.254.29.248 has been harrassing and threatening a few Wikipedia users. After being banned for a 3rr violation, he belittled the user who brought the violation to his attention, as well as the admin who banned him and the project as a whole. After his block was over, he started editing the articles listed on the afformentioned user's talk page, adding semi-protected tags and unreferenced tags to pages which did not qualify to either, and then blaming the problems on the user. After these were removed, 69.254.29.248 threatened to ban the user for removing tags, even though they were considered vandalism. 69.254.29.248 has been harrassing the user for nearly a month now, and continues to assume bad faith, committ personal attacks and be genuinely uncivil. 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Talk:Water rocket by IP user

Stale.

User_talk:The_Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association and to a lesser extent the members of US Water Rockets (User:4.156.114.228) have repeatedly taken part in personal attacks against two independant editors on Talk:Water_rocket and [[4]] in an apparent attempt to discredit legitimate corrective editing on the associated articles. These attacks have been of a personal nature directed against User:Radiotrib and User:HenningNT and have taken the form of direct and/or inferred accusations of several activities including Slander. Please take action to stop this activity. 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - Reference Talk:Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association The above people have now enlisted another of their people to continue with these personal attacks on me. Will somebody please take action. Thanks - 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

April 12, 2007

Personal attacks in Talk:John Money by User:alteripse

Resolved. the MedCab case is marked as closed: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-12 John Money.
  • Alteripse is making personal attacks on Talk:John Money. I suggested mediation and they responded "If you need to bring someone else in to review and explain this to you, feel free." See the MedCab request for a more complete description. 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Wikipedia talk:Railway line template by User:Sheetcot

Stale.
  • Sheepcot referring to another editor as a "rogue editor". Reinstated comment after "NPA" removal. 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be the same incident as the latter? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ALECTRIC451 making threats

Resolved. ALECTRIC451 states on his user page he has left Wikipedia
Appears to be a dispute. Need a third party to mediate (describe the information in my talk page if you want me to). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Alteripse is making personal attacks on Talk:John Money

I suggested mediation and they responded "If you need to bring someone else in to review and explain this to you, feel free." See the MedCab request for a more complete description. 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Sheepcot referring to another editor as a "rogue editor". Reinstated comment after "NPA" removal. 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be a dispute. Need a third party to mediate (describe the information in my talk page if you want me to). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

April 14, 2007

Personal comments by User:Quale in a AFD discussion

Resolved.
  • Quale making personal comments in an AFD [5] 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Addressed. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

April 16, 2007

Persistent accusations of trolling

Stale.

Failure to heed concensus following closed formal TfD process

Stuck.
I have reviewed the various pages. It seems to me that while there are some comments that are somewhat abrasive, there are not major violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA (at least in the edits I was able to find). However, the various editors are strongly commited to their positions and the arguments are fairly heated. There has been some mention of trolling, but that is only a personal attack if it's not true. If it's true, it can be an accurate description of behavior. But it's hard to tell the intention because users may each have a different understanding of the term. So my first suggestion is that each of the editors take a step back and slow down so the emotional intensity can subside. That way it's less likely that someone might write somethng they would later regret.
In particular, I see a concern that there has recently been a formal TfD closed with consensus to keep the disputed template, yet some editors are still arguing for deletion after the TfD was closed. Because the dispute is continuing after the formal action, it seems that further dispute resolution procedures are needed. I recommend reading WP:Dispute, and then choosing an approach depending on the details of the current situation. Keep in mind when choosing the next step that some of the procedures require more than one editor to try and solve the problem first and only some of the procedures are effective for disputes between only two editors. --Parzival418 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[I have re-edited my comments above to strike out the material related to the separate issue as noted in the comments below. Regarding the issue above, even with the separate issue removed, it still seems to me the initial recommendation was correct and that either the editors should disengage for a while, or seek some form of dispute resolution procedure as noted in the comment.] --Parzival418 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment The first pair of evidential diffs above refer to a different user then the rest of this section. The confusion was caused in this edit 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. It makes a lot more sense now! I was not the one who made the edit you noted, so I was not aware that the two issues got combined. That apparently happened as part of refactoring this page to make it easier to use. From now on, each user adding a report will make their own headline, so this problem should not be repeated.
For now, I've updated the section headings above to match my understanding of the situation after reading your comment. This leaves your initial report still open, and the separate dispute that follows it still referred to dispute resolution. I am re-editing my above comment to remove the trolling reference that was generated by the mistakenly included diffs you pointed out. If you see anything here that needs additional correction, you are most welcome to comment further. I have not yet looked at the essence of your complaint. I'll try to get to that soon, or perhaps another editor will stop by and help out. Thanks for making us aware of the glitch with the heading. --Parzival418 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

April 17, 2007

Use of insulting and uncivil language by User:Loremaster

Stale.
Since you seem to be only person unable to grasp simple concepts, I don't see why I should be pending backwards to dumb down the article by making it less consise.
...
...Your points are ridiculous which is why I didn't and won't acknowledge them...
...you don't understand simple concepts. You seem to have not read the sources cited in the article that would help you understand these concepts better. I've improved (rather than dumbed down) the article in response to some of your comments. As for the rest, I am not going to waste my time responding to what I consider ridiculous points. If you think this lacks courtesy, I don't give a damn. I am not here to make you feel good. I'm too busy raising the quality of Wikipedia articles to Good Article status, which I have succeeded in doing several times.
This is the second such offense, and he is still guarding the Human Enhancement article and the Transhumanism article from edits like a junkyard dog. Please help him adjust his attitude. 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack and racial comments by User:Daniel Chiswick

Stale.

April 20

Threatening personal attacks

Stuck. This user has been contacted by two editors with suggestions including referral to WP:ANI

I've been on Wikipedia since 2004 and over that time I have been called many things, and don't take it too seriously, it's the nature of Wikipedia. But this case is different because I'm concerned about my safety. It stems from a long running "dispute" on the Huns page about the origins of the Huns. Modern scholarship is pretty clear that the origins of the Huns is "we don't know" (all fully supported and cited in the article, along with other POVs), but in Turkey, it is taught in state-sponsored schools as part of a nationalist agenda that the Huns were Turkish with no other views allowed (you can actually be jailed and tortured for teaching anything else in Turkey). So the Turkish Nationalists get extremely emotional and angry that anyone suggests the Huns were anyone but Turkish. This has been on-going for years - I have recently been called a "son of a bitch antiTURK" (note edit comment) and "Turks fuck me very hard" and another ominous note "how can we get rid of these people". If this was some loser in a basement in Ohio I would not care but these are well funded organized and armed people. These personal attacks have been intermittently coming in for months now. I live in a metro area in the US that has many Turkish immigrants and my personal information is all over the web and on Wikipedia I am not hard to find. I'm not really sure what to do because of intellectual integrity of maintaining the article, but these covert and overt threats concern me. -- Stbalbach 14:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit War Brewing on DeVry University

Resolved. Codeplowed Sockpuppet confirmation resulted in a block; report is listed here on WP:AN/I

User:Codeplowed and some IP users are repeatedly pushing this article away from a NPOV. For whatever reason the affiliated users have refrained from fighting back, so it's mostly been sliding in one direction. I tried archiving the talk page and tagging it POV in the hopes of getting things off to a fresh start but that was all reverted. User:208.0.29.250 just asked me to continue helping, but I don't have experience dealing with issues this large. I feel if it's not put under control soon, the other side will start retaliating. Could a more experienced editor step in, please? Vagary 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added comments at the talk page of the article. I don't see a big edit war brewing, though the emotional climate is somewhat heated. The article needs editing based on reliable sources. I recommend you read the comment I entered there and review the Wikiguides I listed. All editors have the right to improve the article. Using references to support your edits will make them stronger. Don't let yourself be distracted by emotional comments on the talk page. Focus on the article content with references, one step at a time. --Parzival418 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and created an account and made edits, and User:Codeplowed reverted them all... um... what do I do now? OtterZero 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)OtterZero
That's a good choice. I've replied on your talk page and at the article talkpage. It seems to me there has been a lot of improvement already. I don't think you need to post anything further here unless something changes and becomes troublesome again. If you need help with editing questions, please refer to the links I placed on your talk page. (By the way, when you sign with ~~~~, you don't need to add your name, it will appear automatically. --Parzival418 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is looking a lot better, but that user is now -- I can't think of any other way to say this -- "flipping out" on the talk page. He keeps removing the talk banner and posting huge screeds. Should we just ignore him? I generally follow the "don't feed the trolls" guideline whenever online, but it's kind of like he's turning the talk page into his own personal blog. OtterZero 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the new activity. I've added a vandalilsm wanring to the talk page and reinstated the talk page header. Also, posted vandalilsm and content deletion warnings on User:Codeplowed's talk page along with referrals to helpful Wikiguides. If this behavior continues it may become necessary to refer to WP:AIV. Hopefully that will not be needed. --Parzival418 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. Disruptive activity continued. User:Codeplowed restored archived talk page (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX) content, added a nonsense edit in the middle of another editors' post, and added another long soapbox essay to the talk page. I posted the final level-4 talk page vandalism warning on his user talk page. I've done as much as I can with this. If his vandalism continues, it needs to be reported to WP:AIV. [Oops - forgot to sign this entry earlier today --Parzival418 01:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)]

I just checked User:Codeplowed's contributions -- he's now doling out "vandalism" Warnings to other users without reason, including an inexplicable "last warning" to User:X42bn6 with a disturbing edit comment, "You need to be called on order".OtterZero 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that too. Unless you want to go into a more formal procedure, I think the best solution is to ignore him as best you can and focus on the article. As long as he doesn't edit war on the article itself or interfere with your ability to edit there, that's the most important thing. If that happens or if the vandalism becomes too much to ignore, then I think you need to use either WP:AN/I or WP:RFC/U (make sure to read the instructions at WP:RFC first). Check in with X42bn6 as well, he's got some good ideas on this.
Unfortunately, I don't think this page can help any more. We don't have any administrators here so if an editor does not respond to reasonable communications, you need to either ignore it or escalate to dispute resolution procedures. You're welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have further questions, but I'm closing this issue here because I don't see more to be gained from posting further details here. --Parzival418 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
He said he "was done" with me and "Peace" in an edit summary to me - not sure what that means, but perhaps he has left? I'm not too bothered about the warnings but I prefer to wait things out and see what will happen. x42bn6 Talk 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Peace" is certainly a positive result if that's how it turns out. I hope it goes that way. Thanks for the update! --Parzival418 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Guess not: WP:COIN#DeVry Inc. Vandals and Spammers. I think this is getting out of hand. The very first thing this user did was purge recent edits, then list you on AIV for vandalism. x42bn6 Talk 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw that and posted a reply. There have been a couple comments and I think that report will be closed right away. The situation with the problem editor does not seem at all resolved though. --Parzival418 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical Summary: This report was also listed at WP:RFC. The talk page for the article received comments from uninvolved editors. Talk page archives were set up. significantly Wikified. However vandalism and edit warring by User:Codeplowed continued on the talk page. Multiple warning notices posted. He responded by posting warnings on the user pages of the editors who warned him. Nothing more we could do here. Report was listed at COI and RFCU. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Codeplowed confirmed, Checkuser case page includes complete summary with links to all reports, including COI/SPA report. Codeplowed Sockpuppet confirmation resulted in a one month block plus indefinite blocks for the sockpuppet accounts; report is listed here --Parzival418 Hello 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 21

General (and openly admitted) bad faith by CameronB

Resolved.

I was first alerted to CameronB by this post to Talk:Coffee. After making this post he deleted the "fact" tag from the item in question. The tone of his post to the talk page was so hostile and disruptive that I could not think of a way to respond to his comment, although another user did (and a fourth user reverted his edits to coffee). I considered posting something to his Talk page regarding WP:V and WP:Civil, however upon visiting his user page and talk page it became clear that not only would any comment I made be unwelcome (and possibly result in a personal attack) but also that CameronB is operating in bad faith with the rest of Wikipedia, and admits as much. A brief visit to his edit history shows that he has done this on t least one other page, as in this "fact" tag deletion, followed by another uncivil comment to the involved talk page. I have no idea how to approach this user to address his behavior. I am reuctant to follow the traditional dispute resolution process before reporting him to an admin because he has made such a point of making clear to all that he could care less what other users here think, or about Wikipedia etiquette. He does seem to have some occasional interest in actually improving articles when not "deleting content as I see fit[6]," but I don't think he should be allowed to continue to rage about as he currently is. Any suggestions?--Margareta 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed this report and links and my first impression is to concur with the description of the problem as posted here. I've informed the writer of the report that it has been noticed. I will review further and post here again when I have more information. Meanwhile, other comments are welcome. --Parzival418 02:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
My analysis is that CameronB has engaged in uncivil behavior. So far it's been petty and consistent, but not frequent or sustained from day to day, and not directed as a personal attack to any one particular individual. According to his user page, he views his approach as humorous rather than malicious. He apparently is a regular contributor to "Uncyclopedia" where that approach is not uncommon, unlike in our environment here. So far, he has not engaged in multiple reverts or edit wars that I can find.
For now, I've advised the reporting user on ways to respond on the article and related talk pages. There seem to be other editors there to create consensus and protect the articles from damage.
I did not add a warning template or other comment on CameronB's user talk page. He makes it very clear he is not interested in receiving communications of any kind. If he continues to cause disruptions, it may be necessary to refer this to the administror notice boards or RFC/U. --Parzival418 05:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

April 23, 2007

IP-only self-promotion and Conflict of Interest

Resolved.

In my editing of articles dealing with music of New Jersey, I have come across two IPs seemingly belonging to the same editor.

When looking at these edit summaries, It appears that these IP addresses are somehow involved with Marty Munsch (I assume it's a work/home thing). He seems to be adding his name to articles where it is non-noteable, and more recently removed notability and reference needed tags from his own page. I have left messages on both IP userpages, and the vandalism continues. I also have not reverted his edits for some time. The reson he has an article on himself is my doing (which I now realize was a bad move). I figured he would concentrate on that article rather than inserting self-promotion into multiple articles. Attemps to contact the user beind the two IP addresses have not been sucessful.

  • Should I request to have the IPs blocked?

He has hit far too many articles to protect them all, IMO. Help, please. TearJohnDown 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to request a block. Although the IP removed the notability and unreferenced tages from the Marty Munsch page, there appears to have been only one warning and no mulitple reversions of the templates so far. There seems to be two separate issues:
  1. Marty Munsch article: not clear if it meets WP:Notability, but either way, the page is completely unreferenced. It would be appropriate to replace the unreferenced tag along with note on the talk page to ask the editor(s) to engage in conversation rather than just reversions. If the tag is reverted again with no explanation or references, then re-place the tag and add a 2nd or 3rd level warning template to the IP user's talk page (Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace). If this happens again, you might want to report it to Administrator notice board for vandalism. About the question of notability, Marty Munsch has certainly been around in the music business for a while - lots of Google hits, though nothing by a significant third-party at first glance. I recommend asking for references rather than contesting notability. If references can be added, notability may be satisfied.
  2. The IP edits to other articles: mostly in the form of adding the name of "Marty Munsch" plus links to his punk rock movie. I recommend reverting the edits if you don't believe they belong - but make sure to discuss your reversion on the talk page. Ask how the edits relate to the article and for references. I didn't see multiple reversions or edit warring in the histories, so the IP might just accept your changes. One reversion is probably best, to avoid trouble. If he reverts again, seek to get consensus from the other editors on those pages. If tensions escalate, review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, to decide what to do next. --Parzival418 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

April 24, 2007

Incivility on List of Bloomingdales/Parisian locations AFD

Resolved.

In the following AFD nominations, a dispute between how to correctly interpret WP:NOT#DIR and WP:ORG has became uncivil. Comments include smart-aleck remarks such as [9] and [10], as well as others. Please help; the uncivil discussion is on:

Although I'm involved in the dispute, my request on here is non-partisan. Tuxide 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the discussions. There is one user who's behavior is somewhat uncivil and rude, mostly sarcastic, but not engaging in direct personal attacks. I did not see an overall pattern of incivility in the discussion other than the one user, whose statements on the two pages are similar. While his comments are annoying, there's a good chance he's hurting his own credibility by his negative attitude, rather than successfully making his point. There are some good suggestions for responding (or not responding) to those kind of comments at WP:Civil#General suggestions. If you feel I missed something important and there is more incivility happening in these discussions that the one user I mentioned, please post additional comments here. --Parzival418 05:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Four minutes after you responded, the same editor said this [11]. Wow, talk about timing. Apart from this wtfage, my main concern on these AFDs are to get someone to counter my argument without being a jerk about it. Tuxide 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My personal impression is the best way to respond to something like that is simply not to respond. Take the high road. Gently bring the discussion back to the content of the debate. Organize your thoughts, make clear statements directed to all the editors. You don't need to convince that one particular user and that will never happen anyway. What you need is consensus, so concentrate on making the best points you can. Don't let one editor's unfriendly provacations distract you. --Parzival418 06:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bose (company)

Resolved.

I am concerned by the discussions on the Bose corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bose_%28company%29#Bose_.26_high-end_audio Two editors seem to hold a POV with no citations that they wish to see in the article, and wish something with 7 reputable citations that disagrees with their POV to be removed. I have been accused of making disruptive edits and am therefore making this Wikiquette alert to get outside input into this in order to resolve this. ASH1977LAW 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at this some more later but I think there's more going on than meets the eye. As a former dabbler in audiophile gear myself, I agree with the view that Bose is not a high-end manufacturer, and that the sources ASH1977LAW is pushing are not reliable sources for that specialized subject. A cite from a publication like The Absolute Sound would be a lot more convincing. I will AGF til I look at the article more closely but will disclose that my COI radar is tingling. 75.62.7.22 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that Bose produces audiophile gear as such would be reviewed in The Absolute Sound, that that it does produce high-end_audio products (and there are 7 seperate citations for this from places that do review such products). However, my main concern is that I have been accused of of making disruptive edits and wish to get outside input on this. I have today changed the high-end link at the top of the page to one linking to the opinions section of the article as a compromise position and have expanded the opinions about bose section. I have yet heard back from the editors that I am in conflict with as to weither this is an acceptable compromise but hopefully this is resolved. ASH1977LAW 17:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from A Link to the Past

Resolved.

He has been changing pages into redirect with out any conscience. He has changed Demasked into a redirect to Mask, the two have nothing in common other then the name. He also change FLUDD into a redirect to Super Mario Sunshine witch doesn't have a section on FLUDD. FLUDD is a major character in Super Mario Sunshine. Another user put a coment on his page in response to what he did on Demasked. The only response I've gotten from him are in edit summaries.--Bobby D. DS. 06:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He insisted that what he is doing is in line with WP:BOLD.--Bobby D. DS. 07:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the situation and don't see this as a civility issue. The editor making the changes has a lot of experience and moves fast with terse edit summaries; his talk page comments are assertive, but not uncivil. It appears to me this is more an issue of learning the bold-revert-discuss cycle and other consensus building wikiguides. I've posted some suggestions on the reporting user's talk page along with some links and a referral to Wikipedia:Editor assistance if more help is needed. This does not appear to require dispute resolution procedures at this time. --Parzival418 Hello 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User unwilling to participate in consensus building discussion

Resolved.
Disregard... I thought of something. Sancho (Review me) 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

April 28, 2007

Alleged Incivility from Calton

Resolved. no evidence of incivility was noted

Myself and another user have noticed problems with this user's tone. See [12] and [13] and his response to the latter [14]. Is it too much to ask for some uninvolved editors to keep an eye on this user and let him know when he is being uncivil? It seems he believes his is entitled to uncivil to users he disagrees with. IPSOS (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems he believes his is entitled to uncivil [sic] to users he disagrees with. Wrong, but you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.

I certainly believe that stalkers, spammers, edit-warriors, trolls, fanatics, nannies, busy-bodies, and people who actively make attempts to insult my intelligence shouldn't be coddled, encouraged, or enabled, no. I certainly hold an entire page devoted to encouraging unwarranted and intrusive nannyism -- like this one -- ought to be laughed at at every opportunity and its cast of do-gooders looking for chances to exercise their self-assigned moral superiority be treated with the disdain they deserve. You want to be a missionary instead actually, you know, editing and/or writing an encyclopedia, perhaps your local church has some openings for overseas missions.

I certainly think anyone who shows the generalized attack on some users that you, IPSOS, have on your user pages makes you a particularly rich choice for gassing on about civility, not to mention the general immaturity and contempt for other editors the "practical joke" on your page shows. Clean up your act, first, and maybe I'll listen. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the above speaks volumes to Calton's incivility and his "holier-than-thou" attitude towards others. It also shows that Calton has no interest in changing his behaviour and will continue to be incivil towards anyone and everyone until he goes over that boundary between assertive and blantant incivility that he sits on, on a daily basis, and gets blocked or banned for it.
I suggest, regardless of the history that him and I might have, that he get himself back on the assertive side of that boundary and tone himself down alot. You can be assertive and civil at the same time. - SVRTVDude (VT) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
...his "holier-than-thou" attitude towards others. Nope, simply my dislike of the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.
In any case, given your complete inability to follow your own advice in general or keep any of your promises in particular...well, let's just say that your advice isn't worth the electrons it took to put them up on the monitor for anyone to read. Personally, I'd suggest to you that you knock off the petty stalking, mmmkay, before you get blocked or banned for it. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"petty stalking"....oh, here we go with that again. Calton, first, I am not incivil with anyone not even you and second, this is about you and your incivility and has nothing to do with me. Anyway, you have and are clearly demonstrating that very incivility for us with your above statements. Calling anyone you come in contact with "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" is incivility at it's best (or worst in this case) and it is a surprise it hasn't gotten you in more trouble, but if you keep it up, it will and fast. You can't go head-to-head with an admin (as you have done in the past) and not expect some kind of consequence. You can't snap everyone's head off and give the "holier-than-thou" "don't insult my intelligence" routine or the "I'm being stalked" routine and not expect to have no one listen to you, have everyone think you are an egotist, and it get you in a helluva lot of trouble. You can't make a mistake and when someone politely let's you know of it, go on a paragraph and a half tirade. You can't berate anyone because they have a difference of opinion or revert an edit you have made. You have been blantantly incivil with no less than 100 people here on Wikipedia and you show no signs of stopping.
Personally, I would rather not deal with half the people I come in contact with on a daily basis and would LOVE to tell a ton of people exactly what I think, but I can't. It's that whole common sense and civility thing, that same thing you seem to be having a problem with. As the old saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar". You may not like it, but in life, you have to deal with it...and if you don't here, you are going to get blocked or banned.
Now, let's address that incivility and try and not make it about me, shall we? - SVRTVDude (VT) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

His response to my "spamminess" was completely uncivil. By dealing with "stalkers, spammers, edit-warriors, trolls, fanatics, nannies, busy-bodies, and people who actively make attempts to insult my intelligence" in such a manner he provokes them doing even more harm to wikipedia. While his 14 archived talk pages have probably done some good to wikipedia he makes many others "like me" want to jump ship and never edit another article again. If wikipedia would like to retain its loyal editors I would suggest dealing with users like calton in a more up front way (maybe a few day block so he can cool his head). Andman8 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

..he makes many others "like me" want to jump ship and never edit another article again - If by "like me" you're referring to your permabanned business partner MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs), that won't be a great loss, since your own major contributions seem to center around a) pimping a commercial site for your own benefit; and b) writing about your relatives. And, of course, accusing me of incivility is a bit rich, given your Talk Page response when I answered the questions you asked (See his questions and my response). And then there's the whole issue of posting while drunk. If you want to use Wikipedia to line your own pockets, expect a response, like here.
So, any questions? --Calton | Talk 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Calton, this is why you will never get along with ANYONE here. You have an ego the size of Jupiter and growing quickly. You think you can break any rule that suits you, you think you can berate people as you see fit, you think you can stalk people around Wikipedia and it's OK, you think your behaviour is acceptable, you think your "intelligence" is something to be in awe of (please!), and you troll around Wiki with that "holier-than-thou" attitude and expect people to kiss your ass. Dude, you would have had the crap smacked outta you a long time ago if pulled this kinda behaviour in public. You need to grow up....and don't make us post all our "favorite" diffs about you. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing WP:CIVIL violations. User Calton should be banned from WP. 76.166.123.129 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from non-involved third party. I've read this discussion since it appeared here over a month ago. After reviewing the comments and the diffs, I do not see in Calton's comments a pattern of violating WP:CIVIL. Maybe he has done so at times, but I have not seen it in the discussions I've reviewed. My impression is that Calton's method of communicating may be a bit abrasive at times, but also that his comments seem to be very much on point and his quoting of the Wikiguides seems to be appropriate, and not an example of Wikilawyering.

On the other hand, regarding the comment by Neutralhomer here... (According to his user page, he is the same person as Orangemonster2k1 and SVRTVDude, who posted in this section earlier - if I am mistaken about that, please post a comment to clarify). Neutralhomer's comment contains several instances of uncivil communications. For example: "You have an ego the size of Jupiter and growing quickly." - this is a statement about the user, and not about the user's behavior, making it a personal attack and a violation of WP:CIVIL. Neutralhomer accuses Calton of stalking and trolling but does not provide evidence of those behaviors, and uses uncivil language, as in this statement: "you would have had the crap smacked outta you a long time ago...". Of all places to make such a comment, placing it on a page devoted to improving etiquette between editors seems somewhat ironic and inappropriate.

To be clear, I have had no prior communication with any of the editors involved in this discussion and I am not "taking sides". It is my opinion that everyone needs to calm down and concentrate on editing the articles and not on the personalities of the people involved in the editing. If someone writes something that bugs you, just ignore it and respond to the content of the discussion and not to the possibly abrasive personality of the editor you are debating with.

Beyond offering that possibly over-obvious advice, this page cannot help solve a sustained dispute involving emotionally charged communications like what we have seen here. Perhaps a more formal dispute resolution process will be needed. Personally, I think those procedures are a lot of work and everyone has better things to do with their time. The best solution is for all the parties to relax and to each decide to not take the other's comments personally, and move on with good faith editing. --Parzival418 Hello 04:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no incivility on the part of Calton. This, [15]. this and this from Neutralhomer indicate a pattern of abusing Wikipedia processes such as here and WP:AN to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute. Such disruption violates WP:HAR and WP:DE and will result in a block if it continues. FeloniousMonk 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::You want proof? Gimme about an hour (trust me, I will need it. - NeutralHomer T:C 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Ah, to hell with it...it ain't worth my time. Calton, do what you want. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:75.62.8.225:
Hi. I saw that you did clean-up on the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article. Do you know why the record of your contributions were erased? Just wondering 76.166.123.129 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Because the article was deleted as per the discussion here, as you very well know, Jeanne. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh. I hope Ms. Spicuzza is aware of this. 76.166.123.129 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also see comments on my talk page. 76.166.123.129 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Ip incivility and personal attacks on Talk:Men's rights

An anon Ip (User:89.100.237.34/User:89.100.225.58) has made a number of uncivil remarks and personal attacks gainst SatyrTN & Slp1 (calling Slp1 "small-minded [16] and using excessive markup to make a point against SatyrTN) and showed general incivility on Talk:men's Rights after they were asked to provide sources for material they added to the article. They have shown symptoms of WP:OWN and general tigerish behaviour.--Cailil talk 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I replied. Maybe it will help. --Haemo 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Incivility from Admin. User: Steel359

Stuck.

Admin. User: Steel359 has been extremely uncivil (see archived history and history log comments for his talk page, relating to posts and content by user 4.236.xx's). Referred to legitimate post as "rubbish" and said "go away" and reverted (and kept protected) original Richard Hell page to an unproductive version he'd previously noted as such. Refused to civilly engage and has been hostile, uncivil/nasty AND performed vindictive and wrong admin. action on RHell page. He's preventing discussion on his talk page by protecting it; please resolve. This appears wholly wrong admin. conduct and action. (Perhaps email him to unprotect his page so you can post your response on it)[Note he has deleted most of discussion - need to view history on 4.236's edits]4.236.15.30 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the correct page to report difficulties with administrators. This page is monitored only be regular editor volunteers. If you want help with an administor issue, you may wish to list your report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges. It may also be a good idea to review the dispute resolution Wikiguide. --Parzival418 Hello 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


April 30, 2007

IP refusing to accept a set consensus

For around half a month, 208.27.127.30 has reverted a merger on Mighty the Armadillo. It was set around a month ago to merge all minor characters of that series to where ever they fit. At first I just assumed that it was just the regular fan not getting how the whole thing works, but then he started citing "votes" from a discussion during '05 as a consensus to "keep" the article. Since then, he has only come back every once and a while to revert whenever the page goes back to a redirect instead of even going to the talk page or going to the target article to start a discussion for a new consensus (like it has been recommended to him).

I was hoping he would become bored like the rest of them, but I guess he isn't like them. And before anyone says it, it was thoroughly discussed, so this doesn't require a new one. I assume this would be classified as a content dispute, even though it's just him (though there was one other person who has reverted it, but he's a separate case), so I assume it wouldn't belong on WP:ANI or anything. Nemu 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I see on the user's talk page that he/she has been given a direct warning to stop continuously reverting material. Perhaps you could leave at the user talk page a more specific invitation to join discussion at the article's talk page. If that has already been tried, I would suggest a firmer (civil) warning along the lines of the previous warning issued. Sancho (Review me) 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)