Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive18

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

New user (NobutoraTakeda) is uncivil

Resolved.

new user User:NobutoraTakeda need some guidance on being civil, etc. Based on his talk page, several people have been having problems with him. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this user is extremely aggressive with regards to various AfD discussions, to the point of badgering people both on the discussion and on their talk pages. I'm not sure what course of action would be best with this user but he certainly doesn't seem interested in the well-intentioned advise offered by multiple users on his talk page. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If the user isn't responding to advice and warnings from other editors, it may be time to take the matter to the admin noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this user has been blocked - apparently was deemed a sockpuppet. Probably no more that needs to be done or said on this matter. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Uncivil Personal Attack on Talk Page (Shashwat pandey)

Stale.

User Shashwat pandey has posted an inappropriate attack banner on his talk page (when he found out we were filing an Rfc for him). This banner violates WP:CIVIL and WP:ICA. I've read the Civility sections and it seems I have the right to remove this since it is my name and my link? Advice would be appreciated. Renee Renee 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(I edited your post above with Wikilinks) Hi Renee. I'd hold off on removing the banner, and let the RfC take place before any decisions are made. I'd say that removing the banner from his Talk page is only likely to inflame the situation further - if any admins get involved in the RfC (likely), they'll decide what the appropriate course of action will be. Feel free to refer to this WQA for reference if need be. :) I hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks KeiferSkunk -- appreciate the advice and will follow. Just for my own knowledge, is something like this considered inappropriate or not? Renee Renee 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe so - it certainly isn't in the spirit of dispute resolution. I would hesitate to call it open harassment, but I've left a friendly suggestion that he remove his banner and participate openly in the RfC and dispute resolution process. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still learning how to use Wiki, it's policies, etc. Appreciate your kindness. Renee --Renee 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute situation with User:Tenebrae in John_Buscema - should I agree to mediation?

Resolved. mediation in progress

My problem is that the disputant is willing to go to mediation but presents the request in a way that leaves me wary -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema (see last entry)

There's seems to be such an accusational, prosecutional, and uncivil tone that I hesitate to agree to mediation when such an attitude is displayed.

There are also two situations involving the user, which would seem to indicate a regular occurance of controversial behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tenebrae2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Request_for_comment/Asgardian (see June 16 entry)

Any ideas on how to proceed would be much appreciated.

--Skyelarke 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to think of a reason to turn down mediation. If mediation works, it will give a way forward. If it doesn't work, you and the other editors should be no worse off than before. It seems there is a long-running dispute, and the RfC didn't work. So try something else. EdJohnston 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I agreed to mediation, it was accepted and a mediator has taken on the case. --Skyelarke 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from Austinavenger

I'm not sure if it belongs here or somewhere else. User has brand new account, seems to be created only for Ellen McNamara afd. Has stated deletion [1] "would seem like a hate crime to many", and in the afd [2] deletion "smacks of a certain prejudice like homophobia". There's no mention anywhere in the article of subject being gay, which makes it odder.

This was followed up with a somewhat harrassing post on Charlene.fic user talk page[3]Horrorshowj 08:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you are over-reacting a bit. The new user is not being incivil; all the contributions are unexceptional and free of personal attack. The post on the talk page was not harrassing, though it would have been better asked in the delete discussion. Relax, work on the assumption that they are trying to help; it looks like a good assumption in this case. Cheers -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious bigotry from User:Ultrabias

Resolved.

User:Dina and I have expressed concern that the edit summaries of the above-named editor are insulting towards Muslims and often unrelated to the edit they summarize. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. When I approached him with my concerns here, he responded in part by calling Muhammed "The King of All Cons". When I advised him of my intention to bring the problem to this page if the problems continued, he responded "Begin it. Because I have continued to make edit summaries as I see most fit, sternly disregarding your expressed viewpoint and any political correctness campaign that you are pushing in regard to it." See also his user page, which appears to me to be deliberately inflammatory and racist.

This is especially frustrating because this editor does some useful work in making many articles adhere to MOSISLAM, but in my view his expressed anti-Muslim bigotry invites discrediting of even this useful work. Sarcasticidealist 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think maintaining neutrality in edit comments is excellent advice. It is in line with standard guidelines, and more importantly it avoids undermining what should be a basic principle: there is no disrespect involved when an encyclopedia omits or removes the terms such as "sawas", etc. I have left a cordial statement of my opinion at the user's talk page. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it appears he's been exposed as a sock and is now just wreaking as much havoc as he can before the status is confirmed. I'm not going to waste any more thought on him, so I'm marking this resolved. Sarcasticidealist 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible ownership violation by User:ColdFusion650

Resolved.

The above-mentioned user seems to have a very proprietary feeling toward the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article. I attempted to make some grammatical corrections, additions and clarifications to the plot summary portion of the article, and he reverted my changes in their entirety immediately, with no valid explanation. He's been doing the same for other users on that article.

I absolutely do NOT want to get in a p***ing war with him or anybody on this matter, especially since I'm just a wikipedia dabbler, but I'm hoping the volunteers who monitor these kinds of infractions will take a look at the recent history of that page and come to a more educated decision regarding that member's behavior.

I'd like to make some beneficial changes to that article and I feel like I've been repeatedly thwarted by someone who seems to have a very ownership-oriented view of it.

I gather you are User:Middlenamefrank. Please sign your posts in the future. User:ColdFusion650 did provide an edit summary for his reversion of your changes, and his concern seems to be surrounding your use of the T-101, which apparently may not be the correct model (I'm quoting him, here - I've never seen the movie and know nothing about it). As your edit incorporated extensive use of the T-101, which he felt was inappropriate to the article, he reverted it.
At this point, if you felt that your use of T-101 was appropriate, against his objections, I would have suggested that you make a note of that on the article's talk page in an effort to find consensus on this question. Instead, you reverted his reversion, he reverted your reversion to his reversion, and so forth. I'm in no position to say whose version is preferable, but there's no question that he explained why he was reverting your material.
If you have an interest in continuing to edit this article, I strongly recommend that you start a discussion on the talk page about whether the use of the T-101 model is appropriate. It's much more productive than revert-warring. Sarcasticidealist 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now read the relevant portions of your talk pages. Here are my thoughts:
1. I think his explanation of why he reverted your change is reasonable, given that your edit of fewer than a hundred words introduced the use of the T-101 model four times. If inclusion of T-101 in the article was inappropriate, then I think reverting your edit was reasonable.
2. I find it discouraging that after he explained his reasons for reverting your edit, you did not either change your revision to eliminate the T-101 or attempt to debate his assertion that T-101 was inappropriate. Instead, you just reintroduced your change. This is the stuff of which revert wars are made.
3. Your response, accusing him of thinking he owned the article, was in my estimation a violation of WP:AGF.
4. When he said that he was "protective" of pages he created, I think he was well-within the attitudes allowed by WP:OWN. I am protective of pages I create, too, which manifests itself by the fact that they're on my watch list and that I review every change that is made to them.
5. However, when he suggested that he objected to people editing articles "without permission", he was seriously out of line...if he was serious. The paragraph that included this statement concluded with "(small joke)", which might mean the bit about permission was also a joke. Unfortunately, that wasn't clear, and the onus is on him to make it clear.
6. Your "get a life" retort was a violation of WP:CIVIL.
Overall, I think that you may have allowed what was effectively a minor content dispute to be ballooned out of proportion by failing to assume that User:ColdFusion650 was acting in good faith. Your post to the article's talk page is a good start to resolving the dispute you're having. Unfortunately, I note that it hasn't received any responses. A good start might be posting on User:ColdFusion650's start page - civilly, of course - inviting him to provide his explanation for why he doesn't like the change. Hopefully, that turns into a useful, consensus-building discussion. Sarcasticidealist 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well put. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, you're right, I did take it personally and blow up a bit when I saw my original edit reverted out of hand. I shouldn't have done that, nor should I have been (a bit) uncivil in my response. However, I still don't believe my reference to 'T-101' justified reverting the entire change...why couldn't he have simply change those references? I believe the overall change was beneficial to the article and should have been retained.
Additionally, you may notice that I later re-submitted my edits using the phrase "Model 101" (which is already used elsewhere in the article, and which Schwarzenegger himself uses in the movie) instead of "T-101". He has a valid point and I'm complying with his request on that point. He once again reverted the changes I made, and his only comment was "same as before".
Furthermore, I fully understand the tendency to want to claim ownership of an article you've been a major contributor to. Look at the history on the Soldering article, you'll see a huge number of edits that I made to it...I really do feel that I'm in large part responsible for the high quality of that article, and I do feel quite a bit of ownership of it. However, when someone makes a change to that article, I never simply revert it out of hand. If I disagree with the change, I explain myself on the talk page, maybe strike up a little dialog with the person, and come to an agreement about how we should incorporate EVERYBODY's ideas.
I'm not trying to say I'm blameless in this incident. I got mad and blew off some steam, and I feel bad about it. I admit my behavior was less than perfect. But I do think he's got to loosen the leash on that article. Again, look at the recent history on that article and you'll find that I'm not the only person who's been summarily reverted by him.
And sorry for forgetting to sign my entry. :-) Middlenamefrank 23:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I certainly did fail to notice the distinction between Model 101 and T-101 (these subtleties escape a guy whose taste in movies runs more towards the screwball comedy). If User:ColdFusion650 did notice the distinction, then he should have at least addressed that in the edit summary, you're right. From a WP:AGF perspective, I'm tempted to believe that he just took a glance at your edit and concluded that it was the same one as before. I don't think the onus was necessarily on you to do this, but for that sort of thing it couldn't hurt to mention it in your edit summary ("same as previous edit, but with Model 101 instead of T-101"). But that's the kind of thing that's easy to say in hindsight, like that User:ColdFusion650 should have been clearer that he was only kidding about requiring permission to edit.
On the article itself, I have a hard time saying whether User:ColdFusion650's various reversions were justified or the sign of an editor violating WP:OWN because I don't understand the article's subject very well. I also think the talk page has been a little underused, which has the effect of robbing a disinterested observer such as myself of context that could help me make that determination. As I said before, I think your decision to start discussing these issues on the talk page was a good one; hopefully you can hash out your differences on the Model/T-101 issue, the stylistic issue, and whatever other issues may come up. And if you find yourselves hamstrung by content disputes, as opposed to Wikiquette disputes, you can always give WP:RFC a try.
In any event, thanks for responding maturely to constructive criticism. Sarcasticidealist 00:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(Is that six colons?)Thanks, I believe it's all about being mature. I'm not going to continue pursuing any more changes on that article because I just don't really care all that much. If it stays a "B" grade article, with lots of grammatical errors and typos, it's really no skin off my nose. More substantive articles, like "my" Soldering article, are far more important to me. I'd go into more detail about why I didn't use the talk page, etc. but it's already consumed WAY too much of my life. But I do think someone needs to rein him in just a tad...again, look over the rest of the recent history of that article and check out his overall behavior, not just toward me. Middlenamefrank 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(Seven!) Well, what's done is done; not a lot of point in worrying about justifications for past actions as long as everybody's ready to move forward in good faith. I just think that, for future reference, talk pages in articles exist largely for incidents like these. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, with regards to your question about why he couldn't just correct your use of T-101 instead of reverting your entire edit, the answer is of course that he could have. But there has to be a spectrum on this: if you'd provided four paragraphs of good new content and used T-101 once in there, reverting the whole thing on the basis of the one mention of T-101 would have been out of line. On the other hand, there's no obligation on editors to refrain from reverting a (hypothetical) edit that's 90% bad in order to salvage the good 10%. As I said, your edit was a minor one that User:ColdFusion650 found to be overall objectionable, so he reverted. If the conversation on the talk page gets anywhere, you should hopefully be able to quickly figure out which parts of your edit were non-contentious and work them in immediately, even as you continue seeking consensus on the rest. Sarcasticidealist 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A declaration of intent to attack Immanuel Velikovsky page

Stuck. Reported at WP:AN/3RR - result: User:Icebear1946 blocked for 24 hours

New user Icebear1946 (talk · contribs) has declared an intent to maintain a WP:POV attack on the Immanuel Velikovsky page. The declaration is in the talk page: this section: "I and others will continue reinserting the thermal balance article until hell freezes over if need be". Reasons why the cited article was removed are given at the linked section of the talk page. Two different editors so far have made removals. The page is one that attracts trolls. There has been an attempt to explain Wikipedia conventions, to no avail. The rule WP:3RR was described; it is not yet violated. I am ceasing attempts to discuss further myself, as they don't help. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 12:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear me, Alert one of the math or physics admins to watch the page, trolling is one of the most difficult problems to deal with 'round here and it helps to have an admin with you from the beginning.--Cronholm144 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
So far, User:Icebear1946 seems to be a single-purpose account. I recommend avoiding extended discussions, refer the editor to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, and watch for 3RR. Stay extra polite so it doesn't become a charged situation. As long as the editors of the article have consensus, the reversions should not be a problem.I noticed there is already one 3RR warning on the user's talk page. If it continues, another warning would be appropriate before reporting to WP:AN/3RR , but perhaps also post a welcome message with the basic WP policies.
I noticed is that someone made the comment that they believe this new editor is the same person who wrote one of the references. Unless a user reveals their identity themselves, no other user should reveal it, except in specific unusual situations. I believe there is a policy about this, but I can't find it right now. In any case, it's best to avoid this. Instead of using an editor's identity as a basis for reverting a reference, refer to the policies to determine whether a reference is reliable or not. --Parzival418 Hello 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Parzival418. I was the one who placed the warning. I agree I spent too much time trying to discuss how to edit wikipedia constructively; I should have placed that on the user's talk page and confined myself to the article on the article talk page. I'll try that next time I find myself in this kind of position. I accept the reproof about privacy. Again, next time I will word myself more carefully. Thanks very much for the suggestions! -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as the identity issue, you're right, it seems he has revealed it himself previously. And now in his new edit he has specifically revealed his own identity by re-editing the PDF on his website to add the author's name and then re-posting it again to the article page, and stating it is his essay. He also now claims that it is properly attributed - still not a reliable source though. Further, in his comments on the talk page, he has violated WP:CIVIL several times, accusing good faith editors of vandalism, and make a variety of other insulting comments.
He's pretty clearly violated the WP:3RR rule today with these 5 reverts:  : [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. So if you want to take action, it would be appropriate to report him at WP:AN/3RR. It might be a good idea also to mention there that User:Icebear1946 so far is a single purpose account, has not edited any other articles, and has a conflict of interest in the posting of that unsupported reference. I am not making the 3RR report myself because this is not my dispute. But in light of the uncivil conduct of this user, I recommend that you consider making the report so he knows he can't continue to behave that way.
If you do, make sure to show the diff for the 3RR warning you placed on his talk page, include the examples of the reversions, and add their time stamps so it's convenient for the administrators to read your report. Look at some other reports on the noticeboard so you can see how they are done, and follow the instructions step-by-step. It's not complicated but needs to be done according to proper form.
Also, the reference is clearly not WP:V, and does not have consensus to be included, so it does not belong there. In my opinion, there would be nothing wrong with another editor removing it again, as long as it is someone who has not already removed it more than once today. That's just my opinion though, the decision about removing it or not is up to each individual editor according to their reading of the policy. --Parzival418 Hello 05:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)Now that you've filed the report at WP:AN/3RR, we'll consider this alert to be closed. Depending on the results of the 3RR report, if User:Icebear1946 causes trouble again and this alert has not yet been archived, please feel free to add further notes. If this has been archived, then open a new alert if needed. --Parzival418 Hello 04:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of barnstar without discussion

Resolved.

I don't want to turn this into a big deal but I would appreciate a steer on the Wikiquette. User:Matt57 removed a barnstar from my talk page, saying that the editor who placed it there was probably a sockpuppet of a banned user (User:His Exellency). I don't have any evidence for that. As far as I can see the editor who placed the barnstar is not blocked, although his editing was confined to one short burst. I've reverted the removal and left a not-too-rude comment on Matt57's talk page. Is this the appropriate level of response? Itsmejudith 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your response was fine. :) Whether a sockpuppet was involved or not, altering another user's talk page by removing content without consulting the user first is generally a bad idea, and I think you handled it very well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Such is more than a bad idea, most consider un-warrented modification of other's comments to be a form of vandalism. I'm going to warn this user as well. Hopefully this time will be the first and last.The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The other guys have said everything - you've handled everything well ~ Anthøny (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
KensingtonBlonde: I don't think going to a full-blown warning with Matt57 was appropriate here either. Matt57 apparently meant that edit in good faith - it was obviously not intended to be vandalism. A simple note requesting that he not do that would have sufficed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Whats the big deal here? Judith you're getting all hyped up for nothing. It was an obvious sock puppet who placed the barnstar (username similiar in format to recent socks of banned user His excellency) and I had mentioned that if you wanted to put it back in, you can and you did. The matter is closed. Really, some people, raising an issue for nothing. Sock puppet edits are usually reverted and I did it here too. Focus on more important issues please. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned to KensingtonBlonde, I don't think his warning against you was really appropriate - a simple note requesting that you not do that again would have sufficed. As for Judith's original WQA, she was asking us if her response to your edit was appropriate, which several of us believe it was. She remained civil and polite in the matter, she did not attack you, and she went the extra step to get an outside opinion on her own behavior. I think that's rather commendable of her, personally. In any case, I don't think anyone's getting "hyped up" over it, though obviously the discussion has taken a different turn further below. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discussion on KensingtonBlonde

KensingtonBlonde is also likely a sock puppet of Kirbytime. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say that KensingtonBlonde is a sock puppet? I don't see any correlation between the two. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats because you havent seen Kirbytime in action before. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I don't know the whole history here. Enlighten me. All I see on your end right now is "He's KirbyTime! Take my word for it!" I want to know HOW you know - from my point of view, you could point to anyone, even myself, and accuse them of being a sockpuppet. I don't buy that, so I'd like to know what specific info you have that would convince me to believe you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Lets wait for the Checkuser result and then I'll tell you all about it. Like I said, the biggest thing is that this new user registered and went right on the Meta to complain against the CheckUser. Who else would do that except a sock puppet? Right? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not registered on Meta (as you can see there if you take a look at the discussion). If I registered an account there specifically to complain about the CheckUser policy, would you automatically assume that I was a sockpuppet as well? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
K.blonde has an account here too. Please investigate the stuff yourself a little bit too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You're missing my point: Not all users whose first edits are to question policies are automatically sockpuppets of other banned users. This person could just as easily have been lurking or editing anonymously up until that time, and may have registered an account so that there was some credibility behind the question. (Policy makers would be much less likely to pay attention to such a questioning of policy were it coming from an IP address.) There are other ways to tell that a person is sockpuppeting, but so far I see no evidence that KensingtonBlonde has done anything that matches the behavior of previous KirbyTime sockpuppets. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(Note: I am not automatically saying you're wrong, nor am I flatly defending KensingtonBlonde. I am simply calling into question your apparent "take my word for it" stance on this issue.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I wont comment further until the Checkuser results are out. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) FYI: I've disengaged from this particular discussion. I don't have the full history here, and it's apparent that several other users believe the Checkuser is justified. I am not in a position to continue this discussion, so it's best that I stay out of it at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments, especially KieferSkunk and Anthony for responding to my query in the spirit in which it was meant. At least the exchange has further confirmed for me the value of civility in WP! Itsmejudith 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias and censorship by editor Heresthecasey

I've been trying to add to the article about Fallujah, specifically the use of white phosphorous munitions as anti-personnel weapons by U.S. troops during their attack on the city. Heresthecasey keeps deleting my documented additions (The Independent, The BBC) and accuses me of vandalism. I'd like someone to check out the history of the dispute and see what's going on - it looks like political censorship to me.124.99.205.23 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You both seem to be in violation of the three revert rule, which can mean a 24 hour block for you both, just to help calm the matter down a bit. But more importantly, the first thing you need to do is take your question to the article talk page. Assume from the start that Heresthecasey is working in good faith to make the article better, as are you. Be civil, and try to find out what the problem is by talking about it. No matter what you think deep down; engage in the discussion page with the presumption that Heresthecasey is trying to help and see if you can help him help you better. You'll either end up pleasantly surprised to discover that actually is the case; or you'll end up having a basis for asking other editors to sort it out... in which case you need to have shown yourself willing to work actively for consensus already. Good luck with it! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added my appeal to the discussion page under "The White Phosphorous Debate". Thanks!124.99.205.23 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Activity by W. Kehler from 84.158.*.* in physics pages

Stale. report continued at WP:AN

Mr Kehler is from a German astronomy club. He is currently editing Anti-gravity, and resisting any request to discuss his changes on the talk page. There is a possible revert war brewing. The problems are exacerbated by his poor English and by his use of unreliable sources of dubious relevance for support of extremely unconventional views of physics.

One major difficultly for keeping track of what is happening is that Mr Kehler uses anonymous IP addresses, and uses a dynamic cluster, so there is a different address every session. All edits are from 84.158.*.* Help requested. You can see my comments in the talk page at Talk:Anti-gravity#Proposed changes by wfck (84.158.*.*). —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated POV accusations, general incivility, accusations of deleting references, etc by editor MarkThomas

Over the past several months editor MarkThomas has repeatedly accused me of POV editing, engaging in uncivil comments, personal attacks and lying to portray my edits in an unfavourble light. He has also combined accusations of POV editing with deletion of solid references, references which supported facts that he subsequently described as being something "no-one denies" (or simiar). He has also deleted my requests from his talk page.

This has been happenning on the Cromwell page and (further ago) on the British Isles page. Here are a few examples;

Cromwell

[9] (saying refs are POV) <correction to first entry> [10] (deleting refs) [11] (deleting the same ref a second time) [12] (deleting a ref from an 1900 text as being POV)

During this time I added many references from serious sources (e.g. volumes from Oxford and Cambridge University Press), which seemed to make things quieter. However, after a gap, we again have an attempt to characterise the references given as being "Irish" (a typical MarkThomas accusation is that someone is using "Republican POV"), despite the fact that the refs are from several countries, primarily British.

[13]

At the same time, on the Cromwell talk page, there were repeated accusations of POV and the beginnings of creating history that never happened (I'm unaware that one of my references was "discredited" in Cromwell, but it's not the first or only time that MarkThomas says things like this on talk pages)

[14] [15] (accusations of POV) [16] (more POV, plus accusations of snowjobbing references, which is interesting since he'd previous been deleting references.)

[17] (an interesting diff, since here he says that "nobody contests" a point where he had deleted several supporting refs as being POV)

[18] (mild, but attempting to portray a ref as unsourced, despite the fact that he knows the source and had used it himself)

[19] (description of references as "Republican")

[20] (characterisation of the references as "Republican folklore")

Then, after a mostly good debate between greycap, sony-youth, koncorde and others, MarkThomas comes back with

[21] (which accuses me of deleting references) [22] (now i'm an obsessive reference destroyer) [23] (now he accuses me again of deleting references, apparently of gathering support outside the page by posting on "Irish noticeboards" - whatever they are) [24] (repeated accusation of deleting references and making false accusations)

Meantime, on the British Isles page, we have everything from basic POV accusations

[25]

to deletion of key references during a protracted discussion on how to write about the references in the text

[26] (deleting some) [27](coming back to delete more of the refs) [28] (and again deleting, once more asserting that the citations are somehow POV)

and [29] (accusations of POV editing, as usual) [30] (and again)

Meantime, in all of this, and despite the fact that he says he will provide references ([31]) MarkThomas almost never actually provides any references to support his own point of view (note, i don't call it POV, since we all have a point of view). However, he very frequently asserts that others are POV too., e.g.

[32] Other editors (whom i don't know and haven't followed their edits) have also apparently had a problem [33] [34] [35] [36]

(Note, these other editors have had their own disputes and couldn't been seen as a group)

Then we have some more examples of characterising my edits or talk page contributions as being something other than I'd said; [37] (i never said the view was universal) [38] (assertion that i'd been warned by an admin for apparently putting something on his talk page..which is a mystery to me)

Then there was also accusation of collusion [39] (also rejected by the other editor [40])

Assertions that I was blocked for 3rr (i wasn't) [41]

And then we also have another example of changing the argument to confuse the issue [42] (read back through the page to see how often MarkThomas had opposed using the word "often", whereas now suddenly he proposes it.)

And also accusations of bullying and agression [43]

And accusations of deliberate misquoting of references [44] (i never made the edits MarkThomas says i made and can't comment on their accuracy)

In all, I guess my question was well expressed already several months ago in this diff [45] .

Dealing with MarkThomas is just highly unpleasant. This has been a pattern now for months and it's tiresome. I've tried to ask him to stop and to apologise and he'll deny that he makes accusations, apologises for one thing then repeats it, deletes requests on talk pages, responds to them with "threats" that he'll get me blocked and banned, etc.

I've tried to stick to citation as much as possible but MarkThomas doesn't care and doesn't provide any refs to support his accusations of POV, just repeats them and edits the pages apparently using his own personal knowledge as the ultimate reference. <update with better format a couple of hours after initial post>.Hughsheehy 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Note, I also asked an admin (SirFozzie) for support/guidance in dealing with MarkThomas. MarkThomas made some remarks there which bear repeating here.
This relates to the genocide debate and Hughsheehy's repeated edits surrounding the question of Cromwell being a genocidalist, which is a minority view in academic history, but one that Hughsheehy obviously has very strong views about himself - he resents this rather obvious point being publicly stated, which is the heart of the grave offence I commit in his eyes.
I've just read through the Wikiquette material and the accusations there profoundly conceal and misrepresent the facts. Hughsheehy is not in general someone who likes to engage in collaborative editing. When I first went to the Oliver Cromwell article, there were a number of exceptionally POV statements that were unreferenced or badly referenced about him in the intro which I corrected. I was then met with what amounted to a barrage of accusation and harassment from Hughsheehy. When I resisted this, he added numerous references to revised (and slightly less POV) versions of the contested sentences. When the validity of some of these new "references" which were to say the least academically weak (one for example was a quote from a childrens tutorial on the BBC website) were challenged by me, I got further accusations and blanket reverts. Now many other editors have come to the article and systematically critiqued Hughsheehy's references and the statements themselves. I made several more minor edits to the contested sentences, one of which has stuck. It is my opinion that Hughsheehy resents this and is hoping to paint me as the offending party. Note the recent threat of libel against WP:LEGAL he made on my talk page. MarkThomas 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I replied on SirFozzie's userpage, but this is relevant here too.
Interesting that MarkThomas picks that specific reference [46] (which he deleted) as an example. It's from the UK National Archives website and is teaching material for English A Level History. Also, it was never a citation for anything about genocide, as it doesn't mention it. It mentions that Cromwell is hated in Ireland. MarkThomas deleted this ref and one from a 1900 biography of Cromwell as being POV, before later arguing that there were too many references on that point because "nobody contests it". As for the "several more minor edits" on the genocide topic, these included him describing a series of references as being from "Irish historians" (and thus probably irredeemably POV), despite the fact that the citations include Polish historians of genocide and British University lecturers/professors and (i think) one Irish historian...and yes, I reverted that edit. Hughsheehy 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a typical exchange with MarkThomas. Dealing with this level of POV accusation and reference deletion or mischaracterisation is highly tiresome. Hughsheehy 09:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Passing editors should note that there is already an Arbcom on this issue, and that two of the editors comments Hughsheehy calls in support for his case above are Sarah777, who was regarded as so systematically incivil to other editors that there was an RFC on it supported by dozens of editors and Domer48 who is currently blocked for, well, incivility. This is essentially a content dispute on Oliver Cromwell - Hughsheehy is of the view that Cromwell was a genocidalist in Ireland and bitterly resents any attempt to refute, alter or moderate his particular version of that. Attempts to do so are met with systematic agresssion in the form of accusations on talk pages, etc. Hughsheehy's version of events must be seen in this light. MarkThomas 10:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Passing editors should note that there is NO ARBCOM WHATSOEVER on anything I'm involved in, and certainly not on this. Saying there's an ARBCOM is misdirection/misleading from MarkThomas. As for me using "systematic aggression" on talk pages, MarkThomas doesn't produce diffs to support this either - just repeats more untrue accusations even as I try to ask him to stop making untrue accusations against me. I've put lots of requests on MarkThomas' userpage asking him to be civil (and IIRC I once tried to warn him he was close to breaching 3rr), but to no avail, which is what forces me to finally come here and also to ask admins for support.
As for Sarah777 or Domer48 or anyone else listed above, they're only there as examples of MarkThomas' behaviour with other editors. Hughsheehy 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Since I put up this entry I've been advised by SirFozzie (an admin) that I could/should create an RFC and also put up an entry on an ArbCom case (which originated on a page where I have never edited and have had no involvement) where MarkThomas is one of the main - ehm - "participants". The Arbcom case is here [47]. I still don't know quite what I've got to do with it, but there you go. Hughsheehy 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Monarchist editors ignoring capitalization rules

Monarchist editors such as G2bambino and Bastin8 routinely capitalize common nouns having to do with the monarchy in defiance of English grammar. When I recently tried to correct Commonwealth Realms they wouldn't even take the evidence of Buckingham Palace's own Web site that the word "realm" should not be capitalized in this context. I'm exasperated beyond words. Their own Queen doesn't capitalize "Commonwealth realm," but that isn't evidence enough for them. I don't know what to do. I'm outnumbered by people with an agenda. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue is currently under discussion, with many more parties involved, at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, staring at Requested move. --G2bambino 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV article ownership, warning removal, and incivility

Resolved. AfD in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who story chronology

VitasV started an article (Doctor Who story chronology) which I felt had no potential to be anything other than an exceedingly long list that was already adequately covered elsewhere (it would include *all* the episodes and books)), so I prodded it. He replied somewhat less than politely on my talk page and also seems unclear on the concept of article ownership; when I went back to his talk page I found that my prodwarning had been removed, and a check in the history showed that he's removed other warnings and comments from other users. Not sure what to do in this case. Thanks! --Jamoche 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. After looking over the situation, it is somewhat apparent to me that the actions of this user is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Assuming good faith, I think the only reason this user removed the template was because he was convinced that his new article's existence was justified. I'm not going to comment either way on that, because such is not this section's place. As for the comments seen in your talk page, they qualify (possibly) as borderline incivility, almost not even worth noting. I'm going to warn this user nonetheless. If uncivil comments persist, please let me know. Again, the matter of the template removal alone is not something that can be solved here. Re-instate the template, and if this activity persists, contact the Administrator Noticeboard.The Kensington Blonde Talk 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur in general with The Kensington Blonde's comments above, but I'd like to add a technical comment on article deletion procedure. According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts, if a {{PROD}} tag is removed even by the original author, then the PROD is considered to be contested and the next procedure would be to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but not to restore the PROD tag.
Another point to consider is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who has an ongoing discussion about this and other Doctor Who articles, including this one by User:VitasV. In that discussion, he's shown some additional incivility, but the editors there are teaching him about that and it looks like he'll get the idea. He's quite young according to his user page, and it seems he just needs to learn how to communicate better. He does not seem disruptive or tendentious, just inexperienced. I'm going to post a welcome message on his page and direct him to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User.
If you want to list the article for deletion, it might be good to discuss it at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Doctor Who first to see if the project editors support your idea since they are already familiar with the page. Just a suggestion. --Parzival418 Hello 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Parzival, and sorry I reccommended going to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm still not very familiar with deletion policy, mainly because I don't have much interest in being involved in it.The Kensington Blonde Talk 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I've noticed you've responded to several WQA reports, and I'd like you to know your help is much appreciated. --Parzival418 Hello 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gregbard incivility and ownership

Resolved.

I am an outsider to the ongoing debate among some philosophy-oriented users. As a frequenter of AfD, I found myself distressed at the language used by Gregbard at here under his 'keep' vote. It appears that this user has made some very valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but I wanted to voice my concerns about etiquette over this page under his 'keep' vote that I would prefer not to repeat. The edit summary for this edit is also hostile and expresses ownership. I understand that this user is angry, and feels attacked and ganged up upon, so it may be a two way street. Edits such as this one suggest sarcasm and superiority, and must hurt the morale of other well-meaning contributors. Surely this type of talk should be discouraged, so I was hoping to get comments and suggestions here. (Postscript: Is this a slight in philosophical circles? I'm assuming that since it was reverted, there's a chance it is, and would then be modest scale vandalism of a userpage.) Thanks for your input, peace and wikilove, Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The user seems somewhat uncivil, but so far it's relatively minor. I advise just ignoring it for now. At least one of the people he's addressing is an administrator who edits mathematical logic articles, so if he continues on that path he'll probably get himself in trouble on his own. Also, the bigger problem is not the lack of civility but the creation of multiple hoax articles. That's already being discussed at the AfD and if that pattern continues, again, he'll make trouble for himself.
So for now, just let it be and don't take his comments personally if he addresses you. If it gets worse, let us know. --Parsifal Hello 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I re-edited my comments above after being asked to review this archived alert by Gregbard. I don't have time to check into the details, so to be fair, I am striking through all of my comments above regarding any user's behavior. My comments were not intended to read like a judgement, and they are not a judgement. I hope this helps to clarify. About the details of the additional text below, I'm sorry but I am not able to review this further. Continued editing of this archive is not likely to help, because no-one is monitoring this page. If additional help is needed, a new report may be opened. Best Wishes. --Parsifal Hello 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


I just want to go on the record and say that although I have communicated uncomfortable assertations, at no time did I cross into incivility.

In the case of the deletion of FS, a language (one of those things that people use to communicate!) Dr. Rubin had been counterproductive toward expanding articles I was expanding on several occasions earlier in the day. I approached him diplomatically at first, and got no reassurance of any good attitiudes on his side the whole time. I asked specifically at one point about getting an "asshole vibe" from him and got no denial or mitigation. There is no interpretation of my words as "hostile" AT ALL.

I do not hold pride of authorship in articles, and I am fully aware of the consequences of a publically editable space. My interest in FS was to use it as a language for examples in other articles. Please, if you haven't already gotten the point about the formal language FS, understand that it is a language. Now I don't have the use of it. That seriously effects my ability to communicate concepts. No substitute has been forthcomming either.

Furthermore, your example of my words that you describe as "sarcasm" are not sarcasm. The issue being discussed is the fact that the imposed segregation of math and philosophy was causing the philosophy people from actively getting left out of the process on account of the organization of things. There he was using the fact that there weren't any philosophy people contributing as a point on their side. So you see that there is a closed system going on there. The solution involved using transclusions of a philosophy page and a math page (which I had to figure out how to do). They were making more and more work for me with no regard for the whole group of stakeholders.

There are a number of rational interpretations of my labeling Dr. Rubin as a "rhetorician." We had just gotten into a discussion about Dr Parker, a logician (and author of one of the best selling logic books ever printed). I was having a hard time convincing him that he was a logician. He labeled Dr. Parker a rhetorician. So if Dr R. views it as a slight then the label was deserved. I was quite fed up at that point (with Dr. R's rhetoric as a matter of fact). So I labeled Dr. R a rhetorician, with as much justification. He could very well call it a compliment couldn't he?!

I would appreciate it if you would see your way clear to saying I was not uncivil, but rather very well aware of any potential crossing of lines which I sharply DID NOT. I do not create hoax articles under ANY interpretation. I found the labeling of an article I started with a hoax banner mortifying. I was president of the Skeptics club locally. The ironic thing is that there isn't any logically possible way the article could be a hoax. It's logic for crying out loud. It would be like creating the Law of noncontradiction article and having it called into question as a hoax. There's no way it could be UNTRUE!

I don't appreciate being labeled as a trouble maker or being left on my own to be eaten up by the sharks. If I could please focus your attention on the math-centric pov that has subsumed a whole section of the Wikipedia. They are an unaccountable cabal because of the esoteric nature of the subject, their raw numbers, and the propencity of math people to not have a life at all. They are putting the content farther and farther out of the reach of the reader, and the editor. They have dis-integrated topic after topic into conceptx (mathematics), conceptx (everybody else). They have subsumed many logical concepts into math language which are more fundamental and accessable when understood as logic. They are organizing topics in a way that exhibits POV when seen on the multiple article level. I don't know what group has the power to deal with this issue even minimally but perhaps some interdisciplinary standards could be introduced.

Be well, Gregbard 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from DreamGuy

Repeated incvility toward multiple other users from DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). A quick look at his edit summary should show a number of them. Here are some examples: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]

Reported by IPSOS (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
For whatever my opinion's worth, both of you could use a dose of WP:AGF. The two of you have clearly had a number of policy disagreements, but I think the real problem here is that both of you are convinced - without evidence that I have seen -that the other is acting in bad faith. If the two of you intend to continue editing the same articles, I'd suggest making use of WP:RFC in order to have some further light shed on the policy disagreements themselves. As for WP:CIVIL, I don't think most of the edit summaries to which you link violate the policy, although the wording is often slightly more belligerent than necessary (a by-product, in my view, of the lack of assumption of good faith that seems to pervade your wiki-relationship).
Good luck! Sarcasticidealist 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I also took a look at these diffs, and I'm not convinced that this was the right response. Sarcasticidealist seems to assume that all the diffs came from encounters with the reporting user: they did not, but show a broad pattern of aggressiveness with multiple users. Here's a sampling of edit comments on user talk pages demonstrating the larger problem here:
  1. 18:12, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:70.53.254.98 (←Created page with '==Spam== Do not bother trying to sneak spam links into the body of articles or into templates, as those edits will just be reverted on site. Before editing here yo...') (top)
  2. 18:02, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Calling somebody a liar is a personal attack - not if it's true... who are all these nobodies showing up planting false warnings? geez, it's like they got together and planned it) (top)
  3. 02:30, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (response to person trying to not take credit for the edits he/she clearly made which were inaccurate)
  4. 01:02, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (untrue.... it's been well established that editors are free to remove harassing comments and to warn people to ; certain editors -- yourself included -- have firmly demonstrated ill will)
  5. 00:56, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Please assume good faith -you're banned from this talk page, and you are purposefully leaving comments you know to be harassing and false warnings, go away or you will be blocked)
  6. 00:48, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→WP:LAYOUT - false warning from harasser... LAYOUT supported my edits until some peoplpe took it upon themselves to edit that page to be wrong)
  7. 23:42, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (removing whole section, as it's been nothing but an excuse for editors with harassment on their mind to complain and whine and try to work me up... go read policy and comma rules, save everyone's time)
  8. 23:19, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Comma in Adobe Photoshop - response to attacks by harassing editor)
  9. 22:48, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Comma in Adobe Photoshop - explaning... and would the banned editor stop causing edit conflicts... nobody asked you, and you know you are banned, so go away)
  10. 18:28, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→FYI - yet another lie from the harassing problem editor who was told never to post here again)
  11. 00:41, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them)
  12. 20:57, 25 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dicklyon (False warnings, and harassment, AGAIN)
  13. 20:52, 25 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Final vandalism warning - removing false vandalism warning... read the freaking vandalism policy already, and stop putting nonsense here solely to try to bully me)
GlassFET 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread. I opened a case on DreamGuy on WP:AN/I a few days ago, too, not for the incivility so much but for the disruptive editing against consensus and the lying edit summaries when he does. It would be good if some admin who is not involved would take a look there and propose a resolution; too many people seem to be involved with him, so nobody makes a decision about what to do, if anything. Dicklyon 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Potential conduct issues on Talk:American Family Association

I'd like some neutral review of the user conduct on Talk:American Family Association, including my own. There's a content dispute there at the moment which has been dogged by a lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and possibly WP:OWN issues. Basically I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at the discussion (ignoring the content issues) and make some suggestions to involved editors who could benefit from an explanation of how things are done in Wikipedia. I deliberately name no names, except to explicitly include myself in the review, so that neutral parties approach with an open mind. Start at this point in the discussion: [59] and go back for perspective if necessary.

Thanks, Orpheus 09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past

Resolved.

I run into this user quite frequently. It's difficult for me to list him, as he's obviously not a vandal and it appears he has the Wiki's best interests in mind. However, he is known for being stubborn, and sometimes downright abusive when he disagrees with another user.

As one example, he's taken a one-man crusade to remove "Zero Suit Samus" from the Super Smash Bros. (series) page, despite the consensus leaning to her staying on the list. He mas made many edits over the past three days to remove this information, but is careful not to remove it three times in the same day (every time he does, it's reverted quickly, and usually by a different user than before.) He claims that to remove it is in line the "no original research" rule, but the primary argument for inclusion is categorization on the game's official site.

He has also been known to yell at users, make sarcastic comments, claim other users are lying, and attempt to oust the decisions of administators when consensus doesn't appear to be going his way.

Thank you for your time, HeroicJay 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to this, he has now started harassing me (to note, I never advocated what he claimed I did in that edit.) --HeroicJay 00:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about this. I see the patterns in the diffs you mentioned, and it does appear that User:A Link to the Past has been rather uncivil at times. I'd suggest leaving a note in his Talk page asking for discussion on the matter, and if he agrees, please participate in a civil discussion with suggestions on how to improve the atmosphere in those articles. If this ends up only causing more trouble, we can attempt to intervene for mediation, or we can refer you to other steps in the dispute resolution process, such as informal or formal mediation.
Just as a note, I don't believe that LTTP was attempting to harass you when he posted to your Talk page recently. His approach did seem very direct, but I didn't see anything in it that seemed to indicate a desire to harass you. Having exchanged with him myself, I believe he was honestly interested in discussing the matter, and that your response to him might have been a little hostile (though I don't think you violated any policies either). Not sure what I can suggest to change that situation at this point, though.
If we can be of any more help, let us know. Thanks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't say I've ever had a personal...skirmish...with him, but I HAVE noticed him popping up a LOT in disputes, often about naming things, and usually on the low end of consensus if anyone agrees with him at all -- and almost always takes the stance that his opinion is correct and noone else is wrong. I had looked through his talk page a bit (before I saw this page) and saw he's been blocked for being diruptive, 3RR, etc. a number of times. I've also noted him making some weird edits (like removing Wikiproject templates from pages even after they are added back) that, again, seem to be geared toward him wanting things done his way no matter what. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that you are stalking me to dig up dirt on me, huh? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Link, the diffs that were posted in the original alert do show a disruptive pattern. The purpose of this page is to bring disruptive behavior to the attention of non-admin people who are willing to try to resolve disputes and give neutral advice. We'll help if we can, but keep in mind that if other editors feel you are continuing to be disruptive after this WQA has been given time to settle, they will be referred to stronger forms of dispute resolution, including formal mediation, Request for Comment on User, the Admin Noticeboard, and/or binding arbitration. This is not a warning from me, per se - just some advice. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
HeroicJay was quite difficult in that discussion. Everytime I made the slightest attempt to make the point that just because Zero Suit Samus is filed under the Characters cat (the ONLY place she could have been filed), it doesn't mean that she is considered by the developers to be as much of a character in the game as Mario or Link. Whenever I brought up the point that they've filed updates under odd categories before (such as calling a description of control types and naming "Game Modes") he called it irrelevant. It gets very annoying when someone refuses to acknowledge a quality argument that shows the smashbros. site useful in this argument, as it doesn't clearly group her as a playable character, but rather chooses to file her under the only applicable category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with you over the topic here, and I'm not discussing it any further here either. I brought up that one example as an example, and additionally the most recent one, but I've witnessed or participated in disagreements with you before. Anyone who wants to see that argument should look on the appropriate page rather than take either one of our words alone. --HeroicJay 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It is far more than my bad attitude, it's the way you irritatingly attempted to denounced my arguments at several intervals. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Not much to say except that he's ignored messages that I've sent him on his Talk page frequently. When I raised this with him, he says that he's at liberty to respond whenever he wants (although I doubt he would have ever responded). He seems to respond swiftly when there's an argument against him though — it's a shame that he doesn't bother when things are on amicable terms. His work covers a lot of the WP:CVG; it's just a shame that it's so hard to communicate with a major contributor. A little trivial, I know. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Trivial and harassing. All you're doing is following me around for the purpose of whining that I didn't respond to something that I wasn't invigorated into participating with at the moment. Seriously, stop. I'm less inclined to discuss ANYTHING with you after you've systematically fought and complained about my not responding to your post. I respond to criticisms because people directly criticizing me or discussing something controversial is about infinitely of higher priority than moving an article. Now STOP. You'll probably then complain about my response to you, but I won't care. I choose to reply whenever I want, and I expect to NOT be harassed for doing so. Just like ANY Wikipedian. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

←The most important key in situations like this is to not take things personally. Some editors like to talk about their work and some don't. Some are gruff and some are pleasant. There are - of course - times when it really is necessary to discuss edits. If the edits seems to go against consensus, or are questionable according to the core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV, then you can follow the method of WP:BRD, and WP:CONSENSUS. If you find yourself in a situation like that, discuss it on the article talk page. At that point if an editor refuses to respond to the discussion, there could be a problem - but it might not be incivility, it might be disruptive editing, ie WP:DISRUPT.

At this time though, it doesn't seem that is happening. If it is, please provide specific diffs to show disruptive editing. Otherwise, if it's just a situation where User:A Link to the Past does not like to discuss edits on his talk page, that's frustrating but it's not necessarily a policy violation.

I suggest that you focus on the content of the edits. If you don't agree with his edits, discuss on the article talk page, not his user talk page. If he does not respond, you can revert the edits you don't consense. If he reverts them back again, then ask again to discuss on the article talk page. Also, discuss with other editors, and ask them to help with the edits, per consensus. Eventually, if he edits against consensus, you might need further WP:DISPUTE resolution procedures.

If as you say, he is continually skirting the 3RR rule, that can also be considered disruptive. An editor that makes three reverts to the same topic every day, with multiple editors doing the opposing reverts could be considered to be violating 3RR even if technically it's not in one day. If it happens several days in a row and there is consensus against the 3 daily reversions, then it would be appropriate to report that at WP:AN/3RR. If you do report it there though, have your diffs and examples very carefully organized, and include comments from the multiple consensus editors making the complaint so that it's clear it's not just a two person edit war.

But if he is not editing disruptively and just happens to not like to talk about stuff on his talk page, well maybe that's just how he is and it could be best to let it go. Focus on the content, not the editor. Have a thick skin, let the annoying edit summary comments bounce off. If they become seriously rude or extreme, or if the editing becomes disruptive, then let us know and we can try to help. For now though, don't let it get you down. If I've missed something important, please let me know. --Parzival418 Hello 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. I like to respond to messages on my talk page. But I am NOT able to do so in a speedy manner, and I am NOT able to respond to messages that easily, especially when I'm not THAT interested in the subject.
  2. I shouldn't even be editing under the circumstances that I do - that is, I recall most of these disputes beginning earlier in the day, and on a hot Summer day too, so I was probably cranky and hot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you understand yourself well... :), we all have times like that, editing when we're tired or cranky, but at times like that we need to be extra aware of how we come across. Try to watch out for actions that others might see as edit warring, in other words, if you revert the same edit more than a couple times, then please take the time to discuss the issue - either on your own talk page or the article talk page, wherever you prefer. If you do it on your own page, at least inform the other editor(s) so they know where to discuss it with you.

In your edit summaries, it would be helpful if you consider how others will feel when they read your comments. They may not realize how fast you're editing and that those comments are just toss-offs... some may take those comments personally even if you don't intend it that way.

I think we can consider this WQA report closed, unless anyone has anything further to add. If anyone wants to continue this process, please include a specific description of what outcome you want to achieve since at this time, it's hard to see what else we can do unless there is a specific goal. One thing that may help is that if A Link to the Past appears uncivil in a discussion, you can ask him to please reply more respectufully. Mutual respect is always helpful in collaboarations, especially when everyone involved is particularly interested in a topic. And remember, don't take any of it personally, it's just words.

If no-one adds anything, we'll change the work-in-progress tag to resolved in a few days and then this section will automatically be archived after a while. Best wishes to all. --Parzival418 Hello 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Parziva1418. I think this should be done. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Turtlescrubber on Ron Paul

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

Repeated incivility, personal attacks, and sarcasm. Most recently, accusations of "... loves to edit war" in an edit summary -- of a revert. Could someone please encourage Turtlescrubber to maintain civility? As the subject of the attacks, I doubt any further comments of mine would be taken at face value. ←BenB4 07:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I wish I knew about this page earlier. Ben has driven me, and many other editors to our wits ends on the Ron Paul article. Even a cursory glance at the the talk page should show the incivility and confrontational manner of this editor. User ignores comments, is uncivil, accuses editors of pov pushing and partisanship and shows a dogged determination not to compromise. Any compromise comes with the sweat of other editors pulling teeth on the talk page and in the article for days. Honestly, it's hard to stay civil after the umpteenth time of trying to calm down edit wars or produce new compromise versions. Really, I would love to remain civil but here is just an example of my trying to reach out to him on his talk page.

This is me asking for his input[60] This is me responding to his personal attack [61] Here is me upset about getting no response and further attacks [62] User has never responded to any of those inquires and has just minutes ago, asked me what personal attack? He never read my comments on his talk page? Other editors on the page are also fed up, as shown by comments like this, [63] This, [64]this, this section is nice [65] [66] or this [67] All from different users within the past 10 days. I could easily dig up 10 more. Here is a very recent threat he made against another user [68] Please read over the talk page and see where our frustration is coming from. It's not just me but everyone on the talk page thats throwing their hands up in frustration. Turtlescrubber 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be an editor on the Ron Paul page; I came across this page for the first time and saw this notice and felt I had to comment. BenB4 has accused many other editors (almost every one working on the article actually) of being on various campaign committees, has said that no consensus can happen when every other editor disagrees with him and he is the only dissent, and he has done this on personal talk pages as well as the article's talk page and in his edit descriptions within the history of the article. I ask that the commentary going on at the Ron Paul talk page be reviewed because many editors have indeed "been driven to their wits' end" as Turtlescrubber describes and a few dedicated editors seem to have left working on the article because of it. I have never seen any editor act this way and I have been around for a while.--Gloriamarie 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been some violation of WP:CIVIL on both sides of this dispute. I also think that there has been a distinct lack of assumption of good faith, which has both caused and exacerbated the civility issues. I hope that both sides would agree that frustration occasionally got the better of them and their word choices were inappropriate, and I won't spend any more time on the civility/agf questions unless somebody takes issue with my comments and asks for justification.
At this point, I would suggest trying to draft a paragraph on the newsletter issue that is sufficiently bare bones that none of the involved parties takes issue with any part of it, and work from there on a sentence by sentence (or clause by clause or word by word, where necessary) basis. It will be slow going, and it will require considerable compromise on both sides. However, considerable compromise is.
I would encourage any of the involved parties to comment here on my advice, let me know if it was helpful, and let me know if I have missed anything glaringly obvious (I do that sometimes). Sarcasticidealist 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, if you check the talk page. A draft paragraph on the newsletter issue was the first thing I tried. I contacted other users and left messages on their talk page asking for input. That is where all this had lead because of some initial rejections, by one user, of any compromise. Also, this is not a partisan issue. Gloriamarie who posted above is probably more or less my idealogical opposite (thats the feeling I get anyway), however it is easy to work with her as she is open to discussion and compromise and always civil to other users. While I am not always quite as civil, I am open to discussion and compromise. Almost every single editor on the page is reasonable and open to compromise and discussion, except for one. Turtlescrubber 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I started following the dispute too far down. After having read your draft (I presume you refer to this, I have to agree that what you wrote was a good basis to work off of. If User:BenB4 wants to include more information above and beyond the basic consensus version you drafted, that's something that could be hashed out from there. It does appear from my vantage point that, civility and assumptions of good faith aside, this process would move forward best of User:BenB4 would agree to start with a minimalist consensus version and then build on it as consensus could be achieved.
Of course, I'm talking only about process here; I make no comment about the content disputes. Sarcasticidealist 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at Wikipedia:Relevance

Resolved. Alert withdrawn by original poster.

User:Kevin Murray has reverted this active proposal with the comment "There is no consensus and virtually no support for this proposal. Since it replaces an exisiting page it is not proper to mark it as rejected. If you can show a consensus repost."

The proposal (hosted at User:Father Goose/Relevance until this dispute is resolved) is specific to the subject of relevance and belongs at Wikipedia:Relevance if it belongs anywhere. It replaced a short, essentially placeholder page ([69]) six weeks ago, and no one raised an objection to its placement there, not even Mr. Murray himself: [70].

However, Mr. Murray has been antagonistic toward the proposal, and his statement above wilfully ignores five users who have expressed support for the guideline, who outnumber those who have dissented. At this point he is trying to enforce his views by shutting down continuing discussion and work on the proposal. While Mr. Murray is free to express his dissent, it seems he is trying to disrupt continuing work on the proposal by wiping it out. May I ask for some assistance in this matter?--Father Goose 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 incivility

Resolved.

I would like some outsiders to view and comment on the recent edits of User:Mbz1, particularly here where she seems to have started off, and User_talk:Cacophony. She has been excessively abusive and disruptive IMO, particularly towards User:Cacophony. I would try reprimand her on her talk page, but as you can see she also has it in for me as well. Thanks, --Fir0002 06:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 has posted a notice on her page that she is leaving Wikipedia, and she seems to feel she has been chased away by User:Cacophony and User:Fir0002. I am not taking sides, just reporting what I saw on her page. For now, I recommend just letting this go, since she has stated she is leaving.
She might return, and if she does and you see new problems, you're welcome to post them here. Regarding the past problems, I do see that she has been somewhat gruff, but since it's not continuing, there's nothing to be done.
Also, a user has the right to blank their own talk page (WP:USER). Many times other users have undone her blanking of her own page or her archive pages, which she appears to have felt was a form of harrassment towards her, ie, adding fuel to the fire. I am not saying it was harrassment, but I am saying that if someone blanks their own user talk page, that is their right, so please don't undo that edit. The discussions are still in the history if you need to retrieve examples to show problems.
I suggest that if she returns, try using extra politeness and see if you can work with her productively. Don't take her comments personally, just focus on the content. If that doesn't help and she causes disruptions, you are welcome to file a new report. --Parzival418 Hello 07:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, she says on her talkpage that she has left however she is still editing (as you'd be able to see from her edits). Please check User_talk:Cacophony where she says that she has only left Wikipedia in terms of no longer uploading any photos. She is still being abusive towards Cacophony --Fir0002 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the resolved template and kept this report open. I've reviewed the communications and I agree it's a frustrating situation. Sometimes it may require multiple editors to revert disruptive editing from one user. Unless the problem is extreme and ongoing, it can be a slow plodding process to overcome the disruptions, but they can be overcome. If 3RR is violated, then that can be reported separately at WP:AN/3RR, but if that's not happening, it could be that the best solution is to try and let the unpleasant comments go by and focus more on getting other editors together so the consensus can solve the problem. One disruptive editor alone against a consensus can't stop improvements, though it can take step by step WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS processes to get through the disruption. Aside from all that, and considering everything you've seen from her, what is it that you would consider to be a positive result from your report here? --Parsifal Hello 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Good question. Primarily I would like someone not previously connected with this problem (ie not me or cacophony) to give Mbz1 a reprimand or warning so that she will stop being so disruptive. I think, and obviously this is just my opinion, that she has got the idea that Cacophony and myself are wrongly harassing her, and she is in the right/being victimized in this situation. I think a few words from another editor may help the situation. --Fir0002 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
          • So I had a right to blank my talk page after all. It is good to know! Yes it is a harassment, when somebody was (and is) watching everything I was doing and undid it right away(not only with my talk page). I fealt a hunted and absolutely alone. I asked User:Cacophony to have a pitty on me and stop harassing me. It did not help. And right now I deleted my talk page again and it is back there by user User:Cacophony. So how else should I call it, but a harrasment? --Mbz1 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
                • By the way about my so called "incivility" at the sample fir0002 listed here. Agree I should have been more civil, but I do have a mitigating circumstance (I have not started uncivil behavior first). One user called me "a pain", other user blaimed me "in vandalism", yet one more user(fir0002) advised me to use eyeglasses and made a comment about my spelling.--Mbz1 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Comment . Tensions are high, each of the editors is on the defensive about their own behavior and at the same time has done or written things that have upset the others, probably without intending that result. Go back to the basics and start from WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If someone writes something that feels like a personal attack, figure maybe that's just how that person talks. Decide to ignore the insult, and be extra polite, turning the conversation away from personal comments and back to the content issue.

Use the "just let it go" philosophy. What matters is what content ends up in the articles. The debates that lead to those results will fade away. Low-scale misunderstandings get in the way of productive editing and just plain make things feel bad. You can stop that by not taking it personally - "just let it go."

That's happening, and now on both sides. I'm not going to say "who started it," and it really doesn't matter. Tthe answer is: everyone please just stop doing that. Focus your comments only on the content, not on the editors.
What to do when someone makes an uncivil comment to you in a discussion? Extra politeness. Defuse. If you feel annoyed, wait a few minutes before you reply. Often it can help to point out the incivility in a respectful way, and ask the user to stick to the topic. Make that short, then get right back to the topic yourself. Ignore whatever the editor said about you as a person. If everyone does this, after a while the person making insults will probably get bored and stop doing it.
Not every comment needs a reply. In a poll like a Featured Photo page, what matters is the consensus, not that every comment by one editor has a rebuttal. After rebutting a couple of a person's comments, you can just enter say something like - well I guess we disagree, let's see what the others have to say about it. Or you can just leave it unanswered. The consensus will determine the outcome. The most important thing for that is to make sure there are enough editors on the page to make a consensus and avoid a two-person edit war.
  • Inappropriate editing of User:Mbz1's user talk page by other users
Per WP:USER, editors have the right to delete content from their user talk pages. The guideline recommends archiving, but does not require it. The history will keep all the conversations anyway. Users also have the right to ask other users not to modify their user pages. When Mbz1 blanks her page or removes her archive links, it is not appropriate for other users to unblank her page or restore her archives.
Consider how it feels to a user when they have blanked their talk page and someone else comes in and reverts their change to their own page. Something like that can really inflame tensions in an already difficult situation. Don't revert others' changes to their own talk page. (The one exception to that is if they edit your comments to change the meaning of what you wrote, that would be a different issue I am not addressing here).
  • Mbz1 - apparently misleading and uncivil good-bye message
Mbz1, as I wrote above, you do have the right to blank your user talk page, and you have the right to delete your archive links if you wish. However, the "good-bye" message you left on your page when you blanked it is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It could be seen by some as a Wikipedia:Attack page, in that you are accusing other editors of certain policy violations, without providing evidence or filing any kind of formal report.
It's disingenuous to say that you are leaving Wikipedia, and then continue editing. If you want to blank your page and continue editing, please do. If you want to blank your page and leave a good-bye message and leave, please do. But do not leave an attack page, and do not say you are leaving if you actually are continuing to edit Wikipedia. If you do leave Wikipedia and you leave an attack on your pages, the attacked users, or others, would have grounds for editing your page to remove the personal attacks.
  • Mutual respect is the key. Don't take things personally, stay calm, respond to uncivil personal comments with extra politeness. Comment only on content and not on editors.

I hope my comments are helpful. --Parsifal Hello 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, your comments were helpful in some way to me. Like I said I was alone and did not know how to fight the harassment. I do not know how to file reports as well as fir0002 does. I'm still not sure how come that at least 4 users suddenly became so interested in my talk page that they restored it contest even at 2 a.m. sometimes. It was something very sinister in that. I wish I knew how they communicate between themselves in conspiracy to give me a hard time. You helped. You were right, when you said they were adding fuel to the fire by restoring my talk page (and by removing all my edits). I felt like I have no power over anything, even my own pictures and my own talk page.They saw my reaction on that, yet they continued to do it to make their point. I've deleted some messages at my my talk page (including "good-bye" message) but left some others . I'll see what happens and, if my talk page would stay like I want it to be for a day or so I would consider that I've won a very small victory and the matter is resolved.By the way, when I said I was living Wikipedia, I meant that I'll stop uploading my pictures and I did. I've never meant I will stop to vote for FP nominations. I was just so desperate and upset by all this, that I could have missed something in my "good-bye" message(not in purpose). Thanks,Parsifal.--Mbz1 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
I'd like to add that in my opion, if somebody was reported against like I was, that person should be notified because in my opinion everybody has a right to respond.--Mbz1 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
That's a good point, separately from all the rest of this discussion. I will add that to the instructions for when users file a report on this page. --Parsifal Hello 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Parsifal, I really wish I found that page earlier. I also like to make one more point (hopefully) the last one for that discussion. You called the restoring of my talk page "Inappropriate editing" I would have agreed, if it was done once or twice, or even 5 times, but it was done at least 25 times for the last 2 - 3 days, and after I literally begged them, to have a pitty on me and to stop doing this. I'm sorry,but I would never agree it was "Inappropriate editing". It was a harassment and a very bad one: harassment of an old , sick and alone by young , healthy and many. Oh, and by the way while I was writing that message user User:Cacophony has done it again (for the 26 time). Would you help me,Parsifal please? Thanks.--Mbz1 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Mbz1: I would advise against continuing in the direction you're going with your requests, as they are starting to look more like self-entitlement and possibly issues related to WP:POINT and WP:NPA. We are not in a position to "take pity" on WP editors, but rather to provide neutral and balanced advice. If you feel that other users are continuing to harass you despite repeated requests to stop, you are welcome to post a notice at the Administrator Noticeboard, which can deal with specific policy violations. (I cannot advise at this time as to which specific noticeboard you should post to, but someone there should be able to help you.)
Parsifal: I'm not trying to hijack your work here - just noticed a pattern that appears to be at cross-purposes with the WQA page in general. Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
(No problem at all, your comments are most welcome. --Parsifal Hello 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I don't find anything on Wikipedia:User page that authorizes a user to blank his/her talk page and I disagree with the notion that this is acceptable behavior. Short of personal attacks or libel, there is no good reason to remove other people's comments. It is very disrespectiful towards other editors to remove their comments without archiving. Wikipedia:Vandalism states "The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking...", so I'm inclined to treat usertalk page blanking as vandalism that should be reverted. If you could provide me a link to a page that authorizes blanking usertalk pages I would appreciate it. Thanks, Cacophony 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, WP:USER is a guideline, not an official policy. It does mention that users are essentially free to do what they want with their user spaces, so long as they don't violate user-conduct policies such as WP:NPA and posting libelous statements, etc. It also mentions in particular that a user can remove warnings from their page, and that is taken as a sign that they have read those warnings. Nothing specific has been written about blanking their pages, so it probably falls under the more general "this is my userspace, and I can do what I want with it" category. Additionally, the guideline says that users have the right to request that other users not edit their User and User Talk pages - that would include reverting blanking.
Please also keep in mind that you can get in trouble for WP:3RR on user talk pages, just as in article pages - it's just as much an edit war there as in non-user spaces.
That said, the page is just a guideline - none of this is set in stone. In some cases, user-talk blanking may be deemed inappropriate by an administrator. Just as I said to Mbz1, you are also welcome to seek help at the Admin Noticeboard if you feel she is violating policies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk beat me to it. In my view, blanking your own talk page is reasonable; and off-hand I cannot think of any good reason to deny someone this basic level of control over their user space. You should not revert such a change. In my opinion, you have the onus backwards. The WP:USER guideline establishes a presumption in favour of the user to manage their user space as they see fit. The vandalism guideline does not override this presumption, because it explicitly states that blanking is sometimes appropriate. Although blanking your own talk page is not mentioned explicitly, you should accept that this is a clear case where the presumtion that the user is acting in good faith to manage their talk space should apply. Let it go. You don't have any good basis to insist on your material remaining in another user's talk space. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Duae_Quartunciae--Mbz1 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

←I concur with Duae_Quartunciae and KieferSkunk. Take a look at WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, which includes these points:

  • As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit.
  • Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
  • In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission.
  • Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests.
  • Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

And here WP:TALK#Editing comments:

  • On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded uncivil.

I've also never heard the word "vandalism" used to describe a user making changes to their own userspace pages. The section you quoted from Wikipedia:Vandalism does not generally apply to userspace, other than to someone blanking someone else's userpage. That would be considered Userspace vandalism. On that same page, there is a description of Discussion page vandalism which states the following:

  • Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own,... is generally considered vandalism.

That section specifically omits blanking of comments of others, from one's personal user talk page, from the definition of vandalism. She can blank her personal talk page if she wishes to. There are some users that blank their talk pages regularly, just to keep them clear out of preference. The history is still present if you need to retrieve something to show a pattern of uncivil comments or any other use.

Aside from whether or not it is formally allowed by policy, it's also just plain bad manners to revert someone's edits in their own userspace. No offense intended, but what's the big deal if she wants to blank her user talk page? Why not just stay completely away from her talk page? Don't add fuel to the fire. On the Featured Photo debate page, it's not just you and her, there will be a consensus to decide about the photo. Let the consensus do its work, and stop focusing on one other editor.

User:Mbz1, you should also stop focusing on the other editors. Don't talk about your personal problems or how any other editor might be making them worse. This is an encyclopedia project, not a social network. Direct your comments and edits only towards the content of the articles or photos, and limit your dialog with other editors only to that which will benefit the results by making the articles better. Read and understand WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and especially WP:CONSENSUS. Blank your user talk page if you wish, but do not post any attack comments there. You have previously used the titles of the links to your talk page archives as a place for personal attacks naming other editors - that also is not acceptable and you should rename those links, or remove them, but do not use them to summarize your attack comments.

If you still feel you are being harassed, that could become a serious matter, so let us know and we can advise you. But accusing someone of harassment is also a serious matter and is not acceptable, unless it is accompanied by evidence, so do not use that word casually.

Everyone involved in this dispute should stop watching each other so closely, don't take things personally, and make some great Wikipedia articles. OK? --Parsifal Hello 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Parsifal. I'm not sure what other words to use ,but being harassed against, to describe how I felt about them restoring my talk page, all the time(and my user page once), yet I'm willing to let go on it of course, if they will never ever restore the comments on my talk page that I wish to delete.Thanks for everything.--Mbz1 04:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Well it looks like this has proceeded satisfactorily. Mbz seems to have settled down and the PA against Cacophony have been retracted (although I'm by no means claiming a miracle cure as her recent comments on the Fog bow talk page show!). I still strongly dislike the fact that Mbz is either blanking or selectively deleting comments which she doesn't like, but I see and acknowledge that apparently she has the right to do so. So as far as I'm concerned this matter is resolved. Thanks for your time everyone! --Fir0002 06:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have missed on it, but because it is staying for the record I guess I need to clarify one point. I tried really hard to retract so called PA against cacophony few tims for the last day or so, but for some unkonown to me reason cacophony was bringing it right back every time I retracted it. I was about to give up, but then I retracted it one more time and suddenly cacophony settled down and stopped bringing it back. I also like to thank fir0002 personally for filing that report against me. It brought me real and much needed help. --Mbz1 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Thanks to both of you for your replies; it's good to know our efforts have made a difference. Best wishes... --Parsifal Hello 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)