Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

User:D.brodale

Resolved. Asking someone not to be an ass seems slightly uncivil, at worst, and I think all sides here need to cool off and get back to being productive (if they haven't already). Assuming a little good faith would go a long way to resolve things if this dispute heats up at all again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

D.brodale has made what I consider condescending remarks in the discussion of articles as well as on my talk page. I think he should be informed that this sort of behavior is not accepted on Wikipedia. Users don't have to put up with this. The article in question is Rogeulike, as well as comments on his and my talk page. SharkD (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs to show this? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff is the glaring example I see.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'll stand by those words. To date, the unsolicited remarks in question from SharkD remain irrelevant and untimely. As I pointed out on his Talk page, it's nice and all to drop warning on users' Talk pages, but it's all the better when relevance and context are supplied. Both are still lacking, though it all seems moot now that my response has landed here, somehow dragging behind it a past, unrelated discussion of edits. D. Brodale (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why didn't you simply request clarification instead of making rude comments on my talk page? SharkD (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to fan the flames any higher, but I don't see how either my initial or follow-up remarks on your Talk page could be construed as rude. There may be a touch of smugness, though. I have requested clarification a number of times, and have yet to receive it. As per above, I suspect it's moot. It is, as far as I'm concerned. D. Brodale (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above insults that Jeff G. linked to, D.brodale has engaged in generally condescending behavior in the Roguelike article. I can't really point out specific things; it's the general tone of the remarks that I don't like (you kind of have to read the whole thing to get the gist, here). He exaggerates points to make them seem more strong. SharkD (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of minimizing any bad feelings against me, I should probably stay out. It would probably make my edits easier. But I have observed these editors to some extent. This was clearly just another edit war from two strong personalities. Both of them have acted in good faith in making their edits, even if they were both strong-headed. But for one person to accuse the other of disruptive behavior is itself an act of bad faith. This very "wikiquette alert" to one user is itself motivated by incivility from the other. From what I've observed from both editors, resolving this conflict must be a two-way street. A lot of this conflict stems from a misunderstanding of the use (and misuse) of references and research. Randomran (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think you are mischaracterizing me as strong-headed. In Roguelike I simply made my points regarding my edits and was responded to with denigration. I don't see how I was in any way patronizing. Secondly, I don't see how we were involved in an edit war. After the second revert I posted to the talk page in order to discuss the issue and discontinued the discussion when I felt it got too "hot". SharkD (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SharkD has now mischaracterized my efforts to improve the Artillery Duel article. I am concerned he is trying to do the same thing to me that he is doing to D.brodale. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Artillery_Duel for the misstatement by SharkD and my response. Randomran (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the only insult that I can see is the one Jeff G. linked to. The rest might just be a mountain out of a anthill,but I don't know. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a note about this, but I hope it's blown over by now and won't crop up again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why it shouldn't. As I've now stated several times, the original issue is moot, and would imagine so for SharkD as well, given that the triggering statement of his still hasn't been clarified. I'm slightly cheesed that SharkD took the opportunity to attribute malice to unrelated edits, but that's his choice, not mine. D. Brodale (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeff G.

Resolved. Complaining editor is upset about his vandalism / nonconstructive edits are being reverted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this user is stalking me. Seem's to have an axe to grind. The attention is kind of flattering, but to put it succinctly: Don't taze stalk me, Bro! 99.247.120.178 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. I see no stalking going on, although you've recklessly removed a few prod templates without cause, and he reverted a couple of them because (frankly) you need at least a reason to remove a prod on something as silly as Jupiter Station, which clearly is not a suitable article topic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To name a few:

[1]

[2]

[3]

it pains me 99.247.120.178 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits (e.g. this one or this one) are vandalism. Reporting you for it is not inappropriate, and if you make more than one such edit, a single editor may find more than one and report them both - it is not "stalking." If you are willing to take the time to make this report, I hope you could invest the time in becoming a constructive contributor to Wikipeida. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Alientraveller

Resolved. Issue related to sources being removed because they are "spoilers." Putting the sources back in is not incivility (and is the correct course of action, too). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor has taken over the Bond 22 article, even when a relevant cite is given or multiple editors make changes. He believes his word is law, check editing history etc. (Example: He believes an early interview is fact, when edited to give example where the example states that changes may be made he says that its a plan and can not change, this is incorrect. multiple editors changed this, also, when given a recent change with a credible source he changed it back again - did not pursue in case of banned for "edit warring" - cite source used before) etc. 217.42.137.69 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to remove some citations, such as this by claiming they are a spoiler, but I don't see it as being that large of an issue. Another editor reverted the missing citation. Even if it is an early interview, if it was published and can be verified with a credible source, then it can be included. Note that WP no longer has a spoiler template, per a TfD decision -- an no current fiction template either.

Per WP:SW, it is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. I believe that about sums it up. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. Taken over the article? Pfff. Alientraveller (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

XLR8TION (talk · contribs)

Resolved. User was blocked for edit warring and incivility (although it seems not as a direct result of this complaint). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He personally attacked me here as well stating english isn't my first language. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnclePaco (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 January 2008

Nothing too stunning, perhaps a little incivil regarding the language, but nothing big. As for your edits to Dominican Day Parade, your insertion of this blatant POV fork is unnecessary, per WP:NPOV. Unless you want to elaborate more on the Dominican Day Parade itself and insert in a criticisms section and include text with a little more substance, along with a less-generic image, then it should be removed, per discussion at the talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at both the photos on the page you'll see that I am the author of both of them. The image I don't think was generic it was actually one of the individuals who had committed a crime mentioned in the links.

I have actually elaborated on the article and inserted it. If you look at these two articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade#Controversy they have controversy and violence sections that were less developed. Anyway thanks for the help UnclePaco (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with Seicer here, but only slightly. It does not appear to me that this is a POV fork, although it may be placing undue emphasis on a minor and regular part of any/all festivities of this nature (Seicer, did you mean to say POV fork or something else?). The picture is 100% inappropriate for sure, if you can only say "I don't think [it] was generic" - especially if you then purport that it is a particular individual reportedly involved in criminal activity. The textual content should be discussed (civilly), although on such a low traffic article, outside opinions should solicited through the dispute resolution process (which seems to be happening). As for the civility, while it isn't an extreme example of incivility, it was entirely inappropriate and seemed to come out of nowhere and exacerbate the situation. I have warned the user that such irrelevant personal commentary is not welcome on Wikipedia (which he should know, given his history of being blocked for the exact same thing).

UnclePaco, I caution you not to reinsert disputed text until the dispute is resolved. I don't have the time to form an opinion as to whether the text itself (if presented appropriately) puts undue emphasis on a particular part of the festivities, but I urge both sides to consider the issue open-mindedly. Not everything about the parade has to be reported in Wikipedia, only things of a certain relevance/notability. But, unlike what XLR8TION said, the goal of an encyclopedia is decidedly not "to illustrate the purpose of the parade." That's what a promotional website about the parade is for. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To address the incivility issue: I would say this is relatively minor .... nothing to be encouraged, mind you, but nothing I would call a real attack. I will leave a note with the editor.

However, I do have to question the POV as Seicer did. I think there is a difference between mayhem and murder (as noted in the other articles, and "there were arrests". That inclusion comes off as trivial. I would think it less trivial in any big city event of there were no arrests. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I commented further about my explanations on the respected talk pages, which was echoed by other editors and someone from third opinion IIRC. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be minor, except that this is not an isolated incident. It appears that an administrator has taken note of this and stepped in already. The user in question was blocked until Jan 10 (unless I'm mistaken, the block happened before this complaint was even filed). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheese, I followed seices advice and expanded on the section. It was previously one sentence. The other two parades that i noted above were in NYC as well and they have violence sections. XL8Ration was bloked for using white power sources on another article as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade&action=history . A further block I don't think would be out of the question. UnclePaco (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the addition of this material is a good thing to take up at Talk:Dominican Day Parade, in order to settle the content dispute. The scope of this alert board is to talk about civility issues, which seem to have been addressed. Issues related to the user being blocked aren't in our hands - this is not an administrator's alert board. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping everyone informed, there is a request for arbitration regarding this matter. It is asserted (incorrectly) that XLR8TION was blocked for the edits in question here. He was blocked for an incident preceding this one (and has a history of such incivility). It is also asserted that WP:SKILL doesn't apply because UnclePaco really does speak bad English and has a Spanish-related username. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chensiyuan

Resolved. Complaining editor blocked for incivility/personal attacks. Little merit to his claims, certainly a case of WP:POT at best, but the contributions he's edit warring and being uncivil about are nonNPOV and/or silliness. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User Chensiyuan has been abusing his powers for long. He has warned myself for multiple editing even though he himself has done as well. I have warned him for the same offence but he took it off by saying I'm a mod and it doesn't matter if he did something wrong normal users would be warned for. He is clearly abusing the powers he has. On the Cesc Fabregas page, I have added the requested source and information he had asked, but being a stubborn man he is, he had still undid my edit without giving any specific and knowledgeble reply. Instead, he made a comment saying "no iq". I made a very valid and mature inquery to him and he still didn't reply with anything significant, because of the reason he didn't know what to say. He is abusing the powers he has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.24.31.152 (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit (like this one, this one, this one. this one, and ths one) is not an appropriate contribution to Wikipedia. Wikipedia adheres to a neutral point of view and information must be verifiable. Many of your other edits are incorrect for other reasons (this one for example is not right, a group that dances is a "dance troupe" and b. is the standard abbreviation for "born"). Other unnecessary/silly edits of yours include this one, this one. Furthermore, you cannot come here complaining about people's civility when you post things like this and this. Your contributions (and edit summaries) are peppered with personal attacks, profanity, and other inappropriate behavior. Your complaint does not provide diffs, so I can't say for sure, but it seems to me like it has little or no merit at all. You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies before you contribute to articles, especially if you're going to start disputes about changes you shouldn't be making. I suggest you also review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA too, since you've been blocked for violating them (despite filing a complaint here against the other party). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

65.188.38.31

Resolved. Sock blocked for one week due to incivility, patent nonsense, etc. Please post back if it continues after block. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

65.188.38.31 appears to be a typical problem user. On the page University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal, he repeatedly adds a deletion template in what appears to be dishonest attempt to have a valid and well-sourced article removed. He combines this with personal attacks against various users, [5] [6], blanking talk pages [7] and deleting reports against him on Administrators' Noticeboard [8], [9]. JdeJ (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is already being reported at the AN, why are you reporting it here? Is there some reason for a second report? --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereEditors have been directed to the dispute resolution process. Commenting appropriately on possible POV problems is not incivility, at least not prima facie. WP:POT may also apply, since (unfounded) accusations of trolling have been issued by the complaining party. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole has deleted my edits on Sealand pages - stating that Sealand is a micronation. When this was considered on the discussion page of Principality of Sealand, he eventually said :"It is my personal observation that your contributions to this discussion are very much lacking in perspective". User:HelloAnnyong wrote later: "If one editor (Gene Poole) is being uncooperative, you may want to list the editor at WP:WQA. Having said that, Gene_poole, I would advise you not to keep making drastic edits, but rather discuss the issues at hand. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)". Whenever a new solution to the dispute was tested, Gene Poole would not cooperate, and when I thought the dispute could be ended, he would not reply on his discussion page and instead wrote on the discussion page of Legal status of Sealand "A single-purpose editor is currently attempting to insinuate an unreferenced, strong pro-sovereignty position into a range of Sealand-reated articles, and this appears to be one of them." He continued the dispute and now he has resorted to writing insults. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole (talk · contribs) and Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a content dispute than anything. Have you tried going through the dispute resolution process? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have tried using third opinion and request for comment, but Gene Poole does not cooperate. Also it is not just a content dispute when Gene Poole starts to use insults, and WP:NPA states "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is, in a sense, a comment on the content - the content you are adding is unreferenced, pro-sovereignty, etc. Or at least, that's what Gene Poole is saying. The grammar of the sentence (using you as the subject) is less important than the content of the sentence (which is essentially characterizing your contributions, the content and not you as a person). I am not pleased that this person is not cooperating in dispute resolution, but I'm not sure there's been a breach of etiquette otherwise. Do you have any more diffs that would help us see what's going on? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have examples of insults:

• "Your eccentric, non-mainstream, extreme minority POV on this subject is entirely unique. It is not supported by any reliable third party reference sources or any other editor. You lack both consensus and credibility, and are in imminent danger of being judged a crank and a disruptive contributor. I suggest you review your position and modify your behaviour accordingly. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)" [10]

• "...you are completely lacking in objectivity on a subject to which you appear to be directly personally involved."

From Kingboyk's discussion page:

• "...he clearly lacks any sense of objectivity on the subject, and also has a profoundly flawed understanding of NPOV."

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

These comments do seem to have a fundamental relevance to your contributions, the content that you are contributing. Lacking objectivity and having a direct personal involvement are relevant questions. Again, I'm making no judgment as to whether or not these claims have any merit, and baseless accusations are certainly inappropriate, but on their face, these comments seem appropriate to me, even if they might be a bit harsh in some contexts. Also, diffs would make it much easier for us to examine the context of these remarks, to determine if they are out of place or inappropriate, but at this point, I can say that they are, and so I'm seeing nothing that's really inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet they are referring to my opinion in general - this editor has done this throughout the discussion page of the Principality of Sealand. I am not saying that he has to consider Sealand a sovereign state, but he dislikes edits that say that and he considers the existence of an opinion considering Sealand a sovereign state as ludicrous. (WP:OWN)

Other than that, I have tried using the dispute resolution process. What would be the best way to solve this dispute? What Gene Poole is writing is still unnecessary trolling (WP:TROLL) and he won't cooperate with any of the possible solutions. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is odd. You are concerned that his more-or-less relevant concerns about your contributions might be too much of an opinion of you, as opposed to an opinion of your contributions (presuming, incorrectly perhaps, that the two are mutually exclusive). And yet you just called him a troll. How can you, on one hand, assert that it is inappropriate to comment about relevant aspects of a user's "opinion in general" as it affects his contributions, but on the other hand, call him a troll outright when he is clearly not a troll? --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me - I did not assert that it is inappropriate to comment about relevant aspects of a user's "opinion in general" - actually Gene Poole did this at first - but when I tried to follow the dispute resolution after the debate became an argumentative dispute, he would not cooperate. In WP:TROLL, this is written:

"Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia."

If he does not cooperate, in my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to disrupt editing. WP:TROLL also states:

"The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits"

Recently Gene Poole has been more interested in the dispute than improving the article, and has resorted to criticising my linguistic ability and my comprehension of the subject. This isn't necessarily vandalism, but editing this article has recently become very difficult and progress has consequently been disrupted.

Other than that, I have tried using the dispute resolution process. What would be the best way to solve this dispute? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He has now said that my opinions are of no consequence and he has deleted the alert necessary for WP:WQA from his discussion page, calling it spam.Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you continue to use the dispute resolution process, however, accusing him of trolling is inappropriate. You're exacerbating the situation, whatever he's done, you're not helping. Honestly, if you're using the dispute resolution process correctly, that is the best way to solve the dispute. I don't have time to assess the entire content dispute, but in terms of civility this is open-shut. His comments were relevant, if a bit persistent or harsh. Your response doesn't help, especially when you up the ante by accusing him of trolling, which despite your continued explanation, is patently false. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This matter is a simple content dispute. The issue revolves around the fact that Onecanadasquarebishopsgate holds an eccentric, highly subjective opinion about the subject, which, on the basis of intimate personal knowledge, he appears to to have direct links with. That POV is not supported by any third party reference source, or any other editor, yet he stridently continues to try to give undue weight and unwarranted credibility to it by writing it into the article and a range of related articles at every available opportunity, falsely representing these actions as compliance with NPOV. Repeated requests for him to comply with policy and cease this behaviour have had no effect. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that he was a troll, I said he was trolling - there is a difference. Based on Gene Poole's documented history of sockpuppetry (User:Centauri), and suspected sockpuppetry (User:Centauri2,User:84.172.249.65, I am not really surprised at this state of affairs - consequently thanks for your help, but I think the administrators should take a look at it.

And Gene Poole, for the last time - I AM NOT A SEALANDER!!!, I am not linked with the Principality of Sealand. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving question

Hi. Does anybody know why the archiving page and index don't list the latest archive files (currently 29 and 30)? If this is an oversight, can somebody correct it? Thanks. 65.42.91.146 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish people and users Humanusticus and Orkh

Stuck. These users clearly don't seem interested in contributing constructively. Referred to the ANI if further disruption continues. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This talk page, Talk:Turkish people, has degenerated into the most disgusting display of comments- please review the comments on the page by User:Humanusticus and User:Orkh. Thank you. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think this needs to get bumped up to a higher level ..... this has gone a little far beyond simple incivility .... this has gone into overt racism LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I haven't looked through it extensively, nor do I have time right now to examine the edit histories of those two, but they don't seem like people interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, only soapboxing and ranting. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For easier access: Humanusticus (talk · contribs) and Orkh (talk · contribs). Based on that, I will agree with Chesser and LonelyBeacon's comments. This is a huge breach of civility and Orkh should (and has been) be warned as such. With that, I'm going to give Orkh a friendly notice, but based on the prior histories, I think it will be taken with a grain of salt. If so, just escalate the notices and apply for ANI, which will provide a temporary relief from their complete and utter nonsense, and give the two users time to cool off. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ahering@cogeco.ca

Stuck. User in question appears to react to any part of the dispute resolution process with hostile, accusatory attacks. The user has no regard for civility policy, nor many other policies, it seems, meaning this one is out of our hands. It is unclear if he doesn't understand the policies, or if he doesn't understand their role, but his incivility doesn't seem to stop. There is an SSP complaint going, and other DR process are already going too, hopefully they will resolve the content problems, and perhaps the user in question will eventually have a change of heart and contribute constructively and civilly in the future. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has a history of writing articles which do not conform to WP protocol. Examples are WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#MANUAL. In responding to discussions regarding these issues, he has been rude, uncivil, does not assume good faith, and personally attacked those who disagrees with his edits. As my personal expertise overlaps some of the areas in which he edits, I can tell you he is often correct in his technical knowledge when he sticks to objective issues (as oppposed to personal essays), but he continues to advocate that this personal knowledge is more important than proper WP protocols.

Examples are Talk:Fire protection#Overall scope and emphasis, User talk:Fireproeng#Do not vandalize my user page, User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca#Do not vandalize my user page, User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca#Fire test, User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca#Question for you, and Talk:Listing and approval use and compliance.

Subsequent to the mediator disagreeing with him at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding, he has vandalised my Page, and added sarcastic trollish comments on my talk page, such as this and this.

Fireproeng (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a part of an ongoing content dispute, dealing with his hostility within other parts of the dispute resolution process might be appropriate. Mediation is already underway, and administrators have stepped in (e.g. protecting your userspace), so I would say you're already on the right track. Judging by his nonsense "tag team" accusations when he doesn't get the answer he wants, I don't think a reminder of WP:CIVIL is going to help the situation much - unfortunately, with an uncooperative editor that's the best we can do. I would suggest doing your best to participate in the dispute resolution process. If he does not, or does so in a hostile or uncivil way, then things will work themselves like they ought to so long as at least you are participating in the DR process appropriately.

In terms of the sockpuppetry, I suggest you file a report at the page for suspected sockpuppets. It seems pretty clear, since he challenges statements on your userpage, then an anonymous IP does so by vandalizing your userpage, and when you ask him not to vandalize your userpage, he responds by again claiming that you haven't identified yourself or proven that your userpage contains facts (something that is unnecessary). As an unrelated note, his username appears to violate the policy on usernames - ironic, since he denies sockpuppetry based on the location of the IP, but his username is (inappropriately) an email address that tells us that he is from Canada (as is the IP). --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

follow up - I've left a note and filed an SSP report for you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

further follow up - The user has continued to be hostile and uncivil, esp at the SSP talk page. He's demanded that I reveal my real-life identity (and confront him in person, no less), and has declared that I am out to get him, that I am stupid, and that he has no respect for me. He takes this stance, it seems, with anyone in the DR process that doesn't tell him exactly what he wants to hear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a fairly leghty note on his talk page, maybe it will help. I tried to assume good faith as much as possible. --Nn123645 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't explain how my intervention could have motivated this kind of hostile, accusatory, "you're just out to get me" response, let alone anything like "say it to my face" and "I have no respect for you." *sigh* --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Justinm1978

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereNo incivility here. The allegation is twofold. The complaining user is upset about what is construed as a COI accusation / personal attack, but it is in fact, a simple observation about the seemingly single-purpose nature of the complaining user's contributions (and the unclear, singular opinions that are given as their substantiation). The complaining user is also deleting others' comments, which is actually not generally okay (unless it's vandalism or patent nonsense etc.). Referred back to the original talk page, where they can (hopefully) talk through their dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Justinm1978, insists that I may not remove the accusations of an anonymous poster on the talk page of an article where a content debate had taken place. This anonymous post claims that I have a personal issue with the article content and that is why I had engaged in the argument about the source citation. Ironically, I was not satisfied with the outcome of the content debate, but chose to withdraw due to lack of support in the interests of maintaining civility. All other parties maintained civility throughout the debate and I cannot understand why Justin wishes to keep this remark on the talk page. Every time I remove the comment, he reverts my edit. Alan.ca (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) [11]

• My two bits: In general, the only time you ever delete anything from an article's Talk Page (I could be wrong, and please correct me, someone, if I am wrong):

1. Comments you have written, that you regret writing, and want to self-redact.

2. Comments that are vulgar and personal attacks, and clearly have no bearing on the article.

I think the statement made on the page was mild, and I'm not sure that it breaches WP:CIVIL. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Justin that this revert is not a personal attack. Mostly personal attacks are defined as insults or comments that exist soley to insult or disparage you. This comment is merely criticism directed at you accusing you of violating WP:COI. As far as civility goes, that comment stays within the civility guideline, as simply directing a comment at you is not considered incivility (to my understanding). --Nn123645 (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "It makes me think that you have something personal against this particular organization." is suggesting that I am opposing the edit because I have a personal problem with the subject of the article. I find that to be personal. In terms of conflict of interest, there is no accusation of interest other than that I have edited the article in the past. I may not have been so insulted if the comment was not anonymous, but I still cannot see how this remark in any way furthers the discussion. At best it's an unfounded accusation. Alan.ca (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Assume good faith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with the others' assessment here - if I were to go and try to delete a single character from a particular TV show, and had never contributed anything to any other TV related topic, and no one else believed that the character should be deleted, it might seem like there's some sort of reason I want the article deleted that I haven't explained. Saying so is a valid observation. Personal attacks and incivility are often evidenced by inappropriate accusations (e.g. "You're just a vandal out to destroy everyone's hard work") but this is not the same thing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have been watching the constant reverts and I agree that it is not a personal attack. As someone who has been the target of many personal attacks because of my constant vandalism reverts, I really don't see that as a personal attack. It may border on it because it's directed to a user. Looking at the history in a way, I actually agree somewhat with what it is said, however is my agreement a personal attack from me against Alan.ca? ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to accuse me of a conflict of interest, why not post a thread on my talk page? I would hope such an accusation would be signed by a registered user and give me the opportunity to discuss it with them. If the comment is made in anonymity what purpose does it serve but to place me in a bad light with no opportunity to resolve the posters concern? Alan.ca (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let's get one thing straight, this is not an accusation of a conflict of interest, it's simply a question about your motivations. A conflict of interest would be if you were Tom Cruise and you were editing the article Tom Cruise. It's simply a question about the fact that your edits disagree with a wide consensus of other contributors, and that you're only making this argument in one of many places it would be applicable. Furthermore, no one is required to register a username or to reveal their identity. That should have no bearing on any of this. The opportunity you seek is already there: resolve the content dispute by explaining why you want to do what it is you want to do. Build a consensus for what you want, or respect the consensus against it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I tend to agree, in general, that if you have a problem with something an editor is doing, that, in general, you bring it to their Talk Page, but there is no policy that says that is the way it has to be. If the problem is over the editing going on, then I think it is appropriate to discuss it at the article Talk Page, in case another editor sees something happening, and needs to makes a call about how to deal with it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User Ronz

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments concerning this archiving should be made at the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewherePlease take this case to request for comments (if not done already) or to request for mediation for further assistance. Case has jumped out of bounds for what can be handled at WQA. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten exasperated by Ronz and have reached (or passed) a point where outside help would be appreciated. This devolves from long-standing hostilities at Quackwatch where I tried (with no success) to be the helpful outsider since an RfC, approximately this one. I "suspended replying" to Ronz at my talk and his, with these:

This edit looks to be escalating problems with me on other people's talk pages. Please consider refactoring: [6] --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've suspended replying to Ronz, cf this at my scratchpad. Pete St.John (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The link cited "this" is the convo where I gave up trying to talk to him.

Most recently at this section in my Talk he wrote these:

Please consider refactoring: [12] --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you refuse to reply, I'll refactor it myself per WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The item he linked at Anthon01's talk is from after I'd stopped replying to Ronz, but where he seemed to be harassing someone else as he has been me (IMO).

My view of this matter:

Ronz has pestered me for quite awhile with vague, nonspecific requests; "Please Refactor" is quite typical. He also has repeatedly accused me of not replying to him. I persistently do reply, with questions about specifically what he means and why and, IMO, longer and more detailed explanations of what I mean, and why, than he ever gives me of what he means, and why. However, my tone definitely does get angrier as this progresses, while he is always scrupulously wikilegalistic. My view is that repeating "Please refactor" over and over like a parrot, and ignoring logic, specifics, facts, citations, etc, amounts to (veiled) harassment. I could easily mistake him for a bot with a short vocabulary of catchphrases ("Refer to wiki policy <this>, <that>, and <the other>", "please refactor") randomly generated in reply to anything. It's infuriating. I thought I could outlast it, but at some point he claimed victory on the basis of my (purported) self-defeating logic, at which point I threw up my hands, here:

You've made my point for me. Thanks! When you actually want to discuss facts, let me know by actually discussing them yourself. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to answer the last iteration of your question, because I finally figured out (part of) the confusion, but I'll let your remark right there settle it. Bye. Pete St.John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So you refuse to discuss the facts? --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

...from section in his Talk where I had pasted from my Scratchpad.

Upshot: The (presumably mutual) exasperation is pretty much normal, but the line "please refactor or I will" (refactor my comments on a third party's talk page? Does he mean rewriting my testimony against what I consider his abusive behaviour?) alarmed me. My other goal is to learn more about dispute resolution processes; I'm not seeking banning or blocking (it might be good if we could block users from editting our talk pages, like locking private rooms in MOO; I'd much prefer he debate me on the article talk pages, where it is not necessary at all to explain myself to him, only to third parties). My favorable result would be someone explaining to Ronz that vapid repetition of vague demands is abusive, even when the wording is superficially polite. I think there is even wikipolicy for that somewhere. But I think one way or another this will derail him simply spamming my user space, at least by distracting him with having to explain himself somewhere with a third party listening.

So, sorry if this is relatively minor (particular in proportion to what a huge mess of technicalities, legalisms, and sophistry QW Discussion is) but I gather ths (Wikiquette alerts) is the low-grade, intro-level way to kvetch and seek help. Thanks, anyone, for trying. Pete St.John (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment here as I am having a similar problem. I will be commenting more shortly. Anthon01 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• PostScript: we have a surreal edit-war going at regarding my notification of this Wikiquette item:

I'm trying the (novel, to me) Wikiquette process regarding Ronz, here. Presumably most interested/concerned parties would be watching here. I consider this a personal setback. Pete St.John (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Ronz deleted the above notification minutes after I posted it, citing (on my Talk) Canvassing. The specific policy justifying the item is this. I would suggest, given that we have both given reasons, that some third editor delete or restore, now, and not either of us. Incidentally, I think it highly likely he misread "setback" above as "attack"; look at the context. Pete St.John (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New note: Ronz deleted the above again, adding "harassment" to "canvassing" in the memo field. I consider this as two reverts by each of us, at this point. It might be helpful if any third party chipped in. I have no experience of edit-warring in a Discussion Page but I assume 3RR applies still. Pete St.John (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Now User:ScienceApologist has deleted it, which surprises me as he had just been banned for a couple days over the fighting at QW, but anyway here's the current diff: [13] Pete St.John (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

SA and others deleting the notice are right; this type of discussion has no place on an article talk page. See WP:TALK, one of the pages Ronz regularly asks editors to read. Avb 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

a user from "Third Opinion" opined that the notification I posted was admissable as it stood. Also, we don't want to confuse discussions on pages, with notifications on talk pages. The policy is to inform the discussion page where the argument originates, of the new and better location, e.g. this Wikiquette item, or an ANI, whatever. Pete St.John (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I find your comment (like much of this WQA) very nebulous and it still seems to ignore WP:TALK which you may want to (re)read. In the meantime I have replaced the unnecessary discussion on the Quackwatch talk page with a simple notification of this WQA. Avb 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User Ronz - Anthon01's complaint

My issue is with Ronz's frequent post on my talk page requesting me to refactor my edits. In all most all cases he is wrong and/or not AGF. My first dispute with Ronz is here.[14] It was in response to a statement I made on an AN page. No apology from Ronz's when he was clearly mistaken. I consider this behavior uncivil.

Ronz often accuses me of misuse of the talk page, as here in regard to a message I posted on the CAM talk page. In this case, the issue that I raised lead to the insertion 4-5 sentences in the CAM article. Here are a few more examples. [15] [16] [17]

An then the complaint of wikistalking.[18] [19] In this instance I left a welcome message for a new user, when one was never left. I left a note on Ronz page letting him know that I left a welcome for the new user and suggested that he consider WP:BITE. He accused me of stalking him. I believe he did not AGF. Although many of the pages I edit on are contentious, I don't feel harassed by anyone else but Ronz. I would like him to stop posting these blunt, sometimes brash, (my perception) messages on my talk page. It seems he often does not AGF, and his comment on his User Page

One thing I've tried recently with a great deal of success is to stop assuming that editors will be civil. Not that I don't ask them to be civil, I just don't want to be pulled into drawn-out discussions about it. Wikipedia does very little to enforce civility, so we should all expect that some editors here will be incivil

seems to be at odds with the spirit of AGF. Although it may not be his intention, Ronz's repeated admonishions, require an assumption of bad faith, while ignoring the behavior of other editors who have been recently banned for incivility gives the impression that his attempts at curbing incivility seem biased. If he were right, if it were done in a spirit of cooperation while AGF, I believe these types of exchanges would be less frequent, end more amicably and be welcome. Anthon01 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Refactored. Anthon01 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion (as an almost uninvolved editor): too vague (and probably too complicated) for WQA. It's probably better to try and discuss with Ronz and perhaps use WP:DR processes such as an RfC/U. Please note, however, that the latter may backfire if many editors agree with the cautions placed by Ronz on various user talk pages. From what I've seen, chances are that I will too, depending on the diffs expected in an RfC. Avb 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go look at the new item, but mention here 1) "almost" uninvolved is disengenuous IMO and 2) what you are calling "various cautions" I'm calling "harassment" and the whole point is to get outside editors to judge between the two interpretations. Even Ronz, who even now can't stop posting "cautions" on my talk pages, purports to welcome outside review. Pete St.John (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will agree with Avb that this case has become far too complex to be handled properly at WQA. I would try going through the dispute resolution process fully. A third comment may not be too useful in this instance, but a request for comments may (if not done already). A request for mediation may assist further. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As per Seicer I created this RfC and will notify Ronz, Anthon01 (as disputants) and Seicer (as the advocate for this escalation). Pete St.John (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, asking other users to refactor is a fairly optimistic strategy, and may not be helpful in a hot debate. To take offence at someone's asking you to refactor, though, seems bizarre. If you don't like such a request, simply ignore it. (Surely it is easier to ignore a request to refactor than to ignore an actual personal attack). A request to refactor is like asking for the situation to be de-escalated. If you don't agree, either ignore it or say that you stand by your comments. Taking offence seems to be the least effective response. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's that puzzling. (The following is hypothetical.) If you're in a heated dispute with someone and you cross the line, you're already upset about he dispute and now you're also probably well aware of the fact that you've done something wrong. In spite of the fact that we are all mature, civil people most of the time, when somebody crosses the line, it's probably easy enough for them to refuse to admit it - there's a content dispute going on, and admitting incivility sometimes feels like it damages one's position and makes one look like a fool. When the person who you're in a dispute with asks (or sometimes demands) that you refactor your comments, it might feel like they're asking you to "give in" or to make yourself look stupid or wrong in the situation. (End hypothetical). Now, that's not a rational way to proceed, but I think it's understandable. Sometimes, it's hard to admit wrong, and we should acknowledge that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

note EdJohnson is , for all intents and purposes "wikibuddies" with user Ronz. They exchange pleasantries on each other's talk pages,[[20]] [[21]] join together in editing articles cayra and support one another in matters of dispute [[22]]. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

So? Plenty of people do that. Are you alleging that they are working in collusion to manipulate this process, or to take some other sort of inappropriate action? Otherwise, this is (quite frankly) irrelevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you're going to come here and drop a bit of "helpful information" on us, as if you're some sort of informing party working to fully disclose the relevant issues, why don't you mention that you are in a mediation case where you are on the opposite side of both Ronz and EdJohnson? If you want to insinuate that their opinions are not independent or impartial, you should be honest about your own. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There you go Cheeser1, how's that for full disclosure? But you missed my point- by not publicly revealing that he and Ronz have an ongoing buddyship, the casual reader would assume that this editor is not bringing a bias to the issue. As for my *bias* it consists solely of having been abused by user Ronz, if you call being victimized and harassed as form of bias against your harasser. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

Regarding EdJohnson's hypothetical: It doesn't stop with a request for refactoring. It can continue with repeated requests, and even Ronz refactoring edits himself, when others ignore him. Anthon01 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User Ronz - wikieditor9999's complaint

User Ronz has engaged in a pattern of abuse towards me that violates wiki policies of civility.

I have asked user Ronz to stop editing my talk page- our dispute over an article is now being addressed in an appropriate forum. Nevertheless, user Ronz continues to stalk me at my home page. Most recently, after being told to leave me alone and specifically to stop editing my talk page, user Ronz edited my talk page to sign my name to my own post. This is pure harassment, as user Ronz has no habit of examining talk pages to see if the user remembered to log in and sign their posts- it's ridiculous for Ronz to claim it's for any good reason- it's pure harassment. This is user's Ronz way of saying - "I can use my ability to edit in wikipedia a a way to harass you. I am stalking you, watching you and you can't make me stop editing your talk page, and I will continue to do so for any reason I want to ". I feel harassed, followed and stalked by Ronz and I want it to stop.

During the course of editing an article, user Ronz has engaged in a systematic pattern of anti-social behavior:

User Ronz has repeatedly accused his opponents during matters of editing dispute of violations of wiki policies which were easily shown to be false. He did this to Julia Sowa, accusing her of a conflict of interest in the editing of the mind mapper category and he has done it to me, accusing me of being a sock puppet because I was new to wiki and did not understand how or when to log in. In neither case has he apologized.

User Ronz refuses to engage in normal discourse on substantive issues when challenged by other wikipedians. This is at the heart of what it means to collaborate and hwo articles get better. Rather than discuss or defend, Ronz immediately reaches for an adminstartive process, which has the effect of wasting a good many people's time on an issue which could be resolved through dialog. Instead of dialog, he peppers his fellow editors with staccato messages, like "Please Refactor" which are, as he well knows from being repeatedly told, highly annoying given the total lack of other communication or substantiation of his POV. Typical Ronz engagment:

"Sorry you don't like it, but I've repeatedly commented about notability and references. Please escalate as you see fit."

"The basis for notability is WP:N. Sorry if I'm being blunt, but I see this situation as very clear-cut. I've made multiple comments above. We need some third-party help at this point."

"I'm going to escalate it if you don't first."

User Ronz has engaged in "dirty" tactics and "tricks" in order to force his way without discussion. In the instance of editing Cayra, he removed ALL of the article in an edit leaving it an empty shell, while flagged it for having no references.[[23]]

User Ronz has falsely represented during a deletion discussion that the subject of the article was "beta" software. In fact, it was widely reviewed on the web in the places and by the entities one would expect such reviews to appear, and at any rate, it was released software. Ronz has never apologized for misrepresenting this important and fundamental fact.[[24]]

User Ronz also attempts to get his way with newbie editors by peppering their articles with "warnings" which appear, as he is well aware, to be authoritative. By refusing to engage as a peer, user Ronz attempts to portray himself as an authority with vested powers to command which must be met.

User Ronz's behavior has scared off many potential contributors who created accounts, were confronted with user Ronz's behavior, and were never seen again. Dialer00 and Zabrinski were two newbie editors who naively thought they would participate. Their new article was met with Ronz's warning tags and terse admonishments about its quality and Wikipedia Policy violations. The details are on cayra talk page.

from Dialer00 [[25]]

Hello! I see you're quite new to Wikipedia just as I am :) I appreciate your help in editing Cayra article (honestly, I didn't think someone would help me in that)! Are you interested in mind-mapping too? Best regards, Z. Zabriski (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

After being confronted by Ronz, neither Dialer00 nor Zabrinski have been seen or heard from again.

Here is the case of Julia Sova

Waiting for your response, Kind regards, Julia sova 07:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I forgot to give you the proper warnings on your user talk page concerning your edits. I've done so now. --Ronz 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I have read WP:EL and WP:SPAM and I still don't see any break of neutrality in adding a screenshot. Maybe you can point it out for me? And I really, really don't understand why the same rules about EL are not applied for ALL links? --Julia sova 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:COI? You appear to be arguing that because you think others are breaking rules, you should be allowed to break rules as well. --Ronz 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that same rules should be applied to everyone. If you delete link to 1 website, or screenshot to 1 program, why don't you delete them ALL? Otherwise it makes people think you're favoring one program and not favoring others. Which... brings other questions, too. You know what I mean? Julia sova 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time that you respond to WP:COI. --Ronz 16:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact and per wiki policy, Julia had no COI whatsoever; she was editing the the mind mapper page.

Reading the above exchange, some would conclude that user Ronz is what in other contexts is known as an asshole or dick. A lot of these types are running around wikipedia and the wiki community would be very much better off if, when things get so bad that many people are moved to complain about one, they were removed, since this is really the only way their existence comes to light. I would like to see User Ronz's editing privileges removed.

Here is Ronz's response to my 15th pleading for a reasoned debate with respect to Cayra, an article he contributed nothing to except to destructively edit, flag and harass its creators out the door.

Ronz, You again edited the page with a flag for notablity without offering a rationale for doing so. I am removing it and will continue to do so until you engage here with a reasoned argument as to why this software is not notable. As I said before, if you will not engage in a substantive conversation about this page and continue to edit it, I will have no choice but to escalate into a procedural solution. 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Wikieditor9999
Sorry you don't like it, but I've repeatedly commented about notability and references. Please escalate as you see fit. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

after being told to leave me alone and specifically to stop editing my talk page, user Ronz edited my talk page to sign my name to my own post. This is pure harassment -- Let me stop you right there. That is not harassment. It's common practice. You've seriously got things wrong about how Wikipedia works if you think that is harassment. You have provided no diffs, and appear to be engaged in a serious dispute with Ronz and others over the existence of an article you edit heavily that appears to be advertising, or at least an unreferenced page about some software that could function as advertising. You even break policy quite clearly in this matter. Your complaint is frivolous, and I would say forumshopping.

Signing unsigned comments, tagging stub/advertisement/bad articles, using templates to approach new editors about problems, pointing out when a brand new editor edits an AfD, these are standard, community-accepted practice. And by calling Ronz "an asshole or dick" you've violated the policy that you're here to complain about - civility. You're the one who needs to cool it, and I strongly suggest you do so. You seem very invested in the Cayra article, but maybe you need to relax and let it go - or improve the article so consensus can support its notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments concerning this archiving should be made at the talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Photouploaded

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereReferred to other parts of the dispute resolution process. I can't find any incivility here, just a content dispute with a stubborn editor who doesn't seem to want to compromise, build consensus, or talk things over. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the past few months, a few users have been actively editing the Natural family planning (NFP) page, one of whom is User:Photouploaded. Before this dispute began, the article included a statement that an advantage of NFP is that it does not require the use of condoms, which meant that sex could be more spontaneous. This statement was cited with a link that stated that this was a perceived disadvantage of condoms. Photouploaded removed the statement and the cite, stating that it was "irresponsible" to "perpetuate the myth that condoms make sex less spontaneous." In response to this, User:Lyrl and myself have been digging up multiple sources and posting them to the article's talk page to support the claim that many feel that condoms make sex less spontaneous.

When we created a revised wording of the statement that was less ambiguous and more NPOV, Photouploaded tagged it with {{dubious}}, {{or}}, and/or {{citecheck}} and has been restoring those tags repeatedly. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Photouploaded apears to take issue with the thebody.com source as being reliable. He has been aggressively removing this citation. [31] [32]

My problems with Photouploaded's behavior are as follows:

1. He has declared sources to be unreliable without specifying reasons why they are so.
2. When asked to back his opinions about the topic with sources, he has declined to do so. [33]
3. He has ignored the debate on the talk page for days at a time and then reverted again without saying anything on talk.
4. During the entire course of this dispute, he has not done any research at all on this topic, or if he has, he has not posted any sources he has found on the matter. It would seem that someone interested in improving the article would conduct his or her own research, rather than merely criticizing the work of others.
5. Judging by his first diff on this issue, it appears that he is strongly motivated by his own opinions on this matter. It appears that he is POV pushing by repeatedly removing, placing template warnings on, and enforcing an selectively limited inclusion standard on content he disagrees with personally.

Again, a link to the discussion on the talk page is here. Thanks to anyone who looks at this. - Chardish (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent candidate for other parts of the dispute resolution process. However, I fail to see anything her that falls into the bounds of civility problems or personal attacks or that sort of thing. If the edit-warring continues and this editor refuses to settle the agreement on the talk page, I would suggest filing a request for comment or seeking a third opinion. I would encourage you to continue to work within the consensus building process. Propose your new material on the talk page, come to a consensus there about adding it, and add it. If he removes it, post to the talk page and if he doesn't respond, put the consensus-backed material back in. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones (talk · contribs)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereAlready being discussed at WP:ANI Mayalld (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is abrasive at best and uncivil at worse. I ran into him while discussing at WP:NAR. He has threatened users with arbitration for vandalism [34], and occasionally types in caps and (to what it looks like to me) attempts to intimate other users. [35] [36] [37]. I'm not sure if he is just having trouble discussing his thoughts civilally becuase he is new, but attempted messages on his talk page don't seem to have helped resolve anything. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my - this fellow is a problem. If you weren't aware, he's also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Smith_Jones. I frankly don't think anything we can do is going to help much; you can either wait to see if he gets blocked by an admin (my money would be on that happening at some point), hope that the discussion happening there makes him change his ways, or take it to WP:RFC/U. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

i thank you for your kind conern but i ahve arleady addressed all of those old issues here and on my talkpages and i have no curent desire to repeat myself over and over again. Smith Jones (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I need to admit that since this was brought up at WP:ANI he hasn't done anything egregious. I'd suggest seeing if his relatively good behaviour continues. He does seem to be editing in his own version of good faith. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok, I was unaware of the discussion at WP:ANI. --Nn123645 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

randy blacksmoor

moved from talk page

a user named randy blackamoor is behaving uncivially on wikipedia by mocking other suers, assuming bad faith, and trying to harass people who respectthe value of homeoatpthic medicine. someone mentieond that he had ben blocke dbefore and iw as hoping that someone here coudl try and convinces him to stop being uncivil so that hec an avoid another a block. thank you for our time. Smith Jones (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Randy Blackamoor, with an "a", not "s" in the surname. Pete St.John (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks i wouldnt want to gets his name swrong . i corrected it just now. Smith Jones (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his behaviour is problematic, and I've left a note on his talk page [38]. We'll see if he responds. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

oh yes, me too, I should have said that. He's become uncivil, but patience may prevail. Pete St.John (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For easier access: Smith Jones (talk · contribs) and Randy Blackamoor (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral party, edits similar to this made by Randy Blackamoor (talk · contribs) are simply not acceptable. Warnings can be given by any user, however, blocks are given by administrators only. A warning on its own doesn't stand if it doesn't have merit, but the following edits deserve further inspection on the basis of personal attacks and/or incivility: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. I don't really care if [[Homeopathy] is legit or not and have no opinion either way, but comments like those will only detract from the editing experience for others and reflects poorly on your editing style. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

SmithJones, again

User SmithJones has accused me of putting "spam" on the Homeopathy article. This is a baseless accusation which violates both WP:NPA and WP:GF. I hope it is dealt with accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Warning_to_rational_people_on_this_page

. if you DO have the dievence, please submit it here or at my talk page or at the talk:homeopathy page so that i can correct my mistake, if i made on. Smith Jones (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "none of them invovled the kind of personal attacks and spam that user; blackamoor is currently suspected of"

I have not put any "spam" on Talk:Homeopathy or any other page. No one has "suspected" or accused me of doing so, because it has not happened. These violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA should be dealt with appropriately.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we all just agree that User:Randy Blackamoor isn't a spammer? That seems like the shortest route to harmony in this case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i am very sorry for my mistakes that iand i will remove tem from my comment to avoid causing you any more harm of emotiaonal destress. Smith Jones (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:71.125.25.134

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereBlatant advertising. Referred to the AIV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently, 71.125.25.134 (talk • contribs • count) has been acting disruptively in a dispute regarding the article Legends of the Hidden Temple. It all began. I expressed concern that the "Shirt Stores" links section should be removed as it violated Wikipedia policy. So I made an entry on the talk page. [44] I waited for two weeks, and since there was no reply, I decided to be bold and remove the shirt stores links [45].

Then, two days later, the IP user reverted my deletion [46]. I responded by leaving a message on his talk page [47] and reverting his addition, but additionally adding a comment to not readd the links without discussion[48]. After that another user, Jarjar13 (talk • contribs • count), readded the shirt stores links claiming prior discussion had resulted in consensus [49], I amended my talkpage reply [50] and removed the links once again two days later when there was no reply [51]. (Note:Jarjar13 is not involved in this WQA, since he has acted civilly).

Since then, the IP editor has added the links a second time [52], and I reverted that edit again, with a stern message in the edit summary not to continue this edit warring [53]. A day later, he once again added the links again [54]. It seems that this IP editor is not willing to talk about this anywhere; he is simply edit warring without having a discussion on the dispute. I've done all I can with the talk pages; I don't know what else to do next. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are blatant spam. You shouldn't even have to discuss it. Take it to the intervention against vandalism board if this single IP user keeps adding them in. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up - I have warned the user in question, and I have added Legends of the Hidden Temple to my watchlist. If I see this user add spam links again, I will report them for spamming, and they will likely be blocked (and if necessary, their websites will be blacklisted). --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor posting threats and insults

User:Cculber007, aside from misinterpreting policy due to apparent language differences, has posted a threat to edit war, and venomous name-calling, at here: "Coward dolt ... I will continue fighting against you as you are deaf discrimianting dolt. ... Get lost." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cculber007 (talk · contribs), Tenebrae (talk · contribs) -- for future reference. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is regarding the following edits: [55] [56]. I gave notice of the incivility, but I don't see anything too major. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cculber007 (talk · contribs)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewherePlaced this at WP:ANI#Long-term WP:AGF and WP:NPA abuse. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. Cculber007 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for incivility. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:

• [57]: Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against WP:VANDAL.
• [58] Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per WP:AGF.
• [59] Creative reuse of a header.
• [60] Ditto.
• [61] (the second message)
• E-mail from Cculber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Wikipedia about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Wikipedia. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
• E-mail from Culber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Wikipedia is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."

Just making a list. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User has blocks that extend back two years: [62]. He was given "one more chance" for legal threats. Perhaps I should report this to ANI or AIV? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Prior reports at WQA (above) have generated the following AGF-vios: [63] [64]. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Racial slurs and consistent profanity.

Resolved. Next offence, refer to WP:AIV. Gave final notice. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user ( 77.42.129.119 (talk) ) has been using both racial slurs and consistent profanity in edit summaries. The most recent occurrences are here, here, here, and here. Such behavior is way out of line and should not be tolerated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

77.42.129.119 (talk · contribs). Taking care of it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gave final notice, since other editors have warned the IP of various infractions. On next offence, refer to WP:AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:East718

Resolved. I don't really see any civility problems here. Complaining user is mostly upset about a semi-protection request that was not granted, and that lead to him arguing with the admin in question and even a threat of an RfC/U. That's not how a declined semi-prot request should be handled. Both user's conduct discussed at length below. Recommendations for what the complaining user can do given below. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A copy of the relevant discussion and diffs may be found here: User talk:Zenwhat#Re: Austrian School

I put in a request that Austrian economics be semi-protected because of persistent, short-term and long-term vandalism. It was rejected by User:East718, on the grounds that there was "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify such an action." [65] I requested that he re-consider his decision, after noting an anonymous IP and single-purpose account that vandalized just hours after my request was rejected. When I asked him for clarity on this, it upset me to see him say that semi-protection is only granted for "persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, not content disputes," because that's not true. A quick look at Wikipedia:Protection policy shows "Temporary semi-protection may be used for: Pages subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption." WP:FRINGE is a violation of WP:NPOV. I noted this, politely asked for clarity on the matter, cited another user who again vandalized the article and attacked me personally, and noted my frustration over the matter.

He then acknowledged it was an "egregious" (to use his own words) violation of WP:FRINGE and a "disruption." He then said "If the problem is long-term," that I find another editor because he was "too busy" to read the edit history of the article and address my concerns. But this claim was in the request for protection he rejected to begin with. He did not apparently review the edit history before rejecting it, has an incorrect definition of vandalism, and when I pointed this out, he ignored me.

So, I did the only thing I could: Brought it here. When I told him of my intention to go to RFC, he characterized it as a "threat" (assuming bad faith) that made him "stop caring" about the matter. Ironically, a few minutes after notifying him of my intent to RFC, I received a warning template from User:Skomorokh (though my talk page specifically requests users not do that) for edit-warring on the article that I originally intended to avoid edit-warring over by going to WP:RFPP before making more than three reverts. Zenwhat (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the distinction here is between semi- and full-protection. When he reviewed your request for semi-protection, he looked for a situation justifying semi-protection (i.e. blatant vandalism or short-term disruption by anonymous I.P.s. He then suggested that you find another admin to review it if the problem was long-term, which would seem to imply full protection (since, as he said, "Semi prot is warranted only for vandalism or biographies which are on the receiving end of persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV").

I don't think he has committed any Wikiquette violation. Whether is decision not to protect was the right one is another question, and one that is outside the scope of this board. I would recommend that you let drop your dispute with User:East718 and then do one of the following:

• request full protection on the basis of a content dispute, in the hopes that the anons' inability to edit the article will force them onto the talk page, or
• re-request partial protection, emphasizing that the anons are being disruptive and are unwilling to bring things to the talk page, so you have no content dispute-related means of solving it.

I suspect that the first one has a higher chance of success, for what it's worth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have mis-characterized much of what East718 (talk · contribs) has said, and I fully support his denial of your protection request. No good faith edit is vandalism, no matter what policy it violates. Additionally, East718 did not acknowledge it as an egregious violation of WP:FRINGE, but stated that even egregious violations of policy are not vandalism.[66] Semi-protection is not to be used to give somebody the upper hand in a content dispute, and a dispute over content is precisely what is going on here. Hell, East718 even said he'd certify the request for comment on himself if nobody else would.[67] - auburnpilot talk 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the place for you. Let's break this down a little:

• The edit-warring warning should be ignored if you are reverting vandalism or blatant hit-and-run NPOV/BLP violations. However, if this can (in any way, even slightly) be construed as a legitimate content dispute (even if you're right), you should watch the 3RR (and the spirit of 3RR). For all you know, the page will be locked in the wrong version.
• Protection: request protection again, and make clear that this is long term Fringe/NPOV problems by IPs who refuse to discuss changes.
• Feeling "ignored"? He told you he was busy, you have to respect that. Administrators are people too, and he admitted that he could not take a deeper look at he problem (which you did not request as a part of the complaint he declined - I would not fault him for not looking without being told where to look). He told you you could seek help from another administrator, and you can do this - you don't have to go to the official protection request page, if you find an admin willing to take a look.
• RfC - don't threaten people with an RfC for not responding to you as quickly as you'd like. Even if you meant it in earnest, an RfC is not something you brandish at people like that. It's inappropriate behavior, and an RfC is totally uncalled for.
• Civility and personal attacks? That's what the WQA is for and I don't see any real problem here, in terms of that stuff.

I'd say you should simply go to another admin, like he suggested. He told you he can't help you right now, and it's not up to you to decide that he should take, or should have taken, more time to look into it. If you go to an admin and explain that you need them to look into the page history to assess long-term FRINGE/POV problems, they will do so if they can, and protect as they see fit. Protection is not a cure-all and isn't warranted in all cases - you've gotta show that protection is required, and if there's doubt, an admin might defer to other kinds of conflict resolution. I would also heed what AuburnPilot says above, and maybe restore your assumption of East718's good faith and move on, because you can resolve this matter without any further issues with East178. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying "even egregious violations of policy" as a rebuttal logically implies an acknowledgment that the violation was egregious. He couldn've just as easily said, "That wasn't an egregious violation of policy." Assume good faith doesn't apply in the case of blatant vandalism (aka "egregious disruption"). His remarks clearly contradict the policy described on WP:PROTECTION, word-for-word. My intent in seeking semi-protection was not to get the "upperhand" in the debate because I hadn't even edit-war'd over the article yet or engaged in any contentious disputes over it. I just happened to come by, say, "Well, this raises red flags," and I knew the only way I'd avoid an edit-war from anonymous users not discussing their edits was through a request for semi-protect. Turns out I was write since I've had several different users all try to put the WP:FRINGE stuff back in and was then warned over 3RR by one of them.

There are plenty of users with accounts more than four days old who would not be covered under semi-protection and that's what I applied for. The intent was to avoid vandalism by anonymous users who won't discuss their edits.

Please also note that User:Skomorokh who rudely gave me the 3RR template put the same "egregious" edits back in, backed up with Austrian economics sources -- again, fringe sources to support WP:FRINGE. [68] Please also, before assuming bad faith in my case, note my concern that an attempt to address this by adding caveats like "allegedly" and "according to the Austrians" in the lead would constitute a violation of WP:NPOV in favor of unduly criticizing Austrian economics in the lead. [69] Zenwhat (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If he was the original admin that rejected my request for semi-protection, it seems to me that he has some degree of responsibility to justify his actions through discussion. Rejecting my request, making statements which seem to contradict policy, and after only a few brief messages, telling me he's "too busy" and "go see another admin" seems inappropriate. What is another admin going to say? They'll say that East was the one who rejected the semi-protection, so I should take it up with him. It seems like fishing for admins if I have to find one who will either follow policy or at least discuss their actions. Zenwhat (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with other contributors to this discussion East718 has done nothing that he should be reproached for. He dealt with your request in a polite and businesslike manner (and IMHO made the correct decision). You then demanded that he should devote a great deal of extra time to the issue, and reported him here when he declined to do so. You are the one that is out of order here. He has been courteous, above and beyond the call of duty, whilst you have been rude and demanding. I would you suggest that you withdraw this report without further delay, and think yourself fortunate that East718 hasn't chosen to report you here for your rudeness, or elsewhere for wasting everybody's time with vexatious wikiqette complaints Mayalld (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no involvement in whatever dispute exists and have no wish to; I'll also let all my posts speak for themselves. I do however advise that everybody chill out, maybe smoke some trees, do whatever else floats your boat and revisit this with cooler heads. east.718 at 20:01, January 10, 2008