Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive42

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.

Contents

Complaint about a tool user

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereNo real breach of civility, although perhaps the template was not warranted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate your time.Coffee4me (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Age is not a factor in how one uses "tools" - you yourself seem to be unfamiliar with how templates work, and he seems to be able to use them just fine. CWii may have been hasty in using a template, but it was hardly a serious breach of civility, especially since he followed up quite civilly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:David Gerard

Stale.

The recent comments of David Gerard (talk · contribs) in AFD discussions have been drenched in incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Just a few examples, all made in the last hour:

David Gerard appears to have the habit of commenting on the nominator instead of the article. This is not the first time this has happened. See for instance User talk:David Gerard#Your comments on AfDs (David Gerard later apologized for this at User talk:David Gerard#Apology to Cirt. AecisBrievenbus 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Boyd (wrestler). There he states "Nominator may have nominated in all sincerity, but appears not to have read their own cited sources properly" about me, the nominator. While nicer than his other comments, I still believe that this isn't a greatly appropriate AFD connent, especially when not backed up with what he feels I read improperly. As a respected part of the community, I think that he should be well aware of the need to talk about the articles and their merits and not the nominators. Metros (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate no-one likes having their judgement questioned. However, when you are talking about removing a topic from the encyclopedia in its entirety, it's a relevant question and one that you must be able to deal with having brought up. Note that bad judgement does not imply insincerity or bad faith - and that your conflation of the two itself is prima facie evidence of defective judgement.
When a nominator's judgement is clearly problematic and a waste of valuable AFD time ... what wording would you suggest? - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not that. And consider yourself warned. You are clearly assuming bad faith when you state that a user's AfD was out of ignorance (mine) or when the nominator was being "anti social." Comments like that are not constructive, and as an editor from 2004, you should know how to craft replies that don't step on other people's toes. seicer | talk | contribs 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Keep, the subject is notable because ...". AecisBrievenbus 00:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
And I get this laughable automated message. seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: you, a regular, get templated not to template a regular? AecisBrievenbus 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
And it's pointing towards an opinionated essay, not policy. Perhaps David should read the latter of what he crafted, "Reading the discussion in question is also helpful and makes the quality of one's judgement evident." :P seicer | talk | contribs 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
David, if your time is so particularly "valuable", then perhaps it would be better spent creating new FA content and leaving the contention-prone AFD process to others who might be individually more mediocre than thou but succeed in being more sedate and focused on the content of such AFD proposals rather than on the authors of such proposals. Since your are so intensely talented and destined for ever-greater attributions of glorious productivity, you should redirect yourself to a higher plane of thought. There is more than adequate labour and sound judgment available in toto in the AFD pool already and wasting your fine qualities on contentious matters merely obscures the depth and clarity of your greatness. Go forth and collaborate and single-handedly get us to WP:100K by the end of this year. Perhaps you could start by expanding on the pantheon of Scientology which the project currently has woeful coverage of outside of your sole surviving FA. If not for the Project, then do it for your sole surviving, precious, innocent daughter so as to make her proud you.--76.220.203.121 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example of incivility: calling Bradv15 (talk · contribs) a "fool". AecisBrievenbus 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

These actions are still continuing. David's arguing that he's not assuming bad faith, but just calling people's judgments poor. Metros (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I received "mass ignorant nomination" and "silly" on three of my AfD noms as well, on subjects which I am certain David has neither expertise nor interest. My opinion is that there's a larger issue here (either with AfD process or WP in general) that is being worked out through AfD flames. MSJapan (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. See the mailing list archives for March, particularly the threads "[WikiEN-l] How to do something about AFD" and "[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"" and "[WikiEN-l] What is happening to the community". -- Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the aggressive attitudes of various editors who seem to subscribe to extreme m:immediatism and m:exclusionism and m:deletionism at AfD, I can't say I blame him for being blunt. (A loaded and old and insanely-complex topic, obviously ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling poor judgment poor judgment is not an assumption of bad faith. Criticizing another Wikipedia participant's actions or judgment is quite acceptable. David is a blunt speaker and does not necessarily sugar-coat his opinions; however, I find his level of civility here on par with many other contributors to AFD.

Moreover, poor judgment on the part of AFD nominators can materially damage Wikipedia, both in deleting valid content and in offending contributors new and old. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves the accusations of ignorance made towards Coredesat, Undead warrior, Seicer and DannyDaWriter. And what about David telling Coredesat to "[write] articles before going anywhere near AFD"? Coredesat has been with us for over two years, has written a lot of articles, and has been an admin for a year and a half now. Treating him like a noob who's just made his first edit is absolutely uncalled for. AecisBrievenbus 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Morven, I hope that "on par with many other contributors" doesn't mean that just because a fraction of AfD contributors are unacceptably uncivil, it is acceptable to be that uncivil? Because that's not a sensible approach.
Oh, and "poor judgment on the part of AfD nominators" is indeed irritating. How about - theoretically - poor judgment in assessing whether a nom is made using poor judgment? Relata refero (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Whichever way we use to call this, AfDs brought up as these were, are as irritating. Maybe a kinder way should be found to clue these people in, but the concerns brought in thse AfDs are valid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Not all. Styleslut was originally CSDed for having a lack of notability established, and the only sources or links were personal blogs or non-notable clue-ins. I reinstated it when I was given a message on my talk page that had listed some other sources, and decided to put it to AfD upon the learning of some new information. I still can't find it to be all that notable, hence why I nominated it for deletion. WP has way too many articles that will never be completed, or are entirely unsourced, or are referenced with just personal blogs and web-sites, or are just unencyclopedic. If some had their way, we would be rid of AfD and CSD, which of course would pose so many issues.
You know how many are up for speedy delete per day? Over a hundred on good days. Out of those, 90% are speedy delete quality. Many are patent nonsense, wholly non-notable, or are copyright violations. You know how many are up for AfD? Not nearly as much. I don't see how we are entirely deleting WIkipedia by deletionist standards, which I feel that David is falling under. Let the process work itself out. If the AfD was in bad faith, then it's in bad faith. But there was no pattern, no rationale except to be pointy, which is why he has had numerous questions raised about his editing practice left on his talk page in the last day. seicer | talk | contribs 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If someone comes across an article that doesn't make clear why it belongs on Wikipedia, and is not able to find any information that would warrant an article about the subject, he or she is well within his rights to nominate the article for deletion. Maybe another user can make the case for the article to be kept, that is part of what AFD is for. That can all be expected. But when established editors nominate articles for deletion with valid concerns, David Gerard is well out of bounds telling such users off in such a standoffish way. As Ozgod said on his talk page, "the whole purpose of an AFD is to gauge community consensus as to whether or not a particular article is appropriate/notable/relevant/etc. or not for Wikipedia; not an area to air your opinions about other editors." Wanting to stem the rising tide of AFD nominations is one thing, incivility and assuming bad faith is another. AecisBrievenbus 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure it's within anybody's right to nominate anything for deletion, whether or not they're capable of intelligent judgement. The impression that I have of AFD is that it's for anything but intelligent discussion. Somebody has the POV that an article should be deleted and proceeds to enforce it, and fails to realize that his primary product is drama. Or they get into some self-righteous campaign that whole classes of useful information should be deleted because they like to extrapolate their narrow view of notability to the point where it becomes imposed on the entire community. They expand their wholly frivolous notion of notability to the point that expect others to engage in the game of adding spurious assertions of notability. Sure it's within their right, but how often do they try to fix the apparent deficiencies in the article? How often to they start a talk-page discussion? How often do they try to negotiate a solution with the article's authors? It seems that they want to aim for the jugular first. Often the people who did do something constructive with the article are no longer around to complain, or they may be faced with a large swath of articles to defend at the same time. The nominators must certainly know that their deletions will be more efficient if the contributors have minimal chance to defend themselves. As for the pompous belief that this process is somehow improving Wikipedia, that's bullshit. Rather these antics are just turning the whole project into a laughing stock.
I think David is right with his comments. If a handful of thin-skinned people find them too harsh, too bad. Maybe they should stop whining and start using our time more constructively. Eclecticology (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So AFD should only be used for open and shut cases, where it's clear that the article should be deleted and will be deleted? Isn't that what we have CSD and prod for? Or do you see AFD as simply going through the motions, process for the sake of process? And if you feel that AFD is such a mockery as you make it out to be, why not MFD the lot and get it over with? AecisBrievenbus 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
To expand on my previous comment, let's use Coredesat's nomination of The Beatnigs as an example. Coredesat (talk · contribs) had initially speedied the article for WP:CSD#A7. When Pete.Hurd (talk · contribs) contacted Coredesat about this on his talk page (User talk:Coredesat#The Beatnigs) and made a case for the notability of the subject, Coredesat made the excellent decision to undelete the article. He then sent it to AFD, because "I'm not 100% convinced of this band's notability, so I have brought this here for discussion. The only reference is a very short All Music article." In other words, 'there is a sufficient claim to notability to avoid A7, but I'm not sure it's enough to keep the article.' That's where AFD comes into play. As WP:CSD#A7 itself says, "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." The deletion discussion discussed the notability of the subject and the merits of the article, all things that AFD was set out to do. And then David Gerard comes along, calling the nomination "jawdroppingly ignorant", demonstrating "a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator." And as if that is not enough, David decides to tell an editor for two years and an admin for a year and a half to "[write] articles before going anywhere near AFD." Coredesat did nothing to deserve being talked down to as if he was a toddler. AecisBrievenbus 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I find your strange notion that nominators have no obligation to know anything about the subject area of the nomination slightly boggling, especially considering the noted (in third-party reliable sources, no less) hostility of AFD to even comments from casual Wikipedia editors. An appallingly bad nomination is an appallingly bad nomination, whether with bureaucracy as a reason or not - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now you've lost me: where have I said, or even implied, something like that? Secondly, this is the third or fourth time that you've referred to coverage of AFD in the media. Which coverage are you talking about? The article in The Economist? And if so, how does that warrant the incivility and the assumptions of bad faith you've displayed? AecisBrievenbus 11:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things: I have to agree with David that people should think several times about nominating for deletion things wildly outside their area of experience. That is what prods are for. If prods are removed, then taking it to AfD can be done in a suitable objective manner, as a removed prod should wind up at AfD. I personally get really, really irritated at people who, for example, nominate Indian high court judges, Islamic religious scholars or large mosques in Africa for deletion saying "doesn't sound notable to me, practically no ghits. WP:BIAS should be required reading, as well as a minimal understanding that spelling is variable in translations.
That being said, even if people are being silly, try to avoid saying it. DG may not "sugar-coat" things, but he damn well should try doing it. Though nowhere in attacking people's judgment did he imply that they were acting in bad faith, only that they were not helping the project. As has been pointed out already. Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, nobody seems to pay attention if you don't say something forcefully enough.
For example, I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to correct the admin that nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of films, without being ignored again. This admin didn't make a comment on the talkpage, and didn't contact me when I removed the prod (and he filed the afd within 5 minutes using twinkle, whilst I was still typing the responses), and didn't even propose that the page be moved somewhere potentially-useful instead (like to projectspace). That's a really fscking bad attitude. But I'm so used to being ignored every time I offer gentle feedback, that I'm constantly tempted to either be loud and blunt to make myself heard, or just give up on influencing anyone. (or so it often feels).
If silly behavior isn't corrected, it both continues AND propagates. Especially when it's an admin setting the bad example. (yes, that goes for both sides, in this discussion. DF and DG) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
But the question is: what is silly behaviour that needs correcting, and what isn't? What is poor judgement and what is simply a different judgement? Do you treat fellow editors as fellow editors, or as children? Do you talk to them, or do you talk down to them? Please read what I wrote about Coredesat's AFD as an example. Coredesat showed excellent judgement in the AFD, nothing that would warrant David Gerard's incivility. AecisBrievenbus 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And if an editor consistently shows poor judgment, is an AFD discussion the proper venue to talk about that? David, nobody is questioning your right to have an opinion and argue it. Even though I disagree with you on a lot of these AfDs, you have a right to say what you think. However, this is not the issue. You don't have to be abrasive and rude to express yourself clearly. Clearly I am not the only one that thinks this, as the presence of a number of editors in good standing here who are as concerned as I indicates. I am just not sure how constructive questioning people's judgement and belittling them is, compared to making a strong and straightforward "Keep" rationalisation. If the nomination is bollocks, as you are arguing they are, the article will be kept regardless of any undiplomatic statements.

I have a lot of respect for you and the work that you do, but being "blunt" is no excuse for rudeness and bad manners. Please try to be more considerate in the future Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

It appears that David is canvassing for like-minded individuals to overrun the AfD discussions and make sure they're closed the way he wants them to be closed. See [1] and subsequent responses. Corvus cornixtalk

Well, wider participation is always valuable. That message was posted on WikiEN-l, where deletion-minded people are also to be found, not sent to a elected list of inclusionists. I think that's a reasonable approach and not canvassing. DGG (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this isn't a valid objection at all. Now, if he had sent it to a group of inclusionists and only ccd it to the mailing list by mistake..... not that things like that ever happen.... Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
or for that matter the reverse. I too think it possible that people have been known to tell each other off-wiki about things they notice on-wiki. :) DGG (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD is routinely drenched in deep-seated idiocy. There are few ways to cut through it. I would suggest, in the end, that opening this process was a far more hostile move than anything David did. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Which process? Starting this discussion? How is that more hostile than calling User:DannyDaWriter ignorant? How is it more hostile than calling User:Viewplain1990's AFD "antisocial"? How is it more hostile than belittling Coredesat? And how does it compare to casting AFD !votes without bothering to read? AecisBrievenbus 11:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that taking this to an informal discussion page like this was the least hostile course of action, compared to dragging David in front of an RfC or ArbCom or something. I also question whether incivility is ever the best way to "cut through", despite any "deep-seated idiocy" that may be perceived to exist in a particular process. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
While an RfC or request for arbitration would have been more hostile, that does not mean that this was appropriate. To stress, David did nothing whatsoever wrong here. Your phrasing is breathtakingly weaselly here. Let's take Canon Rock - an article that was nominated for deletion with a four word nomination that was flat-out untrue. Or Cleaning validation, which the nominator referred to as an "individual," which gives a good sense of exactly how much care and thought was put into the nomination. To be wholly blunt here, nominations like these, the latter of which came from a serial nominator, are a major problem. It is not inappropriate to note the stunning lack of judgment, awareness, or engagement involved in these nominations and to raise the larger problem, which is that nominations like these are common and nominators who exercise no judgment or awareness nominate routinely. Any policy that is being construed as forbidding the observation that a nomination was done with stunningly poor judgment and awareness of the situation and that the nomination itself harms Wikipedia is being misconstrued. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
David did nothing wrong? Then how do you explain his !votes and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kozioł, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Pawlus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatnigs? And how do you justify calling Bradv15 (talk · contribs) a "fool"? Maybe there's a problem at AFD. But is it urgent enough to warrant David's incivility, confrontational attitude and flat out contempt of others? AecisBrievenbus 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The "fool" comment is the first thing you've found that is even remotely problematic. Your continued insistence on ignoring the issue at hand and hiding behind the incivility club is most disheartening. Look at David's comments again. Consider the point he is making - that people are trying to permanently remove topics from the project without engaging in a modicum of basic research. Then explain, exactly, using, say, The Beatnigs as an example, what he should have done differently to point out this problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to refer to my earlier comment on the AFD for The Beatnigs. David should have checked the context of the AFD before making a blanket accusation of poor judgment. If he had checked the context, he would have found that Coredesat actually showed excellent judgment. But even if Coredesat had shown poor judgment, that would never warrant the contempt and belittlement David showed as if Coredesat was a confused noob. AecisBrievenbus 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, your earlier comment doesn't get at the point David was making at all. David's point was not merely that the article should be kept - it was that Coredesat should not have nominated it at all. Again - what is the better wording that expresses "Not only is this notable, but the nomination was irresponsible." Because unless you propose wording that actually makes the point David was trying to make, your alternate wording doesn't cut it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Anything but "Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD." How would you justify belittling an admin like this? How would you justify this contempt? AecisBrievenbus 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You're dodging the question. What wording should he have used? When you finish that one, please move on to Cleaning validation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not dodging the question at all, it's a direct answer to your question. David may or may not have a valid complaint about AFD, I'm not discussing that, but the way he chooses to get that point across is absolutely inappropriate. Would you disagree? And for that matter, would you please answer my question? How would you justify the belittlement and contempt of Coredesat? AecisBrievenbus 09:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


The question is "What alternate wording could David have used in those two AfDs that still communicated his point." An answer that does not contain alternate wording does not answer the question, pretty much by definition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you bother to read my answer? I said: "Anything but "Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD." " There's the answer to your question. Maybe not the answer you were looking for, but an answer nonetheless. Now back to you. How would you justify such a comment? AecisBrievenbus 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not an answer. The issue is that there is not a way to say "This nomination shows a startling lack of judgment" without commenting on, well, the nominator's judgment. Your answer "something besides what he said" does not address this issue at all. Now. One more time. What wording should he have used. I want actual words he should have said. In quotation marks, if you will. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It is an answer, but if you want an example of "anything", fine. How about "Nom should have researched better before deciding to go to AFD." How about that? On topic, gets the point across, and is civil. Now it's your turn. How would you justify "Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD"? AecisBrievenbus 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. I have no problem whatsoever with the point that David was making - the problem is with the way he was making it. I accept that David might honestly not have meant any personal offense in what he said, but the fact of the matter is that a small swarm of editors saw it and interpreted it as a personal attack. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, etc etc.
With that said, I note that there's been no further incidents of this type from this user, so if future AfD discussion remains civil, I personally happy for the matter to end here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC).


I think its obvious that while many people hear David Gerard's comments, few are listening. Yes, we can argue over whether his tone is appropriate, & yes he can ignore the comments here & continue posting in the same tone -- but isn't the point in commenting at WP:AfD to persuade? A message is received far more efficiently when the audience doesn't find offense in it. -- llywrch (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This begs the question of whether the failure to communicate comes on David's part or on the audience's. This entire process inclines me towards the latter explanation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
So David decides to be confrontational and incivil, and it's somehow the fault of those he decides to be confrontational and incivil to? Please enlighten me. AecisBrievenbus 09:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not assent to the premise of that question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Sandifer. Anyone who reads these comments for the first time, without knowledge of who David Gerard is, & finds fault in them has a communication problem? Economy of effort would dictate that when several people object to one person's mode of communication, the easiest solution would either be for the one person to change that behavior -- or for the larger group to ignore him. I'd comment on my position further, but this discussion has degraded into a shouting match between two people, neither of whom is David Gerard. I think the horse is dead. -- llywrch (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus

Stale.

The editor Eusebeus has repeatedly insulted me by referring to me as "Pixieface"[2] [3] and "Pixie" [4] [5] [6]. He's called me a "neophyte" and ignorant[7]. He's also talked about being "part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists"[8], said other editors were "bitching"[9], said "That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody."[10], mentioned "useless detritus that proliferates here thanks to determined cruftmongers"[11], refers to the "abominably low standards induced by the bleating querulousness & rampant fractiousness of User:White Cat"[12], uses the word "bullshit"[13], said "As a loyal chort, let me state: what a load of rubbish from an editor, long on highly disagreeable and querulous engagement, short on credibility. This editor exults in the shrill insistence of their own rectitude and, in frequent descents into personal attacks and vicious parley - well documented on their talk page, becomes too tedious to bear. Ah dear Vivian, I now await your smears, but alas your many attacks against fellow editors means you have no probity left. Maybe you should change your username again and start over."[14], and said "Vivian is unusually nasty and vicious"[15], etc. Could someone please inform this user of our civility policy? --Pixelface (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would step in, but I have had issues of this nature (sans most of the incivility) with the editor in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Long-standing disputes should not be brought to an "informal" dispute resolution forum. This is not likely to be resolved here. R. Baley (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am somewhat concerned with this sarcasm, which also fails WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and this claim left on my talk page: "I am not a keen contirbutor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOUP

Stale.

I have been accused of WP:SOUP by an editor repeatedly[16][17][18] [19][20] [21][22] [23][24] [25][26] over the last few days. Personally, I take offense at this accusation . Also, I find this ad hominem distraction as disruptive to our ability to keep cool heads and focus on what should be the editing of articles.

Of course this has not occurred in vacuum, see also[27][28]. As you can see, this is in context of a particularly difficult and ongoing edit negotiation.

I am curious to hear a neutral third party opinion, and guidance, about WP:Civility in this instance. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a deal of justification to that description, but User:Yaf looks equally guilty of it. I think the whole discussion at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has collapsed into a porridge of quasi-legal bickering. It would be better if you both took a break and let the article be edited by Tibetans, Icelanders, Martians or anyone else who can take a clean and detached external view of this Big-Ender vs Little-Ender debate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Lowering the wikistress level sounds like a good idea. One thing is obvious: myself and User:Yaf butting heads does get much accomplished. So, I can try to butt heads less. Hopefully help may from come a mediator[29]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Mediation sounds good. It looks like one of those situations where no-one's wildly *wrong*, but the discussion has just got bogged down in meta-topics (i.e. discussion of how to conduct the discussion) and editors' own interpretations of sources (which really should be avoided per WP:PSTS). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
After having a few hours to think about this, it occurred to me... What does WP:Civility teach about how to deal with WP:SOUP'ers? As you point out, in this case, there is one editor who is dealing with me being WP:SOUP'ed up. Eleven messages accusing me of WP:SOUP, intermixed with commentary "...right pain in the arse", "..i'd rather slam my hand in the door", etc.. And, it didn't work. And, the flip side of the coin, I am dealing with User:Yaf who "looks equally guilty" of WP:SOUP. My reaction, when faced with intransigence is to try to remain civil: Rephrase the question; wait for answer; answer doesn't come, repeat...over and over, far too many times. And, that didn't work either. What does work? 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

it would have been nice to be alerted to this discussion, as the instructions advise one to do. i did it when i brought a matter here with another user previously. that said, the reality is that there's very little accusation at work, and a lot more description. we have an article being held hostage by one editor, who purposely engaged in an editor war so that he could request the page be protected, in order to prevent edits he took offense to. the reason i say "purposely" is because this precise set of steps has been repeated before on the article in question, and other articles. i stand by my characterization that he is gaming the system - an activity to which i take offense, as it's violating the spirit of the rules, while engaging them in the letter. i consider that an incivility, far more than calling a spade a spade. but, do carry on as if i'm not here. Anastrophe (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of "gaming the system", is an accusation that I am acting with bad faith. I object to this false accusation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
i'm well aware that you don't like it. your actions are self-evident, however. Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an insidious claim, against my good faith. I follow the 'rules', to the letter, you say. Yet, my bad intent is somehow "self evident". My intent is plain on its face: I am trying to help the project and to follow WP:Policy in the process, both letter and spirit. I admit having been overly wordy on a talk page; in those circumstances it was hard to avoid, yet I am sorry for it. But to insinuate I have bad intent, that is just wrong. And your accusation is certainly "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." Tell me: Have your personal attacks on my good faith accomplish anything constructive? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
is holding an article hostage constructive? WP is supposed to be a collaborative editing environment, but you've turned the article in question into a no editing environment, by gaming the system to prevent any editors from editing the article in any way. One editor is demanding all other editors bend to his demands before he'll "allow" editing to resume on the article. When you don't like how other editors are editing the article, you engage in edit warring, then run to the page protection noticeboard and request protection due to "edit warring". How much clearer can it be? it's one thing to collaborate and make a case for your point of view on the talk page, it's entirely another to game the system to prevent other editors from editing. as i said before, i find it offensive to prevent editors from doing what we are all here for - editing. Anastrophe (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not "holding the article hostage". Rather, I am working to resolve our differences. Let us disclose that you and I have editorial disagreements about that article and neither you nor I are impartial observers. I think it is constructive that we have agreed to seek mediation to resolve our differences, thank you. It is impossible to know for sure, but an agreement to mediate our disagreement unlikely to have been reached without the 'cool down period' that the page protection has allowed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lehoiberri

Stale.

Lehoiberri has writen this sentence for me during a discussion in the article Italian settlement in Argentina:

"Since you tell me to read a Argentinian History book, why don't you watch those travel shows about Argentina. I am also ending my discussion here because I am talking to a JACKASS!!!!"[30]

This is a violent personal attack. I hope some administrator can do something about it. Opinoso (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A notice has already been filed. seicer | talk | contribs 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Censorship by Anastrophe

Stale.

→ See also: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive41#User:Saul Tillich. — Athaenara ✉ 08:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe is now engaging in censorship of discussion on the Paul Tillich article’s Talk page. Granted, he is free to delete (“edit mercilessly”) material he considers false in the article itself. But Talk discussion is something else. Unlike article revisions and edits, Talk comments are not subject to editing by others. Indeed, Anastrophe himself complained vigorously when I (1) “edited” a comment of his that I was quoting by correcting a typo -– capitalizing his lower-cased first letter of a sentence -– and, later, when I (2) inserted a reply at the end of a mid-commentary paragraph of his instead (newsgroup style) of putting my reply at the very end of his commentary. (Others have more recently used approach (2) with me without my complaining.)

Yet on March 11, Anastrophe performed not just an innocuous edit but a complete deletion of a commentary I posted less than two hours earlier (posted 02:22; deleted 04:00). His excuse was that he was archiving, implicitly not “deleting.” But since all deleted material gets archived, that is a semantic distinction without substance. For all practical purposes, it was an act of censorship. Had archiving old material been his real aim, he might have archived all material more than a month old. But instead, in order to prevent others from reading material that challenged his own views (found in the article), he chose to delete fresh material. Here is the “diff” link: [31]

Truth be told, Anastrophe did have one other excuse for censoring me. He called my comments a “screed.” He prefers to engage in name-calling rather than intelligent refutation of arguments he disagrees with. By his rules, he is entitled to delete anything he chooses to call a “screed.” His arrogant behavior is intolerable (please look up the word “arrogate” if you think I too am employing name-calling), and it is completely beyond the pale of propriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Tillich (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

there is an "archive" box on the talk page. it has two entries, clearly labeled. the most recently archived discussion is available there. this complaint is nonsensical. there has been no censorship (never mind the gross abuse of the meaning of the term "censorship"). Anastrophe (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding an archive box to the talk page in no way changes the fact that my contributions to Talk were immediately deleted -- as were my next two contributions. Persons who visit the Tillich article to learn about Tillich would rarely, if ever, go to either the history page or the archives to see what has been deleted. And if that did, they would run into the same dead end I ran into when I clicked on the Archive image -- three tabs with long lists that don't even mention the Tillich page. Deleting material one doesn't want others to read is the essence of censorship. From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference whether the deleting is done with black ink in a letter or document or electronically on a web page. The effect is the same: preventing others from reading what you don't want read.

In his reply to someone else under the SOUP heading, above on this page, Anastrophe wrote this: "it's one thing to collaborate and make a case for your point of view on the talk page, it's entirely another to game the system to prevent other editors from editing. as i said before, i find it offensive to prevent editors from doing what we are all here for - editing. Anastrophe (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet, having himself done what he claims to find "offensive" -- preventing others from editing the article itself -- Anastrophe has also denied me the opportunity to "make a case for your point of view on the talk page" (quoted from the Anastrophe comment immediately above). He is systematically deleting everything I put on the Talk page, because he and his colleague Jonalexdeval regard my opinions as a "screed" and "crap."Saul Tillich (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly, by a number of editors, that your arguments are original research: your own synthesis of primary material. To keep reposting variants of the same - at such excessive length - is doing nothing but making it impossible for others to collaborate on developing the article. It's hard to take these contributions as anything but tendentious and disruptive editing, and it's well justifiable to remove them as misuse of Talk pages per WP:TALK. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And you have been told repeatedly that my arguments and analysis are not original, that they come from (1) Wheat (1970), whose book has been around for 38 years, and from (2) Kaufmann (1961), whose two books on theology have been around for 47 years. You are aware of this, but to justify your censorship in the eyes of other readers you keep repeating your false claim.
In doing so, you are trying to rationalize an article that, instead of representing all POVs regarding Tillich's theology (theist, atheistic pantheist, atheistic mystic, atheistic nonsupernaturalist) represents only the first POV -- theist. Only about one-fourth of Tillich's interpreters uphold your Tillich-is-a-theist POV; the other three-fourths (15 of 20 that I have identified) say Tillich is an atheist. (Most say Tillich is a pantheist, which is a form of atheism; even Wiki's original Tillich article called Tillich a pantheist -- which makes your effort to hide all POVs except theism doubly reprehensible.)
Tillich himself, in THE COURAGE TO BE (1951) repudiated theism and called for allegiance to a different God, "the God above the God of theism." Who or what this God is irrelevant to the issue of representing all POVs. What is relevant is that you and Jonalexdeval have repeatedly edited out references to Tillich's God above God. Why don't you want Wiki's readers to know that Tillich endorsed a God who replaces the God of theism? Saul Tillich (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Only about one-fourth of Tillich's interpreters uphold your Tillich-is-a-theist POV; the other three-fourths (15 of 20 that I have identified) say Tillich is an atheist. (Most say Tillich is a pantheist, which is a form of atheism
And is that the general view of the nature of pantheism? No. GIGO. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You write, "And is THAT the general view . . ."? I'm not sure what your pronoun "that" refers to, but I'll assume you are referring to the idea that pantheism is a form of atheism. Tillich observes that there are two forms of pantheism (ST, v. 1, p. 237): (1) the "naturalistic" pantheism of Spinoza and (2) the "idealistic" pantheism of Hegel. Both forms postulate the existence of a "universal essence" - invisible, noncorporeal, impersonal, mindless -- within everything in nature, including man. The difference is that Hegel's pantheism puts the universal essence in not only natural objects but man-made objects as well (houses, wagons, shoes, cups, etc.).
Both types of pantheism are forms of atheism, because atheism is any doctrine relating to God or gods that isn't theism. Atheism includes deism (because deism's impersonal god is not the God of theism), pantheism, eastern type mysticism, and undiluted antisupernaturalism. The Routledge Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy says “theism is the belief that [1] there is a God and that God is [2] omnipotent, [3] omniscient, and [4] benevolent, [5] distinct from the universe [i.e., not pantheistic] which [6] he has created and [7] in which he intervenes.” You can find similar definitions of theism in any dictionary. (Take away [4] and [7] and you have deism; also take away [2], [3], [5], and [6], then add [8] man participates in – is part of – God, and you have pantheism.) Tillich has repeatedly rejected the God of theism.
Gordon, I have repeatedly noticed that you like to raise vague objections (a simple "No" in the present instance) to definitions of theism, pantheism, and the like but lack the courage to put your own definition on the table, where it can be criticized. If you think pantheism, atheism, or theism is something other than described above, tell us exactly what you think these terms mean. Saul Tillich (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Mythdon

Stale.

I made an edit to Power Rangers, which lead to a discussion between Mythdon and I across talk pages regarding various verification issues and overall ettiquette (as this user had repeated deleted my attempts to discuss the change on the article's talk page ([32]). At some point, this user took it upon themself to update my User page to redirect to my talk page. I undid it, including a request to not do it again. I made an edit to the same article nearly a week or so later, and sure enough...[33] The summary cites WP:OWN as basis. However I have a feeling that does not expand to user pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I should specify that the application of WP:OWN doesn't seem to apply in this situation: As the change was done without my knowledge or permission, and was repeated after a revert and request to not do so. Also, Mythdon has yet to provide an explanation as to why they felt the change was neccesary. TRTX (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since your Talk:Power Rangers post was directed specifically at a user, you should have discussed it on the user you're specifically referring to's user talk page. But,I think that Mythdon should not have edited your user page. I don't think a user can be violating WP:OWN by trying to control their own userpage. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso

Stale.

Since Opinoso likes to make himself innocent, he started the attack read the article well on his last post. [34] He called me racist, and that is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. I was wrong to insult Opinoso, and I am sorry, but I don't deserve all the blame. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Davidson

Stale.

I am requesting assistance on these edits by Floyd Davidson to Eskimo: [35] and [36]. In the first, he reverted changes I made (as an IP user), without comment. In the second, he removed "failed verification" tags and "verify credibility" tags I placed next to references for the assertion that the word Eskimo is considered offensive in Greenland. The first two sources do not expressly state that it is considered offensive there (one does say that Inuit is "preferred"), the third is a Wikitravel page, and the fourth is the website for a hotel. I believe he cannot simply remove these tags on the grounds that I'm "being absurd" (as he said in his edit summary). Whynot77 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Please respond at Talk:Eskimo#Is Eskimo considered pejorative in Greenland?. Whynot77 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Whynot77's view that there's a problem. I agree about the iffiness of some of the sources. Wikitravel, as an open wiki, especially. But this editor appears to have a strong view that personal knowledge over-rides WP:RS and WP:V. And SHOUTS a lot. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried discussing it further on the talk page, but Floyd Davidson seems to feel he is entitled [37] to remove dispute tags simply because he claims he's right and I'm wrong. Whynot77 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:JoshuaJude

Stale.

I'm not sure if this is the right page to ask but perhaps someone can also check the contributions of User:JoshuaJude. He's adding links to personal sites/projects and before I hit the WP:3RR, it's better to notify it here ;-) - Simeon87 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaJude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <- Convenience. seicer | talk | contribs 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Vsmith

Resolved. No intervention needed. AecisBrievenbus 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this "admin". He continually abuses his power by rapidly deleting any contributions made by other editors to pages that he has evidently deemed "his". No matter what content was added, it is always reverted back to HIS version, with the excuse of "spam", & he often then bans the person, so they can't even discuss the matter with him.

A short look at his talk page will reveal that he has done this to numerous other editors, particuraly on geology related pages. Several people who have had their content deleted by Vsmith has attempted to have him justify the reason, only to be answered by another deletion, a smart remark, or another ban. This is a SEVERE abuse of the trust that has been given to him by Wiki & completely defeats the very purpose of the site, as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".

This has happened, among several others, on pages dealing with Global Warming, Enviromentality, Prem Rawat, Society of Vacuum Coaters, The Washington Times Foundation, & Steggles. This is only a VERY small selection of the articles which Vsmith has deleted other people's contributions to.

He has also been guilty more than a few times of answering others questions with insults and/or smart remarks. I'm not going as far to suggest a course of action. I don't know what would be appropriate & will leave that to other more knowledgable ones. But I will state one more time that this user is VASTLY abusing his authority & needs to be dealt with before the reputation of Wiki becomes tarnished by ones like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a bad faith nomination. It's probably about Vsmith's reversion of 67.14.215.240's repeated attempts to add links to a personal website - www.magnetcoverocks.com - to articles related to Magnet Cove, Arkansas. It appears to be irrelevant: just the label Magnet Cove Rocks stuck on a picturebook of minerals of unproven provenance and image source. The view that it's an inappropriate link has been endorsed by (at a glance) at least two other editors. See [38][39]) and User talk:67.14.215.240. Gordonofcartoon (talk 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gordon. Even if there were an issue with Vsmith's removal of your links, which I don't think there is, Wikiquette is not it. AecisBrievenbus 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me pile on the agreement by stating that if the link is added on future pages, it will be submitted for blacklisting. Per policy, your web-site is nothing more than spam. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do either of you see anything at all about the Magnet Cove incident in the above alert?? If so, then please point it out to me. If you can't find it, then please stop trying to add something that is not there. I nominated him for bad Wikiquette for very specific reasons which are fully explained in the above message, along with numerous examples. Do you want more?? I can supply them. They are easy to find.

This will be a good example for others to see exactly how Wiki operates. I'm curious also, especially after these few remarks. Is this truly an encyclopedia for "everyone"....or is it a clique of only a few selected individuals who others will protect by any method. Saddly....it's appearingrapidly that the latter will turn out to be the case.

But maybe you'll prove me wrong. Once again, I've provided the reasons for the nomination & have provided numerous examples....none of which involve the one that you seem to be hung up on for some reason. And once again also, if more are needed, more can be provided. They aren't difficult to find. So my alert about this editor stands.

P.S. Nice completely off-topic remark there at the end Seicer. What relevance does your comment have on this nomination?? THAT is a perfect example of off-topic material that SHOULD be deleted from Wiki....it has absolutely zero relation to the subject. I'll leave it around though. I'm just curious if someone will clean it up or not.

Do either of you see anything at all about the Magnet Cove incident in the above alert??
No, but we're not stupid: you've been kvetching about the removal of magnetcoverocks.com since Feb 28. Looking at previous discussions at User talk:Vsmith, all I can see is removal of links for perfectly valid reasons, such as obviously promotional intent. Please don't portray this as some kind of clique closing ranks: Wikipedia being for "everyone" to edit doesn't imply it has to accept every kind of content or links indiscriminately. See WP:LINKS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My alert about this user still stands, regardless of the off-topic chatter added evidently in an attempt to divert attention away from the initial post. Very interesting that OBVIOUSLY unrelated remarks on the subject seem to be just fine here, but not when an editor tries to add them to a content page. I'm not sure if it's considered polite to remove this type of trash from this particular page, so will let that decision be made by someone else who knows the system better than I do. Once again, I'd like one of you to show me where this alert has ANYTHING to do with what you are claiming. I presented numerous valid examples to back this up...not one of them is anything related to what you've been harping about. With that said, I'll ask you to kindly remove the unnecessary trash from this post.....or is posting completely off-topic material completely acceptable to this particular part of Wiki?? If so, please show me that also....as soon as you can show me that your chatter above has anything to do with this particular alert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk • contribs)

As Gordonofcartoon said above, the regulars here are not stupid. And I will add that we are a bit more experienced with Wikipedia than you are, so trying to make points on procedural matters is not a good idea. Vsmith is doing a lot of work related to removing inappropriate external links from article space. (See WP:LINKSPAM for some information related to this.) Now when someone comes to this (Wikipedia space) page to make vague accusations about him, then there are obviously two things we need to do: 1. Check whether the accusations are justified. 2. Check whether this is an attempt at retaliation from a link spammer.
1: I only see the normal kind of conflicts for someone working on this, and I get a generally very good impression of Vsmith's conflict resolution skills. 2: Just two pieces of advice, in case they apply. When in a hole, stop digging. Read WP:COI to see if it applies to you. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Context always comes under consideration. If it's specific opinion 67.14.215.240 wants, though, here goes:
Global warming - semi-protection during sockpuppet attack [40] and a supposedly new IP user appears, does a few token edits, then starts instigating complaints procedures about the semi-protection [41]. Reasonable to conclude it's another sock.
Environmentality - removal of a link and a book reference where an editor was making repeated attempts (under his own account and various IP addresses) to add to various environmental pages his own book (against WP:COI) and a blog of no known authority (against WP:LINKS).
Prem Rawat - a block on an editor (who has previously been blocked by others from the same thing) for disruptive editing at this article.
Society of Vacuum Coaters - reasonable deletion of links and references added with a clear conflict of interest (a situation that could have resolved if the editor concerned hadn't taken offence and taken his ball home).
Washington Times Foundation [42] OK, I accept that one as an example: reasonable redirect, with a mildly snarky edit summary
Steggles - reasonable call on speedy deletion of an article that appears to have made no assertion of notability and contained vanity elements.
We can add a couple you forgot:
Thunderegg (COI again - someone adding a mass of links to their own personal and semi-commercial website). And of course Magnet Cove (personal website with no proven authority). Conclusion: nothing to see. And besides, nobody is stopping these editors for going through normal COI procedure and suggesting their links on the associated talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it then. You just proved explicitly exactly what I suspected anyway....Wiki is a clique organization with no real interest in fulfilling it's stated goal, of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". The reputation that is has gotten on the internet lately is evidently 100% correct....2% of the people do 90% of the edits. The reason is clear & has been made even more so by the response to this very post....if you aren't part of the clique, then we don't want your contributions. If you try to add content, we'll delete it, label it spam, ban you, & then swear up & down that we're the ONLY correct opinion here. Good job guys. I'll use this very thread as a reference when telling anyone just how reliable Wiki is for information.....basically, if you want to trust the opinions of a very limited clique, then go for it. Extremely sad that the place has devolved into this. So, since every action that Vsmith performs is evidently perfect, I'll withdraw my alert. He's the greatest admin that the internet has ever known. Nothing he does is wrong. I'll let someone else delete this, maybe the very person who is the subject of the matter...he LOVES deleting material added by others. It's obviously now of no use at all....didn't think it would be, but thought I'd at least SEE if Wiki took authority abuse seriously. I received the answer to that very quickly. Have a nice day & go on doing what you do best....taking care of the select few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User flat out refuses to communicate let alone attempt to cooperate

Stale.

The user Perspicacite has been reverting a large amount of constructive changes I made to the Aging of Europe article over the past few days (grammar fixes, POV improvements, accuracy to sources, additional content, removal of completely off topic content), with absolutely no justified reason. My edits were done in a series of 5 or 6 seperate edits, yet he reverts them all to make matters even more confusing. His only two posts in discussion amounted to "I don't like your edits so I don't have to give a reason", and his edit summaries are no better. I've tried my best to get him to discuss the matter with me, but to no avail. To make matters worse, another user who's been stalking me decided to randomly show up (to an article he's never edited on before) and start reverting my changes as well, again with no justified reason. He seems to have stopped though.

I'm not really sure what to do at this point. I certainly don't want to have to sustain an ongoing edit war day after day, that's not how the wiki community should ever have to function. How do you deal with a situation like this? I really would love to know what he doesn't like about my edits so I can cooperate with him and improve the article, but that doesn't seem possible. Any ideas? I guess I'll just sleep on it for now. Krawndawg (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


I would suggest that given Perspicacite's previous edits, his attitude and the amount of blocks that he has already received - a permanent or 1 year block from editing might be a good idea. I don't really care about the content, there are content disputes that are dealt with every day, however his attitude is poor, and despite receiving many many temp blocks, his attitude towards edits/reverts/summaries/other editors does not change. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can not agree with that. This is a content dispute. The large-scale edits of Krawndawg are highly questionable to tell this politely. The inserted text blames certain Russian demographers of a scientific fraud based on a highly questionable source (a publication by Russian fascist-type party "Rodina" - "The Fatherland"). I asked Kwandang to start from the older version, to make one small edit at a time, and discuss each change with Perspicacite, but he refused. Instead of looking for consensus, Krawndawg decided to complain in WP:ANI and here. In this particular episode, Perspicacite enforces WP standards in my opinion.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey look the stalker's back! The inserted text doesn't "blame" anyone, it's a response to a claim. There is no policy against posting responses, and you calling them "fascist" only shows your blatant ignorance and obvious bias (they're leftists for crying out loud). I'm curious as to why you're speaking on behalf of the user in question here though, is he incapable of defending himself? This dispute has absolutely nothing to do with content, it has to do with an uncooperative wikipedia editor who hasn't even said what his problem is. Your claims of "pov" are irrelevant to this discussion. If Perspicacite wants to come here and defend himself, I more than welcome him.
I'm going to ask you politely to stop following me around and harassing my every edit. Further, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy, and in the mean time, refrain from accusing people of making "pov" posts when they're doing the opposite (I've looked at your other edits and you do the same thing to other people constantly. Note: Edits that you don't agree with are not automatically "pov".) Krawndawg (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No one has an obligation to come here and "defend himself". It is my good will that I discuss this. Calling me "a stalker" is a great example of an Wikiquette problem.Biophys (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Calling you a stalker is a good example of factual information. Otherwise you wouldn't have followed me to articles that you've never edited before on the basis of "suspicion", in your own words. Your good will is based on an assumption of bad faith. The fact that you continually revert my edits and falsely accuse me of breaking wikipedia policy is only proof of your bias against me as an editor, so I must say that your so called "good will" here is largely unappreciated. Krawndawg (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So, not only I am a stalker, but also "assume bad faith". No, I never did. This is also an example of a completely meaningless discussion. Bye.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone "suspicious" is assuming bad faith. There is no way around that. And yes, this discussion certainly is meaningless, which leads me to wonder why you followed me here in the fist place if not to simply stir up more trouble. Krawndawg (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim

Stale.

This user is persistently abrasive and rude, particularly to those of us who choose not to register and contribute anonymously. I've had the misfortune to stumble upon his particularly shotgun-like problem resolution strategy at the Inchkeith article, which contains material which is sourced, but the sources for which Deacon seems hellbent on a personal vendetta against, removing material with a persistent refusal to discuss his edits reasonably, and in a disconcertingly bully-like fashion. More recently, he's been made an admin (worryingly!). Ironically, his peculiarly aggressive and insulting edits to the article Inchkeith were brought up as justification for an oppose in the RfA.

In yet another attempt to communicate reasonably with this editor and let them reach their potential, I've made (yet more) attempts to reach out to the user on their talk page, expressing a little concern regarding his attitude, but out of a genuine wish to be productive, and with a (sincere!) congratulatory tone. These have not only resulted in the user deleting my remarks, but now protecting their page(!), all without so much as an "I'd rather you not post to my talk page, thanks". Could someone please open this user's eyes to the productiveness of being polite and at least /attempting/ to communicate and work constructively with other users, since I'm now apparently unable to communicate the user at his own behest? It'd be lovely to be able to work together with this obviously passionate and knowledgable user, if only he'd let me. 82.35.210.119 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I've had no interaction with user recently save having my talk page trolled. I have refrained from feeding the IP, but have resurrected the discussion at Inchkeith having been inadvertently reminded of it. To 82.35.210.119, further trolling of my talk page will lead to nothing. If you actually wish to have a discussion, please go to Talk:Inchkeith and when there please do your best to refrain from harassing and trolling behaviour. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll recall I encountered you In January, and attempted to discuss this issue on the article's talk page then, but was ignored. Since then, I've made a number of posts to your user page in all sincerity, as I've again pointed out. As you can see from my edit history, I'm not at all averse to discussing issues productively with other editors wherever possible, and that's really all I'm trying to do here. As I pointed out on your talk page (only to be censored, repeatedly), I'm disconcerted that it took posting here to finally acknowledge this is disputed material in the article itself, after - having looked at the article's edit history - what's evidently a dispute you started nine months ago. 82.35.210.119 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Insults and edit warring by IP, how to handle?

Stale.

I am new to WP and don't know what the proper procedure is for handling this sort of thing by an unregistered IP. I don't want to waste my time debating such a person since it is a troll and quite possibly a sock puppet for another user that has admitted to following my edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menemen_massacre

Hı, youre the sort of person ı truly despise seeing in this place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_press_headlines_relevant_to_the_Pontic_Greek_Genocide

How old are you ten?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.243.216.236

I already left a message at the IP's talk page but to no avail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:88.243.216.236

This is probably the IP of already banned user:Laertes d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenovatis (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott—personal abuse and obstruction of copy-editing

Stale.

Location: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Rationale_edits

Background:

  • I copy-edited the opening of the project page here.
  • This was promptly reverted by user Ned Scott, who appears to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues with the page. No substantive reason was provided for the revert; the edit summary for the revert was "a lot of rewording there for a very controversial policy. Best to discuss this first". On his second revert, having provided no reasons on the talk page, he accused me (not himself) of engaging in an edit war, and of going on an "ego trip", in his edit summary.
  • He subsequently provided incomprehensible reasoning for the reversion. "This might seem minor to some, but "enhances the quality" gives the impression that the content itself is of sufficient quality without the non-free media."
  • After two days of fragmented comments (he places some of his entries out of chronological order) he has launched a personal attack, accusing me of being a "spaz", "elitist asshole", "childish", "little kid".
  • In further stalling tactics, he has lodged an RfC (policy, not personal) for this spurious issue, despite writing "I read responses from a few people, and while I'd like more responses, they were all users who said they were fine with the wording," and still providing no logical argument for the reverts. Tony (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time to get more involved with this right now, but here is a general remark: Anything other than trivial layout changes is very likely to be controversial on a policy page. I don't know if we have a written rule requiring that such changes should be discussed on the talk page first, but it seems to me that that is obviously the right thing to do. This doesn't necessarily excuse Ned's reactions (I didn't even look at them), but my guess is that it at least explains them. Your choice of title ("obstruction of copy-editing") seems to indicate that you are still not aware of the problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
While Ned Scott's recent language is clearly unacceptable, two observations about the complainant's behavior are in order:
  • Tony was the first to start shouting about the relevant difference of opinion--and he did so in edit summary, where such expression is particularly discouraged: "Do NOT revert a copy-edit (which made NO substantive change in meaning) just because you think it's a lot of rewording. There's NOTHING controversial about this fix." (See edit summary at top of diff.)
  • Tony was the first to make the debate personal and uncivil with this entry on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content: "What a senseless revert. Don't waste my time, your time and that of everyone else with your 'just to be safe' incantations. Look carefully at the changes and determine what on earth was controversial, what meanings were substantively changed. Jeeesh." (See diff).
Ned Scott's improper charge in edit summary that Tony is on an "ego trip" (see diff) came only afterward. While, again, such language should be avoided, especially in edit summary, it is fair to say that Tony initiated the unpleasant turn that this exchange took. (As an aside, I take exception to Tony's claims that Ned Scott has provided only "incomprehensible reasoning" and no "logical argument" for the revert. While anyone is, of course, free to disagree with Ned Scott's argument, it strikes me as quite comprehensible and logical. Whether it is convincing or not is a distinct matter.) I suggest both parties reflect on their own actions, "shake hands," and agree to proceed in a more gentlemanly fashion.—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've just lost all confidence in a process that is clearly biassed towards your friend. "Doesn't necessarily excuse Ned's reactions,... but explains them." (My emphasis). Right, so calling someone an asshole and a spaz, etc, seems to be quite OK. They're "explained" (= justified?) in the context. So you don't mind if I go back there and announce that he's a snivelling little cunt, do you? I'm sure I could find a way of "explaining" that.

In fact, all commentary on Scott's personal attacks is couched in language that seems to cast it as minor or inconsequential—to excuse or even approve it ("such language should be avoided", was the most that Geist has said, while Adler didn't even look at the personal attacks)—while focussing on my initial objection to an unexplained revert. My initial posting may have been intemperate, but it was not obscene and insulting. So we have "came only afterward" ... "Tony ... initiated", "Tony was the first to make the debate personal ...".

Geist completely misses the incomprehensibility of Scott's attempt to explain just why the new wording is an issue—it's in the diff above. If he thinks that is clear and logical, I give up.

I was seeking balanced comments, not heavily slanted POV; the process is making it far less likely that people will just "shake hands" and move on. On the contrary, it's likely to poison the page. Tony (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, I realise only now that we just had interactions in two different places. That's quite unfortunate and wasn't my intention at all.
As I said, I wasn't going to invest much time into this, and so I just mentioned one thing that jumped out at me: That it seemed to start with you editing a policy page as if it was an ordinary article; perhaps you can avoid future conflicts by showing more restraint in that respect.
Ned Scott is not my "friend". I know nothing about him and have no opinion about him, whatsoever. That said, now that you have tried to turn this into a personal thing between you and me I have a convenient excuse to withdraw from this case anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a classic case of escalation. Both parties did things to contribute to this, and kept making it worse. Tony -- you need to realize that policy pages in general are a good place to be a bit more cautious. I agree that Ned didn't clearly lay out his concerns when he first reverted, and he should have. But you had already sensed that you might have been changing the meaning of the third bullet point; you alluded to it in your initial talk page comment. Your response after Ned's revert, which was a reasonable action, was starting to make things pretty personal. "Such a senseless revert", "don't waste my time" and so on are very aggressive and not WP:CIVIL. A simple, polite question about what was objectionable in the change would have been sufficient. However, Ned was incivil right back with the "ego trip" comment and the "think yourself so perfect" comment, and it went downhill from there. I think clearly the worst of this came from Ned, though: calling someone a "spaz" or an "elitist asshole" is simply unacceptable in any situation on Wikipedia. In the future: Tony - don't be surprised when you're reverted on a policy page; you should expect it. Wording issues can be very sensitive. And while Ned didn't explain his objection very well, you never explained why you changed the third rationale, either. Both of you should remember that whole reverts aren't always necessary. Ned - your behavior was unacceptable here. Although Tony might have "started it", that is no excuse for your behavior: you repeatedly responded with more and more inflammatory comments. Mangojuicetalk 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I was doing pretty good (not perfect) up until the comment where I called him an asshole. It was a moment of weakness, and had I not done so I would be in a much better position to address Tony's continued rudeness in this entire situation (which still continues). I don't even understand it, since I'm pretty sure I've gotten along with him in the past. Tony was waling into me way before I made a single "confrontational" comment. I should have responded with a cooler head, but I'm not convinced that would have changed any of Tony's responses. -- Ned Scott 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Asshole and what about the other things you said? You weren't doing well (not "good") at all, in fact, until that posting; and you haven't since. Tony (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All right, both of you go to your respective corners and stop badgering each other for now. It's obvious that you're both mad at each other, but continuing to bicker at each other here is only going to make things worse. The edit history shows inappropriate behavior on both sides of this dispute, and really the best way to resolve this is for both of you to cool off and stop attacking each other. Refrain from editing the article/policy page for a little while until you're both ready to come back to the table and work constructively.
Tony: To reiterate what was said above: When editing policy pages, be sure that if you're doing more than just fixing a spelling or grammar issue, that you have consensus on the change before making it. It's okay to be bold about it, but especially with policies, you should be prepared for others to revert your changes and ask you to discuss it on Talk first - I think Ned's original response regarding this was appropriate in the given context. Discussions don't necessarily need to be long, drawn-out processes - even just a little discussion can go a long way toward explaining your reasoning for the changes.
I feel it's also worth mentioning that, while he hasn't really apologized for his outburst yet, Ned's comment above came across to me (at least) as an acknowledgement that he didn't handle the situation well. I take that as an encouraging sign that he's willing to deal with this situation constructively, and frankly, I think your response to him was unduly harsh. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, an apology would have been nice. No, I won't be going into any corners, thank you very much. And merely repeating what was said above about the sanctity of policy pages (twice or three times?) is likely to irritate me and others, as well as wasting our time. I'm afraid that this episode has ruined any chance of a working relationship with this character; this is a pity, since the NFC page needs textual scrutiny, and I'm not about to kow-tow to those who see themselves as guardians of the page, yet have little linguistic understanding. I do concede, however, that his doubt about the wording of the third point has played out, although he was incapable of grasping exactly what was wrong with both the existing and the new version. I have nothing but contempt for the way in which he expressed his doubt. Tony (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You have every right to the way you feel. But this is probably as resolved as it's going to be, so I'm going to mark this thread as resolved. Mangojuicetalk 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No offense, Mango, but I overrode your "resolved" with a "stale" tag - I think that more accurately reflects the state of this discussion, such as it is. It's clear that Tony is unwilling to budge on this issue - I wouldn't consider that resolved. :/ — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pages against wikipedia policy

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

The User Nyttend is deleting pages without consensus as per wikipedia policy. Please can someone look into this?

Page in question: User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin

--Bleveret (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Never mind, I see it is already there Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 17. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I find the actions taken by admins regarding this case to be rather inappropriate. Enigma msg! 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Referred elsewhere? Anyway, the user this mainly concerned has apparently quit. Enigma msg! 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, referred to WP:DRV. Although the original DRV has been closed, DRV is still the proper venue for this. Mangojuicetalk 04:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The content of this particular userbox sounded like an attack on User:Betacommand. It should not be a shock that the DRV wanted to get rid of it. Arguments against policies are OK; arguments against users, not so good. See also the preceding MfD, and for a perspective on how painful these issues are, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. The second deletion of the box was on a box was deleting a different userbox that did not mention Betacommand or his bot. Please read up on the issue before commenting. Enigma msg! 04:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by hAl

During a (long) discussion to try to resolve an original research problem user hAl has started a section on the page user:Kilz misbehaviour. This is a personal attack in my opinion and does not assume good faith WP:AGF. Kilz (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it's a personal attack. It's a comment on the contributions you've made, not on you. But OTOH, this is clearly an escalation of a dispute, and I hope it doesn't go any further. HAl: you aren't going to accomplish much with that section. The dispute going on there is not a conduct issue, it's a content issue and needs wider input. It may be that this particular aspect of the subject can't be covered without delving into WP:OR, which means it should probably be removed altogether. Mangojuicetalk 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mangojuice, Are you going to post this or something else on the Talk:Office_Open_XML page? Kilz (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would join the debate if I had a clear idea of what should be done with the content but I'm not really up on it. It's probably best to keep discussion of behavior issues over here. Mangojuicetalk 22:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Mangojuice can you refer me to another place that could help us solve the content issues? Kilz (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to get more voices involved, WP:3O would be appropriate if it's (basically) just you and HAl going back and forth on the issue and you want one more opinion. If there are already multiple users involved you could go to WP:RFC. If the problem isn't breaking a deadlock but having a chance to discuss through the differences (which might be the case here), I might suggest WP:RFM. Mangojuicetalk 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed about more users, and it would help a lot if both editors in this dispute backed off and let someone else disentangle it. Even accepting that this is a specialist subject, the discussion has descended into jargon-ridden wrangling where it's become near-impossible to tell what points either of the disputants are trying to make. It's like reading Lorem ipsum with OOXML, OSP, OSS, SFLC etc embedded at random. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Mayby people here should also read : Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz_(2nd)#User:Kilz as it seems quite relevant as background on how it would be easy to get into a conflict with user:Kilz. hAl (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hal is continuing edit warring and removing fact tags. He is bringing up old edit wars in an attempt to say I used sockpuppets. Kilz (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm not the one that has reported you for using sockpuppets at all. If there wasn't such a backlog there I imagine your account would have been removed by now. Especially sinse it is already your second time around as well. hAl (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:RobJ1981, continual tenditiousness

RobJ1981 has been involved in continual bad faith towards me since the beginning of March, stemming from a dispute over the state of the List of characters in Bully article. The major issue is a continuing, unrelenting assumption of bad faith on his part. He then proceeds to act on those assumptions of bad faith.

(All mentions of "the article" refer to List of characters in Bully unless otherwise specified)

Things started when Rob posted that the article needed cleanup on the Wikiproject Videogames discussion page [43]. I then suggested on the article's talk page that people who were stopping by to criticize the article should help improve it rather than simply criticize from a distance. [44] Nothing was really changed in the article, as Rob did not actually state what his issue with the article was nor make any effort to improve it or even to advise people who wanted to. The issue dropped.

Rob did, however, nominate a different article I created, Vicious and Delicious, for deletion, right after the discussion over the article ended. On the deletion discussion, Rob accused me of using Dan the Man1983 as a meatpuppet. [45]

About a month later, Rob re-listed the article on Wikiproject Videogames. [46]. This time, he accused myself and the other user heavily involved in editing the article, User:Dan the Man1983, of violating WP:OWN and acting in bad faith. Although I refuted being designated a bad faith editor in violation of WP:OWN, he continued with the accusations throughout the discussion on the talk page.

This time, the article was massively cleaned up and rewritten, thanks to the efforts of User:Masem in giving me some guidelines to work with and a FA article to use as an example.

Rob, however, continued to continually accuse myself and User:Dan the Man1983 of violating WP:OWN. He decided to start a revert war over a very small edit on the page, the changing of one word in the article. As seen in this edit [47], while not fully accusing me of WP:OWN again, is a case of attacking the editor not the edit. I reverted his change, explaining myself. A few days later, he [makes the same edit again]. When Dan the Man1983 made a topic on the discussion page, Rob AGAIN accused us of bad faith and WP:OWN [48].

Following WP procedure identified on WP:DISPUTE, I left a message on his talk page[49]. He responded on mine in the same way he has been throughout the process, with accusations of bad faith, of violating WP:OWN. He refers to the edit war over the single word as me "making a big deal out of nothing", even though he is the one that provoked the discussion. Lastly, he threatens to go to an administrator.

At this point, attempts to communicate and negotiate with RobJ1981 have failed. He continues to be single mindedly hostile, admittedly in a low-key fashion, and over time it has become apparent that he is more concerned with lambasting myself and Dan the Man1983 than he is with actually improving wikipedia. I am posting this here in hopes that informal dispute resolution will make administrative intervention unnecessary. McJeff (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The villain / nemesis disagreement is particularly pointless. From what I looked at, I think Rob reinstated the change to "villain" mainly to make a point about ownership. I'm not sure that conflict is really continuing, and I hope it doesn't: neither version is much better than the other and it's an awfully fine point to actually care about. Only assuming that Rob cares a lot about the villain/nemesis issue allows me to escape the conclusion that he was shaking things up to make a point. So Rob -- I'm sure if you want to improve the article in substantive ways, McJeff and Dan will not stand in your way simply because you aren't one of them. I don't think there's a major ownership issue here. However, McJeff - when you removed the {{listcruft}} tag earlier, that was inappropriate, and your comments on the talk page don't justify it. Yes, cleanup tags are ugly. However, they should not simply be removed because they are placed on the article by outsiders -- clearly the concern in that case was justified, so the tag should have remained in place until the cleanup was done. That incident does cross the line a bit into WP:OWN territory. I'm not a big fan of drive-by tagging either, but tags do serve their purpose. Mangojuicetalk 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The tag thing is what concerns me the most about McJeff and Dan. This section: Talk:List_of_characters_in_Bully#New_People_stopping_by_to_edit_.28February_2008.29 explains it more in detail. This should also be noted: [50]. McJeff brought things out of the archive (which hadn't been commented in for a bit if I recall correctly), just to show people what's been going on. People can easily view the archive, so I see this as counter-productive and simply a sign McJeff is against archiving. Both McJeff and Dan need to settle down a bit, especially about things as minor as one word (the villain/nemesis nonsense). RobJ1981 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Against archiving? What would be the point of that in Wikipedia? EVERYTHING gets archived. For some reason that particular discussion got clipped when someone else archived the talk page, so I went into the article history and reposted it. That's all. But it's a good example of how Rob manages to twist everything that I do into a malicious act in bad faith. It's damn well annoying. McJeff (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Not too mention the countless claims of WP:OWN. That has what has annoyed me the most about this issue.
Okay in the past I've done a lot of work on the article, But I do not own the article, I have never claimed to own it, I just work on it a lot. I care about the quality of the article and if someone comes along and edit's something silly, vandalizes it, or makes an edit that was deleted countless times before(all this has happened before), then yes I will revert the edit because I care about the high standards of the article. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Rob, enough. The villain/nemesis business was a WP:POINT-y argument that you started. Even the tag business is pretty minor; no one restored the tag afterwards, and in the end they did clean up the article just like the tag requested. Bringing things out of the archives -- who cares? Personally, I'd just put up a bunch of links. Ownership of articles only becomes a real problem if the "owners" are incivil to new editors or edit war with such editors based on them not being part of the accepted group. Nothing I've seen comes anywhere close to this. However, you keep telling these users they need to change their approach, which is not only wrong as far as I can see, it's also needlessly confrontational, and it is violating WP:AGF. I'm sure they've heard your concerns, but they're doing good work and I don't see them trying to keep others out. So let them get on with their business, and you get on with yours. Mangojuicetalk 05:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I will drop the issue with them for now, once this is dealt with: User:McJeff/Sandbox. McJeff didn't need to place the same thing twice (here and on there). It appears to be bad faith and uncivil in my view. Any further poor behavior by either editor will be reported to admins and/or admin notice boards. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You are, of course, familiar with the concept of a wiki sandbox? It is a place you go to test an edit. In particular, I chose to put my writeup on my personal sandbox where it would be out of the public eye, but that I could make sure it was written properly and Dan the Man1983 could see it and add anything he wanted to to it. Posting it there before posting it here (check the time stamps) was neither bad faith nor out of line. I resent your implications and your continual bad faith even after being reprimanded in informal mediation, and the next time it happens, it goes to an administrator. McJeff (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, in any case you don't need the sandbox draft now that this has been posted, so I'm just going to blank it, ok? Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. McJeff (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In regards to deleting the listcruft tag, at the time it was thrown up, I honestly did not think it was justified at the time. No one had linked me to WP:INDISCRIMINATE until User:Masem did. A few people, Rob included, linked to WP:NOT, but WP:NOT is a huge article and not really much help without some specific info on what part of it is being violated given. Plus, WP:SAL made me think the article was in fine shape. I admit I could have handled it a little better, maybe left the tag-adding user a message, but I don't think I acted in bad faith or in violation of WP:OWN removing the tag. It was just a mistake on my part. McJeff (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So I'm not the only one who is of this opinion, huh? You think this is bad? You should see his revert history in SVR 2008. Though the majority of contributors preferred a table or list to display the game roster, he (primarily) decided it would be prose and instantly reverted anyone who put it back to a list. If that wasn't bad enough, if you made the roster a list (as it has been along with every other Wrestling game), he would make rude comments in his edit summary, accuse you of vandalism, and claim consensus was for prose. If you look at the talk page you will see an overwhelming amount of support for a list[51]. Of course using the typical WP:Not, accusing people of bad faith and violating policies but not actually explaining how a roster list violates any rules but rather speaking in very general terms (like not everything needs to be included). It's amazing how many people this user has reverted in this one article. I'm sure I didn't come close to catching them all either. [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]. After I (and everyone else) gave up fighting that fight to make the roster section prose because of this behavior, I attempted to improve the section by copy editing, which he then almost instantly reverted without reason [66]. But of course, he's not guilty of WP:Own. *Sarcasm* Angrymansr (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

... WOW. You should take that to an admin's talk page, stat. For the record, I've seen him hassling a few other users, most notably TJ Spyke, the same way he's been after me, but I didn't want to bring anyone who wasn't involved in this into it. McJeff (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that is WP:OWN. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jewishnsbmfan's barnstars

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

User:Jewishnsbmfan has awarded himself two barnstars. When I explained to him that barnstars (with the exception of service awards) are not meant to be self-awarded, he told me that he gave them to himself because he "deserved" them, despite having made less than ten edits. Can someone please talk to him and get him to take them down? Having a user display unearned awards cheapens the barnstar system and fosters resentment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asarelah (talk • contribs)

This is a non-issue and really doesn't warrant any investigation at WQA. If he wishes to award himself a barnstar, then let him. No harm comes from doing so. seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If he/she starts awarding them in the name of other editors then perhaps it would be a problem. Otherwise it's pretty obvious where the award is "coming" from. Anynobody 05:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this does no harm, since the awards clearly indicate he gave them to himself. Jewishnsbmfan, if you're reading this, it doesn't do your reputation any good, and may even harm it, to award yourself barnstars, but it's not against any rule and doesn't harm anyone else. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed as well. May be in poor taste, but it's not a violation of any policies that I'm aware of, nor is it affecting anyone else adversely. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed also, but it does smell of WP:POINT. The knowledge of Barnstars, Userboxes and Twinkle shows this to be an experienced editor, and the first few articlespace edits - wading straight into a majorly contentious topic, and announcing this at the top of the associated Talk page - look like the beginning of trolling. Monitoring the situation would be in order. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the contribs, a sock of Jewishfanofnsblackmetal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) probably? One Night In Hackney303 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. They've made identical edits to Blood libel against Jews. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Watching user's edit and left a notice regarding his edit patterns. Let me know if anything pops up; I'll block on sight if anything stirs. seicer | talk | contribs 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

208.120.155.79

This user keeps editing State University of New York at Binghamton with unsourced and non-notable content about a student group, which I believe him to be a member of, which seems a conflict of interest to me. He also attacked me in the body of an article (see the bottom under references). Any suggestions? He has ignored comments on his talk page.

I've left a fairly pointed note on the IP talk page, and will watch the article for further disruption. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bensaccount

I approached this user regarding disruptive behavior at WT:NPOV here. He then tried to distract with a claim that I was engaging in some specific dispute (he still hasn't said what that is) [67]. When I asked him not to make such unfounded claims, he repeated his accusation and accused me of spamming his talk page [68]. He's now been removing any comments I make there as spam: [69] [70]. Note that I think I'm going to personally forgo notifying this user, as it'll either be ignored or serve to inflame the situation, I suspect. (Though if someone recommends I do so anyways, I'll go ahead.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I read through the history and agree that Bensaccount was being disruptive with his original comment on WT:NPOV. He also appears unwilling to discuss the matter further with you - probably best to just leave him alone at this point unless he continues to disrupt other users, articles or policy pages. Keep in mind that users are allowed to remove any comments from their own talk pages for any reason they choose - in the case of warnings and notifications, if they remove those, it's taken as a sign that they've read and understand the notification, so it isn't necessarily to put it back.
Chances are that User:Bensaccount is trying to get you to respond with a personal attack by removing your comments from his talk page. If you fall into that, he'll be in a position to turn around and say you're harassing him. Like I said, better to just leave him alone - take his removal of your comments as a sign that he doesn't want to talk to you, and only continue to deal with him if he continues to disrupt outside his talk page. (And if that does happen, you have more resources to turn to, such as the admin noticeboard.)
Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave him alone, but I doubt his disruption at WT:NPOV will stop anytime soon. Eh, if he starts up, maybe WP:ANI could use a visit. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 03:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightwing1988

He is very idiotic and likes attacking one particular user. Harassing a user is bad, but doing it to one user and one user only is even worse. Because of his harassment, he deserves to be blocked indefinitely. Not just blocked, but banned.

Now before you say, "Lightwing has not edited since January", just listen to this. He has also edited under his IP address (75.134.82.172). Please block that too.

Here are many of the offensive edit summaries/comments he has used: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] 124.180.116.122 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How this user hasn't been banned already is beyond me. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You've gotta come up with something more recent than 2007 for this. The user hasn't been notified of this thread or warned of any infractions, nor has he edited in quite a while. seicer | talk | contribs 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember, he has edited using his IP address! Did you not see what I wrote above!? 124.180.116.122 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Lightwing blanked User talk:75.134.82.172 [84] after the IP was blocked for misbehavior, and the IP continued these personal attacks [85]. I think it's clear enough that the IP is static and is the same user as Lightwing. But, I don't think a block or a ban would be preventive here. Lightwing may not have edited while logged in but he has almost 3 months of productive editing afterwards with none of this misbehavior. I would issue a warning but this is such old news it seems pointless. Obviously, the kind of conduct Lightwing was engaging in last year was way, way over the line. But it seems to not be going on any more. Mangojuicetalk 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
On an unrelated but important note, He is very idiotic... flaunts the idea of Wikiquette. In the future please save or somehow "refactor" such comments. Anynobody 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nmate

This user, despite several warnings and notices, decided not to listen and has written several personal attacks recently despite being told not to do so, examples: [86], [87], [88], [89]. There are more of them, but I think these examples are sufficient, and in general to the normal tone he has responded at worst with rudeness. I'm afraid I don't have nerves to deal with him anymore alone, and that's why I request an intervention. In addition, although unrelated to the etiquette in general, he has had quite a lot of weird edits. When I mean "not listening", that most likely means erasing. Can anyone look at this before this escalates to an uncontrollable level? MarkBA what's up?/my mess 13:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with and the administrator's final words rather seem like a warning to User:MarkBA:

Keep in mind that your talk page history is there for all to see, and some of us admins do our homework before commenting on a dispute. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes MarkBA used personal attacks, was uncivil etc. without being reported, so it's a bit surprising he is so sensitive now... Squash Racket (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever read those diffs I provided? In any case, your examples do not quite match the reality, so please stop trying to embarrass me. Or do you consider an indirect accusation of Nazism normal? Please talk on topic. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 15:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Where in any of this did anyone make any sort of mention of "Nazism", much less an "indirect accusation"? Can you point me to it? I don't see it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
For your information, the second diff contains words about Marián Kotleba's seminar. I find this as an accusation of neo-Nazism, because Kotleba is (or was) leader of Slovenská pospolitosť, a banned neo-Nazi party in Slovakia (it is an association now). Or if you want, an outrage, a scandal, ... MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What you have here is a content dispute that's stepping into civility boundaries, and both sides of this matter are now engaged in personal attacks as a result. I didn't see the connection to Nazi-ism because I have no knowledge of the content dispute, but I maintain that the best way to start resolving this is to stop responding to the other person and step back from it. Yes, Nmate's behavior may be out of line as well, but you are also engaged in personal attacks, and the comment pointed out below by Seicer makes a mention of poor English language skills - something that our policies cover in WP:SKILL. So while it may be necessary for someone to go have a talk with Nmate, I would also counsel you to back down and cool off before continuing in the content dispute. Keep in mind that if others agree with your point of view, they will usually help out on your side. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your comment has left me even more puzzled and enraged. All right, I admit I made some personal attacks, but I'm sure to a lesser extent and not so often, as I don't approve using them, though I approve I sometimes lose my cool. But I think by this, you have approved his own, regardless of his English skills, and this IS a scandal. If you have suggested to stop communicating, then I'm afraid respective pages needs some protection so respective editors can't edit them. Finally, you may tell me that I'm still very hot (in sense of mood), but do you even understand why I've brought this here? My nerves are almost out, and absolutely no one wanted to help. Do you want to lose another useful contributor or not? Please decide. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not endorsing Nmate's behavior. Please understand that I'm not in any way saying he was right to say what he did. I am trying to help you defuse the situation. The fact that you're getting so upset over this is a sign that you need to calm down and stop taking things so personally. Let me clarify a few things:
First, WQA is a place where we try to help people resolve interpersonal disputes through counseling and mediation. It is not an action board - we cannot and do not take punitive action against other users (most of us are not admins - I happen to be one, but I don't act in an admin capacity on this board). Punitive action that results from a WQA is taken only in cases where it's really obvious that someone is grossly violating the rules and has failed to heed warnings - that is a general administrative process, but the majority of cases here are just as I described above - interpersonal disputes where people have overstepped the bounds of civility. And we can only do so much to help - often times, the best help we can offer is to suggest ways to either mediate, defuse or ignore personal attacks from others.
Second, if you feel that you are being harassed by Nmate or need action taken against him, I would suggest filing a report at WP:AN/I (Admin Noticeboard/Incidents). They can evaluate further whether this is a situation that warrants further action, and the admins there are in a better position to issue warnings and/or blocks when and where necessary.
Third, have you informed Nmate of this WQA? We can really only do so much to help resolve disputes when we can only see one side of it. If you want to have us help you two resolve your differences, it would be best if we could get him/her involved in this discussion so we can listen to both sides and offer advice to both of you. (Note that the Mediation Cabal and Formal Mediation can do this in a more formal, structured environment, but it will also take longer. I'd only recommend them if it turns out we can't help you further.)
I hope this helps. Whether you choose to leave Wikipedia over this incident is entirely your decision. I sincerely hope that if you do decide to leave, it will only be for a wikibreak, and you'll come back feeling refreshed and ready to work on the project again sometime soon after. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to tell you that I've taken this to the AN(I) twice, and they dismissed both cases, and this is one of the few last resorts where I can do anything. If even here I don't get any help, then I don't know whereabouts should I turn next. I feel he has been already informed about this case. Still, I feel I've been harassed over that time and no one ever wanted to hear about this. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 06:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing a lack of responses, it seems that no one is interested in hearing this matter at all. I assume that the community has turned deaf ears and blind eyes on me, and so will I. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this constitutes a personal attack... I find MarkBA's comments more disturbing, such as this. seicer | talk | contribs 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your words have left me "literally" crying. I have one wave after another of personal attacks, yet you don't see any, "emphasizing" semi-, if personal attacks at all, when in fact a sad reality? Sorry, but I don't wonder that such attitude has already driven some constructive editors away, and I think now you have a chance of preventing another such case. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, we see evidence that you are engaging in uncivil behavior as well. Just because one editor does it doesn't justify you doing it as well. All we are trying to say is that we're not seeing the same thing you are - what to you is a personal attack looks more to us like a content dispute. I see, above all else here, a strong tendency toward assuming bad faith - assuming that Nmate's comments toward you are personal attacks when at least some of his comments appear to be pointed arguments about the content dispute. It's too easy to become emotionally invested in these arguments - that's why I suggested that you cool down. It's so you can take a moment to look at the discussion and dispute from another point of view. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:However whatever

The articles Muffin top and Love handles are currently the topic of merge discussions (see here and here). Rather than wait for consensus, User:However whatever keeps changing the article pages into redirects to Central obesity. I have reverted the changes, but am wary of doing so indefinitely, for fear of breaching WP:3RR, and would like some assistance in resolving the matter. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract

Resolved. forum shopping

Someone at WP:ANI suggested I file a report here so here goes: I'm getting very upset from seeing improper comments of this editor, such as here, here, and here, and can not tell if they are plain lack of civility or harassment, but are looking more like personal attacks. Can someone step in and tell the user to stop? I have issued an {{npa3}} but I feel this may not have helped. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody at ANI told you to report this here. In reality, you were told at ANI to not template the regulars, cease baiting this user, stop telling tales and drop the subject. Instead, you went forum shopping. So I repeat the advice from ANI: drop it. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

198.163.53.10

This user is accusing me of taking bribes and running sockpuppet accounts.[90] The most messed up thing is I voted to keep the article he is harassing me about. [91]. I would like to reply to the guy but he is behind a local subnet. He spammed every person that contributed to the AFD. Any thoughts? Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmcm2008

Hello,

I'm becoming increasingly exhausted trying to bring the best out of User:Dmcm2008. This user seems to insist on contributing material based on "local knowledge" as a substitute for citation. I had a content dispute with this user a couple of weeks ago (which ended in a consensus in favour of a standpoint I was alligned with) which seems to have upset this user. I've continued to uphold policy and consensus with Dmcm2008, and tried throughout to support not bite.

I believe there are multiple issues here, but lack of civility are my greatest concern. There are too many diffs of this to post, but I think a cursory glance through his/her contributions, coupled with material on his talk page and threads at User_talk:Jza84#Whiston should provide enough evidence of incivility. If specific diffs are really wanted, I'll get them.

I should add that I've been polite throughout, despite being called part of Wikipedia's gestapo on his main user page and him posting to around 6 or 7 edittors as an attempt to portray me in a negative way. I warned Dmcm2008 that if I witnessed any other negative behaviour I would seek intervention here. I've just recieved an unhelpful message which includes some petty insults, promting me to make this breif report. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was alerted to this by seeing the most recent message posted to Jza84's talk page: here. (The last sentence is the cause for most concern.) At the same time that Jza84 was posting this message, I was giving the user concerned a level-two warning about civility. However, glancing at his confrontational history, I am not sure that this will be heeded, as he has already been given some advice about incivility (which is why I thought the level two warning was justofied.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LessHeard vanU

Resolved.

This user blocked me for 24 hours a couple of weeks ago (ironically he alleged I violated No Personal Attacks and Civility). Following the block, I've tried to understand why he blocked me (which would I think be the first step in a potential dispute resolution process). However, while I believe I have remained quite civil, I think he has been uncivil in his comments on my talk page and in edit summaries.

On my talk page, he has made edits that are judgemental, and don't assume much good faith with comments like here that said of me "You appear incapable of understanding these simple comments ...". Then on his talk page, he archived part of the discussion; a review of the edit summaries shows that his summaries were "archiving per WP:DENY" and "archiving - per WP:TROLL". The first seems to imply that he is calling me a vandal - which makes little sense, as no one has ever accused me of vandalism in my 4 years at Wikipedia. And the second accuses me of being a troll? This appears to be most uncivil, and I believe not appropriate. That combined with the tone and content of his written comments appears to me to be out of line. But I admit - I'm not a neutral observer - and perhaps I'm overreacting! Before dealing with what I believe to be his inappropriate block of me, I was looking for neutral input on what I perceive to be his lack of civility. Nfitz (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not having time at the moment to research the entire history leading up to your block (I've only looked at LessHeard's talk page summary and the diffs you pointed out here), I'm inclined to believe LessHeard's assessment that you are harassing him beyond what is necessary and reasonable. Whether the block was justified, he seems to have made it clear that he no longer wants to talk to you, so continuing to post repeatedly on his talk page is a nuisance at best, and is trolling or harassment at worst. As he said, if you believe that your block was unjustified, take it to WP:AN/I - that is the appropriate venue to request a block review once the block has expired.
That said, could you please provide some more context to this dispute? What led up to your block? (If necessary, I'll ask LessHeard as well.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's worth mentioning that the policies he linked to in his edit summary (WP:DENY and WP:TROLL) provide complete descriptions of the behaviors he believes you're engaging in. They should be sufficient to explain Wikipedia's policies on those particular behaviors - if you're questioning what they mean or taking excessive offense to them, that suggests to me that you perhaps you haven't fully read or understood them. Obviously, they don't fully answer the question of why LessHeard implied you were a troll or a vandal, but they should at least serve to explain the policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he certainly appears to have made clear that he doesn't want further contact - which is difficult, as when I read the dispute resolution process, I have to try and carry out sustained discussion with the other party before going elsewhere. The incivility all seems to relate to discussion today (March 25th - both EDT and GMT). Not counting a couple of minor edits made a few seconds after the original edit - and the notice I'm required to place on his talk page about coming here - there are only 4 edits I've made on his talk page today. The first I posted after his post that seem not civil - where I simply refuted his claim that his block was valid, and noted his incivility. The second was after his "archiving per WP:DENY" edit summary; I questioned what that meant - as there had never been any suggestion in 4 years that I was a vandal. To which he simply archived again, with the "archiving per WP:Troll". The third was when I questioned what that one meant - my understanding is that I need to raise this with him before going elsewhere. And the fourth was a question to him what procedure he thought I should follow to resolve this - perhaps the fourth was unnecessary - I could have asked someone else ... though by this point, it seemed to me, that he had already appeared uncivil, and implied I was a vandal and a troll; however for all my differences with User:LessHeard_vanU, he's still an Admin - and I have no doubt that he'd still give a fair answer to a question (and he did ...).
I've reviewed the policies he's referenced WP:DENY and WP:TROLL. I can't see anything remotely in WP:DENY that's relevent - I'd need some history of vandalism for that. As for WP:TROLL - well you seem to imply that posting on his talk page to resolve this could be trolling? That isn't covered in WP:TROLL. It clearly says that Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. And it clearly says that Genuine dissent is not trolling. All I have done in discussing with User:LessHeard_vanU is politely dissent with his actions against me.
As to the context of the larger dispute. It is complex - and I hadn't intended to discuss this here. I simply wanted opinion on the incivility - as if I have misinterpeted the whole thing, I want to leave it out of the WP:ANI case about him blocking me - and I recognise that I might not be unbiased in what I'm perceiving.
The short story of the larger dispute is that a different administrator had indefinitely blocked another user, noting that they only did vandalism; when I pointed out that the other user's edit history was only 2 out of 4 posts vandalism, with the 2 cases of vandalism both occurring before the user saw a warning, the other Admin ignored me, and continued to note that it was a vandalism-only account. As this was knowingly a mistruth, I simply asked the other Admin "But why the lies?" ... and when I got no response "I wanted an explanation why you've had no qualms in the lies you made, in your block". In retrospect my choice of words wasn't the greatest - and to save a whole lot of debate, I would phrase slightly differently - but for this User:LessHeard_vanU suddenly appeared and gave me a "official first warning for violation of " WP:NPA—this was my first encounter with User:LessHeard_vanU. After that I replied questioning how could documenting that someone is lying be a personal attack - and for that I got a 24-hour block - which is the block that I don't feel was justified. But I repeat - I don't think that is the case that should be discussed here - as I don't think this is the appropriate forum for that issue. Nfitz (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that when contesting a block, the reason for the block is inextricably tied up in the history leading up to it. That's why I asked for the context. Admins certainly aren't always perfect in their interpretation of policy, especially in well-known "grey areas" such as WP:NPA and WP:AGF. But I would agree at least to some extent that "Why the lies?" is not really the best way to pursue the topic, whether the admin in question is the one you say is lying, or another user. It shows a lack of assumption of good faith, and continuing to do that is often considered disruptive. If everything went as you say, LessHeard may have jumped the gun on a block. But keep in mind that admins often step in to give official warnings and issue blocks when they are otherwise uninvolved, when they see a need to do so. You don't need to have a history with them - if one of them sees that you're attacking other users or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia, they can and often will step in.
Note that I am not endorsing LessHeard's actions, since I don't know the full history and I don't have time to research it right now. I'll drop him a quick note and ask him to explain to me what happened, from his POV, and that may help me address this situation a bit better. For now, I'd leave him alone - I think you're only going to inflame things more if you keep pestering him. The block was temporary, and so long as you abide by WP's policies, it's unlikely you'll get blocked again. It's probably not as big of a deal as you think it is, at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In itself, not a big deal. But many of the Admins I've seemed to have encountered lately seem to shoot first, and ask questions later, operating way outside guidelines. When you start pointing this out, the wagons seem to close, and you start feeling like your bad-guy in a one-horse town. I'm concerned that the integrity of Wikipedia is at stake, if Admins aren't accountable for their actions. It's not that I'm concerned that I'll be blocked again (I'm not bothered by being blocked). I'm concerned that the Admins in question will repeat their error again. And I'm concerned that many of those that that they do this too, will not realise that they have been wronged. If it was a simple one-time honest mistake, I wouldn't be worrying about it. I'm concerned that there is a systemic problem here.
To save you from researching the history, it looks like there is a well-written, reasonably complete and concise summary now on my talk page - User_talk:Nfitz#Heading_off_Wikidrama that someone dropped in with. I've got a few minor quibbles that I've noted on his talk page, but really it's an excellent summary. Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I would agree with that person's assessment of the situation. My personal opinion is that nobody in the situation is blameless - I feel that the blocks against both Victor64 (the person whose block apparently started this mess) and you were a bit hasty, and there is some question as to if LessHeard VanU fully understands the policies he was quoting in his edit summaries. But at the same time, neither block was without warrant, and if things had continued in the direction they were when the blocks were issued, the blocks would very likely have happened anyway - they just wouldn't be open to the "shooting first" argument at that point.
LessHeard said to me basically that you seem to harbor a rather narrow view of what constitutes vandalism, trolling, harassment and other disruptive behaviors, and that that doesn't really jive with what's accepted by the community at large. I agree with him, in that you were advised by multiple people to drop it, let it go, and get back to constructive editing. I think that was much more about the way you were pursuing the issue, not really so much about the content of the issue itself. LessHeard feels that you have been harassing him - he's made it clear that he doesn't want to be bothered by you anymore, but you have persisted to ask him to explain things to you that he feels he already has, and he has directly told you that he intends to ignore you. Continuing to pester him, especially over what would otherwise be a minor issue, is properly considered trolling and harassment, and regardless of the specific technical term for it, your behavior violates WP:POINT. It is doing more harm to the project than good, and there are other ways to pursue the issue if you feel it really needs to be pursued. (Be advised, too, that WP:CANVAS may also apply here - I realize you're following WP:DR to the letter, but I would question whether it's really necessary.)
From what I can see, your block came about apparently as a result of your saying (or implying) that Philippe was deliberately trying to harm the project and cause trouble ("documenting the lie", which is an indirect way of calling someone a liar), and I agree with the original assessment that that constituted personal attacks. The additional fact that you were apparently sticking up for a personal friend and showing fierce loyalty to him further cemented the perception that you were simply retaliating against the admins and did not have a real, objective case to be heard. Whether that's what you intended or not, that's how it came across, at least in my review of the situation.
And, as has been said multiple times by multiple people, your best bet at this point is probably to let the matter drop. Rest assured that the hasty decisions in this situation have been brought to the attention of multiple people now, and if further action is necessary, more experienced admins will deal with it. The original block against Victor64 was lifted, so if that was your aim, the matter has been settled. It's not worth continuing to harp on it when the original admin has corrected the situation you were originally complaining about. And continuing to do so may result in another, longer block for violating WP:POINT and/or harassing users.
I hope this helps explain the situation better. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already documented on how Victor64 was actually working on constructive edits at the time of his block - so the idea that an indefinite block would "very likely have happened anyway" seems not to be true - and also seems to violate the concept of warning new users first. Had LessHeard actually tried to engage me in dialogue, rather than blocking me as soon as I showed any sign of disagreeing with him, then that block wouldn't have been necessary either.
I find any suggestion that I have been harrassing LessHeard particularily odious. I simply documented his uncivil behaviour on his talk page, to try and confirm if that is what he meant. Surely the first part of any dispute is to raise the issue on the users's talk page.
(Be advised, too, that WP:CANVAS may also apply here - I realize you're following WP:DR to the letter, but I would question whether it's really necessary.) I'm not really sure what your trying to say here. I don't see the problem in following WP:DR - who am I supposed to canvas? Part of the problem here, is the procedures seem to overlap each other, are not clear, and at times contradict each other.
If I saw any indication from the offending editors that they thought at all that there actions were a bit hasty, inappropriate, or stifling, then I would not proceed any further. But if we have admins continue to not understanding their role, or the policies they were quoting in their edit summaries, then surely it is the duty of every user to continue to point this out, until there ability to be an admin is removed, or they are re-educated? I see no evidence of any progress with the attitude and actions of Phillipe, LessHeard, or Stifle. Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We're likely going to need to agree to disagree on this issue at this point. I've already stated in multiple places that I felt your specific behavior was at least pushing the boundaries of what would be acceptable, and as I mentioned above, it made you seem as though you were simply retaliating. Trying to engage an admin with "fighting words", as it were, is more likely to make them go "Oh, the guy I just blocked is having his friends come after me now", and is going to make them less likely to want to talk to you. I'm not sure how else I can explain that.
I will also restate the fact that the situation is over and done with. Several admins have now reviewed the situation and agree that, given the relative lack of information at the time, the blocks were justified. Given the more complete information FOLLOWING Victor's block, the block was lifted (and quickly, I might add), and Philippe appeared to express an acknowledgement for the hasty action, if not an outright apology. LessHeard feels that his action against you was warranted, and again, I agree with him to some extent. (Note that while I have said I agree with him to some extent, I am not saying he was 100% correct.) He firmly believes he did the right thing under the circumstances, and at this point, it doesn't seem you're going to make much more headway with him. As a fellow admin, I don't believe his actions were out of line, much less that they warrant any sort of recall action against him. However, he has also received feedback from both myself and at least one other concerned user that we hope he'll take into account next time something like this happens.
My advice to you, as others have already said, is for you to drop it and move on. Continuing to bring this up over and over again when the original precipitating event (Victor's block) has been corrected is only going to get you in trouble. Again, see WP:POINT - you've made your point, we've all heard it, and I'm not sure there's really any more to be said on it.
Regarding WP:CANVAS: My use of this policy was a bit shaky, and I do apologize for the confusion. My reason for bringing it up was because of my perception that you were trying to force the issue by coming here, after already being advised that the situation had been corrected and that LessHeard didn't want to talk to you anymore. However, it is true that (to my knowledge) you weren't going around to forum after forum asking people to take action against him - all I know about is what you've posted here and on LessHeard's talk page. So WP:CANVAS probably doesn't apply in this situation, but instead would be considered good reading (as is the case with all of WP's policies).
Again, I hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To KieferSkunk: I disagree with your evaluation of the situation as far as LessHeard vanU's behaviour is concerned. This admin seems to have a problem with understanding and admitting his own mistakes, a problem which is normally overplayed by his generally good-humoured attitude. It is perhaps not an accident that this case first escalated when he tried to protect Philippe from criticism in a situation where Philippe had exhibited a similar problem. Telling Nfitz to go away and that he is wrong on a minor point on which he is obviously right is not going to improve the situation.

To Nfitz: Removing your comments about a borderline block was an obvious overreaction of Philippe, and the way he did it was an insult. I am sure that he did this, not in bad faith, but because he assumed bad faith about you. LessHeard vanU blocking you in connection with this was another overreaction and highly unprofessional. I explained the problem to him, but it seems that he cannot understand it. I think at this point the best thing you can do is probably to give up. If you want to pursue this anyway, keep in mind that almost everybody who hasn't examined the case in detail, and some who have, will come to incorrect conclusions about your motivations. You need to counter this by an unambiguously non-confrontative approach to get out of the Michael Kohlhaas mechanism of following due process and being wronged by it. For example you could ask a well-respected admin, whose judgement you trust, to look at the situation in detail (including the discussion I started on LessHeard vanU's talk page, and which ended with "agree to disagree"), and t analyse the situation and explain it to you. If, as is likely, this admin decides that LessHeard vanU and Philippe were part of the problem, then they can have a private word with them.

To sum it all up: Some relatively minor points are being blown out of all proportion by Philippe, LessHeard vanU, Nfitz, KieferSkunk and (probably, although I hope it's not the case) me, all trying to do the right thing and getting at least one important detail wrong. We need to get out of this spiral. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(shrug) I'm of the opinion that some mistakes were made and have been adequately dealt with, but I'm certainly willing to concede that I may not see the whole picture here. In any event, if more review is needed, it should be taken up at WP:AN/I. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I'm to the point, that I'm ready to concede to everyones' better judgement, and drop the whole thing. I've certainly conceded that I could have phrased things better (with the hindsight of much reading of arcane Wikipedia guidance documents - some of which seem rather contradictory, I must note - though I guess that is to be expected). I'll take your word for it that Philippe has thought about things - I haven't looked into it. I'm not convinced that LessHeard vanU gets it ... but I guess that isn't my job. And I'm not sure anyone actually told User:Stifle that the discussion was taking place - oh well, his loss. Thanks to everyone involved (well, to everyone that didn't apply blocks at least :) And particularly to User:Sbharris who must have taken some considerable effort trying to summarize how this came about, and who I can forgive his antiquated but common views on education. Nfitz (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries and fact tagging by Otolemur crassicaudatus

This editor has added numerous unsourced tags to various articles. The main issue here is with Smallthorne, where a number of sections had every single sentence in them tagged, though similar things have been done by the same editor over the past two days to other articles I have edited. Other editors and an administrator found this actuon to be unhelpful, and after a short discussion here (the editor deleted the section almost immediately after the last comment by myself), reverted all his fact tags to Smallthorne with an edit summary that is both inaccurate, fails to WP:AGF, and is insulting to those who were concerned with the manner by which lack of sources was being indicated. edit summary can be seen here. I do think that these actions were unhelpful, and the editor seemed quite resistent to any suggestions of this in the initial discussions. I had had previous similar fact-tagging experiences on Great Sankey yesterday with the same user. Opinions?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for my edit summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. Do you also withdraw the allegations that we "are supporting addition of unsourced material" and that we "see addition of fact tagging as unhelpful, not violation of WP:V" also, since they are unsupported and unverified allegations about us (ironically)?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to raise a further incident here, where in an edit summary in which the editor removed a message about a tag he had placed on Peterloo Massacre which myself and other involved editors felt was inapproppriate and unjustified, he first warned me on my own talk page of being uncivil and of harassment, and then used the term "trolling" when he removed my message to him. The content of the message pointed out to him that many other editors, including at least two adminstrators, had felt the need to advise him about overly-zealous tagging, and, as I pointed out in a later message, my own was intended to try to get him to adjust his method of working. (The talk page history of this editor includes a series of messages now deleted about tagging issues, etc.)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficult communication on Gabrielle Giffords

→ In re: user Bobheath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).
→ See also: Talk:Gabrielle Giffords (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs).

A new user has been trying to add inappropriate content to Gabrielle Giffords, and I've been reverting his edits while trying to introduce him to Wikipedia policies. However, getting the new user to engage in conversation has been difficult, and we're stuck in a revert war at the moment. johnpseudo 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sunnybondsinghjalwehra

User:Sunnybondsinghjalwehra to User:Daulakh:

"tu mehnu apna patta de.. tere garh das pandra bande bhej ke teinu marunga!"[92]

translation from Punjabi: "Give me your address.. I'll send 10-15 goons to your house to beat you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.179.4 (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

lols, that wasn't meant seriously... Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks as if it was meant seriously in the sense that you were genuinely angry. My first reaction when I saw this was: This is clearly a threat of violence, and based on my limited knowledge about Punjab (coming mainly from Bollywood movies), it could actually be meant seriously. I was close to referring this matter to WP:ANI for admin action when I saw that you are quite open about your identity, and that you live in Belgium, where I know this kind of "conflict resolution" to be relatively unusual.
Please have a look at our policy No personal attacks if you haven't done that yet, especially the section which defines what a personal attack is. This includes "threats of violence or other off-wiki action". (Of course it also includes "u idiot", by the way.) Whether such a threat is meant seriously or not is not an argument, normally, because often we can't tell for sure, and especially the target of a threat could think it is serious even if it was clear to you that it wasnt't.
If you are not planning to do this kind of thing again, I suppose there is no reason to waste any more time with this. Unfortunately you have created a user page for User:Daulakh. I don't know what is the right way to remove this message under the circumstances. Perhaps the user page should be deleted, but only an admin can do that. I suggest that you look for an admin you trust, and that you tell them what happened and ask them to do whatever needs to be done in this case. Then you can contact Daulakh again, but on their talk page, and tell them whatever needs saying in a polite way. That's not only less likely to get you into trouble, by the way, but also more likely to have the intended effect.
Does this sound like a good solution? Remember to tell me when you have done it, so that I can mark this thread as resolved. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As u wish! Its a good solution. thanks. Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The 11:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC) edit by Sunnybondsinghjalwehra remained. I blanked the insults from that page as a courtesy to the other user. — Athaenara ✉ 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated failure to respect WP:Verification leading to personal abuse.

I felt that the changes to Safe Speed by User:Benny the wayfarer required verification under WP:Verifiabiltys "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" clause. After repeated failures to abide by the policy - [93], [94], [95], [96] they then resorted to personal abuse - [97] which I resent. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Verifiabilty cuts both ways; the text you prefer doesn't have any citations either! If I was in the same situation, I'd be inclined to find sources that backed up my claim (I take it that you're objecting to the "pressure group" tag?) and adding them. If you have a reliable source that says the group are a "road safety and motorist advocacy organisation" (Safe Speed's own web site obviously doesn't count as a reliable source) then restore that text, with a citation.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is the personal abuse (ie breach of WP:Civility policy), otherwise I would have posted on WP:3RR. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What personal abuse are you referring to? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In The subject text quoted here I have not referred to any person, therefore there can be no grounds for claiming that this is personal abuse. Come on man! The text quoted only refers to the the previous version of an article. i am at a loss to tell the difference between an advocacy group and a pressure group, if that is the issue, (if you include a fact tag it could help clarify this) except that people know what a pressure group does and is, whereas advocacy sounds a bit posher, and is probably used inaccurately here as it trends to refer to a specific person's issues rather than a kind of issue. i love diciplining sentences with verbalitis. please don't take offence.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Xbox_360_technical_problems

A few users who routinely edit on both the Xbox 360 and Xbox 360 technical problems articles seem to have gotten each other all riled up, degrading the talk pages of said articles into thinly-veiled attacks at each other - specifically User:8bitJake, User:Wageslave, and User:Dibol. I strongly suspect the whole issue could use some outside attention from cooler heads. Ayocee (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Ayocee. Wageslave (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

My (User:Pichote) request for reexamination of the fair-use rationale of his/her (User:Yorkshirian) uploaded image Cartimandua.jpg has been disregarded. Repeteadly, the editor does not assume good faith nor address the issue. Instead of it, he launchs accusations of first vandalism and then trolling.

Cartimandua.jpg (originally here) was obtained from William Whitaker's website. Taking a look at his website one can deduce that Whitaker is probably a living person and therefore all copyrights apply. The use of his Cartimandua's painting to illustrate the article is very debatable, as he is/was not contemporary of the queen, nor he seems to be a notable painter. A free alternative is possible, because Whitaker's work was probably based on a certain girl (a model) and any artist could theoretically draw a supposed portrait of Cartimandua and then release it to the public domain or under a free license. -- Pichote (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) refuses to discuss disputed edits

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has a long-standing pattern of refusing to discuss disputed edits. See Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Pointless, Talk:Annie Lee Moss#User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edits, Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Image caption, Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward for some examples (there are many others). When he does finally enter something in a discussion about one of his disputed edits, he is often bizarrely off-topic, as in the Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Pointless exchange, where, despite repeated attempts on my part to correct him, he kept insisting that the problem was that I hadn't read the sources of the footnotes he was inserting. In several cases, the dispute has ended only because some third party has entered the discussion. These third parties often become involved at RAN's request; sometimes with honest descriptions of the dispute [98], [99], and other times with dishonest descriptions: [100]

On several occasions I have left messages on RAN's talk page asking him to respond to some unanswered question on an article's talk page. This has been fruitless.[101], [102], [103], [104]

He also often neglects to use an edit summary comment. This is generally only the case when he's involved in a dispute--he doesn't seem to have a problem with using the edit summary box when he's making an undisputed edit. See: [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110]

    • The above changes were discussed on the talk page. According to the Wikipedia article, and the New York Times, and the Washington Post. McCarthy left the hearings during the testimony of Moss. So the change to testifying before "McCarthy" was changed to "McCarthy committee". All was brought out on the talk page.
Yes, it was discussed -- 29 hours and 4 reverts after the first revert. RedSpruce (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Internal contradictions in the article are not good. Thats why I tend to add sources to every fact I have a reference for, and I have trouble with someone reversing the addition of sources to the article. You like to add the books you read, I like to use the New York Times and the Washington Post. Both can exist side-by-side, I never delete your reference and replace them with mine. For instance [here you just reversed every addition I made. You tend to remove additions to the article not made by you. Its classical ownership syndrome from my perspective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually the first revert was here, where you reverted back to the incorrect "before Joseph McCarthy" instead of the correct "McCarthy committee". McCarthy left the room after she started testifying. It is just knee jerk reversion by you without checking the facts. You did the same at the article on Roy Cohn here, where you reverted another editor.
    • For instance here RedSpruce just reverts an editor's changes back to what RedSpruce wrote. So, which school did Cohn attend? Both, as discovered by an editor who actually did the hard work of searching for reliable sources. Its hard to do research, its easy to revert changes to an article that you didn't make. No one is immune from making errors that is why we add lots of sources, and quote the actual text. The more eyes reading and correcting errors, and adding sources, the better. If you don't like reading the references, or the actual quote supporting the text, skip it, thats why they are at the bottom. It is there for the scholar to look for errors, and to see what was actually said. I add the additional sources, because I want to know what was actually said, or because I am correcting an error. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, this behavior is frustrating. When an editor disagrees with one of RAN's edits, there are often only two choices: engage in an edit war, or let him have his way. If the article is an obscure one, it can be difficult to find a third party to break a stalemate, but that isn't really the point. The larger point is that this user is behaving in a way that's contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If some uninvolved person (or better, a few people) could leave RAN a polite note on his talk page to remind him of the necessity of discussing disputed edits, maybe the message will get through to him. RedSpruce (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The central point to resolve is one of style: whether verbose references are appropriate (i.e. lead sentence of cited newpaper article, or whole segment of text verifying fact). I'd say no; unless the precise wording is critical, it's enough to cite where verification can be found. And I agree with you, the lead-sentence format is especially unhelpful when it's about some irrelevancy not verifying the footnoted fact. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That is certainly one point, and is the major cause of my editing disagreements with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). My main point here however, is RAN's relentless, dogged, unceasing avoidance of discussing any disputed edits. That's the real "Wikiquette" issue here. RedSpruce (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned it as an initial thought because getting a wider consensus on what, if any, Wikipedia style standards apply might be a less antagonistic way of clearing up the problem than wading into behaviour issues. On closer examination, I find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive385 - sections 12 User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) refuses to discuss disputed edits and 13 Pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing by User:RedSpruce, which shine a very different light on the issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of this page was to "wade into behavior issues." I guess I misunderstood. RedSpruce (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The purpose is to find out what's going on, and the possibility of bad-faith or unreliably-reported nominations is always looked into. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would love to type in a long essay discussing the points brought up by RedSpruce, but my argument is identical. Just substitute in his name where he complains about me and reread it. Ultimately he was banned for 24 hours for reversing my additions. And two ANIs were brought against him. He also leaves messages on my talk page such as: "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you. RedSpruce (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
C'mon, don't be shy, RAN; please, provide our readers with a list links to cases where I've refused to discuss my edits with you. Please, just a little list. Please?
And yes, I insulted you. You infuriated the hell out of me with your relentless and bizarre refusal to say anything meaningful in response to the questions I asked and the points I raised. If you're going to behave like that, you'd better get used to being called names. RedSpruce (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
May I just point out that two wrongs don't make a right. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you are into endless repetition, here is the information from the ANI:
    • Here at Annie Lee Moss you reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date.
    • Here at Mary Stalcup Markward, you deleted every edit I have made to the article back to your last edit. I think any meaningful debate ended when you called me a "moron" on my talk page.
I understand the pride that comes with contributing to Wikipedia, but when you delete everything added by another contributor, your displaying ownership which is not good for a collaborative work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are links to the ANIs:

For what it is worth, I have found Richard Arthur Norton friendly, polite, and helpful in any of my interactions with him. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
From an immediate inspection of the discussions, both users need to keep cool heads. Insults and sarcasm are not proper tools for dispute resolution. Maybe both people should voluntarily take 24-hour breaks from the articles in question, just to chill out a bit. - Chardish (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I go with that. I'd sum it up as User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) having a bit of a unlaterial attitude to citatiom

RedSpruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.80.84 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I am calm, and don't allow myself to drawn into a verbal fight by his insults and taunts on my talk page. I also don't remove his contributions to the articles. Instead of getting into an edit war, I invite third parties to offer their opinions. The best policy when being taunted and insulted, is to ignore the person leaving the insults. When we reach the point where the discussion page is bigger than the article page, there is a problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Reywas92

Yesterday, I asked for a featured article review on Angkor Wat. Reywas92, who has never edited the article, left a remarks that I found insulting and that had nothing to do with the article in question.[111] When I asked if the comment was necessary and asked him to be more civil, he made an even more insulting remark regarding my editing.[112] I feel these remarks are uncivil and unnecessarily hurtful, but as they were made against me, I feel a more neutral third party should take a look at the remarks. Collectonian (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry! I just feel that the removal of many references on Jeopardy was unnecessary and do not fully violate RS. I don't really mean them to be against you, just that I strongly disagree. I'll stick to Angkor Wat and won't bring that back to the FAR. Also, I found your final comment to me very insulting, and the report here even more so. Actually, I have edited it before, although minor; you have never edited it before either, so I don't know why that was relevant. In my experience, I would never FAR an article, though I respect your opinion to do so. In most cases, tagging an article for something does not help at all. For example, you could have easily taken care of the image problem yourself, rather than FARing it. I'm sorry if I insulted you, and this was unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JeanLatore

I first noticed JeanLatore (talk · contribs) when he made the comments at [113], [114] and [115], and reported him at [116]. He responded with this, to which I, admittedly, without a great deal of etiquette, replied with [117]. Since then, we had had a couple of what I felt were civil comments between each other. But then I happened to be on WP:DRV today and saw Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_5#Anal_Sex_with_Sluts. I had already had concerns over JeanLatore's edits, and went to review his contributions, and nominated Calin chi wong and Aristoff for deletion, based on my feelings that neither subject is notable. Apparently JeanLatore then began poking through the history of my User page, because he decided to comment on the previous version of my User page, which included the statement "I am not new to Wikipedia, despite my relatively short edit history. I got off to a bad start (although I was never blocked), and want to start over again. Consider this my new Wikipedia life.  :)". In an update to my page, I had removed that line, which had been there since I first started editing with my current User id. JeanLatore made the following edits on my Talk page: [118]. When I told him on his Talk page that I would have said who I was before if I wanted him or anybody else to know, he stalked me to Mystik Media, which I had speedy tagged for deletion as an ad, removed the speedy deletion tag, and replaced it with a PROD tag whose justification for deletion was "Not a valid speedy", which is not a valid PROD reason, so I reverted him and gave him a uw-2 vandalism warning. I will admit that my actions have probably not been really good in this whole deal, and I won't bother him any further, and in fact, I wouldn't have even gone any further with this at all, especially since Mystik Media was speedy deleted anyway, except for the fact that, in reverting my removal of his PROD tag, his edit summary said "reverting admitted troll and vandal". I have never been a troll and vandal, have never admitted to any such thing since it isn't true, and I want JeanLatore to knock it off. I will notify him of this discussion on his Talk page, and then will not edit his Talk page again. He's going to get blocked soon anyway, based on the way he's been editing. Corvus cornixtalk 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a short note on his page. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SandymcT

Several days ago User:SandymcT edited the Alcoholics Anonymous page removing 4K worth of information. Several editors, User:PhGustaf, User:Scarpy, and myself User:Coffeepusher felt that the edits needed to be discussed and contacted sandy with that information and reverted untill that discussion could be had. As User:PhGustaf noted on sandys talk page, all three of us have very different ideas about what the AA page should look like.

sandy told us that these fell into WP:BOLD and said that since we all agreed that changes needed to be made (in comments on their talk page) that s/he should be allowed to make the changes. we finaly got Sandy to go to the AA talk page to discuss the edits...and sandys comments where less than helpfull in resolving the situation[119].

This problem is compounded with the fact that it appears that English is not Sandy's primary language, and I believe sandy dosn't feel comfortable discussing changes.

Now Sandy dosn't discuss changes at all, we templated her/him for 3rr, and removing content and the only reponce was to template us as well. it has become a sticky situation, where all constructive edits on the AA page have ceased and it is just a revert war now. since the origional incendent User:MisterAlbert, User:Mr Miles as well as several others have reverted Sandy's edits. this encompases the major participants who are currently active on the AA page (with the exception of User:DavidMack and User:Desoto10 who seem to be sitting this one out).

Ok, so what the heck can we do about this?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note on User:SandymcT's talk page that several editors have tried to urge Sandy to make changes more slowly, and to try to work for consensus. His or her responses were, well, unresponsive. (I was in fact about to file a 3rr report, in fact, but perhaps this will work as well with less bad feeling.) PhGustaf (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC). (


hi, my changes have caused arguments sorry for that: my changes are 1. section too long (editors agree) 2. section POV (editor agree) both need changes agree by other editors, I have removed the newspaper from britain from 2000, to much writing about that? what is there now explanes the 13thstep and cult behavior i condense too, no problem. I put together in 'other notable studies'.

I offer it to editors to make changes but they just revert, no talking, no changes. They stuck on old version, dont let anyone else make changes. I thought that vandalism and revert to. Check my changes [120]

Thats all. -SandymcT (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with the responses to the request for mediation, so far. For the record I haven't reverted the 'Sandy edit' at all, I actually agree with most of the changes. It's my understanding from reading the discussion pages that these edits have some consensus (Lucida.ann, Scarpy and myself seemed to like the changes). I think Coffeepusher's idea to set up a Sandbox was a good one and that the best way of moving this forward would be to capture feedback on that and upload it as the latest version. It's disappointing that the Edit War has distracted people from working on the Sandbox. Mr Miles 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)
I also agree with some of the edits, but that's not the point. I pointed out to Sandy long ago that making the changes one at a time, with justification on the talk page, might give better results. (It's also not the point who was unSandying, just that there were several of them.) PhGustaf (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you seem quite angry about it, I'm not sure what you can do then as Sandy doesn't seem to be listening to you. Mr Miles 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Miles (talk • contribs)
I don't feel angry. My posts both here and on Sandy's talk page have been downright avuncular. Please don't ascribe feelings to me. 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs)

Well, I don't feel avuncular any more. In the edit at [[121]], Sandy not only reverted the changes under discussion, but altered a template to indicate that the page was protected for five days after the original two as well. Whether she thought this would work or not isn't an issue. But so much for assuming good faith. PhGustaf (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:66.56.39.29 (aka User:170.35.208.22 and User:24.99.154.165) No edit summaries, non-sequitors, and personal attack(s)?

specifics added in standard format Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An unregistered user has made a series of content deletions, without providing edit summaries, to pages I have worked on or created. I have rolled back a few of these edits out of hand, because they did not improve the articles in any way I could see, and posted user notices/warnings on the relevant user talk pages. User has thanked me with poor attitude ("Stop wasting people's time", "I see you're at it again", "try not to make assumptions about people", etc.), "explanations" that do not suit Wikipedia editor's guidelines ("It isn’t important to replace errors with facts, as you claim. Removing an error is sufficient in itself"), and an apparent refusal to legitimize himself by creating an account ("I post very little here. Only a couple threads"). I have followed Wikipedia guidelines in dealing with things as I see them; this has gotten me "what you think you're talking about", "if you had behaved like a gentleman", and similar statements, by way of (unsigned) reply. (I'm glad the bots have begun to address this aspect; I get the idea that if I'd made the attributions, he'd continue to take it personally.)

I have answered his latest round of questions (and accusations, and assumptions) on Talk:The Turtles, but I do not wish to get in further with this person, and would prefer an admin step in and set him straight on Wikipedia norms and expectations. It sounds like he doesn't want to hear them from me. Zephyrad (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon unexplained deletion isn't constructive, but if we're talking Wikipedia norms, the whole The Turtles article is unsourced and could validly be gutted if someone felt like it. The anon is right in that respect. The kind of material you reinstated, in particular, is very subjective [122]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That may be... but it does not address my concerns, for the tack and tone this gentleman is taking here, and the deletes in question are awfully subjective. I'd rather the information remain as is until it can be replaced with sourced material. I could go in and strip it down in such a manner (and so could anyone), but what would it leave, in the meantime? "The Turtles were a band", if that? (At least Gordon's deletions did give an explanation.) I did ask for an admin to speak to this editor. Simply going in and redeleting his deletes, without a word to the editor himself, will only encourage him to not follow guidelines, or try to find them out. Zephyrad (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem though - unless material is sourced it can (and should) be removed (as the {{unreferenced}} template says: "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed"). The WP:VERIFY policy states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you've restored text that has no sources, that counts as original research, and can be removed. If the only sourced material that is available is that "The Turtles were a band", then that's all the article can say. If the band meets notability guidelines, then surely there must be more information that can be found in reliable sources? If sources CAN'T be found, then I'd suggest that the band fails the notability test, and the article is looking at a deletion! ;-) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt over notability - see Rough Guide to Rock pp3-4. Generally nuts-and-bolts stuff that's trivial to source - e.g. songs produced, band members - isn't a problem. It's the unsourced quasi-NME critique that needs to go (e.g. song X "seemed almost a parody of itself") unless sourced. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not denying that they may be notable. What I'm saying is that if (as has been established) they are notable, why are there NO references in the entire article? Surely a notable band would have been written about in a format that can be used to add reliable sources to the article? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since neither Gordonofcartoon nor JediLofty is an administrator (neither appears on any admins list, and neither of their user pages indicates they have adminship), why they have chosen to involve themselves with this matter completely escapes me. I will repeat my request once more, politely: Will an admin please speak to this unregistered user, about his conduct on Wikipedia? I was not asking for anyone to weigh in on whether his deletions were proper or not. I was asking for admin intervention on un-Wiki actions and conduct, by the user in question, and I will thank both these persons to read and heed what is written, next time, particularly since they are not administrators at this time. (And if JediLofty seriously thinks the Turtles and their music are not notable, or that the article should be deleted over notability, it is my sincere wish that Flo and Eddie come and sit on him, while they sing ALL their greatest hits. They had a few.) Have a nice day. Zephyrad (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Unlike WP:ANI, it's not a noticeboard to sic administrators on someone. It's for community input on situations involving Wikiquette; that may or may not involve admins. If you look at Talk:The Turtles, you'll find that 170.35.208.21 now understands that there's a convention of explaining edits, which is all that's required. Since his/her edits to articlespace were the origin of the dispute, it was reasonable to look at them too; and I don't see anything to complain about. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
non admins are encouraged to help out here--we admins need the assistance badly. For that matter, dealing with problems like this is an excellent way to prepare for adminship. DGG (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the enlightenment. I did not use this page to "sic" anyone on anyone, and I do not see how this user has been discouraged from making personal attacks, or being snippety toward other editors in the future, or encouraged to register instead of editing unregistered from multiple addresses; I figured admin involvement would accomplish those purposes. Again, the instructions say nothing about non-admins getting involved, and (despite Gordon's statement that he doesn't "see anything to complain about") I am disappointed that Gordon did not encourage the user to register, or to be more civil, or to realize that I was only doing what any editor who sees content removed is likely to do. I notice the user was nice (almost overly nice) to Gordon, while still being snippety toward me (if he can do it toward me, he can do it toward others), and now Gordon has also begun making assumptions ("you're mistaken", and that "sic" comment). I have to wonder what sort of admin he would make, if he's already in the practice of shooting the messenger like this.

The next time I see such trouble, I doubt I will use this forum, and will likely speak directly to an admin, since my initial and primary concerns were not addressed, and all I've gotten for my good-faith efforts is more hassle, when I didn't need a hassle in the first place. Nobody does. (Has the user been encouraged to register, to read the guidelines, or to be more civil toward others here? I haven't seen it, and I'd say Gordon missed my point.) So be it. Zephyrad (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)