Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive43

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.
Wikiquette alerts archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Contents

User:Lbrun12415

This user has been adding unsourced material to an article. When reverted and asked for a source, he uses image hosting websites or otherwise unreliable sources such as blogs. The article in Mario Kart Wii. I already asked for a full protection or semi protection and have seen no results. When I sent him a reminder about reliablity on Wikipedia, he replied with yet again posting images based on picture hosting websites. I removed his 'sources' and he lashed out at me and reverted my own talk page (despite the fact I reserve the right to remove read messages).

(cur) (last) 01:01, 9 April 2008 Lbrun12415 (Talk | contribs) (970 bytes) (You wanted proof so here it is if you take this of i'll take off every thing you add vidoes are not proof so shut up) (undo)

While editing the Mario Kart article he referred to me as a moron.

This editor is rude and does not seem to care about any of Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to reliable sources. It is my hope that I can obtain some assistance as to what to do with this editor. Is he in breach of the 3reverts rule, or any other Wikipedia editor abuse rules?


Update: I added fact tags to all of his unveriable claims. He used photobucket, blogs, fan forums, etc for his sources and reverted my edits. I once again added fact tags. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a content dispute, and editors will be better served if they pursue WP:DR. Wikipedia is not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16
03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never come across an incident like this before, so i'd be appreciative of some help or guidance as to the correct course of action.

It centers around this editor, User:Arcayne. Basically, he's being very, very obstructive and abusive.

The issue is on this discussion page.

User:Arcayne made some quite serious insultinag and unhelpful responses.

The dispute began with his reversion here. I then undid his action here; to which User:Arcayne then reversed here, and made highly presumptive and condescending comments on my Talk Page, User_talk:Kapowow.

I began a discussion on the discussion page's Flags in Post-Response section to try and resolve this dispute, to which User:Arcayne replied with many obnoxious remarks here and here. The worst had to be "If you want to discuss, I am here, ready to discuss with you. If you want an argument, maybe you and the anon 75... can go off somewhere private and beat on each other. I've no time for it. And trust me, getting into an incivility contest with me is a sure way to end up weeping inconsolably in a darkened corner of your closet, so dial down the aggro a notch, okey-doke?"

which is totally unprovoked. I had clearly laid out the arguments in contention, and received a stream of abuse. I tried my utmost to keep the discussion on-track and level-headed.

Discussion with this individual seems incredibly difficult, and his overall tone is one of accusation, threat and abuse. I asked for other people to contribute to the discussion, but I feel that people are too scared by this editor's voluminous attacks to be able to participate in any meaningful debate.

I would like this issue resolved as soon as possible, as it really is just a trifling matter.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

As per the guidelines, I shall inform the editor in question of this on his user page.

Kapowow (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree - indeed you will find a trail of abuse and lack of good faith in his wake. Is there a formal way to make specific wiki editors aware of this process?75.58.34.144 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, six of one and half a dozen of another here. I agree that Arcayne has been a little patronising, but s/he was not aggressive initially. Your own attitude is far from perfect by the way. There is a long-standing avoidance of over-flagging articles, and using flags in main body text is a definite no-no (WP:FLAG #3 to reference your previous discussion). Arcayne's initial revert gave a good reason for doing so and was perfectly fair, but rather than sitting down and discussing it you merely reverted. Look up WP:BRD for some idea of how disagreements should be resolved. Reversion chains lead to edit wars and you really ought to avoid starting them. Arcayne's comments on your talk page are hardly "presumptive"; you yourself proclaim that you joined Wikipedia on March 7, 2008, so pointing out that you are new and so may not be fully aware of many guidelines is simply fair comment, and it was not done in a patronising way. Your assertion that Arcayne's "okey-doke" comment was unprovoked is laughable, by the way. In the preceeding post you yourself are fairly obnoxious and use "duh" and are sarcastic throughout. You own logic also fails, ironically in the very sentence where you accuse Arcayne of that very fault. Arcayne's point that "Since wikilinking the country is faster, the inclusion of imagery is unnecessary and therefore decorative" is perfectly logical. Text wikilinks are faster, smaller, more descriptive and less ambiguous than a flag, which relies on the reader being familiar with flag designs and can be easily confused by similar flags, especially in the 20px sizes used in the flagicon template. Therefore the flag images are unnecessary in text and the only remaining purpose that they serve is decorative. I will fully agree that, as a relatively experienced editor Arcayne should have opened discussions earlier and moderated their tone far better (and some of those turns of phrase are beyon the pale... although I have written a few down for future use), but you are not absolved of blame for this spat. You appear to have an unfortunate combination of thin skin and a fast tongue. Do not imagine that your "what a fucking asshole" edit summary has gone unnoticed... Do not expect sarcasm and hostility not to come right back at you. I'm not going to get drawn into the EU discussion, that's not an area that I am qualified to comment on, save to say that you must try to produce third-party evidence for any assertions that you make. Pyrope 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
(EC)As per the notification of the wikiquette alert, I will now reply to the accusations of "obstruction" and "abuse" leveled by two different users.
Kapowow - the first reversion referred to removed flag usage as per our WP:FLAG policy (the images failed at least half of the criteria required for inclusion). Kapowow, instead of discussing, simply reverted, without discussion. It was only after I reverted yet again (again suggesting that discussion was needed) that the user decided to actually try discussion. The first two (of three) remarks I made to his user talk page (after his first revert of the material) were indisputably very polite and helpful (1, 2). My last comment (3) was prompted after his uncivil remark made in the article discussion:
  • "I do not wish to be drawn into an accusatory diatribe with you, as you seem to have a very condescending agitated bee in your bonnet"4
Kapowow's behavior deteriorated (5) from that moment on, and his subsequent post was littered with uncivil comments and personal attacks (6, []). At that point, he filed this wikiquette alert, citing personal attacks and abuse that simply do not exist.
Anon user 75.58.34.144 - From the moment I posted to the article or discussion, this user (almost assuredly an single-purpose account 7) has been extraordinarily uncivil, and there is hardly a post where he doesn't take a shot at me.
I think it should be initially noted that this particular user edits anonymously and pointedly ignores requests to sign their posts. Normally, this would just be an annoying quirk from a newbie, but a closer look at the editing patterns suggests that this user is also operating under at least four different IP addresses:

75.58.34.144

As all four of these accounts appear to be operating as SPA's almost entirely in the Fitna article, and all seem to specifically avoid posting signing their posts, and support each other in group voting, I have been compiling a complete list for submission to Request for Check-User before submitting the results to WP:SSP as indicative of abusive sockfarming. If it isn't socking, then the user, through these clones, has violated 3RR repeatedly in the Fitna article.
I call the sockfarming abusive, as my first two edits to the article removed an uncited addition of a cast member's pseudonym, incorrectly linked to an article for a fictional character that had nothing to do with the pseudonym (8, 9). After which, the anon user accused me of having removed cited references for the pseudonym 10, 11, 12), and displayed incredibly bad faith, accusing me of:
Apparently the user is unaware that consensus is not a static concept in Wikipedia (13, 14, 15), or that Google hits are not be used at face value, due to Google-bombing (especially with contentious and virally-marketed topics like anti-Muslim propaganda) (16, 17, 18), or even that he cannot be a cited source for an article 19.
As well, the anon (as well as the likely sock-puppets) kept trying to close out discussion on the matter by repeatedly noting the discussions as 'resolved' (20, 21, 22, 23), when clearly, the weren't.
Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. I could list the posts of all the others, but that would number close to 50 posts. At no point was I rude to any of his socks; I even made the point of ignoring posts which were mostly composed of personal attacks.
In conclusion, Kapowow is simply incorrect in assuming that I am making personal attacks on him. If anything, I have been polite, even posting - again, politely - to his user talk page when he violates WP:CIVIL. What he sees as obstructive is my enforcement of current policy and guidelines. He is misinterpreting current guidelines, and I have suggested methods by which he could either confirm the current policy or poat to advocate a change in policy. He has chosen not to do so, but to instead 'attack the messenger'.
The anonymous user is another matter. He/she is more than likely but one of a largish sockfarm trolling the Fitna article. After posting to RfCU and SSP, I will update this wikiquette alert to reflect the results of those investigations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


♠*I will simply defend myself against the false accusation of sockpuppetry by quoting you:

Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. I could list the posts of all the others, but that would number close to 50 posts. At no point was I rude to any of his socks;

I not only use a distinct identifier - I have a unique voice and refer frequently to my previous writings. This is clearly NOT sockpuppetry, it is an absurd accusation.

  • Further, I fail to see anything unusual in the content of the postings you displayed, only tabloid headlines. I've added (Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad) for clarity to identify the "it" in context. This is my supporting link for this addition:[1]

Here then are Arcaynes Tabloid headlines and the content of those links:

Other than the film itself, which displays it prominently in the credits, here are another Sixteen Hundred mentions on Google:[2] I'm sorry that someone chose a pseudonym that upsets you, but they did. It is what it is. The entry is simply an encyclopedic reflection of the work it seeks to describe. What possible argument could you have for NOT including it? I'll suggest that your Reversions are inappropriate, the onus is now upon you to explain why deletion is necessary. Your actions are inappropriate, violate the spirit of the Revert Rule and verge on Vandalism.The inclusion of Scarlet Pimpernel was not done lightly, it was discussed at length since the inception of this article and was adopted by consensus. Your Reverts have undermined that community consensus - it is you that must show cause for exclusion.
That's just grand. You keep referring to it(Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad) not being in the Fitna article. I believe there are three references to you making that claim. What you failed to point out is that you removed it (Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad)from the Fitna article only to have at least two separate members replace it. Your argument relies upon your own pseudo-sockpuppetry as support for your position. Your actions in this situation are intellectually dishonest and fraudulent
I move that this be considered resolved.
    • The film does credit a "Scarlet Pimpernel"
    • Google shows 1600 hits discussing "Scsrlet Pimpernel's" role in Fitna[3]
    • Major media has discussed it and been referenced (Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad) in the article
    • The community struggled with and adopted an existing position on this issue already. It has achieved community consensus.
    • There are indications of less than good faith here, Arcayne has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed (Reliable Source:NRC Handelsblad) those same sources. This pseudo-sockpuppetry.
There is no basis upon which to exclude the mention of Scarlet Pimpernel or his role from the Fitna article.00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I would not normally disagree - however Arcayne has been very quick to edit and edit again followed by throwing up a wall of questions here, at the Scarlet Pimpernel Talk page and thirdly on your talk page. He has received lengthy responses to his query's at all three -- But has not responded anywhere yet. This appears to be obstructionism. I would suggest reverting his edit on the basis that the onus falls on him to show cause not to include mention of the Scarlet Pimpernel in this article. But, as a courtesy, wait a respectable number of hours for a response before reconsideration of applying a resolved tag.01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are an excellent WikiLawyer, but there is no substance to your accusations against me.75.58.34.144 (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess we will know after the RFCU, won't we? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also submit that this likely sockpuppet isn't above meat-puppetry or canvassing, either (1, 2, 3, 4]). Before he denies this, and I simply take this to AN/I to have him blocked/banned, someone ask him what criteria he used to select the recipients of his "special notices". - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


♠I have sent out neutral notices. Your characterization of it as "special" is not an honest report. People are free, if they choose, to express themselves independently. I have simply noted that a topic of interest has been opened. 75.58.34.144 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, what criteria did you use to select the recipients? Might it be that the folk you have cherry-picked just so happen to be folk whom I've disagreed with at various times, and now you are seeking back-up, hoping to reinforce your report? You are going to learn - presuming you aren't banned before then - that you are not smarter or more clever than any other person here. It would be a lesson you would be better off learning rather quickly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


I would not agree with the assertion of "50/50" blame by Pyrope. Pyrope states that "Your assertion that Arcayne's "okey-doke" comment was unprovoked is laughable, by the way. In the preceeding post you yourself are fairly obnoxious and use "duh" and are sarcastic throughout."

What obnoxiousness would that be? A single use of "duh"? Is that it? Compared to Arcayne's lengthily viscious assault of "you and the anon 75... can go off somewhere private and beat on each other. I've no time for it. And trust me, getting into an incivility contest with me is a sure way to end up weeping inconsolably in a darkened corner of your closet, so dial down the aggro a notch, okey-doke?"

So if I am to understand this correctly, I am free to go around Wikipedia saying that people should go and "beat on each other", which is possibly sexual or homophobic abusive language, then bait people about engaging in an "incivility contest", and warning me "If you feel I am being condescending, consider the significant restraint I am displaying in not responding in kind to some of your unpleasant characterizations of my edits" which means basically that I disagree with him.

At least Pyrope agrees that "some of those turns of phrase are beyon the pale".

As for the edit summary on my User Page? well, as far as I can make out, at WP:USER, that is my prerogative. I removed Arcayne's absurd statements on my userpage, and the reason is that I think he is a "fucking asshole", which I stated. I suppose it could be construed that I am inferring a direct insult to Arcayne, which would be frowned upon I'm sure; alas, edit summaries are unchangeable, are they not.

And if that's the worst thing I said, it looks as though Pyrope has sided with Arcayne, by appropriating a higher percentage of blame to me in relation to Arcayne; id est, imo, where I have 10% of the blame, and Arcayne has 90%, Pyrope unfairly and unduly apportions me with 50%.

Pyrope then warns me that "Do not expect sarcasm and hostility not to come right back at you", which is ludicrous, as all of Arcayne's responses had happened before the removal of his "helpful comments" on my user page. If Pyrope is using one edit summary as a reason to be hostile to me, as opposed to everything else I wrote that was neutral in tone in an actual discussion page, and not on my user page history edit summary, then that is entirely biased and seems simply a means to justify apportioning me with undue blame.

Pyrope accuses me of being "sarcastic throughout". Unfortunately, that is not the case; as a thorough (or even cursory) reading will show that I had carefully argued with sincere statements my opinion on the use of flags in an article. I had not resorted to the kind of abusive tone used by Arcayne, except in the singular use of "duh"; which, given the extreme and intense assault aimed at me from Arcayne, was a feat in itself. Anyone undergoing an attack as viscious and ill-intended as Arcayne's would be under immense pressure to remain calm. Pyrope's assertion that I have a "thin skin and a fast tongue" seems wholly unwarranted. Is Pyrope claiming that I should just "put up" with the kind of abusive language freely administered by Arcayne, without addressing the situation on this page or anywhere else? How am I at fault for Arcayn'es language? How is Arcayne's abuse aimed at me MY fault, by apparantly being "thin skinned"? Pyrope appears to be biased in favor of Arcayne.

On the actual issue being "discussed", re flagicon use, Pyrope says: "Text wikilinks are faster, smaller, more descriptive and less ambiguous than a flag, which relies on the reader being familiar with flag designs and can be easily confused by similar flags, especially in the 20px sizes used in the flagicon template. Therefore the flag images are unnecessary in text and the only remaining purpose that they serve is decorative."

OK, I would say that their use is decorative. My assertion on the Talk:Fitna_(film)#Flags_in_Post-Response_section was that they served to unclutter, seperate and distinguish the various countries' responses, and that is why their inclusion should have remained.

Pyrope says that "There is a long-standing avoidance of over-flagging articles, and using flags in main body text is a definite no-no (WP:FLAG #3 to reference your previous discussion).". This is the crux of the matter that was being "discussed". The flag use was not in the main body of text. They were in use at the start of a paragraph to demonstrate which country said what. WP:FLAG #3 states that "Flag icons should not be used in general prose in an article." They were not. Their use was similar to that of this article, which has far fewer paragraphs cluttering the layout.

The issue is one of presentation, legibility, clarity and usefulness, something that WP:FLAG clearly states, and which I had mentioned in my original discussion as:

1: The flag images were useful, as served to inform at a glance the nationality that the criticism originated from;
2: The flags were appropriate as a visual navigational aid as there are a lot of countries responses that frequently ran into one another, and citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand;
3: The flags were not used in the general prose of the article;
5: The flags were not used as stand-ins for images of people or other article topics;
7: Flag use here is not inappropriate;

Which is NOT obnoxious in any way; compared to Arcayne's derogatory and factually incorrect "we call that prose, btw" response.

Pyrope also alleges that flagicon use "relies on the reader being familiar with flag designs and can be easily confused by similar flags", which is untrue, as the name of the country will appear alongside the flagicon, as shown in the original article [[4]] and the [[5]] article that also uses flagicons.

Nonetheless, I accept that my use of "duh" in my discussion was wrong. The only reason I have for it, as well as the "fucking asshole" edit summary on my user page, is like Pyrope said: "Do not expect sarcasm and hostility not to come right back at you." I would expect Arcayne to be similarly reprimanded, as it seems to me a case of unmitigated bias on the part of Pyrope. The only criticism of Arcayne was: "I agree that Arcayne has been a little patronising, but s/he was not aggressive initially", yet he was; "Arcayne's comments on your talk page are hardly "presumptive"; you yourself proclaim that you joined Wikipedia on March 7, 2008, so pointing out that you are new and so may not be fully aware of many guidelines is simply fair comment, and it was not done in a patronising way", yet it was patronising, as evidenced a couple of paragraphs below by his use of 'handing me my butt on a plate', and seems to be agreeing with Arcayne's use of abusive language; "Your assertion that Arcayne's "okey-doke" comment was unprovoked is laughable" is laughable in itself, and should properly be referred to as a sexual abuse comment; "I will fully agree that, as a relatively experienced editor Arcayne should have opened discussions earlier and moderated their tone far better" yet you mitigate that with an apparant bias in favor of Arcayne: "and some of those turns of phrase are beyon the pale... although I have written a few down for future use".

Now Arcayne, as for your "The first two (of three) remarks I made to his user talk page (after his first revert of the material) were indisputably very polite and helpful is just nonsense. How precisely is "some new editors don't even bother with that, and usually get their butts handed to them by people not willing to try and help new folk" undeniably polite?

Is he threatening me with violence? Or merely saying how he will 'demolish' me figuratively? Either way, it is aggressive and uncivil, and seems to be made with the intention of stifling debate and affirming his own superiority.

It is an insincere, sarcastic and patronising offer of help, made to prevent anyone from questioning his motives; and Pyrope's belief in its sincerity shows his bias again.

Arcayne said:

"My last comment (3) was prompted after his uncivil remark made in the article discussion:

  • "I do not wish to be drawn into an accusatory diatribe with you, as you seem to have a very condescending agitated bee in your bonnet"4
Kapowow's behavior deteriorated (5) from that moment on, and his subsequent post was littered with uncivil comments and personal attacks (6, []). At that point, he filed this wikiquette alert, citing personal attacks and abuse that simply do not exist."

Please list these discussion that is "littered with uncivil comments and personal attacks". I stated that I do not like you. Am I allowed to say that I don't like a user? Or must i keep up a pretence of loving unconditionally all who edit Wikipedia? Perhaps you are referring to the incorrect assertion that the EU is an NGO, with such diatribe as:

[Arcayne]: "If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak, having learned through the same trial and errors that you are undergoing right now. If you feel I am being condescending, consider the significant restraint I am displaying in not responding in kind to some of your unpleasant characterizations of my edits"

Arcayne's desire that "If you truly feel that the flag usage is appropriate, please feel free to post in the MoS discussion page at WP:FLAG" is my next port of call. However, I feel that his language and actions are indeed beyond the pale.

Also, Arcayne's retort aimed at 75.58.34.144 that "I simply take this to AN/I to have him blocked/banned" seems very vindictive, and presumptive of his own unique infallibility. Is threatening other users with being reported to an administrator a violation of wikipedia etiquette? because Arcayne has done it many times, as shown on his Special:Contributions/Arcayne page. Arcayne's latest barb, "You are going to learn - presuming you aren't banned before then - that you are not smarter or more clever than any other person here. It would be a lesson you would be better off learning rather quickly" seems once more to be a vindictive threat: shut up, do as I say, and you won't get reported. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Kapowow (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠It is the very essence of Arcaynes Modus Operandi. To threaten is his stock in trade. I'll guarantee I can show FIFTY recent examples of this behavior. And I'll even throw in half a dozen threats by Arcayne against administrators for good measure.

Arcayne's latest barb, "You are going to learn - presuming you aren't banned before then - that you are not smarter or more clever than any other person here. It would be a lesson you would be better off learning rather quickly" seems once more to be a vindictive threat: shut up, do as I say, and you won't get reported. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Would Arcayne have any objection to first hand reports from editors on this note?75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Actually, I wonder if I could find one for each hour of record...

Consider my short note of enquiry far better than say, a complaint filed at an admin board. ...I will report you, out of simple protection to the community. Good day. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


(edit conflict)I guess I am am finding Kapowow's reply to be rather full of (incorrect) assumptions. Quid erat demonstrandum, indeed. His first assertion is that I am tossing homophobic slander or sexual innuendo at him through the use of the statement: "you and the anon 75... can go off somewhere private and beat on each other. I've no time for it. And trust me, getting into an incivility contest with me is a sure way to end up weeping inconsolably in a darkened corner of your closet, so dial down the aggro a notch, okey-doke?" I was simply suggesting that due, to the rather angry little posts they were throwing out, they should fight with each other, as I wasn't interested in their reindeer games. And no, that is not a suggestion that Kapowow is in fact a reindeer. If Kapowow reads something lurid into my posts, that something he should take a moment to clarify with someone, as we all know what happens when you assume (you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me").
Also, Kapowow finds fault with a compliment given him in one of only three posts to his user talk page, wherein I congratulate him on being (at the time) polite as "some new editors don't even bother with that, and usually get their butts handed to them by people not willing to try and help new folk"' undeniably polite? Kapowow doesn't see that I am descriing the pitfalls of new editorship, which many (including myself) have fallen into. What state of mind does one have to be in to see that as a threat of violence or demolishment? Clearly, not a happy one, and certainly not one prone to correctly interpreting posts from others. My comments were meant sincerely; that he chose to see them in a sinister light is something I have little control over.
The purpose of wiki discussion (as this is what my posts actually consisted of) is to find middle ground or convince another user of the strength of your arguments in favor of a position. This is what I was doing, not "stifling debate". As for my superiority, I don't really think that, either - but I am growing to have the opinion that I am interpreting matters somewhat more clearly.
I readily admit that I don't suffer fools or rudeness gladly. I can be a bit more impolite than necessary, especially when people fail to display civility or AGF. I used to be far worse, back when I started editing. I would like to think that I've grown since then, and when I warn folk that the end result of them bullying their way around an article or article discussion is that they are bound to meet someone far more competent at bullying than them. No one in Wikipedia is the smartest guy in the room. With millions of users - most of them college-educated, the only feeling of superiority comes from working well with someone who you have never met, and who likely is utterly different from you in culture and creed. at least, that's what makes me feel good about editing in Wikipedia.
And, looking over the format used by Kapowow, I am finding some identical methods to those of various anons, (who also have some rather interesting similarities between each other. The use of unindented paragraph breaks, the over-boldening of text for emphasis, the style of writing, etc. Maybe I am jumping at ghosts here.Maybe I am not the only one doing so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


♠I have just been forum shopped by user Arcayne. He has Formally accused me of the following:

    • C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents
    • E 3RR violation using socks

The link may be found here:[6]

There is not a single 3RR - This all occurred in a Semi-protected article! As a public editor I made no reverts during the period it was locked. No evidence in the form of Diffs has been presented at all. And there is NOT a SINGLE case of Vandalism!

Amazingly this appears to be made up completely. I'll suggest here that something unusual is occurring and I am not comfortable. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I did say that I was submitting the Request for Checkuser when I first replied, followed by an SSP and probably an AN/I after that - we don't tolerate sock-puppetry here in Wikipedia. You may be using a dynamic IP address, but your defense of yur own edits without signing your name and your incivility prompted the check. You seem to be well versed enough to know how to sign a post. That you choose not to, and act poorly under the guide of anonymity is cause for suspicion. That you also canvassed my user history to seek out users with whom I've disagreed with before is in itself cause for warnings and/or sanctions. Yu are clearly not a new user, which begs the question - why are you hiding? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sorry you feel that way Kapowow. I can to this dispute as an impartial, disinterested editor. I said it as I saw. There was nothing in Arcayne's first post, or the posts on your talk page, that was at all derogatory. Cheeky, maybe, but you must always assume good faith. Arcayne's posts were perhaps a touch condescending, but this is a very different thing to a personal attack or even a derogatory comment. You also seem to be reading far too much into many of Arcayne's comments ("beat on each other" is a very different phrase to "beat each other off", which is what I think you read it as) and where they say that many new editors launch into attacks only to have "their butts handed to them" is directly third-person, and was actually explicitly referring to people other than you. Arcayne was complimenting you on your own attitude. Ironic. Aside from reading threats of physical attack or "homophobic" comments into virtually everything Arcayne wrote, no matter how unsubstantiated, you seem to be incapable of seeing just how offensive and aggressive your own tone and turn of phrase are. This is what I meant by "thin skin and a fast tongue". Please note that I am only referring here to the early days of this dispute, not the personal war that has developed between you. Finally, and most seriously, you do not have the prerogative to call any editor "a fucking asshole" anywhere, at any time. Everything you do and say on Wikipedia is visible to the entire community, and personal abuse made on your own talk page or in edit summaries is just as serious. Now I'l say the same thing to you as I said to Arcayne: sit back and wait for the results of the checkuser request. Go away and cool off for a bit. Pyrope 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kapowow has been cautioned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Just a note: The "checkuser request" and direct accusation of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" were against me. It was much later after this action here that Arcayne added Kapowow to his case against me. He accused me of sock puppetry, not Kapowow.

♠I think the most interesting thing about this is Arcaynes ability to tie up so many resources and manpower over something he has NEVER supported. NO diffs. Nothing. Is it not reasonable that when one accuses another of a crime - that a crime exist? Having spent numerous hours in multiple forums having to stand up and shout "It's me!" "I'm one!" while Arcayne ignores the written words on the screen is wasteful for us all. The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. Arcayne has failed to support his allegations of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" and has abused the system in an attempt to harass and ban a public editor.

What becomes of me is no issue - it's your Wiki, it will become whatever your community chooses it to be. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pyrope, I too am sorry that you feel that way. I simply must call into question your impartiality, as evidenced on User_talk:Arcayne#Wikiquette. As I read it, the phrase "beat on each other" clearly means to masturbate one's penis on each other, and is highly offensive.

Regarding Arcayne's use of "their butts handed to them", that was with regard to Arcayne suggesting that many new users do not cite WP guidelines, not, as you assert, to inform new editors about "launching into attacks".

Every claim has been substantiated by me. Everything is out in the open for all to see. I question your ability to remain neutral when attempting to mediate, as none of Arcayne's defenses or otherwise have any credibility or evidence whatsoever.

I am unable to see any offensive or aggressive tone, as there is none. Discussing with Arcayne was impossible. Simply impossible. An utter refusal to act with cordiality or conviviality was my sole reason for making this complaint; not a "personal war". I freely admit that I am new to Wikipedia; and as such, I was hugely shocked and stunned by the apparant free-reign this particular editor had at stifling debate. If this level of abuse is routinely sanctioned and condoned, Wikipedia is not the place I thought it was: a place where genuine discussion can be had, in order to produce articles of worth and merit.

I have realised the improperness of calling someone a pejorative insult as a reason for an edit change. Although it may be true, it is not polite or acceptable to have such remarks on any part of Wikipedia.

May I respectfully remind people that if new users are treated with such disdain and inequity, pretty soon there won't be any new users.

Following your response, Pyrope, here, I appreciate your time in addressing some issues. However, I find your take on the whole situation utterly biased in favor of Arcayne, as shown by your comments at User_talk:Arcayne#Wikiquette, such as: "faced with an editor such as the one who posted the Wikiquette about you it is often a lot easier in the long run if you maintain the high moral ground and leave them to howl at the moon. The best way to deal with an aggressive but incorrect editor is to use as few words as possible, and make sure that they are all backed up. That way, when the admins (inevitably, in this case I think) get involved, your position is easily understood, an their's is the rambling, incoherent rant." Which is a direct reference to me, presuming that I am "incorrect" and labelling my attempt to seek a mediator on this page as a "rambling, incoherent rant". That hardly seems neutral to me, and, I'm sure, nor would it to anyone else. Repeatedly helping Arcayne in his dealings with WP:WQA and other courses of action may belie a conflict of interest or a favored point of view.
I have not "taken exception" to your criticisms of me; actually the opposite. I have repeatedly acknowledged the improperness of my mistakes on this page. The only exceptions I have taken is with your bias and partial behavior.
With reagard to your stance that Arcayne's responses to me were not a diatribe, I think they are. A diatribe is a severly critical piece of work. Which his was. Your claim that by me calling Arcayn'es responses a diatribe somehow makes me "pointedly aggressive" is, again, a biased point of view in Arcayne's favor. You assume all good faith from him, yet none from me.
My response to Arcayne regarding the sarcastic comments of "duh"; ok fine, that was sarcastic. But why are my response , according to you, "heavily sarcastic", yet Arcayne's responses of "we call that prose, btw" and "kinda silly" are "exceptionally mild", according to you.
The "ZX Spectrum" remark i made was an attempt to show that CPU processes, a point that Arcayne had made as a reason to not use pictures in an article, was redundant and false. My comment that "Wow you just plucked that out of thin air" refers to Arcayne's made up and imagined argument that flagicons were used as a replacement for wikilinks in articles, specifically, he mentioned, for Pakistan; which was untrue, incorrect, wrong and easily seen by anyone who cared to look. He made up points of argument in order to get his way.
Pyrope, you claim that I "somewhat smugly" reprimanded Arcayne's tone; this was not the case. After his constant berating, I kindly and sincerely asked him to stop bickering, to not engage in personal attacks, and calmly and without provocation, insult, sracasm or malintent, made my points against a torrent of abuse.
If my interpretaion that Arcayne's use of 'to beat on each other' is, as you say, wrong, why then challenge its actual meaning? as you say, you cannot allow it to "stand without challenge"; unless, perhaps, as a reason to prove how wrong I am in one thing, and therefore must be wrong in others; or used as a litany of excuses aimed to defame my character. My interpretation of telling someone to "beat" on someone else is as justified as your non-sexual interpretation; it could mean that.
This is not an argument based on petty personal dislike. The problem is this editor, Arcayne, seems to be able to threaten individuals with being "reported", or uses extreme pressure and intimidation, to get what he wants. Pyrope, you claim that: "You started well by backing up your point of view, but you never should have let it get personal. You don't have to respond to another editor's snide comments with rude comments of your own." Fine. I tried my utmost to remain neutral and on-topic, laying out all the points without recourse to Arcayne's level of abuse. Except for the comments listed in the paragraphs immediately above this one, that is precisely what I did. I consistently backed up my point of view; Arcayne did not; and you sided with him against me. Maybe because I am a new editor; who knows.
I take your well intentioned assistance about cooling off with good nature; thankyou for those tips. And thankyou for complimenting the contributions I have made already. I do wish to continue to be a participant of Wikipedia, but not at the expense of being forced into imbroglios that delay, impede and stifle the development of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapowow (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to say that I found this entire debacle deeply below any expectations I had of Wikipedia. A simple discussion instigated by me, with complete honesty and sincerity, was responded to by one individual with a gross and magnificent barrage of vitriolic words, who refused to accept any interpretation of the WP:FLAG guidelines other than his own, and who, ultimately, was shown to be incorrect: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags). I also found the use of this page in my request for assistance in dealing with an awkward and aggressive editor wholly unsatisfactory, as I received totally biased ctriticism as detailed above. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to glean whatever lessons can be learned from this incident, and hope for a better interaction with Wikipedia in the future. I understand the democratic process inherent in editing Wikipedia, but wish that such occurances of editorial conflict could be better mediated and more appropriately resolved without recourse to 'taking sides' or direct criticism of people's mistakes or faults. Kapowow (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Weareallone

After I nominated an image for speedy deletion based on an obviously invalid copyright claim, Weareallone (talk · contribs) left the following comments [7] [8] about me on image uploader's page. I found the comments to be accusatory and uncivil, and I think they were clearly meant to prejudice others against me. (The image in question was deleted and the uploading user banned as a sockpuppet, incidentally.)

I warned Weareallone to stop making such comments before bringing it here, but noticed that one of the comments was repeated on their talk page. I asked them to remove the comments, but instead of doing so they have cut and pasted sections of WP:NPA and repeated their assertion that I am Wikistalking them, both in the text and the edit comment. See their recent edit history for another (abeit coded) message about me.

Fair warning to anyone getting involved: Weareallone and I have an existing conflict which stems from my AfD nomination of their biography and subsequent sockpuppetry case. Weareallone has previously made statements about me on their our respective talk pages, but I find the recent comments to other users completely unacceptable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to my message notifying them of this alert, Weareallone added further accusations of wikistalking and appears to be accusing me of being an Australian transvestite singer, but that's not completely clear. They also repeat completely baseless accusations of racism stemming from this AfD by a now banned user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And now, as well as "harrassment" and "cyberstalking", I'm being accused of "threats and hateful postings". These last accusations are completely baseless, as a review of my comments to Weareallone (talk · contribs) would show. Should I take this directly to WP:RFCC? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I can see that WPWQA isn't likely to work for me, but if someone can point me at a different forum or way to get some resolution of this situation, please make a suggestion on my talk page as I am no longer watching this page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I should like to add that I am the person to which weareallone is inferring is Delicious Carbuncle (incorrectly). I have just joined wikipedia. I am not DC, he/she is not me. The Weareallone editor, who is known to me, called me in New Zealand on 28th March (I have a recording of it) where I reside to accuse me of being Carbuncle and threatened a lawsuit in a menacing manner. Delicious Carbuncle is almost correct, IMO at to the identity of both Weareallone and Papillionbleu, and Weareallone has self-admittedly been also Mmmovie, who wrote the original bio page (about himself). This is not unsubstantiated when you look at the history of his bio page. I feel this is not a sockpuppet case though, these are two separate identities but working together, as they usually do, you have another word for that here on wiki.
I am sorry DC has been accused of being me (and an Australian transvestite as well!- which I am not BTW, that's just the usual name-calling), but yes my name is Pauline Berry as weareallone has repeatedly asserted/accused Delicious Carbuncle to be, who is NOT me. Related to this impoliteness dispute I think someone should look into the history of the Mark Bellinghaus article, its origins, its tone and sense of propaganda, thus it's writers self-serving motives. The harassment I receive outside of wiki at the hands of the person behind weareallone I accept is nothing to do with Wiki, unfortunately it has now spilled onto wikipedia. However now that I have pointed out myself here on Wiki I hope the harassment does not come to my talk page, and that it stops towards Delicious Carbuncle. Hopefully someone watches out for the newbies?Restawhile (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)restawhile

Restawhile (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)restawhile

User:Asrghasrhiojadrhr talk

User:Asrghasrhiojadrhr simply created two article

By coping two of my draft versions:

And:

  • Without my knowlegde and any communication about it
  • Without a reference, pretending that was his own
  • While these articles where no more than a draft version in my user space

I think this is a completely onaccaptable violation of the Wikipedia code because these drafts were in my userspace. Now I allready referted these actions. But could somebody take a look at this, and give me some feed back. -- Mdd (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The user name account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username. -- Mdd (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Bardin

I seem to be having a bit of an issue with this gentleman regarding his use of edit summaries. I do a lot of NPP and I do a lot of deletion tagging and redirecting whenever possible. His interests included heavy metal music; a redirected substub at Years in Waste was reverted by him several hours later with a rather nasty note in the edit summary. The user had created a number of similar substubs and I followed procedure on that individual's talk page advising him about creating too-short articles, notice removals, etc. I left polite word on his talk page asking him not to use the edit summaries as such and he fired back with another nasty response. Another polite response on my part led to yet an even nastier, more sarcastic response on his. I don't mind if someone disagrees with an edit I make and I don't mind being corrected for mistakes, but this is just wrong. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your description of the situation is completely misleading. A reader unfamiliar with the situation might think based on your words that I'm the user who has been creating a number of similar substubs when it is another contributor that you're referring to. I did not create that article. I had not even heard of the band or the album before I came across the article. The fact that my interest includes heavy metal is completely irrelevant. Here is a more accurate and detailed explanation of the situation for anyone interested:
An article was created by a newbie, someone who is clearly and evidently not familiar with the process of creating an article. Another editor comes along and hastily added a CSD on this article within a single minute of the article's creation. This editor has since apologised for adding the CSD. The newbie contributor continues to work on the article and in the process removed the CSD tag, presumably because he or she did not know the proper process of dealing with the issue. For the next hour, the newbie contributor worked on the article and improved it to some extent. Then PMDrive1061 came along and abruptly decided to redirect the article to the talk page. This was done just one hour after the article was created. I came across the article while I was going through the contributions of the first editor who had made similar hasty CSD and AFDs all over the place (and again has since humbly apologised for that). I instantly recognised that the article was a legitimate topic for a wikipedia article. So I reversed the redirect and in my edit summary, I wrote: "ridiculously hasty CSD and redirect; can you give the editor more than ONE MINUTE before you add a CSD? added more appropriate tags." I do not believe I was being nasty in my comment. I believe then and I still believe now that I was describing what it really was: ridiculous. The CSD was blatantly ridiculous coming at just one minute of the article's creation. I left a message on the talk page of the editor who issued that CSD. That editor has apologised. I did not bother to leave a message though at the talk page of PMDrive1061 who made the redirect. Instead I spent the next few minutes improving the article, adding the appropriate tag, stub and category, even providing a link to a review of the album. All for a subject that I genuinely had no interest in whatsoever. As I've said, I had not even heard of the band or the album before I came across the article.
The next day, I find PMDrive1061 issuing a complain on my talk page about me leaving disparaging remarks and trying to justify the redirect by suggesting that the "user had more than adequate chance to expand the contribution." I responded that I did not think one hour is adequate chance to expand the contribution and I mentioned that "its very easy and convenient to just redirect a poorly written article but all you needed to do was spent a few minutes as I did to correct the formatting, add the proper tags (stub and expand) and improve it otherwise. That user is clearly a newbie who had little idea what he or she was doing. The behavior of the CSD tagger and yourself have probably scared off that user from ever contributing again to wikipedia. Go take a look at WP:Bite."
PMDrive1061 responded defensively to my remarks and among other things said: "In all the years I have contributed to this site under two usernames, never once have I added empty content. Every new article of mine has been a real, live article or stub right out of the chute. I made my fair share of mistakes starting out and was called on it. I learned from the mistakes. There has been a lot of talk here regarding quality over quantity. I believe in quality and my edit history backs that up. I have also mentored new users and problem users; I am well aware of the "not biting newbies" clause."
I responded with among other things: "You say that you are well aware of WP:Bite but your actions indicate otherwise. I suggest that you get off your high horse and take a moment to reflect on how your abrupt and impolite behavior can come across to someone who is completely new to wikipedia. If you do not like to receive what you perceive as nasty remarks, then I suggest you think twice before committing any further ridiculous actions. I was able to do in just a few minutes what you should have done and that was to help the newbie improve the perfectly legitimate article with the proper formatting and tags instead of scaring away the newbie with redirects and warnings."
Now PMDrive1061 has brought this matter here and in doing so has tried to tarnish me by noting that "A quick look at his edit history and his communication with other editors show that I'm not the first to incur this user's wrath." As far as I can recall I have only had one other argument with a fellow editor and that was settled after we both issued apologies. That other editor and I now have a cordial relationship and we have since continued to work together peacefully. It should not be of any relevance to this discussion.
I do not believe I have done anything wrong here. Apparently, PMDrive1061 is upset that I have used the word ridiculous to describe the redirect made. I am fully aware of WP:Civil but I do not think that being civil means being censored from using the word ridiculous. If I feel an editor has done something wrong, then I will say so. If I feel that thing that was done wrong is ridiculous, then I will say so. It's not as if I'm calling anyone a fucking arsehole or some other insult. I'm using a perfectly legitimate english word to describe an action that I feel merits that description. I also think it is ridiculous that PMDrive1061 is trying to make this an issue about my choice of words when the problem in my view is his very own behavior. It was certainly not my intention to pick a fight with anyone or get involved in an argument. I do not think I have been "nasty" but rather that PMDrive1061 has been overtly sensitive to my choice of words. Instead of reflecting on his own behavior and how his actions falls under WP:Bite, instead of taking the humble route like the other biting editor has done, PMDrive1061 has instead chosen to drag this issue out. --Bardin (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
After browsing through this wikiquette alerts, I came across Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. Seems quite relevant here:
Certain editors will take a statement, detached in tone, that negatively evaluates their work as a personal insult, no matter what. ... Problematic editors often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, as a means to prevail in content disputes by shifting attention from the article topic to behavior, rather than as a means to prevent personal attacks. The best course is to reduce the opportunity for any accusations against you.
I reckon that this is a perfect example of what the essay is describing. That is some good advice there so I'll try to refrain myself from calling a spade a spade in the future if only to reduce the opportunity for any further accusations against me from editors like PMDrive1061. This is not by any means an apology or admission that I was in the wrong. --Bardin (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Responded on your talk page. Good grief, let's just drop this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I was neither the one who brought this up in the first place nor was I the one who dragged it out. I'm perfectly willing to drop it. --Bardin (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti

The "Ottoman Flag" and "Republic of Turkey Flag" has been a long in dispute in wikipedia. Many authors have speculated on the issue. These unique states share the same symbols, and Republic of Turkey is a successor state of Ottoman Empire. However "Republic of Turkey" is a unique state and in 1936 standardized its flag, which made these two flags different. User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti is from a perspective that claims in his words "I'm proud of my heritage" and try to make the point that Ottoman Empire and Republic Turkey have the same flag. Thus they are same states. In doing so User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti copies "Republic of Turkey"'s flag under different names and claims it is Ottoman Flag. The pictures of the period clearly disproves this point (he also brings pictures that disproves his own point). The argument is brought forward to the Wikipedia:Third opinion. this is the link. The talk page extensively broughts the positions forward. these are the discussions I informed the user not to involve "edit wars" before the dispute resolved. this is the link. He personally attacked me claiming "I'm a shame." this is the link He does not wait to resolve the issue and continue to change the article, with adding insulting edit summaries on my English level. [9]. (1) A quick look at his edit history and his communication show that he is not acting Civil. (2) I don't mind if someone disagrees my position, but he is not coherent (claims flags are different than says the original is "paçavra") and constructive (he thinks we are idiot not to recognize that his proposal flag is the copy of "Republic of Turkey" flag) (3) The problem is very methodological. There is a law which defines exact shape and color of the Republic of Turkey flag. There are "original pictures which are not paint brushed" that shows Ottoman flag. Instead of "Truthfully creating the history" He creates a fictional history (name a copy the Turkish flag as Ottoman). When people reacts (such as me) disagrees because we can look at the pictures and recognize the difference, he insults and tries to create conspiracy theories. I 'm asking this person to be reminded to act [WP:Civil]. I'm asking this person to stop insulting me with values (love of my nation) which I surely prove this with my life and only communicate if he has anything to add regarding the issue, but not his political agenda. --Kemalist (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The "all new" Turkish flag of 1936 is as "all new" as the "all new" 2009 Jaguar X-Type (with a slight make-up on the front grille). Anyone who sees the photo of the late Ottoman flag (1844-1922) and the present-day flag of Turkey will realize that the "modifications" are minimal, and the Turkish Flag Law of 1936 basically brought geometric standards and legalized them, nothing more. The Republic of Turkey didn't use a different flag between 1923 and 1936. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You are repeating your political agenda. This "Jaguar X-Type" or "not having flag" is all non-factual discussions. The facts are clearly represented at the talk page in a single table that shows "an original picture" "The current Ottoman Flag", "The Turkish Flag", and "Your proposal." You are "lying" and "insulting" people by claiming you created a different flag by coping Turkish flag with different name ("Your proposal.") and claiming "Your proposal" is the Ottoman Empire flag. However, it is clear from the picture that the current ottoman flag used in Wikipedia is closely resembles the flag in picture, if not better than "Your proposal." It does not matter what value your argument have, what emotional state your are in. When you try to defend a position which is proved by a historical evidence that is not true (in this case 1914 jihad picture showing clearly the flag used is different than current Turkish flag), you and your arguments become a liars excuse.
By the way, Islam was removed from Turkish constitution in 1937. It was only in 1936, the Republic was ready to have its own "Unique" flag. Ataturk created the "Republic" step by step. The outcome which Turks live, and I cherish is unique. And not Ottoman Empire. I'm proud with it. It is nice that you can link your genes to your grand grand parents. But if you can not recognize your current position (your own genes or flag) that link to grand parent does not earn you an honor. You fail to recognize these entities are different. Symbolized in this case with the flag. Flag is the symbol of sovereignty. Republic's sovereignty lies in "Turkish people", Ottoman empires sovereignty lies in the Ottoman Dynasty. That is Kemalism.
I'm asking administrators involved with "Wikiquette_alerts" to inform you that you can not take single handed actions. You reverted the article one more time. This is bad if you disregard other people; what is the value of your personality, or beliefs you carry. You blame me for being a shame to "Kemalism." Ataturk (Kemalism) did not dream people who are uncivilized to defend itself. --Kemalist (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:wjmummert

Pertaining to Chicago Cubs as well as my talk page. Edit-warring, adding peacock words, not maintaining POV, as well as personal attacks. Generally not adhering to any Wiki policies. Examples: [10], [11], [12]. My only goal is for him to learn civility, and general Wiki technique for sourcing and keeping POV out of articles. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cygnis insignis

For the last two years I've been responsible for systematically improving many snake articles. I started out in the Viperidae section, but later went on to work on other snake families, such as the Pythonidae. I've not had all that much help doing this, so I've mostly been operating on my own. As a result, a few of my methods are a little off-beat, but on the whole the results have met with approval. I like to pay particular attention to taxonomy, article consistency and references.

The last few months I've tried to spend a little less time editing WP, usually limiting myself to removing vandalism and correcting mistakes. My edits to the Antaresia and Antaresia childreni articles were nothing out of the ordinary and I even took the trouble to explain to the user, Cygnis insignis, the issues involved. I've done this many times before. Unfortunately, he just didn't agree and insisted that his edits be restored. When I tried to explain further he became even more defensive and eventually uncivil. I discussed the situation with an admin I know, Accounting4Taste, decided to ignore Cygnis insignis for a while, staying away from the articles at issue, giving him a chance to cool off.

Unfortunately, that's proving impossible: I suspect he's been watching what I've been doing and is determined to make life difficult for me. For example, check of the edit histories for Vipera berus, Morelia spilota variegata and Python reticulatus. Most recently, he left this warning on my talk page. I considered Accounting4Taste's advice to ask for a Third opinion, but this is a conflict that involves more than one article. It looks much more like a personal attack, which is a first for me. Therefore, I'm hoping that this avenue is the correct choice. If not, perhaps someone can inform me of a better one. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

(I think) --Jwinius (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rhaworth

Hi. I've been around for a while, mostly as a reader, occasionally contributing through my IP address. I saw a couple of (badly written) pages about Nick Savoy and Lovesystems. I decided I wanted to contribute more and spent a whole morning researching and revising both articles. I was immediately slapped with Rhaworth making comments that I felt were sarcastic and abusive, and included repeated unfounded allegations that I was alternately a sock puppet of a half-dozen other people, afiliated with various companies, etc.

I want to contribute. I have tried several times on his talk page to work constructively with him. I don't want to be blocked from wikipedia like he threatens (he hasn't threatened me with this, but I see other comments on his page where other people are upset at the same sort of treatment and got such threats). I hope that I can't be blocked for writing this - if I can, could whoeever reads this please delete it (or alert me so I can) so I can delete this before he reads it and bans me?

We were all new once. I'm trying hard to learn all the rules and procedures. I'd love a helping hand here. Camera123456 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm going to look into this but doing the research is going to take a bit of time. (I'll also show you how to save future responders the effort of having to do this. Please don't take that as criticism, it's just the best way to get a speedy response here is to include evidence in the form of diffs.)
You should, if you haven't already, let Rhaworth know about this thread though. Here's a link you can give him/her to, well, here: [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Rhaworth]] Anynobody 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for both of your comments. Yes, he knows I have concerns over his use of power. He has also told me he checks where I post and has asked me not to pursue this issue with anyone else (see his user page). But I don't think it's fair that I should be treated like this. By the way thank you for your kind response. I don't mean to create work for anyone, I just want to be able to contribute in peace and without this guilty-until-proven-innocent game. Camera123456 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's all good, I was new once too :) Diff outlining the issue with RHaworth - (Diff pages can be accessed either through the history tab (next to the edit this page tab or specialized pages like User contributions. I find it's easier locating a particular edit from the user rather than a particular page. Generally when explaining a problem on a board like this people aren't so much interested in one's explanation of what happened so much as a link to exactly what happened. Since (most) everything can be read by all it's preferable to just check out the conflict itself in order to avoid misrepresentation, either intentional or accidental.) Anyway, back to the sock puppet allegations; Sadly they happen, people can get a bit paranoid about who's behind a new user. (They also tend to forget that this is a site which can be edited by anyone on the internet, we're talking millions of people and in that number there's bound to be more than one who feels a certain way about a topic.) RHaworth, like the person who thought I was someone's sock, doesn't actually have to retract any of their statements. FWIW nobody seems to care about unsubstantiated allegations, so you can probably just let them stand or take it to the next level and challenge RHaworth to submit a request for checkuser.
About the articles you mentioned: cached version of Love Systems and cached version of Savoy, Nick. In order to be considered a reliable third party source, the information must come from someone not affiliated with the subject. For example citing the Love Systems website in an article about it is not actually a third party source, even for the CBS Radio thing. To be truly from a third party look for the interview on a CBS website (forums don't usually count either). Hope this helps :) Anynobody 05:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much That was exactly (the 3rd party source thing) what I didn't understand (and what no one answered to me until now). So if I took a direct link off of Youtube or somewhere that's different than grabbing the link off of the media section? I wish someone had told me that earlier when I asked... :) Haha. Anyway, that's fine. I can do that when I have time and resubmit.Camera123456 (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help :) Anynobody 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

user 116.48.168.16

THis user has been posting very rude statements and argmemnts full of insults on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand. I'll put a warning on his/her talk page Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

multiple edits means multiple warnings; if he/she continues you could simply apply for a proper block.

Kudos on being a rush/ayn rand fan. anthem? :P Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Angrymansr

This user continues to attack and harass me. His behavior isn't limited to just my talk page, or his. His edit summaries as well have been abusive and rude. He's even gone as far as changing my comments (that are on his talk page) to make me look stupid. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rob, just following along. Provide diffs and it'll be much clearer what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's where he edited my comments. The first time- [13], the second time (borderline, but it's close enough in my view)- [14]. Abusive edit summary: [15]. Personal attack section he posted on my talk page: [16], the same section which he added a very rude title to: [17]. Here's where he was warned by someone that wasn't me: [18]. His most recent poor behavior towards me:[19] and [20]. I'm getting very sick of this. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In defense of Angrymansr, Rob's low-key tenditiousness has both caused a string of problems between him and other users, yet kept him under the radar.
Profanity doesn't serve any purpose, and calling someone's edits bullshit is out of line, so he's got a pretty significant point in this case. However, telling someone to "grow up", as he did in his first link, is as much of a personal attack as calling someone a "fucking douchebag" like Angrymansr did to him.
And quite frankly, continually leaving warnings on people's talk pages isn't exactly good faith either. Talk pages are for attempts to work problems out, not needle people with warnings. Was this [21]? necessary? Don't you think it's a little bit bad faith itself to accuse someone of ignoring/not bothering to read policy?
The reason I decided to post this is because I've seen enough cases of people getting blasted by wikipedia in general for being the ones to lose their temper, while the editors who keep their tenditiousness and starchyness low key and under the radar get a free walk. There's two wrong parties here, not just one guy who used a bunch of profanity and an innocent well meaning editor. McJeff (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

While I am guilty of losing my cool, I am not the problem editor here. Please allow me to showcase the type of editing that RobJ1981 displays. Most of this activity is from this year alone. What made me lose my cool on this editor is when he reverted a good faith edit of mine without reason, most likely just because my name was attached and failed to acknowledge any wrong doing.[22]. All of this stemmed from his continual tenditiousness of the article Smackdown vs Raw 2008.

If you look at the talk pages, you can see that the majority of editors have made a case for making the roster of the game a list. [23], [24], [25], [26] Rob has reverted many users who have re-added the list no less than 14 times.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]

Looking through the talk pages you will see the following:
Users who have asked for this section to be a list or table: User:RobJ1981, User:Ladder4321, User:WWEBoffin0101, User:220.235.118.203, User:Govvy, User:Greyglue, User:InfoLove, User:Welshy1791, User:Masterofdestiny, User:AD_Double_J, User:69.207.161.152, User:Credema, User:75.117.53.19, User:Technogreek43, User:ArcAngel, User:Truco9311 , User:DonJuan.EXE, User:Dlae, User:Kaizer13, User:Maestro25, User:165.21.154.110, User:Fhassan, User:Nifboy, User:Amamamp, User:McJeff, User:Angrymansr

Against a list/table User:Jtalledo, User:Krator, User:RobJ1981, User:Truco9311, User:3bulletproof16, User:Guyinblack25

Rob has been reverting anyone who makes the roster a list or table, though there is very little support for the roster to be prose. If that wasn't bad enough, while this debate was going on he started converting the other wrestling games rosters to prose.

Now that you have our history, let's look at how he treats other people.
Calling people hypocrites [41][42] [43]

Accusing others of being revert patrole[44][45][46]

Dressing other down[47][48][49]

Accusing other people of stalking[50][51][52][53][54]

Abusive edit summaries[55][56]

Assuming bad faith[57][58][59][60]

Telling people to "go elsewhere"[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]

Accusing others of WP:OWN[69][70][71][72][73][74]

The be all end all[75][76]

Get over it[77][78]

Reporting to administrator noticeboard without notifying editor[79][80][81]

Accusing me of harrasment by informing him that I will notify administrators of his behavior [82]

Accusing others of forum shopping with no evidence[83][84]

Requesting protection due to edit warring while being the major edit warrer, then failing to discuss issue during protection[85]

Accussing of purposely breaking policy [86][87][88][89][90]

Reverting without reason[91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98] [99]

Making major changes to article without consensus[100] [101] [102]

Accusing others of vandalism when it appears to be good faith editing [103] [104] [105] [106][107]

General incivility [108][109]

Accusing others of sockpuppetry [110]

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive42#User:RobJ1981.2C_continual_tenditiousness. Angrymansr (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I havent had the time to go through all those links. But all of the WWE Wreckless Intent ones are justified. It's been noted numerous times on the talk (and in the warnings in the article itself): the track list is the back of the CD and nothing else. IP editors (for the most part) add whoever has the song currently, and that's not correct. Listing a bunch of links, then not knowing the history of the article (and conflict or situation with it) isn't helpful. Link #63+64: once again you don't know the situation at all. Link #96 wasn't uncivil: I said hell when I asked a question. Link #36 is the only rude one of the "dressing down" links, the others were a little harsh I suppose. However, there is no crime for being a little negative in comments. Also I want to remind everyone: this is a Wikiquette alert about Angrymansr, not myself. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
For someone who thinks that negativity in comments isn't a crime, you sure do spend an inordinate amount of time accusing others of incivility. McJeff (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not an adminstrator, but after reviewing all of the information here, it certainly seems like Angrymansr could stand some time away from the encyclopedia to reevaluate whether or not they want to continue to edit. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally, I think both of these users needs time off. After all, RobJ1981 says something like this: "RobJ1981 is currently busy in real life, and may not respond swiftly to queries".
Anyways, thanks McJeff for letting me know about Rob's history. However (this is old, 2005/06), whats all the garbage from Rob on Neo Samus's talk page? Versus22 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I already explained the busy message to Versus here: User_talk:Versus22#Reply_to_comments_on_my_talk_page. I don't need to explain it again. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti 2

Resolved.
Highly accurate map, showing quasi-developed countries like Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, and lesser developed countries like Turkey. Fair and square.
Highly accurate map, showing quasi-developed countries like Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, and lesser developed countries like Turkey. Fair and square.

This user has been edit warring in the Developed country article, completely blind to the fact that his opinion doesn't take presicence over verifiable, sourced content. He seems to be offended by the fact that Turkey is listed as developing. But what pushed me to report him was this comment in discussion, after I had tried my best to explain things to him. "The only sector in which the ex-Soviet countries outperform Turkey is the prostitution sector"

Is that really necessary? I looked at his talk page and noticed he's been blocked multiple times for edit warring, having come off a week long ban just recently. He also seems to have a very bad attitude and seems to do nothing but push his POV about Turkey not being a developed country. Sbw01f (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the number '2' to the above header since this is the second post about this user currently open at WQA. The previous one, about the Turkish flag, is here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I will re-add my signature to the above statement, which is the sad truth. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a passionate Grik :) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The sad truth is that your presence on wikipedia is more harmful than good. Sbw01f (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree :) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He is right, I am wrong. Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova are countries in transition, while Turkey is less developed. I give up, and I don't care. So be it. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for one week for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
A mysterious ip with no edit history has suddenly picked up where Res left off.. Sbw01f (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Page semi-protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Sbw01f (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

74.13.127.250

Resolved.

This IP is very active in DYK suggestions, and often suggests alternatives which are sometimes incorrect. In this instance, he said "there is no need to remind people how dumb that guy is..." refering to my suggestion for DYK. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User warned ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Complaint on User Adamfinmo

Resolved.

I am filing a complaint against User:Adamfinmo for two counts: (1) His seemingly strange behavior with the article I created on the British artist Richard Sumner -- I have tried repeatedly to work with him to Wikify the article, only to have him twice attempt to get it deleted for no very good reason, and (2) His actions on List of unusual deaths, which he appears to be running as if it is his private domain. I've tried working with him privately, but it has come to naught. I appreciate unbiased mediation on this. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This matter was resolved between myself and the other party. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ecoleetage

Resolved.

I have tried to engage this user several times in a calm and good manner. I have been personally attacked by this user several times. I am at my wits end. I tried to nominate a couple of articles for deletion and this user has taken the opportunity to slam me and challenge my motives. Our dispute is currently active in the following locations. User talk:Adamfinmo User talk:Ecoleetage The talk page of Richard Sumner and the WP:Afd of Richard Sumner and Carl McCunn

Here are some diffs

Refers to me as capricious and overzealous: [111] Does it again [112]
Questions my motives [113]
Questions my health [114]
Refers to my edits as "offensive" [115]
Places false vandal warning on my talk page [116]
Says my edits are "angry" [117]

Please, someone help me. If I am in the wrong here someone tell me!--Adamfinmo (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Electrobe

Hi. I (and I imagine at least one other user, User:Philip Stevens) would appreciate some assistance with this user with regard to the following pages and and their recent histories (i.e. the past few days):

I hope the problem is readily apparent, but if any elaboration is needed, I can try to write something here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Electrobe has engaged in almost no discussion whatsoever and seems to be making mistakes in some cases, and then reverting to those mistakes. That's bad. However, those reverting him are often also not explaining themselves and not making good attempts at describing the problem. You all need to try harder to communicate. Electrobe hasn't used edit summaries enough, but edit summaries aren't sufficient discussion anyway: after one revert, a discussion should start on the template talk page. Mangojuicetalk 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've converted my note about here left on Electrobe's talkpage to this. (Since there's more than one template involved, I'm guessing it's better to centralize the discussion there.) Thanks for your input. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it looks like Electrobe is continuing to ignore people, not only with regard to the above but elsewhere too; see the most recent posts on his/her talkpage. Time for more action? If so, what? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at his (I think Electrobe is male) talk page and also especially the opening to the "Stalking, One and Only Warning" thread here, I see Electrobe is continuing to antagonize people. Advice/assistance, please. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've tried discussing with Electrobe at both my talk page and his, trying to stop him from reverting my edits. I have tried really hard to communicate, but I haven't got the skills it takes to communicate with this guy. Fred Bradstadt (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that you are trying to help him fix mistakes. Flibirigit (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thank Sardanaphalus for notifying me of this discussion. Electrobe seems to be having some difficulties with some of our core policies and I am watching his edits, having formally warned him about his behaviour.

Having said that, I caution all users to beware of WP:3RR and encourage reports of breaches of this policy to the appropriate forum. I also encourage everyone to stay as calm as possible, even when provoked. Breaches of civility or attack are not excused by other people behaving badly too. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add this edit summary (and diff!) from his talk page to the list… –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok then Well I thought it was about time I came to see what all the fuss is about. Ok... Here goes please be patient with me throughout this discussion I am trying my best to do the right thing here. First of all before we go any further could I trouble somebody for a proper definition of what I have done? I don't mean tell me what I've done wrong please just accuse me of breaking a rule/s. Then at least I feel we are on a fair footing and everybody including yourselves will actually know what I am accused of and then this discussion can continue following a logical pattern. You may wish to discuss my 'charge' amongst youreslves because really I'm just going to have to accept the fisrt 'charge' against me or I feel I will be here for hours just trying to find out what I have done. I hope we can sort this out because despite what you may think of me I do enjoy editing Wikipedia and I dont mean to be obstructive. Electrobe (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to think your new template layout is perfect even when many other users disagree try discussing these changes before making them, and you still havent admited your wrong with regards to the Template:Scottish First Ministers. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't actaully understand whats going in do you? I'm going to ignore you because unlike in all th eother cases being brought against me here on this one I'm right. If somebody else would like to come up with a definition per my last comment I would be very much obliged. Electrobe (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Electrobe, what you have done can be defined under three distinct headings:
1) You are creating poorly-formatted, poorly-written templates that are functional duplicates of already existing, well-formatted, well-written templates. This creates problems on two fronts as it means that you now have double the number of templates to maintain, at no benefit, and the templates you create lack accessible formatting. These templates also clutter the system and are a classic example of true cruft.
2) You are adding incorrect information and images to templates, and when these are inevitably reverted you become aggressive and intransigent, and are unwilling to discuss your opinions or bother to go away and do some research to see why your changes have been reverted. Apparently you regard yourself as some sort of British constitutional expert, in the face of obvious evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
3) Your attitude is, frankly, obnoxious. People have, in good faith, tried to clean up some of the cruft in your templates and you have simply reverted to the rubbish version with no discussion. People have tried to bring up your poor pattern of editing with you and you have either ignored them or accused them of launching a witch hunt against you. Against some fairly potent provocation on your part these editors have maintained an even and cooperative approach (bar one exasperated slip from Fred Bradstadt), which directly contrasts with your offensive, aggressive, hectoring tone.
Does this make it clear as to why people have a problem with you? There is no "case" against you. In fact, what this forum is actually about is trying to get you to see why there is a problem, and to get your side of the argument. You may or may not agree with my points above, but the polite and civilised approach is to think about what I have said and respond to them with a rational, thought-out, and evidence-backed riposte. So? Pyrope 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being most helpful Purope I am much obliged. I can accept your third point quite easily althouhg I think you will find that Fred Bradstadt actually was following me, alhtough I have to say what he was doing was correct he has admmited to following me however lets put hat aside shall we? Your second point I dont understand I dont beliieve I have ever mentioned the Briitsh Consituition and I think you will find that it doesn't exist except in theory. You first point (i'm sorry i;m working backwards here by the way) I can partually agree with I did create a number of templates (the Navbox Military disaster however has been dealth with) one of which seems to be proving quite succesful and as I have not reacieved any complaints about it for a number of weeks I asume nobody minds it that much. On the poijnt of the inncorrect informeation on the templates I never change info (unless I can see its obviously wrong) and so dont understand that part of your point I merely re-arrange the presentation. Sorry if this first reply was a little prickely but while I can now after reflection see a number of my points a feel I must myself strongly against claims which to my mind I can't in any way agree with. Once agian I am much obliged. Regards. Electrobe (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, cooperation is what Wikipedia is about. Fred Bradstad was perfectly correct to follow you, and he was actually behaving as every responsible, dedicated and dilligent editor should. When you spot an editor making repeated, simple mistakes in one page it is a safe assumption that they have probably made similar mistakes in other pages that they have edited. Sometimes these are simple typos, sometimes they arise from a misunderstanding of the Wiki code, sometimes they arise from poor use of English (we have many editors whose first language is not English, and many young editors), or for a variety of other, good-faith reasons. Copyedits and simple mistakes are best spotted by a fresh pair of eyes, and I know that many pages I have either created or expanded have subsequently been cleaned up by another editor, for which I am always grateful! You owe Fred an apology. As far as British constitutional (note use of small "c") matters go, although we don't have a document titled "Constitution", we most certainly have a constitution. This comprises the sum total of the legislative decisions made since the beginnings of centralised rule (way back into Saxon times), but I'm not getting into a detailed discussion here. You have most certainly run into this issue through you repeated edits to Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly templates. You also seem to have, unilaterally, decided on a template colour scheme that others have, rightly, objected to on the grounds that on many screens the contrast between black writing and dark purple background renders the titles unreadble, especially for those with reduced eyesight. It may look fine on your screen, but as anyone who has had to make a PowerPoint presentation knows, what looks fine on one screen may be a complete mess on another. These are all perfectly valid objections and if you really believe that they ought to be made then you should discuss the matter, not get into an edit war. If you believe that information is wrong then you need to support your assertion with a properly cited reference to a reliable source. "I know it" is not a valid argument. Also, you must discuss things properly. I see that you have been warned about the three-revert-rule already, so I'll just reiterate that you will be blocked if you continue. Continue the discussion on the talk page, and have the courtesy to actually go away an read references if another editor takes the trouble to find them for you. Pyrope 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for you input and support, Pyrope. I'm not sure if Electrobe read your post - I haven't heard from him, but he seems to have relaxed a bit. Major edits without summaries are still occuring, though. -Fred Bradstadt (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how many people with impared eyesight would use Wikipedia as they wouldn't be able to see it anyway, however I am willing to negioate colour changes its just that when I first made the colour change the band colour wasn't changed when people didnt like it they just completely reverted all my edits which envolev more than just colour changed. Electrobe (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The background is fine, it's the links that bother the crap out of me. Impaired eyesight or not, they don't appear to be links. Also, putting the title within the box when the name has never changed has also been occurring Template:JusticeSecretary and Template:Lord Chancellor. (I might also add that the Lord Chancellor template was made on 02 April and left alone for five days in horrid condition and when I stepped in, Electrobe began to take notice of it again.) When the name of the title and/or nation changes (i.e. English Monarchs) then the title and their revisions can be shown in the template. When they don't, it's redundant and a waste of space. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Twaz

Resolved.

User:Twaz has been uncooperative with regards to a dispute on censorship on the articles Who the Fuck Is Jackson Pollock? and Brian Cowen, PRODding the first article (diff) and reverting a good faith edit as vandalism on the second due to an anonymous IP that added a well-cited, yet vulgar nickname. In the case of Brian Cowen, Twaz warned the anonymous IP up to final warning (diff) even as the user was trying to discuss the changes (diff). In both cases, Taz continued to blank his talk page of notices (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (including a threat to send this to ARBCOM), 6, and 7), which was not conducive for a proper discussion. He also made various uncivil comments to my talk page and to The359's talk page. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User has also blanked this section in WQA, claiming that I am making a personal attack (diff). —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
User also seems to be reverting articles without giving any reasons why. His reversions do not seem to be vandalism, from what I can tell. Also, created Scetoaux for some odd reason. The359 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - is there a guideline that says that signatures should be at least vaguely related to username? I looked through the various diffs above and it took me a long while to realise that InvisibleDiplomat was actually Twaz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JediLofty (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 April, 2008 (UTC)
WP:SIG says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something while checking through Twaz's contributions. Seicer, an admin, left him a message (diff) on Twaz's talk page warning him of incivility. Twaz removed (diff) the message from his talk page later on. I do realize that a user can remove information from his or her own talk page, but in light of his blanking of this WQA, among other things, I feel that this is more an incivil way of avoiding any form of discussion. I am tempted to pursue an RfC, as the user has clearly indicated they will not attempt to come to a resolution. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I am Twaz's adopter.) I have been looking through some of the events listed here, and have formed a few conclusions, which I offer in the hope that they will help everyone involved climb down and work together.

  • Regarding Who the Fuck Is Jackson Pollock?, Twaz first proposed deletion because of "vulgarity in the title", which is not normally a valid reason for deletion, and then proposed a rename for the same reason. It is clear that this film is referred to by two titles, one expurgated, one not. The sources offered so far are, in my opinion, not 100% conclusive on which is the official title (as IMDB is not perfect).
  • An anon added the fact that Brian Cowen is known as BIFFO, where the first F stands for "Fucker", at least according a blog hosted by Guardian Unlimited. ClueBot (as might be expected) reverted and warned. The anon added it back in twice, adding the source on the last try, but both times was reverted by Twaz and warned. The anon tried to discuss on Twaz's page, but was warned for that too, which was definitely inappropriate. I'm not sure whether to assess a blog hosted by a major newspaper as a reliable source, but a fact as basic as someone's nickname deserves inclusion, arguably in the lead.
  • Twaz has given an explanation of sorts about Huggle applying tags he did not intend. I am not a Huggle user, and I'm not even sure which tags this is in reference to.
  • Twaz seems to feel that we should avoid using the F-word. While this is a fairly common concern and we certainly should not use obscenities gratuitously, Wikipedia is not censored, and these both seem cases where (pending more sources) its use is indicated.
  • Twaz's signature does not resemble his user name, which certainly confuses me, but does not seem to be forbidden by policy.
  • There's always room to argue about how neutrally things are phrased, but this Wikiquette alert was not a clear-cut personal attack. Even if it were, total removal by the target with a misleading edit summary is not in accordance with policy.
  • Users have wide latitude in managing their talk pages, and are always at liberty to remove comments without archiving. Describing good faith comments as vandalism, however, is inappropriate.
  • Everyone involved seems to have gotten rather heated and confrontational.

I believe everyone here is acting in good faith, and I urge everyone to work harder at understanding each other's points of view. Let's offer apologies for any offence caused, and forgive any offence taken. Bovlb (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If in any way this WQA comes across as a personal attack, it is not intended as such, and I certainly don't hold a grudge against Twaz for any reason. I simply filed this so that I could get the opinions of a few other editors with regards to this incident. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Resolution - I've attempted to resolve the situation with user Scetoaux. It all started over a subst:prod for speedy deletion. I was using huggle, and it kept applying the tag numerous times to the article previously referenced. I was glad to discuss it, and did so on the discussion page of the article. I just think this all went a little too far, especially when we're all working to improve the encylopedic quality of the Wiki database. InvisibleDiplomat666 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, any objection to calling this resolved? Bovlb (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, Twaz has apologized on my talk page. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Life.temp

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereSee Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Igorberger harrassment. --Bfigura (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Life.temp an WP:SPA editor edit history has been identified by me and other editors as a POV editor who is a SSP case 1case 2 due to his editng on anti-Americanism please refer to the article Talk:anti-Americanism for reference of the behavior. The editor was adviced by me to get familiar with WP:EQ here but instead following my advice he PA me here because I reverted his edit here which was reverted by an established eitor of the article just before me here I followed the consensus of the editors of the article, reverting the unsourced POV. I origionally sourced the lead here before reverting him for the second time. The editor disapproves of me checking his edits, because he thinks I am targetting him, which I am not. I am following the WP:EQ process of engaging an editor to prevent systematic bias of POV editng, which has been identified by his edit's history. What really conserns me are not his edits so much, because each POV can be dealt with in accordance by the editors envolved at the article talk page, but his style of editng which is disruptive. It is disruptive because it does not follow the Wikipedia etiquettes of building consesus. The editor believes he is right and others are wrong. He makes it very clear every time by edit warring with other editors to WP:point. Recently it has become a bit more tolerable because he is venting his anger at me not at other editors. Still some of his edit recommenditions have merit when undesrstood, but it requires a lot of energy and attention of many editors. He is very incistent that every point he brings up is addressed and debated here. Wikipedia is not a batleground or a place for a debate as advices in Wikipedia:NOT. I am following the advice of Meatballwiki which recommends to bring a problamatic editor's behavior to the attention of the community and not make I against him, or a few against him, but Wikipedia addressing the editor's problematic editing style. I am not asking for the editor to be blocked, because we should not be chasing away editors but helping editors adjust to Wikipedia community. Also as per SSP, he will just come back again and again if he is blocked. And he really seems interesting in contributing to Wikipedia. To bring this to WP:RFC/U is still to early. To bring it to WP:ANI is too dramatic and not really necessary because there is no imminent threat to Wikipedia that requers an administrative intervention to pervent disruption of the project. So this is why I am at WP:Wikiquette alerts. I do not recommend putting a notice or a template on his page because he will feel it is a personal attack and remove it as he has done my SSP alert here But if an editor he believes they should please do. While I was typing this he has filed an ANI report about me here So I am asking a confident editor to examine this case and make appropritate recommendations with respect as to how things should be addressed. Please consider WP:The gray zone when examining this issue. Please comment on my User talk:Igorberger Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: An ANI posting has already been made about this conflict. Please direct all comments there: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Igorberger harrassment. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:04, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

User Orange Marlin, general rudeness and difficult communications

Resolved.

I saw a handful of edits by OrangeMarlin while I was temporarily involved with the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed He appeared to be making threats, telling other editors he hoped they were blocked, and generally just not being very friendly, so I went to his talk page and saw many other comments which caused me concern, so I left him a message. I was informed that linking people to WP:CIV is considered a bit rude, something I'm slightly confused about, and while I'm here would appreciate someone recommending what I should do instead if another similar set of circumstances arises. After a short discussion, in which I tried to be as polite as possible, he archived the discussion as a 'personal attack'. You can get a fairly straightforward idea of what happened here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&curid=13677690&diff=205429898&oldid=205429428

I have not been in contact with OrangeMarlin for at all long, but discussion with him on his talk page obviously isn't possible with the archiving. Any help appreciated. Restepc (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been covered to some extend over at WP:ANI in this thread. (That said, I haven't read through all the talk page comments yet, as it gets somewhat lengthy). --Bfigura (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have only very recently and minorly been involved with that article, and I don't intend to get involved with it any further, I'm really more concerned about his reaction/comments to me on his talk page, and his general demeanor, rather than that article specifically, as that article seems to be one big mess of people arguing Restepc (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(E/C) OK, so I did some more reading. If you're not terribly familiar with an editor (and you haven't had any recent interactions with him/her), it is somewhat abrupt to pop onto their talk page and ask them to review WP:CIVIL. (Especially if you're not going to cite any particulars when doing so). At the very least, it's the sort of thing that isn't likely to provoke a civil discourse. I don't know whether I'd call it a personal attack, but it could be seen as baiting. (Although not to the same extend as the whole GStS thing). --Bfigura (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I can understand that, we had been in recent conflict on the expelled article and I assumed he'd know that I was at least referring to those....and I said it was on his talk page, which is fairly obvious what I'm referring to as it isn't very long. But surely my faux pas doesn't excuse his response, and his level of civility in general Restepc (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, GSTS, well that's one question answered :) Restepc (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(E/C) Ah, I think I may see the issue here. Recently GStS was baiting Marlin with some fairly racist KKK comments, and eventually Marlin snapped back. This provoked an uproar on ANI (the last link I gave), which basically ended with GStS temporarily blocked and Marlin rather frustrated. Now, I'm not going to say that there's even an excuse for incivility, but I'd personally be inclined to cut him some slack temporarily. (Especially since editors do have a fair amount of latitude on how they treat their talk pages). Labeling your comments as an attack wasn't right, but as wikidrama goes, it's rather on the low end of things. Now, if there's repeated incivility, then it might be worth addressing, but for now I'd suggest waiting and see if things just clear up on their own accord. Thoughts? Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent), I wasn't happy with calling me a troll either, and I don't see how the GSTS argument should have affected OMs behaviour on the expelled article, and I saw other things on the talk page....but I guess those could also be very recent, I didn't check the dates. I'm not entirely convinced this is just a one off thing caused by some troll, but I'll let it be for a couple of weeks and see what happens, thanks a lot for the (very) quick response....I'd still like to know what to do in these situations other than link to WP:CIV though.... Restepc (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky situation. Honestly, I'm a fan of {{tea}}. It's kinda hokey, but I've gotten good results since it's a non-confrontational way of starting off a conversation. Hope that helps (and that this whole things settles down). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Restepc is not the only editor to raise concerns with OrangeMarlin's attitude, rudeness, civility, and personal attacks as of late. Obviously, as you mentioned, Marlin is frustrated and emotionally charged, but he has refused advice to calm down or cool off. He does not seem interested in amending his behavior, and some of his comments have been deeply offensive but have nevertheless gone unchecked. Restepc's concern and mention of OrangeMarlin's unacceptable behavior is appropriate. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Restepc, you could also try being overly (though not falsely) polite and thoughtful of his point of view in your interactions with OrangeMarlin and see how things go from there. After what he's been through in the past week, I bet he'd appreciate it. That is assuming you are looking to build a working relationship with him, and I hope this is a reasonable assumption. Antelantalk 23:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have tried, but didn't really get much chance Restepc (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have quietly kept an eye on OM, and I don't think this is a problem. He has had a great deal of problem dealing with some rather overtly racist editors over the last week. All of a sudden, a well meaning editor pops in and, starts reading a riot act. I'm not saying that User:Restepc is out of line in questioning what he has seen, but without knowing all that is and has been happening, taking things up to this level, especially when by the editor's own admission they were not fully able to examine OM's history. I have warned OM in the past about the counterproductiveness(?) of broaching WP:CIVIL, but I don't think this is a major problem here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out, OM has deleted the notification I put on the talk page, without any sort of reply, but for now I'll still stick to the 'wait and see' suggestion. In other words, the last thing OM said in my direction was that I'm a troll, personally attacking him, allied with the GSTS guy, despite it becoming (I would hope) clear that none of those things are even remotely true Restepc (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that those things aren't true. But I'd agree with LonelyBeacon and chalk it up to a tough week. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OM has very blatantly violated policies on NPA and UNCIVIL. He has ignored warnings and advice from administrators and editors alike. It is a problem. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he was incivil, and it would have prevented a lot of drama if he had kept a cooler head. For this he's already been excoriated on ANI. Honestly at this point, there really isn't a lot more to say. If you do feel really strongly about it, then RFC/U is → that way. --Bfigura (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

←Marking as resolved (as best as it's going to be anyway). --Bfigura (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Engleham

This editor seems to be having a bad day: he called me a moron after a perfectly reasonable request from me to help expand an article.[118][119] After I complained [120][121], he followed it up saying I have his contempt. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Kurtlockwood

Resolved.

Not 100% sure this is the correct place but, the above user has committed an abuse of WP:Civil on another user's talk page. I went to his (User:Kurtlockwood's)talk page to place a gentle warning and found the page protected so, am bringing it here. Thank you Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a warning here. DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:GijsvdL

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereReferred to WP:COIN or WP:RSN. --Bfigura (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and vandalism on Melody Amber. User is of the conviction that every mention of my name should be eliminated from the internet and does not care about guidelines. I could use some help, not sure where to go with this. Spillover from nl:Wikipedia where user and user:JacobH have been stalking me for over six months, risk of further escalation if more troops are called in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for self promotion. We have invented the unimportance of his work. GijsvdL (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The above false statement by user is a usual part of the harassment that I have to endure, but also obviously irrelevant. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Anybody may enter NL.wiki IRC to verify. GijsvdL (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here the 'saints' are marching in. Request rapid solution, as this is dragging on nl: for a long while. User:Guido den Broeder was under mentorship by a User:Oscar for half a year, unfortunaly this half year has ended and oscar is little available right now. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Melody_Amber_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 and Melody Amber. Aleichem (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the problem at hand. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard or the conflict of interest noticeboard. Either would probably be a more appropriate venue. --Bfigura (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement with User:Robert.chave on Susan Hurley (composer)

Resolved.

I have never once made any comments about the notability of the subject of this article. I don't know if Susan Hurley is an outstanding composer, I don't know if she's well-known and notable. My sole concerns in this article have been to its format. The original version was written in sentence fragments, like a resume, and did not meet Wikipedia's style format. In addition, it was originally created at Susan Hurley American Composer, and I moved it to Susan Hurley (composer), and added formatting tags on the article, including cleanup-rewrite. Robert.chave saw fit to move it to Susan Hurley composer, and stripped off the tags, although he did add more sources. I moved it back to Susan Hurley (composer), the standard naming convention, and re-added the cleanup-rewrite tag, as it still looks like a resume. I also removed the following meaningless jargon paragraph:

Hurley's wholly instrumental pieces play at the edges of perception working at the limits of what can be detected in fine changes of volume, tamber, or pitch. The rate of change of these elements may be too slow to be detected in the passing moment, yet awareness that there must have been a change occurs over a large interval of time. In this regard and in the angularity of her harmonies her work is completely contemporary.

Robert.chave has seen fit to revert the paragraph twice now, and has sent me incivil comments on my Talk page such as [122] and [123]. I have tried to remain civil, and have repeatedly tried to explain to him my objections, but he has responded by reverting my edits and harrassing me on my Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read (your talk page prior to reversions, and his), you've been nothing but polite, while his comments seem to be rather out of line. I'll drop a civility warning on his page. --Bfigura (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There's also something funky going on with his talk page. (He's redirecting it to a different capitalization, which isn't great, since it doesn't match his username). --Bfigura (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Corvus and Bfigura, The sequences which I restored, I subsequently modified. These were restorations with modification. There were changes made to improve the readability of the article. This can easily be checked. Corvus when you referred to what I wrote as the the worst kind of "twaddle" this is not really a constructive criticism. So it is difficult to discern, when receiving this kind of remark, what you intended by it. Regards, Robert Chave (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert, the problem is rather straightforward: this is a statement of opinion about the nature of the music, and must be attributed to a published source. If the meaning is that she says it about her own music, then it can be worded that way--but still with a reference. But if it is what you yourself say on the basis of an acquaintance with the music, then its your own original research and we cannot include it. DGG (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarity of this remark. I will find some sources and quote them. They will probably be print based. Robert Chave (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability: Hi Corvis, You write up above that you never said one word about notability, yet this was one of your primary complaints. Please see the following written by you: 23:03, 12 April 2008 Corvus cornix (Talk | contribs) (2,360 bytes) ({{cleanup-rewrite}}{{onesource}}{{notable}}) (undo) Best Robert Chave (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Good luck finding the sources. Now, regarding notability: generally all articles on Wikipedia need to establish the importance of the subject. We have specific guidelines for biographies, musicians/bands, and academics to establish what defines notability in a particular field. At present, the article really doesn't show her notability, but I'm sure that'll change once you find some reliable sources. Best (and if I'm adressing your concern, please let me know), --Bfigura (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RomanHistorian

Resolved.

I have been accused by this user of almost making him lose his work on Executive Magistrates of the Roman Republic because I made a routine edit at the same time that he was trying to make an edit. Please see [124]. As far as I'm aware, there is really no way that this could have been prevented. I left what I thought was a polite note asking him if there was any way that the situation could have been avoided, but instead of responding politely, he deleted my note from his talk page: [125]. I would appreciate any comments on the situation. Thanks. Paradoxsociety (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional links:
edit that I made, mostly an autoformat using wikEd
edit that the user in question was trying to make while I made my edit

Paradoxsociety (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
...and he deleted it. I'm hoping that means that he's taking my comments under advisement. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:McJeff

Every since he has had a problem with me here: List of characters in Bully, he has been uncivil and shown a lot of bad faith. A few recent examples: [126] (first time he blanked my comment on the talk page). I reverted it, and told him about Template:Notyours. Later, he once again blanked my comment out: [127]. Then there is this: [128], which I see also as bad faith. It should be noted I hadn't edited that Bully list page (or it's talk) for a while, so his original attack (found here: [129], wasn't necessary at all. There was no need to drag past editors into the discussion, and basically drag their name in the mud because of past disputes. Then he butted into this alert: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Angrymansr, due to past issues with me. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had enough of you. I'm taking this to the admin noticeboard.McJeff (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Rob posted this exact same discussion on the Administrator's notice board. here. McJeff (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
However, I'll defend myself here slightly. I guess this was unavoidable. RobJ1981 has been determined to drag me into a conflict ever since I first gained his ire by suggesting that in regards to the List of characters in Bully article, he try to improve the article instead of just yelling that it violates this and that and the other policy.
First, let's look at the comment that provoked him to get involved on the List of characters in Bully talk page.
RobJ1981 - I'll see if I can put this in a way that's neither tenditious nor bad faith. He holds a philosophy that wikipedia requires intensive regulation of information to enforce quality over quantity, and uses extremely strict adherence to the rules and policies to regulate content. He's not the only editor like that on wikipedia. That's why he's done the same thing he did here with lots of other articles.
Huh... looks to me like I bent over backwards to explain his point of view fairly and neutrally even though I personally disagree with it and don't care for him either.
You see, this is Rob's M.O. Provoke a conflict. Leave message after message after message on someone's talk page with the {agf1} template, which is pretty much the equivalent of poking someone while saying "ow quit it". Once he gets a reaction - or in this case, a trout to the user talk page - he either runs here or to the administrator talk pages.
Also see [130]
Also see [131]
I think that this demonstrates that Rob is a chronic bad faith editor, and that this wikiquette alert combined with the continual needling he has been subjecting me to, constitutes harassment. Which is why I'm going to take it to an administrators talk page. McJeff (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What he stated on the talkpage on List of Characters in Bully is not an attack, If you call that an attack, then I dread to think what you would call pure verbal abuse. Just for your information it wasn't him who dragged your name into the conversation in the first place. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Pretty soon Rob is going to have all of Wikipedia on here. I like how he says that reporting to an administrator is harrassment and tattling, but yet he does it to other people all of the time. This is good comedy relief.Angrymansr (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I read that he stated that warning to tattle on someone was harrasing, That is so hilarious. Very hilarious indeed. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Have either of you two made any serious efforts to reach an understanding with him like I did here? And have him respond with more of the same like he did here? If you have and he did to you what he did to me, ignored the message and continued to be argumentative and tenditious, then we have a case that can be brought to Request comment on users to try to deal with this. McJeff (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
How can you try and make an understanding with someone who thinks he is right all the time? Which might explain why he is argumentative and tenditious. Now thats my opinion on him, civil or uncivil. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've asked him at least twice to cite specifically any part in any policy that this list violates but he did not respond to either of the requests. He's referred to policies when speaking, but refuses to defend them without speaking in general terms. Of course pointing the finger that everyone is violating policy along the way.[132][133] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrymansr (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
More proof Jeff just loves to cause trouble: [134]. He makes claims of me stalking him: (here as one example: [135], but he does the same thing here: [136]: I created a MFD and he commented in it. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Would that be the MFD you tried to hide to prevent the community from forming a consensus about it? [137] McJeff (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
More stalking by McJeff: [138]. 7 minutes later he posts in it: [139]. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Then there is his sneaky behavior, a revert with no explanation: [140].
That's actually because the explanation is the discussion thread on the talk page which you have refused to address. [141] McJeff (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also there is this: [142], he's removing maintenance tags that don't have the problems fixed. From the history of it: he's been edit warring with me (along with others) about the notability tag, and now he's been bold enough to remove all the tags for no good reason.
To be fair, McJeff was removing a selective number of notability tags placed by an editor who has been slapping the same tags on dozens of articles across a specific topic/genre, one which the same editor openly admits he knows little to nothing about. There's already a standing RfC page regarding that editor's actions, and lately it's causing a lot of issues between him and quite a few editors on the D&D wikiproject (myself included). McJeff's removal of those tags were actually rather selective compared to the massive number Gavin.collins has been placing without much understanding of the topics (including when and where those tags are honestly warrented). I can't comment on anything else here on this page, as I'm not otherwise familiar with McJeff's editing history or style, but on this specific point, I'm of the opinion that he's quite in the clear.Shemeska (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Shemeska. I'd like to point out that this issue with RobJ1981 is the one and only dispute I've been involved in since coming to Wikipedia nearly 2 years ago. McJeff (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I gave a reason for every single D&D related template I removed. Rob's just trying to misrepresent me to make me look bad... as usual. *sigh* [143] [144] [145]McJeff (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It takes two people to have a conflict. He needs to stop worrying about other's actions, if his behavior is just as bad. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Is that why every attempt at good faith and reconciliation I've made towards you has been completely ignored? [146] [147], and in two different cases [148] [149] just responded to with hostility and accusations[150] [151]? McJeff (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
McJeff continues his uncivil ways: [152]. His newest claim is I'm rounding up "anti-roster list buddies". I contacted one user about it, and I did the mature thing by listing the issue on the video game project talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Rob, it is a bit suspect that you created the discussion and only notified the one person who has supported you recently, instead of everyone involved. Why hide the discussion? Angrymansr (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not hiding a thing. Active editors can find the discussion just fine. Don't make false accustations towards me. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe you harshed people so many times. They don't like it! Why are you doing this?!? Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If everyone can find it just fine, then there's no need to notify Guyinblack. Especially when you called it Outside opinions needed (or something to that effect), and then notify someone who would not be considered an outside opinion since he was already involved in support of your POV. The right thing to do is notify everyone via the SvR talk page so that everyone can view and participate. Not everyone is a member and/or views that PW project talk page regularly. I wouldn't have known about it if I wasn't notified, so that assessment is incorrect. It's just common courtesy, much like letting people know when you report them to admins or nominate their articles for deletion. Doing so will only make you look better in the eyes of the community. Angrymansr (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

Resolved. User agreed to tone it down in the future --Bfigura (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Offensive, swearing, use of f- word.[153] Please advise this guy on WP:Civil and WP:NPA. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to call that a personal attack (since it's not really targeted at anyone in particular). Also, it's worth noting that the bulk of the post is devoted to commenting on content, not people. Still, starting off a post by swearing isn't terribly polite, so I'll leave a note. --Bfigura (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ThegreatWakkorati

This user seems to be very partial to POV-pushing [154] [155], does not assume good faith when his opinion is challenged [156], seems to have a great dislike of policy here and ignores them consistently when another editor has mentioned them. Has been disrespectful to other "senior" members in the past[157] [158] usually as a result of the reminder of these policies when they fall foul of them and also has a habit of deleting any user warnings given to them [159] [160] [161] [162] [163]. --treelo talk 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an ongoing dispute you'd like help resolving? From the above, I can't really tell what the specific issue is, other than you feel this user is violating NPOV and CIVIL. (Although I do feel compelled to point out two things: (1) there aren't "senior members" on wikipedia - everyone deserves equal respect (for possible exceptions, see WP:JIMBO) and (2) users are free to remove warning templates from their talk page. (This just denotes that they've read them) --Bfigura (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a dispute, more following up on this user's conduct since a previous encounter I had with them where they were less than civil and are still persisting with the passive aggression towards others and the violations of WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. This point probably wasn't clear but they have particular issue with supposed senior editors/administrators (which I and others have been called) being rude and unhelpful in their words when they're being polite which seems to me like they cannot get on with other members who try and correct them when they're incorrect or suggesting something against policy which seems to happen quite frequently when they edit. treelo talk 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Baccyak4H

Comment "Your IP address(es) are available already, and someone like me can find out things like where you live, who your service provider is, etc.." caused concern to editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.4.222 (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That misrepresents the context. This is at Talk:George Weigel.
Among warnings about edit warring, Baccyak4H advised an editor using multiple IP addresses to register to make Talk page discussions easier.[164]
That editor assumed bad faith and treated that suggestion as an attempt to "narrow down the IP address" of the first poster.[165]
Baccyak4H pointed out that the assumption was mistaken since the IP addresses are already visible and traceable.[166]
Anon IP repeats bad faith assumption and resolves to keep edit warring. [167]
It may come down to a misinterpretation of "where you live" - the anon thinking this means home address rather than just the general city location found by IP trace. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User 98.220.43.195

I have consistently maintained Gene Loves Jezebel and Michael Aston pages and I believe I have kept them fair and balanced. User 98.220.43.195 has consistently changed the article quoting one magazine article that is very one-sided and biased, along with making constant personal attacks against me. I have tried simply sticking with the facts of the situation, but he/she doesn't seem willing to. I was able to find two separate articles that were completely contradictory to the magazine article that 98.220.43.195 has quoted. I am trying to maintain the page, but he/she keeps undoing my edits and listing personal reasons, not factual ones. --Ghost (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would respond that this all began because I, along with other editors, have been striving to make the Gene Loves Jezebel article more fair and balanced. GhostAston has what appears to be a bias against one of the people in the article, Jay Aston (I provided proof of such from his own website) and I have witnessed him continuously editing the page to slant it in favor of someone else in the article, Michael Aston. He has even taken to removing FACTS from the page, such as the FACT that when Michael Aston left in 1988, Jay became the main songwriter. This situation all began, in addition, because he continuously refused to allow reference to the existence of an alternate version of Gene Loves Jezebel fronted by Jay Aston. Bizarrely, whenever someone would insert mention of the existence of this very real band, he would revert it and label it as vandalism! I believe his removal of FACTS, among other things, are being done solely to harrass me. I apologize if some of my comments have been harsh, but GhostAston's actions have greatly frustrated me and other fans of the band. By the way, I have removed the offending comment from GhostAston's talk page that led him to file this alert in the first place. I will endeavor to be more civil; at the same time, I and others are tired of his harrassment and continued attempts to make this a one-sided, biased article. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Geogre

User:Geogre wrote the following on my talk page: this. He did not add anything to a page. The page in question was just begun. Instead, he criticizes my writing style. His purpose on my talk page is to do nothing but to be incivil. Wikipedia is about praise and helping, not actions like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Special Olympics encyclopedia. Bad prose will be ruthlessly edited. Edits should not be whined about. I should point out to all here, though that WP:PAIN was deleted by unanimous consent. I find the idea that it might have been reborn here and that people are again racing to take offense very, very troubling. Geogre (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you actually edit any "bad prose"? No, you didn't. You made a few changes that were wrong, made unverifiable claims, and have been completely uncivil. You are not allowed to describe other people's writing habits in the manner that you did. Please read WP:CIVIL if you can't understand that. And unanimous? No. That is an outright lie. Redpen actually wished that the review turned out well and one of the complainees responded favorably. Two of the opposes were outright without merit. You have a very bad problem with the truth, and it is only reinforced by your unwillingness to back things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how you can find the diff cited offensive. More fundamentally one is allowed to critize writing style. Indeed, critizing writing style is by necessity a part of any reasonable dispute resolution. This because the only alternative is to be silent and make stale reverts, AKA edit warring. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not about praise. Praise do of course help in building an encyclopedia, because it helps to know when people appreciate your work. But that praise must be focused. By the same token pointing out what one sees as a mistake helps in building an encyclopedia because it allows the receiver to avoid it in the future. Always what is a mistake and what is praiseworthy must be an judgement call, but this in no way means that you should be quite about the mistakes you sees. WP:Civil simply tells us that when you feel the need to point out a mistake to an editor then you need to be civil about it. If WP:Civil is being read as saying you can't point out a mistake to anyone then it needs to be changed. Taemyr (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course the diff cited is uncivil.
"You know why not that many people write about the sermons? I assume you do, since you know everything ... I came here to find out if you were as proud and obnoxious with everyone else as you had been with me ... I couldn't conclude from that that you were as impenetrable to sense with others as with me, but I could see that you content yourself with Lord Emmsworth-style pontifical writing.
That's an attack on the writer, not the writing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As is "Special Olympics encyclopedia". Granted, Geogre is well known for being... abrupt, but still. In any event, I believe that this is now being discussed at ANI here. --Bfigura (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That discussion has now been closed, and was with respect to a specific article, not to general manner. DGG (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Teddybearnow

This user is in the middle of an argument over the EyeOS article. Before the page was protected, this user consistently reverted my contributions, even though I provided valid references. I'm trying to get on the topic of the article itself in Talk:EyeOS, and I'm asking him for a valid reason why he's doing it, but he refuses to discuss it, and instead attacks me. Psychcf (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I can indeed confirm. 84.13.214.118 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • 84.13.214.118 is a meatpuppet from Psychcf, who is the owner of http://www.psychdesktop.net/, a project competition of eyeOS, he is disturbing in the article, trying to get it removed, adding lies, changing lines to give bad reputation to his competition, etc. I think that this behavior isn't allowed in wikipedia. He criticizes the project (eyeOS) only because eyeOS use ajax, a technology widely used (gmail, youtube, digg, etc etc use it). I think that this user clearly have a conflict of interests and wants to use wikipedia for his personal busssiness against eyeOS, his competition. Teddybearnow (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Just like that ^ Psychcf (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • you feel attacked because you edit an article, that is in fact, about a product competition of your company? Teddybearnow (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Company? I thought I already told you that it's simply a hobby of mine. No money involved. Psychcf (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Maybe is no money involved, but you clearly don't have a neutral point of view on this article. You have a PROJECT (not company) that is competition of eyeOS, so you are not the correct person to edit eyeOS page. Teddybearnow (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Would you kindly take a look at [168]? Thanks. Psychcf (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an outsider: teddys behaviour may or may not be helpful, but if you (Psychcf) are running a competitor website, then you have a clear conflict of interest and should avoid editing the article, even if your edits are entirely in good faith Restepc (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And further to that you shouldn't be editing articles about your own website/product either Restepc (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Psychcf (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the conflict has been resolved. Psychcf (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article of the eyeOS project was semi-protected because a discussion with User:Psychcf, who wants to put his opinion on the article. Later, he admits in the talk page that he is a project developer of http://www.psychdesktop.net/, a project competition of eyeOS. A conflict of interests is clear here. Some days later, after a long discussion, he accepts to change his behavior, and some hours laters, another employer of http://www.psychdesktop.net/, [[User:Jaymacdonald] joins to the discussion, saying absolutely the same as Psychcf. We have a clear situation where some people are trying to give bad reputation to his competition through wikipedia, adding his own opinion to the article, and some critcism without references. The article will be unpprotected tomorrow, and they are talking about continue with his behavior, in the talk page. I think that is not allowed to edit wikipedia articles about projects/things where you are involved/are your competition/you have some personal interest Teddybearnow (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


nl:Wikipedia

I'd appreciate some friendly advice to users

explaining that en:Wikipedia is not an alternative platform to continue discussions relating to events on nl:Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so, if you think so, why do you repeat at EN.wiki the behaviour for which you have been vomitted out of NL.wiki community? GijsvdL (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Upgrading request to more than friendly, where necessary. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only checked statements made by one party and contested by another, and have warned users on both sides to refrain from personal attacks. I probably should not have continued a discussion at the 3RR page (since that was the wrong location for that discussion), but apart from that, I would appreciate if Guide den Broeder would include diffs to point which of my edits deserve notification on this board. Fram (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Diffs added. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop the unfounded accuse of a one-purpose account, I made this account to make an article on request some time ago. I'm now involved in this because YOU named me, if you can't take the heat don't start the fire... If you cant get your way without these 'low kicks' why even try? Jorrit-H (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Diff please. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So far, you have made 12 contributions: one article edit, one userspace edit, and 10 comments on me.[201] Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
While Jorrit may have made very few edits to the English wikipedia, I believe he has contributed significantly to the wikipedia project, just in other languages, and I don't think the labelling of him (or her, I don't know my Dutch names) a one-purpose account would be considered accurate by most people Restepc (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
An account is not the same as a person. But could we stay on-topic? Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The topic appears to be that you object to them mentioning events on nl wikipedia when talking about extremely similar events here....is that an accurate summary? Restepc (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That would invite a continuation of the discussion about these so-called similaraties, which is precisely what I want to avoid with this alert, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It seems that this is a spill over from nl.wp of a dispute (or series of disputes) between you and this "mob", and therefore NOT mentioning what's happened on nl.wiki isn't likely to be an achievable aim, especially as it appears that one side or the other is point blank lying about a nl.wp arbcom decision. This appears to go way beyond the scope of Wikiquette, and I'm not sure I can help. Restepc (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain, Guido, how what I said to you is a violation of Wikiquette? Also, just for the record, I was not and am not involved in this dispute over at the Dutch Wikipedia, nor will I become involved there. See nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/Aecis and nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/82.73.153.49 (my IP). I am aware that there is a dispute over there, yes, but that doesn't make me involved in it. AecisBrievenbus 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that Aecis it not in any way involved at nl:Wikipedia; the same goes for Aleichem and Fram.
The point is, that you are talking about events on nl:Wikipedia (and providing wrong info). While I assume you mean well, it invites others to continue talking about it, including myself, and en:Wikipedia is simply not the place for that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have talked about the dispute over at nl: because the dispute here is not taking place in a vacuum. Anyone who wants to understand this dispute needs to be aware of where and how it started, which is over at the Dutch Wikipedia. What is taking place here is a spillover of that dispute. As I've said above, noone is free from blame. But you make it seem as though everyone is at fault but you. AecisBrievenbus 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I made the same mistake. That's why I listed myself as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have made very few edits on the Dutch Wikipedia, and none relating to this dispute. As for providing wrong info: I have still not seen any evidence that anyone has provided wrong info about that dispute, and I have seen and provided evidence that supports most of the statements made about your situation on the Dutch Wikipedia. Whether it is relevant for the dispute here is another discussion, but as long as you claim that other people are lying, providing wrong info, and so on, you can probably expect this to continue. If you don't want to discuss your situation over at the Dutch Wikipedia here, the best way may be to ignore what people say about it, and stick to what happens on the English Wikipedia: are the books you added relevant (yes, obviously), important enough to mention (doubtful, in my opinion), and should you have been the one to include them (COI problems)? Apart from that, don't discuss other users (spa accusations), ignore topics you consider irrelevant (unless previously uninvolved editors from the En wikipedia start asking questions about it of course), and if needed follow our dispute resolution model.Fram (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgent help FOR User:Dawoodabro

I believe this user needs some serious handholding by editors/admins experienced with helping newbies (a task I am poorly qualified for as I am still learning and making mistakes myself). Dawoodabro has created many articles (see contrib list here[202]) related to Pakistan tribal structure and history which could potentially be very encyclopedic. However, many of these articles violate various WP policies including WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and in some cases possibly WP:BLP (when discussing current tribal chiefs by name). I do believe the user's intentions are good faith, as are those of other users who are helping to edit the pages, but there are problems that need to be addressed quickly as the user has recently created a large number of new articles which are sure to end up in the CSD bin.

I would also suggest that the information this user is providing, while crude stubs for the moment, might be worthy of protection/defense from SD nominations as I believe it has real WP:POTENTIAL for development by anthropological and sociopolitical scholars who would have verifiable resources to confirm much of the data. I would be very reluctant to scare off the user and lose the encyclopedic information he/she is trying to contribute -- provided he/she is willing to be educated in the ways of WP. -- Low Sea (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility on Wikipedia:List of cabals

I have repeatedly removed a "cabal" listing from Wikipedia:List of cabals, but User:Allstarecho continues to add it back, telling me I need to "grow up", and accusing me of stalking. This user has been uncivil about this and refuses to actually discuss, instead, preferring to insults. This stems out of a MfD that resulted in a template of his being deleted as an attack template, him re-writing it, me submitting the re-write for deletion because I wasn't quite comfortable with the re-write and wanting other opinions, which I got and withdrew my nomination. Because of this, he has resorted to declaring that I am stalking him and placing this indirect attack on this page.

I am aware of the big purple box at the top regarding the intended humor of the topic, and that there are bigger things to worry about. However, when one user is the sole subject of the humor, it ceases to be humor and becomes an attack. If I'm wrong in placing this here, that's fine, but this user has a history of incivility and being blocked for it. I don't want him blocked, I just want this attack against me to stay removed. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • (copied from WP:ANI) As a side note, Justinm1978 began adding content to the "Gay Cabal" listing on March 16th. His addition is referring to the debate about the userboxes. The following day, Allstarecho added content to the "Boy Scout Cabal" listing in response. Yes, ASE wrote the Boy Scout Cabal section on March 12th. Nothing he wrote could be considered a personal attack, especially since other people have added the same kind of material to cabal listings. Look at the Christian cabal entry. It's harsh compared to what ASE wrote. I just think people need to drop past issues and work on the encyclopedia. Filing this on ANI is a waste of time. WP:LOC is called a humor page for a reason. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Do note that I am removing that content I previously added as well, since it was an inappropriate response to an inappropriate contribution. Since you have a strong bias against me already, I ask that you kindly do not participate in this discussion as you are far from neutral.Justinm1978 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Justinm1978 seems to have an infatuation with my edits since a previous issue regarding a userbox I made that he disagreed with. I will not justify myself. The content at Wikipedia:List of cabals speaks for itself. It doesn't mention one single person, nor has it ever done so - so there is no personal attack regarding the Wikipedia:List of cabals content. He's just hellbent on making my life on Wikipedia miserable by stalking my every move and finding some way to get involved. Further, his lie that I refuse to discuss is proven as such - a lie - by viewing the Wikipedia:List of cabals talk page. Justin should read WP:OWN and realize that Wikipedia:List of cabals is a humor page and nothing else. And that's all I have to say on the issue. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Accusations of "stalking your every move" need some validation if you're going to make that a justification for your incivility. Belittling someone on a talk page and telling them to "grow up" is not discussion. You have made wikipedia most unenjoyable for me as well with your insistence on this non-humorous contribution and your assumption that I care deeply about what you are contributing. Agree to disagree and just leave it alone. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"Since you have a strong bias against me already, I ask that you kindly do not participate in this discussion as you are far from neutral." Last time I checked, any WP user is free to respond on this page. Also, an example of your intention on irritating ASE is here by messing with his talk page while he was on a WikiBreak. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean the re-reverting of a deleted, red-linked category that someone else deleted first? It was my previous understanding that those were supposed to be deleted. How about something credible that shows me editing articles that he is working on. As far as your contributions to this discussion go, I thank you to not poison the well and let someone outside of these issues speak, k? You are far too close to the issue at hand to give an unbiased opinion, and that is why I brought this discussion here. Please respect that. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean when you and someone else took it upon yourselves to remove categories from someone's talk page. It is not your concern what is on someone's talk page. Others agreed. I suggest removing ASE's page from your watchlist, if you haven't done so already. That was the only way you could have known about the original removal of the categories in the first place. Also, I am outside of the issue and I am speaking. I have not been involved in the edit warring on the cabal page, so I am free to respond. Please don't try to silence people and feel free to link to all of the pages you wish. I can do the same. Just let it drop. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting choice of words. You would be outside the issue if it weren't for the fact that every time I bring something up (deletion of two of Allstarecho's templates), taking his actions to ANI and Wikiquette, you just happen to show up. Who is stalking again? Let it go, please, and kindly remove yourself from the discussion as you already have a bias against me. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I think you need to calm down Justin. You came here for help for a user being uncivil towards you. Going on like you are, yourself acting uncivil is certainly not going to help. Grsz11 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason I'm aware of the the AfD, ANI, etc. you mentioned is the fact ASE's talk page is on my watchlist and notices are placed there for these discussions, not because I'm "stalking" anyone. Now, I'm off to work on an article. Feel free to respond, but I'm done with this pointless conversation. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User Ahatter1981

When editing the Beyonce page about her personal life and marriage to Jay-Z I am consistently being bullied by a user named Efe and someone named Dan Bard. By adding information about her personal life including her marriage it was edited multiple times daily and I was told to stop " vandalizing" her page. How is that vandalism. Just because the information was not relavant to them it is now vandalism? They are getting their information from the same media and internet sources that I am citing but oh because they have not personally confirmed the marriage these two people spend their time taking the information down twice a day. I should start removing their contributions.

Blanking the page in response is hardly reasonable. Please remember to sign your posts in "talk" pages such as this one. On the other hand, it looks to me as though your edits have often been in good faith. - Denimadept (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)

Hi, recently I was communicating with admin Ricky81682 (talk · contribs). I am dissatisfied with several of his comments and actions. First, I'd like to cite the following to illustrate what I expect from admins:

“ Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However in general they are expected to act as role models within the community, and a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters, is expected. When acting as administrators, they are also expected to be fair, exercise good judgment, and give explanations and be communicative as necessary. (source) ”

My main problem with him is that he does not sufficiently explain his statements and actions. What do I mean by sufficiently? Claiming that someone is uncivil is not sufficient enough, because the word uncivil has no real meaning without explanation. For a series of unanswered questions, see this group after he blocked me.
I could still ignore that but then he made this comment (again without explanation, nor evidence): "I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." The statement seemed so ridiculous to me that I asked several times whether it was aimed at me. Since he said he'd ignore my questions, I've concluded that it was. I'd like Ricky to explain what he meant by POV-pushing and list such examples. I take this allegation seriously because I always try to adhere to neutral point of view (that is the one supported by reliable evidence). This can be easily illustrated by the many {{fact}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}} and other tags I inserted into articles. It can be also illustrated by the tens of articles I created or significantly improved and hundreds of references I added (examples of references: [203], [204], [205]).
Rickly claims he explained his actions, but I think this can be a semantics problem.
For example, he stated that I called people nationalists in a particular comment. However, it is quite clear that I didn't label anybody a nationalist in that comment. I am aware that I once said that an editor's actions are based on nationalism. In other examples, I talked about nationalism in general. When I asked Ricky to clarify this, he changed his rhetoric to "a rant about nationalists" First, I was answering a question so how that makes the answer a rant I don't know. Second, even if it was a rant, how does that warrant a block? Moreover, he said that I want on "complaining about 'they are two and I am only one'" I said that: "That they are two and use it as an advantage is a fact for me. If you have a problem with that, try to explain why. Also, that was a general point about how Wikipedia works." I still support this statement and Ricky still didn't say what is inaccurate about it or why it warrants a block.
In conclusion, I know that some comments I made were inappropriate (but certainly not much different from others' involved), but the point of this alert is to see some explanations from Ricky and others' comments on the questions posted.
Therefore, if someone wants to start with off-topic discussions here, please don't. I've been thrown so many red herrings at Wikipedia recently that I may get mercury poisoning.--Svetovid (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Skimming User talk:Svetovid#WP:3RR and the following sections, it looks to me like a classic example of WP:SOUP (Admin X warns editor Y in perfectly simple terms not to make personal attacks. Editor Y obfuscates with complicated demands for lists, definitions, explanations of widely-understood terms, etc etc etc). Ricky81682 is not the problem here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh goody. Someone doesn't like that they are being warned by an administrator for their poor, uncivil behavior, so they rant and complain at WQA. Again. Take your warnings as you would with a pill, and learn from your prior mistakes. I don't think it can be any simpler than that. You have been given an adequate explanation, and if you would review the policies that are set forth on Wikipedia, you'd understand that your actions deserved sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs 13:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll put it simply: Where in that comment did I label editors nationalists? Which policy or guideline did my comment that two editors have an obvious advantage against one editor break?
"poor, uncivil behavior" Ironically, this is the kind of vague statements I wrote about.
"Admin X warns editor Y in perfectly simple terms not to make personal attacks. Editor Y obfuscates with complicated demands for lists, definitions, explanations of widely-understood terms..."
Actually, my questions were direct replies to Ricky's statements, not to his threats to ban me (even though this question is still unanswered). For instance:
Ricky said: "then wanting to use a blog (that definitely fails as a reliable source)" My reply: "please expand. Blogs don't automatically fail as a reliable source so where is the justification for that statement?
Ricky said: "I see you removing tons of sourced statements." I asked: Can you list them please?
And the statement, "I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." obviously needs an explanation because it's threatening.--Svetovid (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For the arguments about blogs, see here for why they are generally not accepted, like you were told earlier. For the other discussions, you should know as (a) you were told by others about them and (b) you took it upon yourself to create a WP:OWN complaint against those who argued that with you. As I said before, I am not interested in playing technical games with you. Otherwise, I think that the discussion on Svetovid's talk page, this Wikiquette alert, this at WP:ANI, plus this oddity (done "like suggested") should be more than clear what this is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"they are generally not accepted" That was exactly my point!
OK, you are not willing to explain your actions. IMO, you failed to act as an admin should.--Svetovid (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an overflow of a complex dispute involving Hungarian and Slovakian editors and articles. FYI, I have started a centralized location for discussion of these disputes and editors, at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. I recommend that any other complaints about these issues be directed there. Thanks, Elonka 11:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)