Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Steven Chayer article and user Cquan 2 User Finisklin: linkspamming 3 Personal attacks and deletion of talk page postings 4 User:HalfShadow 5 User:Xasha

Steven Chayer article and user Cquan

My discussion with him over the article Steven Chayer has been kind and level-headed. He is condescending and rude and wants to be an Administrative Editor.

Drewhamilton (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he has been neither condescending nor rude. He has been patient and helpful. Incidentally, it is customary to notify the person in question that he is the subject of a Wikiquette alert, as explained above under "Instructions for users posting alerts". Ilkali (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help me with this guy. [1] He's mean and on a power trip and he knows it because I pointed out how mean-spirited and unessecary something he had on his user page was and he A) Deleted my comment in the Articles for Deletion discussion [2] over an article I wrote "Steven Chayer" B) He edited his user page to removed the stuff on his user page I had pointed out as mean and needless. Drewhamilton (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've informed the editor of the existence of this WQA. I don't see any evidence to suggest that there is a problem here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User Finisklin: linkspamming

User Finisklin (talk · contribs · logs) has added references or external links to at least 12 different articles (see diffs, below), all to content written by one Cormac Burke. He has done so seemingly without concern for whether this person is an notable authority on the relevant subject or whether the linked resource is appropriate to the article, leading me to believe he is engaging in linkspamming. I am not certain he understands that his actions are questionable, and I have opened discussions with him on his talk page, but it feels like continuing the discussion would sap more of my energy than I'd like to sacrifice. I'm hoping someone else can back me up on this.

Diffs: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Note that these comprise all but one of his article-space edits.

Ilkali (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I issued a final warning for spamming. If he was just adding the reference to the book, this might be tricky, but since he is also adding the website, and since he is adding the references in weird random places (like in the middle of the Category tags), this is a cut-and-dry case of spamming. If he does it again, he will be blocked and his website could be blacklisted. Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and deletion of talk page postings

Thanks to whichever volunteers handle issues at this page, I hope you find your work rewarding.

I've been tolerating provocative rudeness by User:Ilkali at Talk:Gender of God for some time now. Mainly I've ignored it, and stuck to answering nit-picking challenges and Wikilawyering. Eventually, I worked out it was trolling of some kind and I shouldn't feed it. I gave notice of withdrawing from discussion and explained why.

Now, however, this user is actually insisting on removing a reply I have given as part of a very long standing discussion to another user, who is currently absent. I have given warnings and finally a 3RR warning. Personally, I'd rather the user just chooses to be more civil, and allow things that irk him to stand; but how can I continue interacting with another long standing editor on this page, if a third party deletes my replies? Or am I to understand I can edit talk pages as well as articles and delete comments I think are inappropriate?

It seems to me we need to be even more generous in what we allow in talk pages than we do in articles. Where would we be if people had the right to delete talk page posts they disagreed with? Does this user have the right to remove my comment here?

Sorry to trouble you, but I've spent a long time talking an important issue through with User:Andowney and we actually seem to be getting to the end of it at last. But now Ilkali has deleted my reply. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, you and perhaps User:Andyowney are misusing the talk page: [[WP:TALK}} "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." You've written " Asking questions and challenging human doctrines derived from revelation, not revelation themselves, is a great way to push oneself to depending more heavily on scripture, prayer, obedience and love. To depend on scripture is to depend on God (if we are correct to believe God is there and that he has spoken). Although I believe there is only one truth, and although I believe scripture informs us of much regarding gender, I think the processes are as important as the results. As you say, now it is "through a glass darkly" then it will be "face to face".But what do we say at Wiki? Christian view: "through a glass darkly" (Paul as understood by AH and AD)? I think here we must simply place the dark understanding of the scholars to this point, and leave the question quickly. If people want to know more, they should go to church and join the collective struggle to wrestle for as much grace of revelation as we can find as we turn to God's word together." That looks more like a sermon than using it as "a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article". If I were active on that page, I'd probably remove that myself.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are overlooking the point. I say: But what do we say at Wiki?. You say: That looks more like a sermon. What does? The second half of the last sentence. Were you to remove on such grounds, and then repeat that after objection. I would report you for uncivil and biased editing. Thanks for taking the trouble to follow the links, and for reading the disputed comment. If the last sentence is the only objection, I will count your voice as agreeing with retaining the post. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"I've been tolerating provocative rudeness by User:Ilkali at Talk:Gender of God for some time now". Your first reply when I urged you not to use the talk page as a forum: "If you can't follow the discussion, feel free to stay out of it Ilkali". Do you consider that a civil response?

"Where would we be if people had the right to delete talk page posts they disagreed with?". Where would we be if people did not have the right to delete inappropriate talk page posts? This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. As has been confirmed here, you were misusing the talk page. WP:TALK explicitly authorises the removal of off-topic posts.

"how can I continue interacting with another long standing editor on this page, if a third party deletes my replies?". You can take it to his talk page, as I urged you from the beginning. What exactly is your problem with this recourse? Why are you refusing to even consider it? Ilkali (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see more input, but I still think it looks like the talk page has been used as a forum, and that this applies@

"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." (from [[WP:TALK}} Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:HalfShadow

The user left a personal attack on the talk page of another blocked user. I left a friendly note on his talk page, which was promptly deleted without explanation. I'm fully aware that the contents of talk pages can be deleted as is the wish of the user, but sensing that he might get the message if a proper warning was left, I posted a uw-npa1 warning on his page. This, too, was promptly deleted. The user then threatened to report me for harassment. Any chance of an admin dropping him a line in relation to WP:CIVILITY? Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm allowed to delete messages to my talk page. Anyone is. You're trying to earn points for something from four days ago, and I'm not prepared to waste time on the past. Go away. HalfShadow 16:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would I be trying to earn points? It doesn't bother me either way whether another user is blocked or not; you, however, took the opportunity to attack them while they were blocked, knowing they couldn't do anything about it, and you need to learn that that isn't acceptable. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Except blocked people can comment (and remove comments) on their talk pages. That's two things you gotten wrong so far; care to try for a hat trick? HalfShadow

I was referring to the fact that they cannot complain about the behaviour of other users in an appropriate forum, like this. There's another thing you've misinterpreted, the first being WP:CIVILITY. Care to go for three? --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Except at least two admins had posted there since and at least six overall and nobody's seen a problem with my comment. Just stop; you're only embarrassing yourself now. You're wasting seconds I could be using to do important things with. HalfShadow 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• He is entitled to remove comments from his talk page, but there are civility issues even on this very page. I think a reminder would be enough if he can take note of it, upon which, I will close this WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't go down too well... --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although IMO not the best course of action, he can delete anything he likes off his talk page, I suggest you wait and see if his minorly rude behaviour (excluding his talk page where he can delete what he likes) continues or stops now he's seen this thread. Restepc (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC) On seeing other comments, I agree with Ncmvocalist Restepc (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If it doesn't stop, then go to RFC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Based on this, I suggest taking it straight to ANI if it continues. It's a despicable attitude. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with you; both of you. HalfShadow 17:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved because there is no instance of a personal attack at user talk:Sarah777, and a user is allowed to remove comments from his own talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The user against whom the attacks were made (Sarah777) deleted the comments, here and here. The user who made the comments (HalfShadow) still hasn't accepted that he made a personal attack, and still hasn't agreed to refrain from doing so in the future. I think this comment on my own talk page reveals his attitude to all of this. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So? A user can remove talk page comments and put any edit summary that they wish, but that doesn't make the comments that were removed personal attacks. HalfShadow hasn't accepted that it wasn't a personal attack, and as an administrator, I can't see the comment being a personal attack. A jab? Potentially. A personal attack? No. Move along. seicer | talk | contribs 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See how to tag threads at the top of the page - there is no acceptance by either party, and this is certainliy not resolved. Saying "And it's commentary like that which is why we no longer value your input." is clearly incivil - there's no indication that it is going to stop either. The disappointing inability or reluctance of certain admins to stop this behaviour at early stages (through whatever means, even through a polite reminder/warning) is precisely why the Committee ends up dealing with cases of incivility - sometimes where an admin could've easily have dealt with it much sooner. This is closed as stuck in the hope it does not continue, or that he doesn't continue to attempt to drive away contributors - See Civility policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: it's not a personal attack - it's incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

This user, recently warned and then blocked for making offensive remarks against me, has resumed his attacks. Here, here, here, here, here and here he goads and prods me, insinuating dark motives on my part. Let me elaborate: I noted at Template:Romanian historical regions that certain regions were part of Romania in 1941-44, which in fact they were. Now, how exactly the template should be constructed is open to interpretation. What is, however, completely unacceptable is that Xasha, despite his recent block and warning, and despite my pointing out to him repeatedly that he is violating AGF, CIV and NPA, accuses me of "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" - the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, in which Romania's fascist wartime regime also took part. Obviously these are very serious, but also entirely baseless charges. I have asked Xasha to withdraw the charge, to comment on content rather than on the editor, to stop attempting to smear my good name, but all to no avail. It is not up to him to air his "impression" and "supposition" that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", but if I can't convince him of that through discussion, then it only remains to me to seek a more formal means of clearing my name. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just note that your implications that I accused you of fascism or rehabilitation (?) are just the result of your gross failure to assume good faith. As for historical revisionism, your comment about Moldova's statality leaves no other interpretations.Xasha (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't obscure the issue, don't "interpret" my edits in sinister ways, and things will be fine. Again: unacceptable to say that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", a charge that very clearly implies I am trying to put fascism and Ion Antonescu in a favourable light. Or, if it doesn't imply that (which I'm sure it does), then the best solution is always silence - not coming up with your own "impressions" and "suppositions" regarding my motives. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken. It's not you who is trying to do it, it's the version of that template you created who does it. When a version edited by you is seriously flawed and biased, is my right to bring it to the community's attention.Xasha (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You show you're racist. That's all that counts here. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When will be Xasha blocked? ClaudiuLine (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When Wikipedia will become 100% User:Bonaparte socks proof.Xasha (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You will be blocked soon because of your racist comments and personal attacks. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching this one with a ten-foot pole -- but for whoever does, this arbitration case is relevant. Basically, Xasha is one of a number of editors who is on a very short leash on any articles relating to Eastern Europe... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation: do read the links provided by Biruitorul.Xasha (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xasha&diff=215635466&oldid=215284111 --ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this has already been escalated to WP:ANI and involves past arbitration rulings, there's nothing that can be done about it here. Please don't forum shop. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)