Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive95

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


talk page for Biofield energy healing

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Adrian-from-london (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Hi,

Please can you review this talk page given Famousdogs comments regarding "bad faith" and "strange comment":

Publication date is never an appropriate reason to exclude material. If new evidence has come to light between 2000 and 2007 which resulted in the same authors coming to different conclusions, then it is an easy enough matter to cite both reviews and explain the different conclusions. Tom, I think your attempts to smear one of the premier researchers in the field of CAM offensive, misguided and in extreme bad faith. Ernst is a hugely respected academic who has put his career prospects on the line by carefully and rigorously studying something that many other people have walked away from. In addition, please don't insult other editors or assume bad faith. Adrian, you have a strange definition of "secular"... Famousdog (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be another case of editors (Adrian-from-london (talk · contribs) and Tom Butler (talk · contribs)) wanting to portray a fringe theory as mainstream science, and getting upset because other editors (Famousdog (talk · contribs) and Enric Naval (talk · contribs)) are obstinately refusing to accept that biofield energy healing is mainstream science. Looie496 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree in general that the underlying issue is not incivility but a disagreement over what is or not appropriate for the article. The civility complaint is a proxy for disputation over the underlying issue. Figureofnine (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Vint Cerf

A user is repeatedly and arbitrarily adding to the lead of the Vint Cerf article that Cerf is of a Jewish background. Not only should this not even be in the lead, but there is no reliable evidence of Cerf being of Jewish origins. The edits have been reverted several times, only to be put back, and attempts by users to speak with this editor on some of his numerous IPs have met with no results. He also seems to be doing this on the Bob Kahn article as well. If there's anything that can be done, I would be grateful to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.226.61 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2010

Thanks for the report, although you would normally put this at WP:BLPN because it is nonsense being inserted into a biography of a living person. I will watch both articles and assist reverting unsourced speculation. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This is considerably more serious than a wikiquette issue. Figureofnine (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

F. Simon Grant

Resolved
 – Editor blocked for 48 hours

User F. Simon Grant, possible Doom (talk · contribs) sockpuppet, is attacking me personally and repeatedly on my own talk page and on the Beat Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page. Responding to my request that he make specific proposals and avoid general discussion of topic, he responded with lengthy attacks, and extreme obnoxiousness. About the worst I've ever encountered at WP. Appreciate some admin action.Tao2911 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this is a sock, since F. Simon has been editing Beat Generation since 2006. Nevertheless I have blocked him for 48 hours for personal attacks. Please feel free to contact me directly if the problem resumes. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing history, I agree. That thought was primarily since it was to Doom that I had mentioned the possibility for blocking for incivility on the Beat talk page, and it was Grant that responded. But thanks in any case for acting.Tao2911 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User has now created an admitted sock, taunted other users in talk, and edit warred on the page. If ever an IP ban was warranted, this is it.Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User IP has been blocked. Case closed for now.Tao2911 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

2012 and beyond in film

Wiki User http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:-5- has removed 3 entries for 3 different upcoming movies on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2012_and_beyond_in_film. The user claims that these films do not have studio announced release dates, but in the references I cite they do.

User -5- has added most of the film entries on this page, and all references link back to a single website source. as a best case scenario, it appears -5- does not want to take any other references save one third party website as a proven references. As a worst case scenario, -5- may be using this page as a link farm for the Coming Soon website.

I have explained my reasons with -5- for keeping the 3 film entries that I gave and they wish to ignore my reasons and delete the entries from this page. I have also told them that I have requested assistance from a senior Wiki editor to look at this page and deem if it's being abused for the benefit of 1 single website.

Thank you for your assistance.

I just want to note that I have not added one single film to this article, it is an outright lie to say that I have added all of them. My issue is that the article does not deal with tentative release dates, only confirmed release dates with the month, the day, and the year. I removed this user's entries because they did not follow along with what is consistent with the rest of the article.-5- (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case then I guess both the article lead and the talk page header need to explicitly state the agreed inclusion criteria to avoid this kind of thing in future. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Guilty Bencey (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean for the 3 movies that I added to the page? Can they be returned to the page? And is that page being used for spamming links for 1 website? Screenhead (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what is agreed in the Announced films without release dates discussion on the talk page. It looks like you haven't joined that discussion yet so that should probably be your next step. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Screenhead, if there is continued problems between you and that user, you may want to consider using the steps set out in WP:3O. Figureofnine (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael album, swearing while undoing edit

I don't believe that there should be cursing like the below, in the Revision History (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Michael_(album)&action=history)

20:03, 23 November 2010 Tbhotch (talk | contribs) (21,225 bytes) (Undid revision 398496461 by Aleskr (talk) and continue with this shit


I acted in a civil manner as you can see in my comments. I was acting in "good faith". Aleskr (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tbhotch also appears to show aggravation in the talkpage

As was said on your talkpage self-published sources or links where people beside the "responsable of the account" have contact are not reliables. Stop with this. TbhotchTalk C. 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The people I quoted on twitter are responsible for their postings. As stated, they can be verified, linked to official websites. Randy Jackson & TJ Jackson have both been previously quoted from their twitter in the media and there are other cases. If you are really aggravated by this discussion, you can leave it alone. I'm not here to get personal. I have been sharing my info in an impersonal manner. Aleskr (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleskr (talk • contribs)

Thank you so much for notify me about this, how can assume good faith when user cannot notify me about reports? TbhotchTalk C. 21:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, we not need this here per the rule A1. This has been taken to his talkpage and article talkpage. TbhotchTalk C. 21:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Editors shouldn't use four-letter words in edit summaries. However, the substantive issue at hand is a serious one. It appears that what's at issue is use of Twitter as a source, which is questionable. This isn't really the appropriate forum for such a discussion. I'd suggest RS/N. Figureofnine (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I welcomed that discussion of Twitter as a source as you can see in my edits, and talk pages (User and the article), where you can see my points. My post is about the tone of the discussion. More than swearing, the tone should not get personal and judgmental. I had other info for a different perspective, but am encountering someone who just swears and says "Stop with this" (above) and "this is Wikipedia if you forgot it" and 'prescriptive' tone, like on my User page

This is NOT the Seattle Times, this is Wikipedia if you forgot it. Twitter is not and won't be a reliable source. TbhotchTalk C. 19:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel I acted in "good faith" the post here, so people can be aware of the underlying attitude to keep discussion civil and I don't feel completely safe carrying on with this person e.g. to let them know of this "report" from my impression of them. It would seem better to just report this to a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleskr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want an apologize for my behaivor, sorry, but this is having nonsense now. 4 user (including me) have told you that Twitter is not a reliable source, that you should take this to a concrete talkpage and/or WP:RS/N. So what exactly this report is, for my behaivor or for keep 11kb of WP:UNDUE copyrighted text. TbhotchTalk C. 22:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Aleskr, there is only a marginal civility issue here. As I said earlier, editors should avoid using four-letter words in edit summaries. That is definitely incivil, and Tbhotch should not repeat that kind of behavior. However, I can't see anything further of that issue coming here. There is a substantive reliable sourcing issue and this is not the forum for it. This discussion should be closed. Figureofnine (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Warren Dayton - images removed

Dear Folks, I uploaded some images on an article about myself. I own the copyright, and it is OK by me for these images to go out on the internet, as they are of historical significance. I tried to use the "I Am the owner of the copyright" portal, but it said I could not use this option, as I was not signed in (I was, and attempts to resign in failed). I therefore used the standard upload screen, entering the copyright info permissions in the comments. The files were tagged for Administrator automatic deletion. THIS IS A MISTAKE! How do I fix this, or get the decision reviewed. Warren Dayton. The image files are West-mag-TShirt_WDayton.jpg and Poster_quack.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by PosterArt (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The board you're looking for is Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. This is not a "etiquite" issue. Take a look at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials as it lays down the ways you can certify that you are donating this to the project, however I notice you claim that the T-Shirt is from a 1969 magazine cover. You may, depending on what kind of copyright you used when licencing that image to the magazine, not be able to donate that as the magazine may still have a licence. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

BLGM5

i would like to bring to the attention of adminstrators editor BLGM5, who is making inappropriate, and sometimes offensive comments in edit summaries. samples from the last month or so include: "get that british shit out of here.", "dumb.", "duplicated categories. pay better attention.", "...these idiotic trivial lists stay out until sourced." and, "celtic sucks." . he may also be misusing/abusing the twinkle utility. today when i brought it to his attention using the {{uw-wrongsummary}} tag, he responded by tagging me with {{uw-tempabuse1}} here. realising he was not "new user", i notified him again that his edit summaries and his use of tw were inappropriate here, my comments were reverted again as vandalism. taking a closer look, i notice BLGM5 has been told before about his edit summaries by another editor (user:Falcon9x5) on 1 november here, and here, and here, and BLGM5 responded very much the same way to his concerns sniping back, "are you stupid? what makes you think your comments are welcome, or relevant?", and "take the hint, go away. further posts here will get you reported." i believe it is now time for admin intervention. --emerson7 04:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin A Kuntz

I'm really frustrated and angry over the actions of this user and his treatment of me. While I recognize and have admitied the part my own actions have played in escalating the situation, the user continues to act as if I'm the only one at fault here, in cludign accusing me odf being a WP:DICK (for which he appeared to apologize, but then continued his other behavior), and accusign me of edit warring when both have 2 reverts in the matter. I've reeally tried to let this go, but he doens;t appear willing to do so, and contiues to make comments addressed to others about how he's so above edit warring, and bandying about WP:DGAF, while at the same time making it clear it's all a dig at me. Futhere, he quotes rules and guidleines and essays while accusing me of trying to use guideliens to avoid discussing the issues. We've had run-ins in the past, and I'd genuinely like to avoid them in the future, but aside from avioing him outright, I don't see how that can be done. Any genuine advice and help in resolving this would be greatly appreaciuated, but please be aware that attacking me and claiming I'm the only problem here won't help to resolve the issue in any way. - BilCat (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone could explain to Bill how WP:BRD is supposed to work and how consensus is formed that will do a great deal to help with Bill being angry and frustrated. I note that another editor explained to Bill he shouldn't have continued to revert war [1] and given his threat and I quote "I'm quite willing to push 3RR" I could quite easily have taken this to the 3RR noticeboard but chose not to. I am neither angry nor frustrated, I walked away from a confrontation that Bill appeared to pursuing because of past interactions and because I really don't see the point in getting het up over a WP:LAME content dispute. I would quite happily continue to walk away and leave it alone but he continues to pester me and I've already apologised once for calling him a WP:DICK.
With regards to Bills allegations of edit warring, I stopped after 2 reverts and resorted to the talk page and Bill simply reverted once more dismissing my comments as an "inanity" and "pretty pictures" when I suggested a gallery was useful for illustrating the diverse nature of BOT in a way that words can't. Both comments I found uncivil and inappropriate. Whilst I appreciate direct speech, it is not an excuse for being rude.
I take from the comment that only "genuine advice" is welcome and that he isn't a problem is symptomatic that he doesn't understand how his attitude may well be the issue. Take note, please leave me alone and if you continue with the threat to take this to WP:ANI then may I suggest you read and contemplate WP:PETARD first. Justin talk 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: Removed a post with some schoolboy prank. Justin talk 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't a clue what "schoolboy prank" he's referring to. I assume he means this WQA itself, which I have posted in all seriousness. He also has a notice that I'm not allowed to post on his talk page, which I have respected except for the requirement here that I let him know of WQA's filed against him, but he still felt the need to post a note on my talk page the I not post on his page! As you can see, he appears to have no clue of the role his own attitude has played in this matter, nor is he interested in settling this in a civil manner. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Note you won't see it because I removed it, I refer the right honourable gentlemen to the thread below. I've apologised already for calling you a WP:DICK, I am settling it in a civil manner by simply disengaging from you. As far as I'm concerned there is no unresolved conflict between us. Peace be upon you. Justin talk 20:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok, but please be a bit more clear in the future. It's hard to take such apologies seriously when you keep making snide remarks, per this diff, that you don't engage in edit wars, but I do. As long as you keep doing this, there will be a problem between us. Then posting your note on my talk page is nothing but baiting, as you know I'm required to give you notice on your talk page that I am posting here - it's not optional. You say you want peace, but yet you keep shooting at me. What you appear to mean is that you want me to shut up about the way you treat me, but allow you to continue to make remarks on my supposedly-immature behavior with impunity. That's not my idea of "peace", and I won't live that way. It's quite obvious we have overlapping interests, and we are going to continue to cross paths, and if you contiune with your attitude and actions as demostrated here everytime we cross paths, there can be no peace. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood my comment that "I'm quite willing to push 3RR": By that I meant that I am willing to make two reverts, not that I am willing to make 3 or more, and the context of those comments makes it clear what I meant. You've admited that you made 2 reverts, wich is one more than the "community" would have us to make. That's my issue here., and I said it on several occasions: we both made 2 reverts, so your continued assertions that my reverts were edit-warring and yours were not is my issue here, and why you're being hypocritical on this. ALso, you're the one who brought up our past interaction on the BOT talk page - I was reverting you simply on principle, not because of any past interaction: Two editors removed the gallery in succession, and BRD is no reason for you to have restored it agian. It had nothing to do with our past interaction, but only that I'm as stubborn as your are. I had no intention of going beyond two reverts, as I made clear in my comments there - you misunderstood one phrase, and took tht mean I was willing to continue reverting you. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::What you don't appear to get is that you shouldn't have made the second revert, in fact you shouldn't have made the first. Taking it to talk was the right thing to do - WP:BRD is precisely why it should have been added back. You were edit warring and still don't appreciate that you were. This is nothing to do with stubborness on my part, your actions were simply wrong and you were being stubborn not principled. I still think the article is poorer without that gallery but it just isn't worth getting het up over it. If you wish to label me as hypocrtical, go right ahead, I don't care. Take a look at the reams of text you've written to justify your actions. Now excuse but I must get back to an article I was in the process of writing. Justin talk 22:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to respond to your reverted comments: What you don't get is you should not have reverted me period, according to a strict interptetation of the revert rules. By reverting both me and the first editor, you began the "edit war", if that's what you want to call it. Don't revert me as your second revert, and then tell me I can't revert you - That's what I mean by were're both stubborn. Also, we're not here because you reverted twice or I reverted twice - were here because of you attitudes and coments towards me, and you contuined throwing essays in my face, repeated use of DGAF-ism as as excuse to ingore my comments while you continue to make snide remarks about me. You can't control how other people react to want you do, and it's you're own actions and comments that are keeping this conflict going. I know I'm not perfect in this, and I've admitted my own role in this, but that does not excuse your own role in this or your own DICK-ish behavior. You;re respnsible for your own action, not me. I'm not going to let this go until it is setttled to my satisafaction, as I'm the one who has to live with your actions towards me. I've seen no evidence that you'll modify your behavior towards me inthe future. Unless you're willing to just stay the frack out of my way completely, there will continuw to be issues. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Struck through my comments. I had removed them after thinking better of it in order to avoid futher interaction with this editor. Justin talk 00:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're free to disengage, and I'll respect that, but you have to at least tell me that's what you;re doing, or I can't reasonably be expected to know it, much less respect it. If you;re jkust continuing you DGAF behavior in that you ignore me directly but continue to comment on me, that's not disengaging,and that I won;t respect. I don;t know if either one of us are allowed to close this thread or not, but I'm willing to do so and move on, provide you not interact with me in any way in the future,nor make any comments about me that I might take as comments bout me in open space on WP anywhere. This includes any changes to edits I may make on mainspace article. If you don't respond directly to this, I'll take it as an acceptanbce of the terms, but if you disdagree, whn we need to keep discussing this till we reach an acceptable conclusion, or one is imposed on us by the "community". - BilCat (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
In exchange, I promise that I won't purposefully try to bait you or engage you for the sole purpose of avoiding you, or allowing you to avoid me, but I will not impose an edit restrivction on edits I deem necessary, including reverts of the sort we had at BOT. - BilCat (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Look Bill, I can't say this any plainer WP:BRD its Bold edit, its reverted, you discuss, BRD do you get it? You shouldn't have reverted in the first place - Chipmunkdavis told you that. This is not an edit restriction, its supposed to be a means to get people to agree and avoid conflict. You appear to presume in utter bad faith this is some trick I've invented to frustrate the edit you want to make.
I called you a WP:DICK, I apologised, it should have been the end of it. This reply is not acceptance of any terms, imposition of any terms, any future promise about anything or any intention to discuss things any further. Put a period on it and move on. Justin talk 00:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Then we still have much to settle, now or later - it's your choice. And Later will be at ANI, as I've fulfilled the requirement to engage you directly to try to solve this. That's the only reason we're not at ANI now, so that wasn't then nor is it now an empty threat. As to BRD, that's not an excuse for you to make more than one revert either, whether you accept it or not. You chose to make 2 reverts of the same content and issue, I chose to match you, and both of us stated we would have not reverted further. At that point, the issue should have been over. You chose to keep making comments about it in snide comments to others, and that is my primary objection, and why we are here. Again, if you keep bringing this up to others, we will go to ANI. If you try to revert me more than once, or revert me once as a second revert of the same content, we will go to ANI. I'm not trying to "threaten" or intimidate you by saying that, but I am merely emphasizing the serious of this issue to me. If you cause me any problems in the future, directly or indirectly, I will not resopond, revert, or otherwise take direct action agaist you, but I will go straight to ANI with the issue. We can go there now if you don't like the "threat" of it, but I still hope it will be unnecessary. I'd like to settle this as adults, but you must recongize and accept responsibility for your own role in this conflict - I have tried to do that for myself, whther you give me the credit of it or not. If you don't settle this now, we will speak again at ANI. Note that I am required to leave you a note on your talk page if I flie an ANI against you - that is not optional for me. - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bulldog123

In an ongoing debate, Bulldog123 is misusing article talk pages to taunt editors who disagree with him in a way that makes it hard to reach consensus. I left a request for civility on his talk page regarding this edit. He deleted my note from his talk page, as is his right, and started leaving pompously condescending messages about my request; see User_talk:Betsythedevine#Lessons for that discussion.

One of his recent article-talk-page remarks was so remote from the topic of article-improvement that I deleted it on the grounds that WP:NOTAFORUM, although perhaps WP:SOAPBOX or WP:BATTLE would have been more appropriate--he re-added it and I will not re-remove it. I have seen other editors remove offtopic rants from article talk pages based on WP:FORUM but I was told in WP-IRC that I should instead have used "hat" -- although I could not have done that either, since I was not an uninvolved editor.

Another recent diff. Bulldog and I are actually on the same side of the content dispute; my hope is that somebody whose opinion he will respect can persuade him to edit in a way that promotes consensus instead of embittering the debate. betsythedevine (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are really on the same side as Bulldog123, you're doing an excellent job of hiding the fact. An editor who has been around since 2005 should know that it is not productive to hit experienced editors with civility templates. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Looie496 for at least reading this WQA.betsythedevine (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with Betsy. As to templates, as Looie should know they are well accepted on Wikipedia -- though someone seeking to create a red herring issue can always claim that some essay suggests they may not be the best thing for new editors or regulars -- without there being clear criteria for whether anyone falls between the two categories. In any event, Bull has received may non-template notices. That's not at all the issue. Agree completely w/Betsy on the issue raised.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing my request, I want to apologize to Bulldog for my testiness about the tone of his edits. I have been editing Wikipedia areas I thought were often full of controversy (political pages especially) but a longer exposure to debate at List of Jewish Nobel laureates has caused me to realize that my dream of consensus to be reached there by unswerving civility was a pipe dream. betsythedevine (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Ummmm -- so you now think that he was civil (I don't, so I think this remains an issue, though I'm confused by your entry)? Or that incivility is appropriate in that discussion?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SchuminWeb

I'm a fairly regular user of Wikipedia and but far less regular editor, however have made several edits in an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I have never registered because I live in a cluster of highrise buildings and have actually got free high speed wi-fi from dozens of internet subscribers with unsecure networks for around ten years, but try to never do anything that would identify who I am, it's probably not illegal but I'm a little cautious anyways. I had made perhaps 100 minor edits to articles I thought I could improve all through various I.P.'s. and having fun doing it. Along came SchuminWeb. I know you would prefer documentation with exact differences, but it's hard to trace back (and remember exactly!) because my world doesn't exactly revolve around editing Wikipedia, but I'll recount what happened and you can take it or not, because these actions are not the basis of this alert, but to explain my actions, which are forthcoming, and the real basis of this alert. I had made a minor edit regarding a television program and was quite pleased with the results. One hour later it was reverted, by SchuminWeb. ""Oh, O.k. I thought, "I'm new here, maybe I didn't follow protocol, I'll investigate and try again". Again, the difference was as minor as changing the word "assortment" to "a variety" because that's how it was mentioned on the show. Days later, I tried again, investigating talk pages, etc., trying to follow protocol, made the minor edit,-reverted an hour later by SchuminWeb. "Oh, O.k."I thought,"this guy likes the article "as is". Whatever." This where it gets weird. Obviously under the same I.P., I made an minor edit on something a million miles away from the above two edits. REVERTED by SchuminWeb one hour later! Oh I wish I could remember the edit! It was bizarre! Again it was as minor as changing "that's" to "that is". I went looking for trouble, made two other minor unrelated edits -REVERTED by SchuminWeb! I'll admit this character got under my skin. I even tried taking a few shots at him in AFD's. I was steaming! I started investigating this prolific editor around Wikipedia, found him to be a strict interpreter of the rules of Wikipedia as an administrator,(peruse his talk page[[2]]), and noticed a disturbing trend. He had inserted links to over one hundred articles to a website he maintains, including using his blog as a reference.[[3]],[[4]],[[5]]. I'll admit it was petty and vindictive on my part, but I removed every link on Wikipedia, and cited the reasons, all valid, especially for an editor who so rigidly enforces Wikipedia's rules on others. SchuminWeb then reverted every edit[[6]][[7]][[8]]. Are Wikipedia administrator's journals and blogs automatically reliable sources? This is the reason for this alert. The fact that he targeted harmless edits by me, an anonymous I.P., can't be proven, but did happen, and was related just to try to justify my actions. It was, however, extremely distasteful for a new user to be thwarted like this. Are admins free to do whatever suits their fancy? This is equally distasteful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.211.36 (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior was unacceptable. End of story. If you think you can get anywhere by harassing an editor and then coming here to complain about that editor, think again. Even if you are not Johnjoecavanagh (talk · contribs), the sockpuppeteer who has been plaguing SchuminWeb for years, you still are not going to accomplish anything here. Looie496 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
For the IP: What you're doing with other peoples' internet is most definitely illegal. Furthermore, not logging in is not making you any more anonymous. :)
For everyone else: how on earth is a site like that a reliable source? Admittedly, it's not being used for any important information, but nonetheless... Was there a previous discussion on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2010 November 29

MajorHawke

New user making numerous changes to music related articles without discussion or sources, particularly disputed genres. My simple attempt to remove an ambiguous link was met with this comment Piriczki (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi PintoRabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto please assist on his page. All of the sourced info comes from articles which are already accepted sources by the users, and 1 user absurdly claims info cannot be placed because wiki will be sued ? Absurd and whitewashing pls assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 November 2010

This is not a wikiquette issue and this report should be closed. Babasalichai has not yet mastered Wikipedia procedures, as can be seen at User talk:Babasalichai. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Eickman

User Eickman was asked by Elizium23 to discuss large edits before making them (diff), and did post his prosposed edits on the Talk page. However, his edits have been objected to on account of lack of proper referencing by Elizium23 (diff), Allenroyboy (diff), and by 8een4Tfor (diff). I have raised the same objection (diff, diff, diff). Regardless of this, he keeps posting them and reverting any changes made (diff, diff), without seeking further consensus from the editors who contacted him.

With regard to his edits on the Christian Historicism page, I have contacted him on his talk page several times to explain my edits and reversion of his text, the need for WP:RS and why his edits are WP:OR (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). His responses have included:

  • "Reply to the moron" (edit title), "And you're totally ignorant of the subject, so butt out, or I'll file a dispute.", "idiot", "Man, are you dumb" (diff)
  • "response to the theological bigot" (edit tile), "YOUR'S IS NOT THE ONLY VIEW, jerk" (diff)
  • "Yo, asshole", "IF YOU DIDN'T WRITE THE SECTIONS, BUTT OUT AND USE A TAG.", "STOP PLAYING ADMINISTRATOR, before you get your ass in a sling." (diff)
  • "Screw you.", "If you have an issue, PUT A TAG, ACCORDINGN TO THE RULES, jerk." (diff)
  • "Until you become an administrator, you can kiss my ass.", "This is our last communication." (diff)Taiwan boi (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have notified Eickman of this discussion. Fainites barleyscribs 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought he would be automatically notified by the alert.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't see anything on the talkpage so I stuck it in. No harm done. Fainites barleyscribs 15:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, all the actual rudeness appears to have occured after 7.49 today (29th November). That's early morning here in the UK, but late at night in the US? Certainly he edits strongly before that but without rampant abuse like "asshole", "bigt" and "moron". The last bit of abuse of this sort is here (another "moron"). Then there is nothing until this sort of apology with a bit of abuse thrown in, to Elizium, for incorrect marking of minor edits. Perhaps he has an explanation for this descent into such language.Fainites barleyscribs 15:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He's been fairly uncivil for the entire duration of his short tenure on Wikipedia. Starting at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24#The_Triune_Hypothesis.2C_Triunism with "What an asshole" and then we've got two gems here "yeesh, you're single-minded" and here - "God save us from the single-minded thinkers" "...you'll never get it." I recall some other instances where he retracted some abuse by editing the talk page later... that kind of stuff is buried in the flurry of edits he's made. He's touched about three non-talk article pages, but he's made over 300 edits in 11 days - making it hard to track and hard to revert the damage he does. Elizium23 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah you're right. There is an ongoing list of insinuations or accusations that others who don't agree are ignorant, stupid, talking bullshit etc. However, there there seems to be have been an outright flurry of more extreme abuse just today. Fainites barleyscribs 15:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you an example of what I have been fighting with this fool over.

The previous version of the "Historicism (Christianity)" page was written by a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

There was a brief, erroneous blurb about how "the Church Fathers" throughout history taught Historicism...but the only reference was to Foom, an SDA theologian. I have a list of two dozen non-sectarian scholars who say that Historicism didn't arise until Immediacy failed (i.e. Jesus didn't immediately coming back), in about the Third Century AD, and grew from there.

There was no reference in the article to Catholic/Orthodox Historicism as taught for over 1,200 years.

There was scant reference to Reformation Historicism, except where the SDA could use it to their advantage to promote their sectarian version of the story.

I added these sections, and didn't delete anything from the previously existing SDA section. I simply put the edits in front of it, in chronological order--early church, Catholic/Orthodox, Reformation, then SDA.

The pest here was editing my revisions before I could even finish writing them, whining about "references" when I wasn't done yet, complaining every time I included other peoples' perspectives in the edits (and I include EVERYONE'S position, secular, Christian, and Jewish alike), not tagging anything if he had objections (knowing that he would have to explain why he was doggedly defending SDA sectarianism to everyone), and so on, and so forth.

If you folks want to entertain this whining pup, be my guest; but know who and what you're dealing with.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Eickman. The problem here is not who is or who is not right. I have not looked into the content aspect. The problem is with calling people moron, bigot, idiot, asshole and so on and so on. Whilst simple use of profanity alone is not necessarily uncivil, I think even you would agree that these epithets, directed at particular editors, would be considered uncivil and uncollegiate. There is nothing to prevent you adding properly sourced and relevent information to the articles. However, if you end up in a situation where you and other editors simply don't agree and are reverting each other then something else has to be attempted other than an edit war. Wikpedia provides a number of avenues for dispute resolution. If, having provided your sources and reasoning on the talkpage you cannot reach consensus and you consider that opposition to your position is not in accordance with policies on WP:RS, then I suggest you set out your stall plainly and request an WP:RFC or a WP:3PO or even mediation. There is also a noticeboard to request input on whether fringe views are being promoted. You could also try asking for input at relevent projects. However, if you continue on your present course of abuse of your opponents you will simply find yourself being blocked for WP:NPA or WP:CIV. If, as you say, yours is the correct scholarly mainstream position, this is not in anybody's interests. You have also mentioned page protection. When this happens, the "right" version is not protected, simply the current one, to encourage editors to resolve disputes appropriately. There are many many articles where accuracy and sources are hotly disputed and it is often difficult for outside editors to tell who is talking through their bum and who isn't. Hence the need for policies to keep editing collegiate and reasonably civil so that ultimately, these disputes can be resolved correctly without the discussion being derailed by personal abuse and consequent enforcement procedures. Fainites barleyscribs 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.

Yes, I am aware of the dispute methods, and have used them.

Unfortunately, my opponent has not, and plays "administrator" by engaging in editing wars and whining about what he says is acceptable and not acceptable instead of employing the proper techniques, i.e. tag and dispute. But he doesn't want to tag and dispute lest people find out he is stumping for his particular sectarian viewpoint to the exclusion of all others, even documented, mainstream positions. (Which is exactly how this mess got started.)

Ike Eickman (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't used any dispute methods. You simply launched into an attack. Furthermore it's not good trying to make this all about me when the whole thing started as a result of three different editors identifying your edits as disruptive because you: 1) failed to provide references for your edits, 2) introduced WP:OR material, 3) introduced POV material, 4) refused to discuss edits with other editors before editing the main article, as you had been requested to do. All of my contributions to that article have been properly supported by WP:RS, and I have made no edits of any sectarian nature whatsoever. This is verifiable.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well if "tag and dispute" isn't working you need more opinions. Try RfC or WP:3PO (3rd party opinion). Here's the RfC religion page for example. Fainites barleyscribs 22:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Four editors have already given their opinion, and he is ignoring them all.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As an example of what we're having to deal with, look at this list of WP:OR, misrepresented sources, lack of page numbers, and numerous unreferenced statements.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to his request for tags, I tagged the Book of Daniel article. He has removed the tags, and commented thus.

  • "teaching the clueless one about branching, linking, and scholarship" (edit title)
  • "No, what you've done is prove you're clueless."
  • "OBJECTIONS ARE TO GO TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE WHILE THE PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. STOP BEING A PEST. YOU'RE NOT HELPING--YOUR GRINDING YOUR PERSONAL AXE like an immature little child. And it's not ME you're embarrassing, IT'S YOURSELF."
  • "Do you even remotely understand the concept of BRANCHING?"
  • "You demonstrate your ignorance of the Bible and Jewish traditions"
  • "What is your MAJOR MALFUNCTION?"

He wants everyone but him to stop editing the article, while he continues to edit it. He asks people tag the article if they object, then abuses them with then tag it and removes the tags. He asks people to express their objections on the Talk page, and then ignores them or abuses them when he expresses his objections.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[yawn]

Ike Eickman (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the message clearly is not getting through, I have blocked Eickman for three days for repeated personal attacks. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. I tried helping broker a more productive discussion on the talkpage of Book of Daniel and Eickman's last set of comments there are more civil in tone than his previous communications. Fainites barleyscribs 22:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
True, but he also told you he had absolutely no intention of following the editing guidelines you laid down. To me that is far more problematic than his lack of civility. We are going to see him again here, no doubt. He has a book and an interpretation of Revelation which he insists on promoting, and will use Wikipedia to do so.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed the case. He also told me I "made no sense". I just thought it fair to point out that the improved civility was a start. Fainites barleyscribs 23:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

User is uncivil, fails to WP:AGF, attempts to silence opposition, and openly admits that he's not looking to be productive.

There's more, but that's the gist of it. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

None of which I deny. I suggest anyone remotely interested looks at the context... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
ROFL AndyTheGrump (talk)

(Undent) No question that AndyTheGrump is a bit grumpy. But IP 184 exaggerates. For example, saying that we are entering "Absurdistan" is merely a colorful way of saying that something seems absurd. Likewise, AndyTheGrump did not say that he generally didn't want to be productive; instead, he was merely pointing out that in a particular situation he was trying to prevent destruction rather than to be constructive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, a user named User:AndyTheGrump should be more careful than the average user regarding the appearance of "grumpiness". It certainly shouldn't be an excuse for it. And he crossed the line into personal attacks when he accused me of residing in Absurdistan. That's very hurtful! 184.59.23.225 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe you ought to consider a user name like Hypersensitive or Eggshell. Since when is it a huge hurtful offense to say that a fact about the subject of a BLP is self-evidently a trivial fact? Maybe that's just honest, plain speaking.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Look, bud, you got a problem with me, you're welcome to create a new section about it, but please quit hijacking this one. At the very least, AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) needs a template dropped on him, and not one of those coddling level-1 ones. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
"Hijacking" threads a section? Your very brief edit history belies your experience here at WP. Hows about you register, and then you can complain about user names? His name is "Andy The Grump". He's saying he's grumpy - so what? What will your user name be? Let's find out, shall we? Doc talk 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The title of this section is "AndyTheGrump." This section is about his extreme "grumpiness", which frequently crosses the lines of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA.
You're trying to make it about me, and that's inappropriate. I'm under no obligation to register an account before I can complain about another user's behavior. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
'This section is about his extreme "grumpiness"'. No it isn't. It is a Wikiquette alert section, in which you make claims about my 'grumpiness'. Just because I'm honest enough in choosing a user name to acknowledge one of my imperfections (which usefully acts as a reminder to me of said imperfection), this doesn't automatically make your claims true. I think the reason your behaviour is being commented on here is because it is apparent from the context of the diffs you posted that my grumpiness wasn't unwarranted. If you somehow gained the impression that your own behaviour might not be considered relevant to this discussion, you were clearly misguided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I just got templated by 184 so I guess I'm involved, but FWIW it is absurd to expend this much effort to get some trivia inserted into Bristol Palin (see WP:BLPN#Willow Palin). Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I think Victor Victoria (talk · contribs) looks a lot like "184" - the "wikistalk" is pretty "suggestive". He/she should log in from hence forth... Doc talk 08:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC).
I completely and utterly reject the accusations of sockpuppetry. That is uncivil. Victor Victoria (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As I've already mentioned, I'm not User:Victor Victoria, and I'm under no obligation to create a WP account. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

user:AndyTheGrump is certainly immature and hard to deal with.

  • Exhibit A: making up non-existent policies
  • Exhibit B: thinking he's funny in his use of the non-existent policies.
  • Exhibit C: an immature response to being alerted that sarcasm is not something that should be used.

Victor Victoria (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, now! Not trying to be uncivil, but it's funny how you jump in with diffs like that. So despite the "odd" coincidence of you and "184" editing Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, same sections of the same thread[9][10], User talk:Kelly, Talk:Bristol Palin, etc. - my bad. Cheers :> Doc talk 10:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The IP reporting here has some serious problems. MastCell is one of the most unflappable administrators, yet the IP gave him this warning [11]. Following through,[12] it appears the IP has been editing in a quite unhelpful way. (I saw these edits yesterday quite independently.) Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Funny how User:MastCell fails to assume good failt and attacks me, for which he later apologized, and somehow the incident is my fault. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is. Perhaps that's something you need to think about 184 - why people are not taking you and your complaints seriously and why people see you as the problem rather than the victim. Fainites barleyscribs 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceclerk

I believe User:Spaceclerk is trying to drive me off commenting on or editing an article, as he requested me to do at this diff after the various harassment issues documented below. I have warned him about these incivilities 5 or 6 times but he has not desisted. My final warning here.

  • Repeated misrepresentations of my views: Spaceclerk repeatedly has kept WP:harassing me saying I wanted to turn the article into another topic, despite my repeated denials and my assertion that I was trying to deal with POV/RS/BLP and other policy issues. (I even had to add this disclaimer to my first couple talk page comments where I misunderstood the purpose of the article based on deletion discussions of a similar article.) See these Spaceclerk diffs:A whole attack section against me filled with bolded statements; [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]
  • Hostile response to questions about his account: Spaceclerk’s account was started on October 9, a few hours after User:Historicist banned editors/sockpuppets was banned. Another user immediately asked him about his account, and he did not answer. After seeing Spaceclerk’s uncivil behavior, I went to his talk page to check for blocks and made my own query. Spaceclerk never bothered with a civil answer, attacking us both repeatedly. See all queries and attacks at this diff where Spaceclerk deleted them from his talk page, replacing them with permanent negative comments against us.
The other editor initiated a sockpuppet investigation and I commented on it. The sockpuppet case was closed after 6 hours, after a check user search did not turn up a match. Spaceclerk then shared hostile comments against both of us in several places: [19]; [20]; [21]. Spaceclerk later demanded an apology from me, including the mocking and/or bigoted statement “We now return you to your regularly scheduled Jew-controlled broadcast.”

Note that Spaceclerk threatened to take both editors who questioned his account to WP:ANI if we post on his talk page again, so perhaps someone could put the {subst:WQA-notice} notice there.
Obviously someone has to explain to Spaceclerk that this sort of behavior is uncivil and should be stopped or he could be sanctioned. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceclerk (who claims he's resigning) let off a libelous and/or personal attack on me on the relevant article talk page. Necessitating an unpleasant revelation of facts in my defense. here. In case involved editors are reluctant to delete talk page entries, maybe someone more familiar with policy on that issue could do so. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be a good idea if you were slightly more careful about using the word libelous. Not taking sides here at all, just offering friendly advice. Varsovian (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reminder. So used to using it in regards to the actual content of the article, I forgot not appropriate there! An editor on the page did delete it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Spaceclerk Replies

Oh dear, she's escalated her battle again.
As I've said elsewhere, it's more than a little ironic to be called "uncivil" by someone who only yesterday tried to get my account banned on a WP:SPI accusation manufactured utterly from whole cloth. You'll note she's still grumbling even here over the failure of a made-up charge to stick. Someone might want to explain to Carolmooredc that groundless accusations of sock puppetry and malicious abuse of WP:SPI policy purely as a means of retribution for disagreeing with her is itself not the highest example of Wikiquette at its most rarefied. And someone might want to explain to her the value of the words, "I'm sorry, I was mistaken, and I shouldn't have tried to get you banned for disagreeing with me," which - as I have repeatedly said - would do wonders for our level of discourse.
Spaceclerk (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Bachcell

Resolved: As stated below, the questionable template has been removed. Since no one else closed this discussion, I'm doing it myself. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This user seems to have some sort of religious bias, and I don't like where this is going (specifically, the userbox). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not a fan of terrorists. As to a religious bias, that's not so clear, and even if it were the case there would have to be some way that it led to a biased edit or comment that was not acceptable. As to the box, while personally I am not a fan of its use, isn't it considered squarely within what wikipedia finds acceptable?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this precisely the same kind of complaint lodged by the people who complain that they cannot display a user box indicating solidarity with Hizbollah? Here I am puttin UP a box, not complaining about it and asking to take it down. There's nothing here against religion. Here I'm pointing out a controversial, but perfectly allowable POV (pro-hezbollha) , and Erpert is flagging a different POV (against enemies of Israel and its allies, specifically the US). NPOV means including ALL notable points of view. Erpert appears to be calling for sanctioning edits which cast a bad light on militant extremists. The user box is not indicative of my views, but of other editors who are making destructive contibutions to articles on terrorism. I will remove the section in quesion since it causes controversy. Bachcell (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Erpert is also concerned about Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque that he is calling for its deletion. That story has been carried by US Muslim press as a act of hate AGAINST muslims. Is this alleged religious bias for or against muslims? I have not yet added balancing views since some of those are from sources not deemed to be RS such as Pam Geller. I edit for NPOV, which includes all points of view that are notable. My POV is certainly not favoring radical extremists if you are familiar with edits on Fort Hood ShootingBachcell (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded

[22] Collect, this is tendentious, you should know well enough that saying a phrase is mentioned a couple of hundred times on a google search does not make it valid, the references may say that it is not a valid term, or may (as some of those you provided do) make it minor to left wing terrorism. You have to show how the sources specifically support your position and argue the case. At the moment you are simply game playing and its got to end. Put up (a case) or shut up

[23] And if no sensible response is forthcoming then we are into Troll territory - one dissenter, especially when they are making no arguments cannot prevent change

[24] Collect is not engaging with content or meaning in his references he is simply quoting a number and saying he doesn't like things. That sooner or later is unacceptable behaviour

[25] The easiest way to avoid being called a Troll is to avoid behaving like one

Show a propensity to attack a longtime editor, and not discuss edits. Collect (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well you called him tendentious too. Whilst I agree "troll" is not polite, you have been repeatedly asked in the course of that discussion to provide actual sources rather than google scholar numbers. If you continue to fail to do so it is inevitable some editors will begin to lose patience. Fainites barleyscribs 18:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
My issue has not been to do with the content - but with WP rules and policies -- where an article was not deleted at AfD, deletion by edit is contrary to common sense. Also note that the claim was made by another that absolutely no RS uses the term, and it is for that reason that I pointed out that Google Scholar found over two hundred uses exclusing references to Malaya. I provided a number of specific cites with quotes therefrom, so the claim that I did not is quite errant. I am, of course, willing to show other examples of incivility by that editor, if you wish. The aim here was to make him aware that calling others "troll" is not acceptable under any circumstances. Collect (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest editors read the questions asked of and not answered by this editor on the referenced talk page. We now have a smokescreen to deflect attention from his/her failures to respond there --Snowded TALK 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In the discussion in which these alleged transgressions occured you are asked to substantiate the use of the words from any of the google scholar references you raise - or indeed anywhere - and as yet you have not done so.Fainites barleyscribs 19:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We've been trying to get this editor (and some others who are now blocked) to engage with content for a long time now; the google scholar issue is just the latest. It gets to the point where patience runs out and one has to start addressing the behaviour issues. Personally I think I (and others) have been fairly restrained with this editor.--Snowded TALK 18:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect is arguing on this article long after consensus has been reached. I see nothing wrong with Snowded's comments. TFD (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn't a little inconsistent of Collect to state that his "issue has not been to do with the content", and then to try to show why his Google Scholar results validate his claims regarding what the article should contain? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As I did no such thing, and this issue is about civility and not about the article, I daresay your post does not address that issue. By the way, at no point have I argued "what the article should contain" therefore it is quite improbable that I would state what it should contain :). Collect (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
If you weren't debating about what the article should contain, why were you debating at all? I thought the talk page was intended to be for discussion of content? If you had concerns over violations of policy, shouldn't this have been raised elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
And not arguing about what the article should contain, but arguing nevertheless is called what? --Snowded TALK 19:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect - Snowded is not being uncivil merely by virtue of strong argument and showing some exasperation. The entire talkpage is about whether or not the concept of "Communist terrorism" has sufficient validity for an article and/or whether material in the article better belongs in other articles. It's been going on for ages. This is a content dispute. Testy comments have not disrupted the discussion.Fainites barleyscribs 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee

At Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey#Let.27s_get_on_with_it Bidgee repeatedly made accusations of bad faith and then accused me of insulting him. When I tried to talk to him about it I got these responses I do NOT have to tell you anything. Go and harass someone else WP:HUSH "restoring such comments after a user has removed them". The last one, in response to my request "Please talk to me." is a reference to WP:HUSH's injunction against "Placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page...". This episode leaves me non-plussed as I have no prior history with Bidgee of any sort, and I was considering letting it go (weighing it against the need to get the message to him that this is not an acceptable way to behave), but then he went off and complained to another editor that I was "harassing" him, which clearly tips the balance: this needs to be addressed. Rd232 talk 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not evaluated all the background to this, although I did look at the links provided above. I cannot imagine any benefit resulting from taking this one-off issue to WQA. It is clear that Bidgee is highly concerned about the actions against YellowMonkey, and it is appropriate to tolerate the comments made by Bidgee which, at worst, are very low-level. I did not see any comment suggesting something directed against a particular editor; instead, Bidgee's comments specifically suggest that certain statements imply a bad-faith attitude towards YellowMonkey. While there may be good grounds for wanting YellowMonkey to change their methods, it is not necessary to demolish all comments made by a supporter of YellowMonkey; just respond with a contrary view and leave it at that. Johnuniq (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, but given your endorsement of Nick-D's view (supportive of YellowMonkey) at that RFC, it's not the uninvolved input I was looking for. An unproductive discussion reached a point where I wanted to talk to the editor concerned about what was going on, and he refused point blank and then accused me of harassment; seeking some comment on this is hardly an attempt to "demolish all comments made by a supporter of YellowMonkey". Rd232 talk 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Rd232, Bidgee does NOT have to reply to you. He is entitled to remove your comments from his talk page, continuing to restore them after his removal of same can easily be seen as harrasment. I have skimmed through most of the RfC and read all the comments made by Bidgee, in context, and frankly you have no case here. Bidgee's comments at worst are a little direct, but there is no WQA case for him to answer. - Nick Thorne talk 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about? I'm not accusing Bidgee of using naughty words. I'm pointing out that he repeatedly made accusations of bad faith, declined to discuss them, and when I tried to say "please discuss this", he accused me of harassment. The billing on the top of this page is "impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors". If it's merely Naughty Words Patrol, please rename it. Rd232 talk 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You just broke my irony meter. I said nothing at all about "naughty words", where ever did you get that idea? Why the aggressive stance? Why do you seem to have so much invested in this whole issue, it's not a matter of life and death after all. Bidgee's comments in the RfC were within a certain context: it is not impolite, uncivil or otherwise difficult communications for him to call it as he see it, so long as he does not make such comments directly at any editor or editors in particular. Comments about other comments, as distinct from comments about editor(s), are fair game in this sense. It is not a WQA issue for an editor to say that such and such a comment appears to be lacking in good faith - this is not the same thing at all as saying that "editor X" is not acting in good faith, whether that editor or any other editor understands the distinction or not. OTOH, you verged on uncivil behaviour yourself with your repeated restoration of your comments on Bidgee's talk page. If an editor removes your comments from his/her talk page, that is an indication that it has been read and if appropriate noted. You cannot demand a reply to your comments, any editor is entitled to ignore your comments at any and all times, if you don't like it, too bad. Once again, there is no WQA issue here that bidgee needs to respond to, please just let it drop. - Nick Thorne talk 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"Bidgee's comments at worst are a little direct" - suggests you've missed the point, and is why I referred to Naughty Words. it is the substance and manner of the communication, not the form. Rd232 talk 02:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Relevant policy: WP:AOBF: "It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly." Rd232 talk 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:STICK - Nick Thorne talk 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
My investment in this is that I've been accused of harassment for attempting to resolve a dispute (unsubstantiated and repeated accusations of bad faith) in the normal manner, which is talking about it with the user concerned. Now I'm told that the user rejecting this outright and accusing me of harassment is just fine and dandy, and an attempt to even discuss this at WQA is Beating A Dead Horse. How do I get out of this rabbit hole??? Rd232 talk 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yes, you seem to have backed yourself into a very smelly and unpleasant corner. "T'ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It)". You probably had the best of intentions, but you succeeded in alienatining those you were attempting to communicating with. How do you get out of this rabbit hole? I'm not sure. But I can assure you that digging it deeper will not achieve anything useful. For what it's worth, (which probably isn't much), I suggest that everybody will suffer less grief if you just slowly and quietly back away. Good luck, and best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So repeating/restating a message isn't harassment? Your (Rd232) comments on the RfC were insulting. I'm not wasting my time on this (Wikiquette alert) since I have nothing to answer for, the only editor who does is Rd232 as a result of their comments and bad faith in the RfC. Bidgee (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

kwamikagami

G'day All,

I'm having trouble with an editor, User:kwamikagami. His participation in a discussion in which I have been involved has been unhelpful (and in fact quite provocative).

I made three edits to the [on Roentgenium], and another editor responded by reverting those edits (and calling in help to revert any further edits, but the controversy is the subject of an ongoing discussion on the talk page there).

I have apparently been warned for engaging in an edit war on this topic. Apparently my attempts to incorporate the other side's initial objection and then to continue to engage the other side in discussion on talk pages (against basic refusal to play ball) counts as participating in an edit war?

In any case, I took issue with the warning and posted to kwamikagami's talk page. I was polite (even if I was incensed), and tried to get the issue talked out. Kwamikagami responded with "No wonder you're not effective as an editor", as well as other snipes, which are belittling and not helpful. It's degenerated from there.

I'm not happy to let this just be, particularly as kwamikagami's involvement so far has probably assisted in quashing the discussion re: Roentgenium.

-Danjel (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Danjel apparently does not understand WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BOLD, though he claims to. He's making a mountain out of a molehill and IMO being disruptive; apparently that is easier that following the guidelines. — kwami (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, you respond with an attack.
The discussion re: Roentgenium is progressing without your help and would have progressed better (both from my perspective and probably from Wikipedia's perspective) if you had been more reasonable from the outset. This is not a mountain out of a molehill - you can't just go around interfering and warning people just because you've had a bad day. -Danjel (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I had a quick look at this edit by Danjel at Roentgenium, and Talk:Roentgenium and a couple of other places including User talk:Kwamikagami. The above comment by kwami should probably not have been made at this noticeboard (where wikiquette is on display), but I can't see anything else that approaches a wikiquette issue. Sorry Danjel, but editors are entitled to speak plainly, and you should show more signs of engaging over the issue. As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), Kwami noticed that in under three hours, you repeated the same edit three times at Roentgenium after being reverted by an established editor (and a different established editor reverted your third edit). Kwami then issued a polite and entirely appropriate WP:3RR warning (not even templated). Apart from responding to your objection at Kwami's talk, Kwami has no other involvement (I think). That is not a basis for a wikiquette report. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
In regards to making the "same" edit, to the Roentgenium article. I made one edit, which User:Materialscientist found objectionable for reasons of the validity of the claim, particularly in regards to the author of the claim (who had made some spurious claims before. He and I began a discussion, and I made the subsequent edits which I felt took into account Materialscientist's objections. Materialscientist then changed tack and stated that it was not notable, even though he had previously conceded notability in the discussion (and gave it as a reason not to be too bold). In other words, it was not an edit war situation. It was me attempting to cooperate with someone who was stonewalling.
Kwamikagami came in at this point and "warned" me, failing to take into account the conversations that had happened.
Kwami is an admin. I believe strongly that he should be held to a higher standard of civility than other editors. His behaviour, for example above, has been uncivil extremely uncivil, inflammatory and probably discouraging for other users to take part in the ongoing discussion. -Danjel (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This is pretty straightforward. You're trying to add material to an article that by Wikipedia's standard policies (which you apparently aren't interested in reading) doesn't belong in the article, and about a half dozen editors are telling you so. Complaining about etiquette is not going to help in the slightest. The only thing that will get that material into the article is a reputable source, which clearly does not exist at this time. Looie496 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks for completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the situation. Perhaps you didn't read... Anything. I'm not going to bother to respond to you besides to point out, again, that the issue is not editting the file, it's the interaction with Kwamikagami. -Danjel (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Widefox

I am concerned by a possible violation of WP:BULLY by Widefox on the article Conflict Continuum and related talk page. Perhaps it is a matter of just excess passion on the part of this user despite pure intentions, but all users should act civilly, not attempt to lord it over other users, not attack editors acting in good faith, and not make inappropriate comments or accusations. ProfGiles (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Widefox's involvement in that article does approach obsessive. His comments toward other users and edits are concerning and look to be examples of bullying behavior described in WP:BULLY: "There are essentially two forms of bullying on Wikipedia: attacks against the individual editor by targeting a single user, or giving the perception of power aimed at the entire Wikipedia community at large." His talk page indicates multiple similar past complaints. 85.237.211.236 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Nuts. Saying that an article does not belong on Wikipedia and explaining the basis of that opinion do not constitute bullying. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bullying. I don't see any attacks or improper behavior of any kind. Looie496 (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm picking up some ad-hominem attacks from two editors (one is an SPA, COI) just for nominating a spam article I came across. COI has been flagged up at COI noticeboard. More voices at the AfD would be welcome. Widefox (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor182

Resolved
 – Overtaken by events at ANI where subject was blocked for 1 week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I replaced the image that this user put in the infobox image on Possum, he replaced File:Brushtail possum.jpg with a cell phone image he took through a window File:Possum_in_Sydney,_Australia_on_11.11.2008.jpg. His image shows the animal in a clearly non-natural environment, where the original was a natural environment and better quality. His response to this was reversion and this highly crude and offensive post on my talk page. This user has had significant issues in the past, including banned for waring over keeping his pictures in articles. Hes been the subject of several ANI reviews, here he self-reported his edit waring on same issue, here he got banned for again edit waring over images, and the massive ANI over his images again.. — raekyt 05:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Note - The truly "sad" image of the possum in captivity is hardly preferable to the original picture from the Commons: no reason for Editor182's re-insertion of it, or for his "Fuck Off" message. A possible WP:COMPETENCE issue? Certainly not for me to decide, but looking at the two images... Doc talk 09:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Not much needs to be said here. Editor182 has grossly breached WP:CIVIL (per the above "highly crude" diff); furthermore, Editor182 does not understand standard operating procedures where it is perfectly valid to check edits made by another user. Such checking may approach harassment under certain circumstances, but where an editor is making dubious edits that need to be reverted, it is entirely correct for any other editor to periodically check what changes have occurred and take appropriate action. There is no evidence of a problem from Raeky, and the report by Editor182 at WP:ANI#User harassment report is without merit. Raeky should be thanked for taking the trouble to find and revert the unsatisfactory change of image at Possum (see old version before Raeky's revert). Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree that Editor182 is way out of line with the substandard photo and the major breach of WP:CIVIL. Additionally, I just waded through the thread started by Editor182 at ANI regarding Raeky. The additional ANI reports are also disturbing. I'd agree Raeky is in the right of it, and unless Editor182 is willing to apologize soon, which given his history seems dubious, suggest we close and move on. Jusdafax 10:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robert K S

Robert K S has increased the level of his incivility and personal attacks toward me lately. This is mostly seen during AFD's, although today he provided comment on another user's talk page regarding a discussion he was not part of, which could fall under WP:HOUND (User talk:Us441).

This is a long pattern of behavior toward me, and toward others as well. In 2009, another user submitted a Wikiquette alert and ANI against Robert K S.

Essentially the user continues to make accusations that I am acting in bad faith when submitting articles for deletion. This generally only happens when an article related to Jeopardy! is nominated; the user has not or has rarely commented on other articles I've proposed for deletion not related to Jeopardy!. Here are some examples where the user has provided comments that would be considered incivil, has assumed bad faith or accused me of fabricating information/lying:

Although the user clearly feels I am acting in bad faith, the user simply instigates tension rather than addressing the issue, either directly with me or through an ANI/Wikiquette alert. The user has also provoked me on my own talk page, attempting to instigate further tension (User talk:Sottolacqua). I've earlier reached out to this user privately and requested that he discontinue disruptive behavior (User talk:Robert K S#Recent edits).

Additionally, the user has previously shown an inability to understand when he is behaving improperly, as seen it this discussion regarding his disputed removal of rollback rights.

The user continues to exhibit the same pattern over and over. At what point will this improper type of activity be addressed? Sottolacqua (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is not the wrong forum for it, I respectfully demur and counter. If the above user is complaining that I do not believe he operates in good faith on this encyclopedia, particularly with regard to his deletion arguments, he is correct. The assumption of good faith is a starting point for all interactions, not to be held as a permanent state "in the presence of contrary evidence". The candor of the above user when arguing for deletions is certainly an issue, and ought to bear examination. The user edit wars rather than discusses ([27]), canvasses for reliable delete votes from other users on AfDs ([28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]), and clings to deletion arguments that are demonstrated to be false. This is just within the past week. As for incivility, there has been none, unless one were to count the above user's constant templating of my talk page in lieu of discussion ([37] [38] [39]). Robert K S (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again this user fails to acknowledge his harassing and uncivil behavior and simply blames others as a reason why he reacts a certain way. Re [40], reverting an edit twice is not warring and does not fall under WP:3RR, and there was a discussion on the talk page that the user chose not to provide a response other than "free will" prior to my edit (Talk:Celebrity Jeopardy!#Redirect). I've made editors on both sides aware of previous AFDs, and have not attempted to sway an opinion either way. There is no "rule" against simply notifing a user of an ongoing AFD. Sottolacqua (talk)
It should preferably be demonstrated, with diffs, that the above user makes efforts to notify editors on "both sides" of his frequent deletion nominations. I wonder why I have never been included in such notifications, even though I requested to be notified. While there's no "rule" against notifying a user of an AfD, in the case presented here, the above user's notifications are best characterized as canvassing. Robert K S (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Your comments still do not address the incivility in which you engage, again showing that this behavior will likely continue. Sottolacqua (talk)
What will likely continue is my opposition to those of Sotto's deletion nominations and content deletions which are frivolous and counter to policy and which are occasionally reliant on misrepresentations, but such opposition will always remain polite. Robert K S (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wondergay behavior

Resolved
 – User blocked for gross personal attacks.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wondergay (talk) used to disclose the name of one of the alleged raped women in the Julian Assange article. I asked him to remove this name because of the Wikipedia:LIVING#Privacy_of_names. He bragged about it, so I asked him to make the removal himself, saying that if he did not do it, I would report him. He insulted me, and explained that he thought that the Wikipedia:LIVING#Privacy_of_names was a joke. The whole section is here: Talk:Julian_Assange#Defining Moment. I believe he should be blocked for some time, to cool off a little. Hervegirod (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur; his lack of taking policy seriously could harm Wikipedia somewhere very soon down the line. Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't do "cool off" blocks, and this is not the right place to ask for blocks anyway (that would be WP:ANI). I have given Wondergay a caution not to continue with the personal attacks, which are unacceptable. The issue of whether the name belongs in the article would more appropriately be raised at WP:BLPN. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you choose the right path here. However, I had a problem on where I had to report, because he first began with Wikipedia:BLP, and then continued with personal attacks. Hervegirod (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
If the reliable sources use the names, I don't see where "privacy" applies. But if they don't, then it's original research and the alleged info can't be used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
There's more than that: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Putting an individual name just because a source mentioned them is not Wikipedia policy, AFAIK. Now, if (just to take an example), the individual does a press conference, or an interview in a newspaper about the subject, it changes because it appear that he/she intentionally disseminated his/her case. Which is not the case in the Assange article. Hervegirod (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I ultimately blocked him for 31 hours for WP:NPA. He'd basically launched straight back into the same behaviour again. He was final-warned but kept on going. Then he came back with this awesome rant that took 15 minutes to craft, which he ultimately blanked. Posting it here, because it's one of the most epic rants I've seen in my almost seven years here;
Ok, so the Wikiquote link in the first line was mine :) - Alison ❤ 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Azcolvin429

Azcolvin429 is involved in a discussion at Template talk:Intelligent Design#Image in template about whether to delete an image from the template. He is also deleting images from a large number of other templates, in many cases being reverted by other editors who disagree with him, or who are raising questions about his deletions on his user talk page. Of course, this is in part simply a content disagreement about the use of these images. However, Azcolvin429 seems to be taking a battlefield approach to discussing these matters, as shown in this recent comment: [41]. Maybe a few uninvolved users could please help lower the temperature a bit? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User notified: [42]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My view, Tryptofish, is that this matter should be taken up to ANI. It appears to me to be a bit beyond this (in theory) gentle forum. Would be happy to be proved wrong, however. Jusdafax 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what to say. We are not quite yet at the point where the edits to the templates themselves are disruptive, and my hope is that we can stop it just in time before things get to that level. As someone involved in the Intelligent Design discussion myself, I think it would be wrong for me to seek a block. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In the vast majority of case Az has not been reverted and WP:MOSICON has wide spread CON however,in fairness his tone and comments at the ID article aren't helpful for sure and Az should follow the WP:BRD process Gnevin (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I take your point about the reversions. (My look at it suggests a mixed bag, with a significant number of objections, and probably some templates that just aren't closely watched.) My concern in coming here, however, was and is civility, and I thank you for saying what you said. My hope is that, if we can get the civility under control, the content issues will be easy enough to deal with, without any need for further escalation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I seriously doubt, based on the high degree of incendiary rhetoric submitted by Azcolvin429, that you will draw him in to this forum. To be blunt: anyone that far gone is unlikely to come here and soberly debate the finer points of civility. I know you like to believe the in the better side of people, Tryptofish, but I suggest we close this if there is no participation by the party involved, who so far shows little inclination to do so. Jusdafax 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think he has made any edits since this thread opened, so I don't yet see evidence that he has refused to participate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I hadn't checked that. Jusdafax 19:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Nukeltino's

Resolved
 – User blocked for puppetry.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments on talk pages, article text, and edit summaries is clearly not civil. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Jsfouche, please do not bite the newcomers; this seems to resemble a growing trend of WP:BOOMERANG requests. I absolutely agree that there is something not quite right about the article, but if the editor disputes the deletion and would like to specify why, then you should be telling them how to add a hang on tag instead of just edit-warring (and that too, by misusing rollback privileges). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This user is a second account of another user that originally added the Shawn Ahmed article. I strongly abide by the "don't bite newcomers" rule, but this person is not really a newcomer. They are mad because the Shawn Ahmed was speedily deleted. They were told more than once about how to use a hangon tag. Also, it is not edit warring, as the definition explicitly excludes reverting avoidant vandalism and edit summary vandalism. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK I understand what you are saying, but I don't follow. Where exactly was the user told (more than once) about how to use a hangon tag? Which is the first account you are referring to? It's not anywhere in the user's contributions and it doesn't seem to be anywhere in this report. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This user User:LUUWDA originally created the article Shawn Ahmed which was speedily deleted despite protests from the user. User:LUUWDA was given ample warnings. If you look at that user's contributions, you will see that very similar types of comments were used when they protested the CSD nom. Once the CSD nom was closed as deleted, User:Nukeltino's then recreated Shawn Ahmed as a redirect to Uncultured Project. There is also the same type of comment on that page from an IP-only user. I actually believe this may be sockpuppetry, but I am not very familiar with that concept yet. I believe there is good evidence that these are the same user. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
User:LUUWDA is actively editing, so I'm not sure why he would post the article under a new account. He actually keeps a copy of the article at User:LUUWDA/Shawn Ahmed, and looking at his talk page, it seems that he has indeed been warned several times about inappropriate articles and removing tags. Netalarmtalk 03:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and the User:LUUWDA/Shawn Ahmed page is the exact page that was posted by User:Nukeltino's. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There was also a warning with hangon instructions added to Nukeltino's talk page, but they blanked it. Look in the page history. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation was opened regarding this user. I've blocked Nukeltino's (talk · contribs) as being a sockpuppet of LUUWDA. I did this based on behavioral evidence, particularly towards Uncultured Project. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. We can mark this as resolved as well; as he's been blocked, a party to the dispute has been removed from the dispute/project and therefore, a dispute no longer exists (and in any case, this is a disruptive editing/socking issue rather than a civility issue as such). Thanks HelloAnnyong. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aspersions and lack of assumption of good faith

Paid editing is not allowed. Allegations that someone is a paid editor are not consistent with assumptions of good faith. More directly to my concern, it could get me blocked. I'm not paid to edit Wikipedia and I'm certainly not a minion of the twisty bulb manufacturers, no matter how much I joke abuot it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not correct that paid editing is not allowed, as I understand it. But that's beside the point -- the accusation here is silly, and there is no sense getting worked up over silly accusations. Of more concern to me is that Prguy72 shows several signs of having a COI, and a file he uploaded, called Comparison.jpg, appears to have false or at best unverifiable information concerning provenance -- it comes from a site that claims "All rights reserved", and shows no evidence that usage rights have been granted. Looie496 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, reading WP:COI I ran across something called "Reward Board" but no-one seems to be offering actual cash in hand. COI seems quite set against paid editing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

MarnetteD

This user is being very bad. I try to make a constructive edit for a real thing which should have an article but currently does not. He keeps reverting it and calling it vandalism. I ask him for a explanation of why and he gives me no reply at all. He then has the cheek to call ME the troll. I really get the feeling here he is just discriminating against me because I chose not to make an account before making a small constructive edit. 94.3.15.232 (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And he's removed every attempt at communication I made on his talk page...--90.217.99.8 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not too surprising that you're having difficulties. To begin with you added information to an article in an improper way (correct information, but not added in the right place). After having your edit reverted you left a cryptic message saying "it exists", without signing it or specifying what exists. When MarnetteD removed this message, you left another message that comes across as incoherent shouting, again without signing it. This no doubt caused MarnetteD to write you off as a hopeless loser. You then followed up with three more useless messages. My suggestion is to try leaving a calm message that explains that there is a major Dutch grocery chain called Sissy Boy which is important enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, and ask for advice on how to handle this issue. I think there is a good chance that a calm, courteous, and informative message will lead to a calm and courteous response. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually a women's clothing store, just to correct myself. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? I have been polite. Don't make me out to be the villain here. He has acted a complete kukar and not even responded to me, this is very impolite. He saw a ip edit and reverted it as thinking it vandalism without even bothering to do two seconds of research to check that it is obviously a real thing. --90.217.99.8 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstly you need to learn a few basics about how Wikipedia works. If, as you say, the company deserves a Wikipedia page, then you need to show that it is notable under the Wikipedia notability guidlines and then you need to provide reliable sources to support what you write about it. If you can satisfy both of these - and the burden of proof lies on you (as the proposer) to do this - then the correct process in this case would not be to simply convert a redirect page into an article as you tried to do, but to convert the redirect page into a disambiguation page with a Wikilink to the existing target of the redirect and one to the new page that you should have already by then created for the store. I suggest you spend a little more time learning how things are done around here instead of throwing tantrums when you don't get your own way. Your own actions in this case are in fact far more deserving of a report to WQA than those of which you complain, which frankly seem like reasonable responses to what looks like yet another series of incorerent posts by an IP vandal. We get them all the time and if you are a serious editor and not a vandal, it behoves you to act like a seriouos editor. If instead you continue to act in a manner indistinguishable from those of a vandal, you can expect to continue to be called a vandal - the choice is yours. Oh, and by the way, have a read of both your posts so far in this discussion and then read assume good faith, it contains some good advice. - Nick Thorne talk 03:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Milowent

This comment and this comment come across as extremely uncivil and have made me suspect the user that posted them might be a sockpuppet of Fences and Windows. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts, you are so far off the plot it is going to end up biting you in the ass. You are all over the place - mainly the high profile noticeboards - pointing fingers, making accusations, and generally shining an enormous spotlight on yourself. I'm guessing from the typical pattern I've seen so many times before that you have a burning desire to be an admin someday, so here is a heartfelt suggestion: make some positive article contributions. Expand an article with sourced content. Source some BLPs. Read and give feedback on a Good Article nom. Contribute to something other than drama. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Leaving aside the civility, please don't waste anymore of anyone's time by opening a SPI on Milowent/Fences & Windows. pablo 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Eh?! That's my first sockpuppet accusation! Joy! Fences&Windows 03:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of Hollows in Bleach

During a dispute at Talk:List of Hollows in Bleach over whether the article series should use the English translated names as published by the English language license holder or the works author's which came much later, an IP user posted a comment to my talk page about the dispute[44] which I moved to the article talk page where the rest of the discussion was taking place along with adding my resonce.[45] However, this IP user has take exception to the move, stating that I have no right to move their comments[46] and has repeatedly removed the comments from the article's talk page.[47][48] —Farix (t | c) 03:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Smith Jones

Really I am very tired of schoolboy jokes from editors on the English wikipedia. User:Smith Jones is the latest in a long line [49] to make snide remarks about my surname and wikipedia's name policy. For his information it is a very common surname. I suggest he grows up. Justin talk 20:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try to give you a serious response, though you're free to take it as you wish. There is no requirement to use one's full name on WP, so using it is your choice, and by doing so, you open yourself up to such imbecillic drivel. Second, there is no proof required to assert that this is in fact your name, and anyone could make up such a name and claim it was real. (I don;t trhink you're lying at all, but again that's not proveable, nor in all honesty should you you try to prove it.) You'd probably save yourself alot of grief by choosing a different one, even though in a perfect world you should not ever be criticized for your real name. (I actually do have some real-word experience in that as a child, so I do genuinely sympathize.) On WP, you do have a choice as to what you're name is, and frankly, for security reasons, I'd recommend that no one ever give out their real name on WP, much less use it as a username. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right, using one's real name here is practically begging for trouble, especially if it's a perfectly good name but with an apparent double-entendre... as with the writer, Peter Schmuck. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
{{I remember him; wotta dick... HalfShadow 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)}}
I think you're going to have to get used to such mild asides. What are we meant to do, block him for sniggering? Fences&Windows 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah well I prefer to have the balls to put my name to what I write, rather than hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym. Its just the way I am. Justin talk 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is being poorly handled with unrelated lectures and personal views about user name selection. It was also poorly investigated.
  • Smith Jones should be warned that raising issues that are unrelated to the disputes (let alone the purpose for which this venue exists) is not a helpful way to be contributing. The comment in question may have been a snigger in itself, but it served no purpose except to inflame the dispute that users were attempting to resolve here. The more blunt term for it is trolling. How Smith Jones would have thought it is remotely appropriate to bring this up in the middle of a WQA is quite astonishing.
  • Smith Jones has been warned about such trolling on several occasions (August 2009 January 2009 January 2009 August 2008 July 2008 March 2008 March 2008 January 2008 January 2008...and this goes back to his last block in 2006). If he's not getting the message, then yes, maybe a warning is not enough to prevent this pattern of behavior. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, nice to see someone act responsibly. Justin talk 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask if there is an intention to follow this up? Justin talk 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Not much else can be done at this point. If it happens again, an admin might be willing to intervene if they look at the diffs I've raised in this WQA, but most likely it needs to be escalated to RfC/U for it to become a bit more meaningful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are people responding to Wikiquette alerts by blaming the victim and being rude and dismissive ("begging for trouble", etc.)? I would think this would be the one place on Wikipedia where people didn't have to be subjected to such behavior. This is quite surprising and disappointing. Kaldari (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks but note I've just, well, basically given up. I'm just fed up with this sort of nonsense, so I requested a name change. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda328

Propaganda328 reverted another editor on the Damour massacre article with an edit summary of "al-akhbar site is temporarily down due to hacking, check up on some politics you ignoramous."[50] Needless to say, the latter part of that statement is a personal attack (even if misspelled), and I'd appreciate if someone could speak to the user. As is too often the case, the personal attack lead to a breakdown in communications, and the article is now on the verge of an edit war. ← George talk 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've given a warning, no response yet. Eyes are needed on Propaganda328, they appear to be a POV editor. Fences&Windows 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yuvrajask

User constantly reverting good faith edits to a format that apparently suits his own personal taste. After reminding him of WP:MOS and requesting him to stop his vandalising edits, he began vandalising my own talk page with profanity and continued to revert edits with inappropriate edit summaries. He seems to have a history on vandalism from seeing his talk page edit history. He has also tried changing my message on his talk page back to a previous one which I had reverted, seemingly in an attempt to frame me; I have reverted it back to the message I originally wrote. Blocking this user from editing will help prevent his destructive actions, arrogance, and attitude he shows towards fellow editors. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What does POTTA SOOTHU mean? (If anything). Fainites barleyscribs 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Not anything nice, as far as my limited searching told me. I've indef blocked, they've been a nothing but a troublemaker their entire short editing career. Fences&Windows 23:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me, but that actually means "female ass" transliterally in the Tamil language. Clearly they think Wikipedia is a social networking site. Thanks for the block. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. (Google translate only had Urdu and Hindi, not Tamil). Fainites barleyscribs 08:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonewah

During a difficult discussion about article content, Bonewah referred to my arguments as "sophistry". As the article confirms, this is a derogatory term, implying that I put forth intentionally false arguments.

I, perhaps understandably, took offense at this insult and insisted that they redact it. Their response was, in my opinion, dismissive and uncooperative.

Based on my understanding of WP:RPA, I replaced "sophistry" with the more neutral "arguments". My edit comment was "redacting uncivil comment: you get to disagree, but not to denigrate". This was reverted, twice.

I would like the comment to be removed and for the editor to be warned about incivility. Dylan Flaherty 08:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • WP:RPA states "removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Not that strong, really, to warrant you removing it. BTW: I think you missed the last sentence of the first paragraph, where Bonewah says "...turning our concerns about a source into proof that that source is ok is pure sophistry."[51]. That's twice he mentions "sophistry" : do you want that removed, too? You can't go around refactoring other editors' comments and then reinserting them (esp. when reverted by other editors). You can ask editors to redact or strike things, but if they don't you aren't to take it into your own hands. I don't support the comments as they are probably derogatory, but you should always wait for a redaction (if the editor is willing to do it). Good luck, Dylan :> Doc talk 09:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
1) This is a true personal attack, twice. Sophistry is the intentional use of false but plausible arguments. As such, rather than simply disagreeing with my arguments, they are impugning my motives, which violates WP:AGF as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
2) If you look at the flow of edits that I linked the diffs to, I believe you'll see that they were asked to redact, and then given the opportunity to do so.
3) Yes, I do want all mentions of that insult removed.
4) According to WP:RPA, I actually can.
5) Since we agree that they are derogatory, can we agree that they should be asked to stop making them? Dylan Flaherty 09:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
As to 2) and 4): you are supposed to wait some reasonable time for them to remove it; and you have been told by several editors not to remove it as you did, so you are possibly misinterpreting what should be removed according to WP:RPA. You also have not notified the editor of this thread, as you are required to... Doc talk 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll notify them right now. Dylan Flaherty 09:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. Also, I would like to amend item 4 to mention WP:TPO, as well as WP:RPA. It explicitly allows removal of personal attacks, as opposed to uncivil comments. Dylan Flaherty 10:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
"But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." That means this[52] was not "exercising caution" after this[53], which led to this[54] warning of a block. Let the editor remove it, not you: it can be "troublesome". Doc talk 10:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. Dylan Flaherty 10:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Good - and I didn't mention the other points because I do think the comments are unnecessary and "commenting on contributors and not content", and he should probably consider striking them to show good faith. The history's there, and it's not going to be rev-del'd, so striking it is a fair thing to ask for. Doc talk 10:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I edit under my real name, so I would hate to have someone Google me and have "sophistry" pop up. Dylan Flaherty 10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said, though, it's already out there. If you're asking for Oversight, I don't "forsee" that being likely in this case... Doc talk 10:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Oversight would only be appropriate if they had mentioned my street address, for example. No, what this is about is the tone of the conversation on that talk page. Dylan Flaherty 11:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this report still active? I ask because User talk:Dylan Flaherty#December 2010 has some clear advice (that using "sophistry" is on the very mild end of uncivil), and that advice seems to have been accepted. I agree that the diff provided above is very mild, and the comment is detailed and provides reasoning in an attempt to justify all its claims. I am not commenting on the issue or whether the message by Bonewah was "correct"; I am just saying that it does not warrant the reaction that it has unfortunately produced. I suggest that anyone wanting to engage at Talk:Sarah Palin should be prepared for robust comments, and if someone claims your argument is sophistry (and provides reasoning), you need to engage with that reasoning. Certainly, if a majority of the responses involved some negative term such as "sophistry", a wikiquette issue may be involved, but it appears (I have only looked at this quickly, so please correct me if I'm wrong), that Talk:Sarah Palin#no mention of her thinking Africa is a country? is a long attempt to introduce text asserting Palin made a blunder, and Talk:Sarah Palin#Africa is an attempt a very short time later to rediscuss the same topic. Robust commentary (with reasoning) is to be expected under those circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That was one person's opinion. Other people, including myself, felt that it was not at all mild.
I don't believe your summary of the background is entirely correct, but I'm not going to quibble over it because I think it misses the point, regardless. Yes, that article is high-profile and controversial, so any discussion of this sort is likely to be, as I said earlier, difficult. This is not an excuse for incivility, it is the reason that civility is especially necessary. There is absolutely no justification for violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. If they had simply addressed my arguments and explained their reasons for disagreement, we would not be here now. Presumably, some of us would be having productive discussions about article content. Dylan Flaherty 10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The term sophistry is a comment on an editor and should be avoided. It does not contribute to the discussion and it is much better to explain what is wrong with the argument rather than what is wrong with the editor. TFD (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty

"Sophistry" being complained about? Amazing considering the complainant has said [55] you're talking about is your bizarre theory that this article should be held hostage to the content of Bill Moyers. If so, that was laughed out of the courtroom. And [56] where he appears to outright accuse me of sock puppetry! Not to mention [57] where he accuses me of drive-by tagging for daring to maintain a POV tag on an article which he cavalierly removed saying each time it is replaced, a new discussion is required (You are in violation of WP:NPOVD with regard to Charles G. Koch. This is a simple procedural rule which you can satisfy by creating a section to discuss any suggestions you might have.) All in all -- I know whom the WQA should be considered to be about at this time. And it is not Bonewah. As to Dylan;s definition of "civility" examine [58] It's very uncivil to remove a warning with "rm trash". Unfortunately, you can't redact an edit comment, but an apology would work. following which I asked him not to post to my talk page, to which he responded with the sock puppet accusation! Collect (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Collect, though that's the least of Dylan's disruptive behavior.
  • I've also been falsely accused of drive-by tagging by Dylan, who has edit-warred to remove the tag, though multiple editors have stated the tag is appropriate.
  • He's repeatedly harangued me on my talk page despite multiple requests not to violate WP:MULTI.
  • He's inconsiderate of editors' time, and insists on that every article has a WP:DEADLINE where other editors must comply with his editing schedule.
  • There are also WP:OWN problems on the talk page, where Dylan makes demands of other editors to restate arguments that have already been made, other editors comply with the demands, and then Dylan repeats the demands several times a week. It's awfully tedious that he insists on repetitive meta-conversations in new talk-page sections by falsely announcing a consensus for his position (after ignoring the discussion in the previous debate and the multiple editors who disagree with him) unless editors comply with a demand to start a new thread.
  • He personally attacks any editor who takes a position he disagrees with: this frivolous WQA report against Bonewah is entirely consistent with his generally WP:HOUND behavior.
We could avoid a lot of wikidrama if Dylan was simply barred from political articles: he's already stated his propensity for POV-pushing by insisting that it is appropriate to have a different BLP standard for biographies about left-wing political figures than right-wing political figures, and I've seen no indication that he's willing to edit collaboratively. He seems to be here for WP:BATTLE. THF (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for trying to sling as much mud as possible. I find it very educational, if not at all accurate. Dylan Flaherty 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Eh? I suggest that this is outre (accent missing) coming from the person who "slung" an accusation of sock puppetry on my talk page. Kindly avoid slinging mud at me, and it then could not be reported here. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe your intervention here is at all productive, and I'm not even sure it's meant to be. However, taking it at face value (as WP:AGF demands), I would be more than willing to parse out each of your claims and gently refute them. Still, I see no reason to do so here, as that would distract from, you know, the issue at hand. Remember the issue at hand? I do, and it has nothing to do with anything you brought up. Dylan Flaherty 12:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue you raised about Bonewah was, specifically, "civility." Every example I gave of your own behaviour specifically addresses that exact issue. Unless, of course, you feel that accusing a person of being a sock puppetteer on his talk page after berating him for properly removing material from his talk page is now "civil behaviour"? Do you still think I am a sock puppetteer, by the way? Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Correct, the issue here is Bonewah's civility. It is not any of the things you are trying to toss into the pot. I am willing to discuss your issues, but not in this forum, where they would serve primarily as a distraction. In fact, I'm going to suggest that you voluntarily hat/hab this entire exchange. Dylan Flaherty 12:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, sophistry does not mean willful lying, it mostly means a kind of flawed argument or outlook. It's mildly uncivil, not a helpful thing to say about any editor on a talk page, but it's not a wanton personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this into a battle of the dictionaries, but according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry (emphasis mine):
  1. subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
  2. an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive
Likewise, according to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistry:
  1. An argument that seems plausible, but is fallacious or misleading, especially one devised deliberately to be so.
  2. The art of using deceptive speech or writing.
  3. Cunning or trickery.
We could exchange dictionary definitions all day, and you may well be able to find gentler definitions than these, but I think I've done my part to show why it is entirely reasonable for me to have taken this as an insult and a personal attack.
It might also be plausible that they had one of those gentler definitions in mind, meaning an unintentional fallacy, so no insult was planned. However, when I asked them to redact it, they stood firm. I'm not sure what else I need to say here. Dylan Flaherty 12:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me as though anyone was calling you a liar, the word's meaning is, at the most, much more open than being a synonym for that. You might want to think about assuming a bit more good faith with other editors and peacefully, neutrally asking them what they mean if you think you've been slighted by something they've said. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Deceptive. Deceive. Deliberate. Deceptive. Trickery. All of these words add up to "liar". Dylan Flaherty 12:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the context of the talk page discussion, it seems to me that Bonewah was remarkably restrained given the considerably more uncivil provocation you provided. THF (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You have a delightfully idiosyncratic view of things, THF. In your eyes, nothing is as it appears to others. Don't ever change. Dylan Flaherty 13:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That's not exactly "civil", Dylan. "Beware the boomerang"... Doc talk 13:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That's positively lighthearted. Dylan Flaherty 13:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It is probably the sarcastic comments like the previous two that led to him calling you "sophistry" in the first place. I suggest you back away from the ledge you are dangerously close to falling off. Arzel (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
And I suggest that editors that have a problem w/ Editor:Dylan open their own WP:WQA. This one is about Editor:Bonewah.Buster Seven Talk 16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
(noting that I did not create the section with Dylan's name) All WP complaint boards have the same policy -- he who complains may find his own conduct being discussed as well. No "hi-jacking" occurs when this happens. Collect (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) Frankly, "sophistry" isn't far off from how I think most folks would define Dylan's aggressive battleground, tendentious, point-of-view warrior "debate" style after a thorough review. On several talk pages he has utilized the same idht, rinse, wash, repeat, ctdape campaign to varying degrees of success. (For the record, I think I agree with some of his viewpoints, just not his methods.) I think he really ought to step back and recognize, too, that the subtle canvassing and increasing bouts of edit warring are unlikely to be tolerated for long. jæs (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'd add that, given his concerns expressed above, he should sincerely consider exercising his right to vanish and return under a pseudonym. If he does indeed continue to edit with the same reckless abandon against neutral collaboration, I suspect he may soon have greater concerns on Wikipedia than a mild remark regarding his editing tactics. jæs (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not see that Collect's comments here are entirely civil and appear to contain sarcasm. ""Sophistry" being complained about? Amazing.... to which he responded with the sock puppet accusation!... Eh?... Kindly avoid slinging mud at me, and it then could not be reported here. Thank you most kindly...." TFD (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you accusing "thank you most kindly" as being "uncivil"? Or that I disputed his accusation that I was "mud slinging" becomes my incivility? Pray tell, am I to just sit back when un-verities are uttered? And that you so clearly note "sarcasm" when others do not see it? Collect (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

user snowded

Hi, i made this report against user snowded due to what i consider impolite or uncivil communications[1][2]

I have attempted on many occasions (which you will see from the above links) to resolve this issue by talking to User Snowded to attempt to resolve issue in a civil manner but my attempts at this have failed. i have also asked snowded not to post messages on my user talk page on a number of occasions whilst this issue is not resolved and he appeared to not follow my request. My main concern is the general method in which he talks to people on WP in what i would say it would in most cases be in a derogative manner when it comes to an issue of non agreement and use of edit summary's to make guised uncivil remarks [ 3] there have also been cases of Edit warring on the UAF article page although this is not my main concern and the conduct of the user is more important if this can be resolved

(i may not be availble for reply until later in the day so if i don't reply to discussions i will ASAHP. Thanks for looking into this

Johnsy88 (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a 3rr notification on the users page per proper process. Otherwise if s/he would care to list some specific examples to support the claims I'll happily respond. I suspect this is noise to avoid a block for continued edit warring--Snowded TALK 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You're apparently a long-term abuser[59], Snowded, and his forum-shopping here proves it to some. Or not. Doc talk 12:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I dont not see your reasoning behind the claim of "noise" when the report i made was completed (be it incorrectly placed in the wrong area due to my own inexperience in editing WP) days before your own 3rr claim so i would deduce from what you are saying and your actions that your own 3rr claim is actually noise due to the fact i have raised this issue before hand. As i already stated many times to you snowded my issue is with the manner of your approach when speaking to new and current WP users and the fact that you seem to almost using scoring and non user friendly communication in both your summary's and your discussions when it comes to an issue you are passionate about. I fully understand that everyone gets heated when discussing issue but getting like this serves to help no one and simply causes the catalyst for potential edit warring and basic uncivil and sometimes rude communications with other users. can you not see my point of view?

Johnsy88 (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Be specific Johnsy88, you are not a new user anymore, you have a block history for edit warring and attempts to advise you are rejected. This the third forum you have posted on and its noise unless you give examples to which I can respond. --Snowded TALK 13:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnsy88 has made a number of edits to put the English Defence League in a more favorable light, although police have described the EDL as "a very significant threat, It's one I know the police service are taking very seriously, together with the Home Office and local authorities." At the same time he has tried to discredit their main opposition, Unite Against Fascism, which is supported by the Conservative prime minister for the U.K. as "left-wing". He has edit-warred on both articles and been blocked twice. His remarks to other editors are insulting:

  • I feel that the people who want to undo the label do have a non neutral point of view
  • I feel that considering that you are a self proclaimed Democratic socialist you are not credible position to make edits on this subject matter (the label of left wing) considering you are a self professed believer in left wing politics
  • your are not editing from a NPOV
  • as a teacher of secondary school students i hope you do not teach in the same way
  • I feel that the people who want to undo the label do have a non neutral point of view

TFD (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

if edits are favourable or not is down to a matter of opinion and you could only come to such a conclusion on my so called "favourable" comments if you yourself also had an opinion on the matter which was unfavourable towards the Article when concerning the EDL being labelled as extreme etc. The facts of the matter are this, the article UAF's label being left wing is sourced and any edit war was conducted by all party's involved in the artilce and was not the sole responsibility of myself which has been deduced by the admin who has now locked the UAF article (see discussion on reason for lock on uaf).

The comments above made by myself are also taken out of context in most respects. you have taken my comments and not the reply comments by snowded, TFD, you have also not taken into account the fact that it is clearly documented that i wish only to be spoken to in an acceptable manner which all WP editors deserve and this is also clearly documented in my communications with Snowded. Johnsy88 (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You want to watch these claims you make about admins, you ended up with egg all over your face when the article you claimed admin support for was deleted. In the "edit war" you reverted 4 times, no other editor went to more than two. You were in effect let off on a technicality; your "facts" have been rejected by a majority of editors on the RS notice board and you have consistently ignored WP:BRD.
I repeat my earlier request - provide diffs to support your statements above so that a response can be made. At the moment you are just making general accusations without supporting evidence which is disruptive. --Snowded TALK 22:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical Christian Church in Canada

Some one is removing important information from page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavi123 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

[|Retro00064| in the CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors page

Stuck
 – This is already being addressed at ANI; forum-shopping after it has already escalated is not permitted (and compounding this with personal attacks during dispute resolution is not acceptable). Blocking needs to be considered to prevent the disruption that is being caused by this; accordingly, this issue should be sorted out at the same ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[|Retro00064| has been very apathethic. In the last part of this issue Retro00064 has nothing to do with this case. There is already the process of enlightening the issue between CaC and User 69. What is Retro00064 up to? Retro00064 is a very apathetic person. Retro00064 does not think of wikipedia's own good as Retro00064 is a reflection of it nor fight for the moralities of Wikipedia but FIGHT for his/her own self. Retro00064 is a selfish person... if Retro00064 is sent to afghnistan.. he/she doesnot fight for the USA but for his/her self.. that is how apathetic he/she is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.183 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This IP user is nuts. Anyone who is reading this needs to take a look at this ANI thread which caused this: CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors. Take at look at all of the personal attacks, harassment, legal threats, incivility, etc. that he/she was throwing at an innocent IP editor. And coming here to try to get revenge on me just because I prevented him from getting away with all of that garbage by repeatedly posting (telling the sense in it all, which this user does not appear to hear) in that ANI thread is just plain sillyness. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, this issue involves numerous IP addresses that all start with the number 69. I believe that they are all the same person, though the IP is trying to make it seem that the other IPs are different users. This IP is not the only one that has used terms similar to "User 69" to refer to all of the/his IPs (e.g. one of his comments in the ANI thread above uses "Users 69"). And one thing that pretty much all of the IPs have in common, is that they pretty much never sign their posts. :-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Who has brain problems? In the ist place retro00064 you have no business in the supposedly reconciliation processes going on between CaC and a certain User 69.@#$%.&*%. But you still delved your nose in. To get attention? Do you need a nanny? This is a sign of Horrible INSECURITY (call 911). Probably you are raised as such , feel as such that's why you behave as such, inferior, apathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.44 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
What "reconciliation" or "enlightenment" between you and CaC? I have no idea what you mean by that. And it is still up to an administrator to close the case, not you. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't read behind the lines?...all you have to do is to alight in between us like a winged witch from afar and start brawling... blah blah blah here blah blah blah there... blah blah blah up there... blah blah blah down here...you are the dirtiest editor of wikipedia a skunk..u have to wash your dirty linens ad infinitum and you will never appear clean to anyone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.44 (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close this thread? There is no reason why this IP should be given an open forum to launch personal attacks on another user. There is a certain irony that he is using the Wikiquette board to do so, however there is no valid complaint here. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dbachmann: Hallstatt culture

A dispute arose about tagging the article Hallstatt culture with {{WikiProject Slovenia}}. I'm reporting Dbachmann here for his uncivil behaviour and misuse of administrator privileges, as has been proposed to me by another editor.[60] See User talk:Dbachmann#Editing the Hallstatt culture article and [61] (misuse of the revert button). --Eleassar my talk 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As I see Eleassar is more interested in discussing "civility" than the point I tried to impress on him. I am used to this. User also told me to "AGF" instead of trying to understand what I was talking about. I do not doubt this user's "good faith", and I am not interested in meta-discussions. I will be available any time they decide they want to have an actual discussion instead. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two points to be discussed: the placement of the wikiproject tags and the behaviour of the users involved in the dispute. The point of using the tag has been subsequently raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Guide, the right venues to discuss the placement of the tags. On two talk pages, Dbachmann has been reprimanded regarding his behaviour, so I've decided to report him here. --Eleassar my talk 11:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It's of particular concern that Dbachmann still judges editors instead of content and threatens to use the revert button inappropriately even though he has been warned not to.[62] --Eleassar my talk 12:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaving formal rules and guidelines aside for a while... In fact, Dbachmann, what you were talking about (i.e. the state of "more ostensibly Slovenia-related articles") is pretty much irrelevant for this discussion. Wikipedia is an open project and any editor is free to choose his activity, as long as he follows the rules. You cannot force somebody to contribute content if he chooses instead to help with WikiProject coordination (and coming from an administrator, trying to do this downright rude). It is also completely irrelevant whether you consider one of those activities less worthy than the other. Together with you failing to assume good faith, i.e. jumping to conclusions and proclaiming Eleassar's edits a "patriotic pissing contest" after he refused to bow to your opinion, you have managed to successfully obscure your point. Speaking of which, the "significant association with Slovenia" that you require is explained in the article, with a reference. There are more if you think that one's not good enough. Considering this, I find the rest of your comments extremely hostile as well. My opinion is that an administrator shouldn't behave this way, as much "right" as he/she thinks his/her opinion may be. Such aloof attitude ("I am used to this" etc.) doesn't really encourage rational discussion and labeling people as childish when they don't react completely rationally to this is... well, childish. — Yerpo Eh? 12:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

SeikoEn

User SeikoEn persistently breaks WP:Civility by insulting users he doesn't agree with and calling them “fascists”, as well as calling their edits vandalism, when it should be avoided. He was warned several times, but he doesn't change his behaviour.

Here is a small part of diffs with insulting other users: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], here he calls the restoring of the consensus version of the article “vandalism”: [68][69].

He was told to changes his behaviour several times: [70][71][72] Yesterday I warned him that if he continues his aggressive behaviour I'll report it to administrators: [73] [74], and today he continues his insults: “you become more and more ridiculous”.

Please, have an influence on him. --Glebchik (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User continues to accuse me in vandalism. After he created a topic at WP:AIV [75] and it was declined [76], he continues to send it personally to administrators [77][78], where in addition he accuses me of “deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia” and “lots of not good faith edits”. He also posted it in our discussion [79] when it has nothing to to with the subject of discussion itself, and calls my contributions “Antiukrainian work”. --Glebchik (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Profanity directed at editor on editor's talk page

In this edit I commented Original creators called it a move. You dolts opine it's not. and then added a comment to the talk page to explain how two editors were taking the fight from another article to this one. Essentially the Vancouver Whitecaps FC have played in a second division league and have purchased a franchise in the first division MLS (the only way to enter it). The debate on their club pages is whether the club is moving or it's a completely different team. This debate is about whether the supporters group is decide whether they themselves are moving to the MLS (they created article) or whether to censor the phrase "moving to" from a single heading. While I was writing on the talk page, one of the two opponents to the concept that the club is moving left this message for me and has been hounding me since and is has not taken the opportunity to talk about it on the article page. The editor later stated And also please don;t start making personal attacks if swearing hurts your feelings.]. My reason for stating that they were dolts is that they were not thinking rationally in thinking that the supporters group and club are under the same rule. Again, the "move" phrase was added by the supporters team, not me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

He was probably a little upset a being called a "stupid fuck". Walter, it's best not to insult other editors if you don't want them to insult you back. Cptnono's approach of demonstrating this to you wasn't acceptable, but it was a clear demonstration. Fences&Windows 14:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, missed that. Yes, neither behavior is particularly helpful. ← George talk 10:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not acceptable at all. And I honestly don't know why you are dismissing his concerns. He probably should receive a warning himself for snapping at some editors like that and being uncivil. But the response to his remarks was wholly unjustified and unnacceptable. If people feelt his is okay, it really makes me wonder about what kind of folk are editing this site. We are supposed to be here to work as a community to build a viable reference service online. But it feels like editors are given free reign to attack others in terrible ways. Swearing at users should not be allowed. Period. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, personal attacks and swearing aren't acceptable. I've already warned Cptnono, and they've acknowledged the warning. Walter doesn't need warning - he's read this section and knows now not to make personal attacks, I think. Fences&Windows 23:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You didn't miss anything, George. I called him a stupid fuck after he called me a dolt. But yeah, F&W did warn me. I actually thought it was for the report above and didn't even realize this was here until just now. Both happened within about a day and I was a little touchy after being called a dolt and being a dick. No problem since and I will keep the warning in mind. One thing I find interesting is that both reporting parties made the first blow. Yes, I have a habit of responding in kind. I get that it is a problem and have repeatedly asked editors since both these incidents to not make attacks instead of being a jerk back. Of course, "turn the other cheek" is not a wikipedia guideline but I see it being related.Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is a Wikipedia guideline in the sense that it's a good life guideline, and Wikipedia is part of life. If you hit back at people, you'll end up in a lot of hitting fights. This is always true, wherever you go. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
And that may or may not be something I see as a problem off of Wikipedia but I understand that it is frowned upon here and will certainly keep it in mind.Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Duke53

Recently I notice a User:Duke53 comments here. I felt that his comments and sarcasm boarder on UNCIVIL. For example:

  • "p.s. "Time to review Temple Garment image" ? Is there some sort of timetable for this that I wasn't aware of ? How many times to we have to go through this process ? Every time some tbm gets 'offended' we have this same conversation. Give it a break. Duke53 | Talk 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)"
  • "p.s. I would appreciate it if someone would inform me what the schedule for this 'review' is going to be; I'd hate to miss out on something this important. Duke53 | Talk 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)"

I went to his user page to kindly remind him to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and the be WP:CIVIL. However, when I saw User talk:Duke53 it is extremely obvious that this isn't an isolated event. Duke53 has so many complaints of incivility I couldn't count them all. Some example of Duke53 incivility are:

  • ”Don't ever presume to tell me what I 'know'; you put crap up on your page, I retaliated. You decided to 'remove' yours, I haven't made that decision. (I did edit it) You don't get to make the decision for me. Sorry. Post whatever you wish; I will respond in the manner which I deem is appropriate. Live with it. Duke53 | Talk 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)”
  • ”Perhaps if you registered and wrote something halfway sensible here I would pay the slightest bit of attention to the crap you just wrote. Duke53 | Talk 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)”
  • ”Wow ... that's a load off my mind, I didn't know exactly how stupid you are. As far as you disliking me: there isn't much here that I could give a shit less about. Duke53 | Talk 05:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)”

This user obviously doesn’t care about civility. In his own words

  • "Thank You for your concern, but I believe that I will do this my way. I didn't come here to make new friends or to sit around singing verses of Kumbaya. I really don't care who gets angry ... "Duke53 | Talk" 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)"

and

  • "Consider me not giving a shit about your opinion. I stated facts ... deal with it. Duke53 | Talk 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

And he hasn’t cared about that administrators say or do. Again his own words:

  • ”Laugh of the Day : A new admin saw fit to 'report' this exchange to another admin. :) Duke53 | Talk 04:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)”

If you look over his user page he has been warned and warned and even blocked twice by user:TenOfAllTrades see. I believe something needs to be done about this user.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk /contribs) 14:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered for awhile why Duke53 is allowed to continue editing. His pattern of edits makes it quite clear he's both a troll and a bully, and is only interested in advancing his personal point of view in lieu of accuracy and honesty. There's little question that his pattern of editing, not to mention his amusing idle threats against countless other users, diminishes wikipidea. It's unfortunate wikipedia takes so few steps against users like this.68.168.94.6 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Reviewing his usertalk page and a bunch of his article talk page contributions, this editor obviously needs to reform his way of relating to others on Wikipedia, or leave the project. Blocks have already been tried. BE——Critical__Talk 02:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Edits from four years ago are being quoted, I can't take this seriously. Are you bitter about a dispute? Fences&Windows 03:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised old diffs were used because there are plenty of recent diffs available, though the old diffs do demonstrate a pattern stretching back to nearly the beginning of Duke53's stint on Wikipedia. He has a strong anti-Mormon POV that leads him to antagonize LDS editors like myself; he has a strong pro-Duke University POV that leads him to defend Duke and attack Duke's rivals (esp. UNC); and in nearly anything that he has a POV in, he's hostile to editors who dare to differ. The real challenge is to find any 50-edit stretch of his contrib history where there's not a diff of him being rude or contemptuous to someone. Recent diffs:
      Duke53 has accused 888fortune of vandalism over a naming dispute. See his edit summaries in these diffs: [80], [81], and he warned 888fortune both on that editor's talk page [82] and user page [83]. Subsequent discussion between Duke53 and myself occurred at Talk:Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks#Naming, after which he once again reverted 888fortune [84].
      General rudeness: [85], [86], [87]
      Taunting/baiting: [88], [89], [90], [91]
      That's all since the last block back in April, I believe. But perhaps another RfC is needed? (It would be his third; his first one from 2007 didn't get a lot of community input and his second in 2009 was resolved via a compromise I brokered.) alanyst /talk/ 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That might help, if you think he is open to the input of others and is willing/able to change. BE——Critical__Talk 06:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There's scant evidence of that from his several-year history here, unfortunately. See his first RfC. I'd love to give him the benefit of the doubt—and I have multiple times in the past—but with his track record, will another RfC just be a bunch of additional drama with no lasting positive impact? If so, what are the alternatives? alanyst /talk/ 06:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Bans for incivility are unusual I think. You might do well to ask for input from any admin you know rather than take it directly to WP:AN/I. BE——Critical__Talk 07:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
   Just to make thing clear, User:Fences and windows, I am not or have not been in any kind of dispute with Duke53. The only contact I had with him was the here (as shown above). I was actually on his side of the debate, but I noticed his comments to the thread starter. I felt the way he was behaving was inappropriate, even if his argument was correct. So as I stated above "I went to his user page to kindly remind him to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and the be WP:CIVIL." That is when I found his history of being uncivil. As to why I chose the examples I did, it was because I thought they were the most notable. There are plenty of examples that are more current as alanyst pointed out.
   BECritical, I will admit I’m not sure if this is the correct place for this. I came here because I thought that this is where you ask Admins to look into what can or should be done for etiquette problems. However, If it’s not I’m confused as to what it’s for. The titile is “Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts” and after reading the “Avoid filing a report if:” and “When reporting:” section, I thought this was the place to put this. I may be 100% wrong, so if I am please someone tell me where to put this. As to the a RfC and “That might help, if you think he is open to the input of others and is willing/able to change.”, I think his comments speak for himself. He has made it clear he has already said he doesn’t care about what others think.
   I think it clear that User:Duke53 has no intention caring what anyone says or of changing his behavor, so am admin needs to look into what can and should be done about his extremely uncivil behavior, so I leave that up to the admins.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I think: you are not going to get an admin willing to give him an indefinite ban. From here, so far as I know, you can proceed two ways. You can ask him if he would be willing to undertake an RfC. If he says yes, go with that. If he says no, then try for a community ban or topic ban. Those are the only options I know of besides begging. On the other hand, it seems possible that since I gained my knowledge of these things, there has been a trend toward more realistically dealing with these things. I still think offering him an RfC would be the best thing to do first, and as an uninvolved user I would be willing to post that. But if he refuses, then I'm not sure whether you should go for an indef block by an administrator, or a community ban. BE——Critical__Talk 20:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
In any case, it would be best to hold off on any RfC or block/ban discussion until after the holidays, so Duke53 isn't forced to spend his holidays defending himself. There's likely to be better community input then, too. alanyst /talk/ 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very good point I hadn't thought of, thanks for bringing it up. BE——Critical__Talk 20:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Who says that I 'have' to 'defend' myself ? Check the histories of the editors who are pushing this ... perhaps it will become a double bladed sword and it will be those editors 'defending' their actions. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Alanyst, it took a bit longer than I expected for you to appear on the scene and jump on this. :>) 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... is that the sound of the rest of the 'gang' coming now ? Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Since you're choosing to deal with this now instead of after the holidays, would you be willing to undergo the feedback of an RfC?. Also, it isn't the actions of others we're considering here, but rather yours. BE——Critical__Talk 00:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive95&oldid=1087815716"