Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive82

User:Automyte

User:Automyte continually posts soapbox-style external links to non-notable anti-JW websites on articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The editor has been asked to stop, and has also been invited to discuss the merits of the sites they would like to include.[1][2][3] The user has never attempted discussion at any article Talk page, but insists at User Talk pages that editors who disagree with them must "work for the Watchtower",[4][5][6] and made accusations of vandalism when their links are removed.[7] The user was recently blocked (for 31 hours) for related edit-warring.[8][9]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like primary issue is edit warring. Auotmyte, please don't accuse other editor's of vandalism unless it clearly is (and this is not). Gerardw (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

False accusations

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Please post on WP:AN3 Gerardw (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro77 and LTSally and now Gerardw are warring against me. They won't let me put links that are critic of the Watchtower(Jehovah's Witnesses) to allow readers to see the other side of the coin, not only the Watchtower propaganda and misinformation. They should be banned for warring. Thanks.--Automyte (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please post your edit warring accusation on the appropriate forum WP:AN3. Gerardw (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ratel

Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is consistently uncivil, has WP:OWN problems and misuses Twinkle to edit-war and violate WP:POINT.

• "Still not sure why you're getting your panties in a knot over this."
• "Give it a break" without any contribution to the underlying discussion.
• insults another editor as a "warrior of the Right"
• Repeatedly denigrating mainstream views as "far right."
• Moves well-cited material from the correct section, then he removes it because it's supposedly in the wrong section -- complete with misleading edit summaries.
• Misuses Twinkle to edit-war with a wholesale revert: because he didn't like the deletion of his original research in one edit, he violated WP:POINT and reverted every edit I made to the page. The edit summary is misleading: the changes were discussed on the talk-page, and Ratel continues to refuse to engage in the discussion.

His editing is disruptive, and he needs to lose his Twinkle privileges. A block is in order for the persistent incivility. If he can't handle discussions with editors who don't share his particular political views, a topic ban may be in order as well. THF (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• My reference to "warrior of the Right" is to the author of the Weekly Standard article quoted, not to a wikipedia editor.
• Your editing of the Moyers page consisted of adding an unsourced negative comment about him (now sourced, finally) (...But the owner of the paper, Harry Guggenheim, criticized Moyers's "left-wing sympathies") which was never sourced, and deleting entire sourced sections without discussion. Your comments on the talk page were aggressive and uncollegiate in the extreme.
• My "give it a break" comment was in response to your continued use of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to justify what you wanted to do to the page.
• Kristol and his Weekly Standard rag are far right to me, and I have sources that think the same.
• I suggest any admin who thinks there is any substance in THF's accusations should study the Talk page before coming to any conclusions. ► RATEL ◄ 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• This edit and this talk page comment shows pretty conclusively that Ratel's characterization of my edits is false. I fail to see how "The paper won two Pulitzer prizes under Moyers" is a "negative comment," but that Ratel thinks so pretty conclusively demonstrates that he's been mindlessly reverting my edits without reading them, which is as good a reason for losing Twinkle privileges as any. Note that he's unapologetic for his uncivil language and behavior, and repeats some of it on the WQA page. I don't like being compared to far right Nazis and Klansmen. THF (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this. You know full well that you added a sentence about Guggenheim so "...Guggenheim was disappointed by the liberal drift of the newspaper under Moyers, criticizing the "left-wing" coverage of Vietnam War protests" and more, all with no attribution. So much for "mindlessly reverting". Any more lies you have to tell here? Oh, where did I compare you to a Nazi? This is going beyond a joke and calls for some action to be taken against you for misrepresenting serious issues here. Prove that I ever made these comparisons, or strike those comments! ► RATEL ◄ 16:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please also note that THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked already in 2010. ► RATEL ◄ 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that Ratel falsely smears me by noting that I was blocked without noting that administrative consensus was that the block was inappropriate and lifted. THF (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And all your other blocks? All unjustified, I suppose? ► RATEL ◄ 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"All" my other blocks? I've been blocked twice in three years, and both times they were lifted--including once by the blocking admin. Did you even read the block log? Compare. THF (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've been blocked 3 times, lifted 2 times, same as me. In my case, the blocking admin was edit warring me, so really one of them should not count at all. In reference to this section on this noticeboard, I think you're wasting this board's time in a spiteful effort to get me, a hard-working editor who has donated hundred of hours to wikpedia, to lose TW privileges, on specious grounds. Nasty, THF. ► RATEL ◄ 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you reread my block log and apologize and strike your false claim before you lose more credibility. THF (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologise to this noticeboard for partaking in this wikidrama. ► RATEL ◄ 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, THF's earliest block was clearly a technical block to deal with a username change issue. Presenting it as a block for misbehavior is misleading at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I also have had instances of incivility directed at me by Ratel. On my User page, he included the following edit summary: "speculation, opinion, inaccurate sources, a whole pot of garbage". On the Bill Moyers Talk page, he said the following: "The edits are rubbish". There are other examples found on the Bill Moyers Talk page directed to other editors.--Drrll (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in wikipedia it is permissible to attack an edit, rather than an editor, which is what I did. I was not the only person to object to your edits and sources. ► RATEL ◄ 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's permissible to comment on an edit. It's permissible to revert an edit. Attack? I'm not familiar with that policy. Please tone down the rhetoric. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike the "panties" comment. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll strike that comment with pleasure. ► RATEL ◄ 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A pattern does exist. See Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) specifically [10] where he says "checkuser would be nice" when he accuses Wikidemon of being my sock (also a prior edit where he states we are one person) <g>. Another person then comments in an innocuous manner at [11] and [12]. Ratel's response? Deletion with the comment "Name of person suing Copperfield: wp:RPA This editor is following me from Bhut Jolokia pepper on a grudge)" I expect him to attack me (this is not the place to list all the claims he has made - including a number of claims that I have sock -- including that THF is my sock, or I his). -- as he did on my talk page with "RPA There's nothing wrong with RPA. It is a policy I choose to follow when an uninvolved adversarial editor follows me from an unrelated page to post a personal attack out of spite. Your restoration of that spiteful attack reflects poorly on you. ► RATEL ◄ 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)." The fact is that there is no better nor apt term than "loose cannon" at this point. Collect (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC) append [13] yet another of his accusations of peoiple being "reincarnations" etc. A long pattern, and I do not even need to add his comments about me here. Collect (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Say hello to Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ladies and gents, my own personal wikistalker who has followed me now for years (literally) from page to page to page. See his RfC to find out more about him. Or better yet, move along, nothing to see here. ► RATEL ◄ 15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As I follow WQA on my Watchlist and have for some time, your iterated accusations are absurd. Meanwhile, now that you decided to attack me here, I submit his edits at ANI for 03:42 and 05:45 on 5 August 2009 [14] wherein he says things which ought not be repeated on any WP page at all (including repeated accusations of sockpuppetry, being a "cockroach"," mental illness and worse). As for the RFC/U, it is a prime example of what happens when 14 editors are CANVASSed - Ikip has since apologized for it. As for the huge number of pages Ratel implies we interact on - it comes to 8 articles. Well under 1% of the articles I have edited. Collect (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I only edit a few pages, and you've moved in on most of them after initially clashing with me unsuccessfully at Matt Drudge. Your behaviour can be clearly documented and proof provided, and I hope to have the time one day to do just that in a formal way. You were also told to stay away from me at one point, weren't you? ► RATEL ◄ 06:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Only a few pages"? Seems you need to get Soxred to fix his counter which has you at 811 pages! And I was never told to let you run rampant -- see the Talk:David Copperfield discussions. Or better yet -- try showing me where I ever edited Matt Drudge!! (since I have never edited that article, ever, and my only edits at Talk:Matt Drudge in July 2009 were [15] to aver that calling him "conservative" 8 times in an article was quite ample. the prior one in July was in this "colloquy" wherein you again display a rather combative nature: I'd support you removing the word criticism from the header. It's more about Drudge the person anyway. I don't think anyone wants to castigate Drudge as an homosexual (there is nothing wrong with being homosexual), but rather the page is documenting the fact that the allegation has been made in many places and Drudge himself has used other people's gayness against them, which some people have called hypocritical. That's the gist of it. ► RATEL ◄ 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My reply Per BLP, making such allegations requires strong sources. Collect (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your response: What allegations? Wikipedians have not alleged anything, merely reported widespread allegations in numerous sources, as good wikipedians should do. Even Jimbo Wales got involved in this one, Collect, and did not impugn the sources, so your attempt to start another edit war here will fail.► RATEL ◄ 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Showing your attacks ab initio for what appeared to me to be comments not directed at you at all. My response to your attack was to suggest a cup of tea, and I still think it would do you a world of good! Might you think of relaxing a bit? Collect (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really want me to relax, please stop popping up, whenever I get into a content dispute on any page, in order to take the opposing side. Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note that Ratel is now using an article talk-page to taunt me for the lack of administrative response to his incivility. THF (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ratel didn't like a source I used in the Bill Moyers article and he demanded that I take it to RSN. I did, and when the consensus was that it was a reliable source, he responded with the following on my User page: "The Weekly Standard is clearly not a RS despite what the drones at the noticeboard said"--Drrll (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The source may have been adjudged reliable, but the opinion column in question certainly wasn't. The subject of the attack column, Moyers himself, pointed out the errors. We cannot use an error-filled opinion diatribe as a RS on a BLP. BTW, this is not a wikiquette issue anyway. ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see at [16] the author was mentioned in the request, as was a quoted section of the article in question. Yes, Moyers responded to the article, but so did the author respond to his response, pointing out problems in Moyers' response. Calling those who responded on the RSN "drones" certainly is a wikiquette issue.--Drrll (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I used the word "drone" ("a person who does tedious or menial work") on your userpage, not on the RS/N. As such, it was not a wikiquette issue at all. ► RATEL ◄ 07:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. The same civility standards apply throughout WP. Gerardw (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He's unapologetically hidden it, but see also "bullshit" to describe (on WQA!) my edits. THF (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[responding to currently blocked editor] I was clearly using that word (BS) to describe the "theory" of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and not your edits. Please parse my comments more carefully to avoid making inaccurate accusations like this again. ► RATEL ◄ 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and struck part of your comment. Please refrain from making anything that can even be interpreted as a personal attack. THF has again been unblocked, and comments regarding someone's blocks are completely unconstructive. Swarm^(Talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel

• Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is:

• indiscriminately reverting my edits insultingly and without any willingness to discuss on the talk page of article.[17][18][19]
• making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against me.[20][21]
• insisting that every single center-right writer is "far right" and/or "fringe" and/or and/or a "crank" and/or a "hack", but refusing to edit collaboratively and engage on which conservative points of view he would find acceptable to include in an article, and refusing to refrain from using such uncivil language to discuss mainstream points of view that he disagrees with.[22][23]
• misusing Twinkle in the process, including falsely accusing me of vandalism:[24] THF (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• another uncivil edit summary -- Regnery publishes several best-selling books a year. THF (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• repeatedly accuses me of trolling (e.g., [25]) when I try to resolve disputes. THF (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I brought this complaint a few days earlier and withdrew it when the editor indicated he'd behave, but he's immediately returned to his uncivil behavior. It rises to wikistalking: there are several problems with the Bill Moyers article, but his only contribution is to undo my single-sentence edit sourced to a published book -- even as the lengthy paragraph immediately above it cites two blogs. When invited to provide a good-faith reason for today's Bill Moyers NPOV violation, he refused uncivilly.[26] THF (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC), updated with new bullet point and 2 diffs. 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalking? My first edit to Bill Moyers is from 2005. THF first showed up in February 2010. My recent participation includes significant edits in January and February 2010 prior to THF's arrival. This is yet another one in a long series of sweeping, inaccurate slurs against me made by THF.

His inaccuracies point by point:

• All of my "offensive" edit summaries are direct responses to an edit summary where he levels an inaccurate attack upon myself. His statement that I am unwilling to discuss on talk is also preposterous, as we have had plenty of talk discussions, most of which degenerate into him attacking me.

*He may possibly be a sock of TDC. The names are similar, the conduct is similar. He seems to be "convinced" I am some kind of POV-pushing edit warrior. What is he basing that on? Either he has prior conflicts with me or he is basing it on one week of encounters and three or four articles. If it's the former, he's a sock, if it's the latter, he is making inappropriate and broad generalizations about an editor he's just encountered, hardly a shining example of civility and proper wikipedia behavior.

• An example of his broad generalizations is his contention that I think "every single center-right writer is "far right" and/or "fringe" and/or and/or a "crank" and/or a "hack"". He is basing that contention on three sources he favors: Brent Bozell, a writer for Brietbart, and Rush Limbaugh's brother. I stand by my contention that these three authors are fringe and inappropriate for Wikipedia, and hardly representative of the right as a whole. If you want to make a generalization about three authors, a more appropriate one would be to say that THF is pushing fringe authors as sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• WP:DTTR. Gamaliel (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Update to address new bullet point: according to THF, I have refused to "provide a good-faith reason" for my complaint about Regenery, then he complains about that very reason I supposedly didn't provide, claiming that "Regnery publishes several best-selling books a year". He wants it both ways, clearly. I have no idea how to deal with an editor who won't act in good faith. He claims he wants to discuss edits but then claims I'm not discussing edits when I clearly am. Gamaliel (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Fringe" has specific Wikipedia policy meaning, and refers to Klansmen, conspiracy theorists, homeopaths, and Holocaust deniers, yet Gamaliel persists in using it offensively to refer to mainstream conservatives. "Rush Limbaugh's brother" is a notable author in his own right; the Capital Research Center is mainstream; so is L. Brent Bozell III. But this goes to Gamaliel's POV-pushing (which I hope an administrator will deal with separately), not to his incivility: even if he was correct, it would not justify his violations of WP:CIVIL.
• NB that G, with exactly zero evidence (indeed, negative evidence, given the number of times I've been outed), unapologetically repeats a baseless sockpuppet accusation even on the WQA.
• With respect to G's update, note the chronological arrow of time, as I could not know that after I complained that G refused to provide a reason that he would then provide an uncivil reason. THF (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Disagreement about the appropriateness of sources is not an example of incivility or POV-pushing. I stand by my observation that these sources are fringe and inappropriate. Your disagreement does not excuse your baseless accusations.

*I repeated it because you brought it up here. I'm willing to let it drop. Is it baseless? I don't know, but there's certainly more evidence that you are a sock than any of the bullshit claims you've made about me.

• I have consistently had the same reason for removal. THF seems to find the notion that someone could consider these authors fringe in and of itself uncivil, which is of course absurd. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Gamaliel, accusations of vandalism and trolling are uncivil. You're certainly allowed to remove the talk page comments. WP:DTTR is no more policy than WP:DTR is. Please strike your sock accusation above and take to WP:SSP. THF, WQA is focused on civility issues; there is an insufficient editor base here to address your other concerns. RFC would probably be a better avenue for the content issues. Gerardw (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is not the actual trolling uncivil as well? Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• If there's trolling going on, it's because of Gamaliel's WP:KETTLE problems. Can someone please take a look at Talk:Bill_Moyers#NPOV_tag, where Gamaliel keeps switching his argument? When someone addresses his misapplication of WP:FRINGE, he then says the real issue is WP:RS; when it's pointed out that the source satisfies the WP:RS policy, he returns to arguing WP:FRINGE applies without ever addressing the refutation. He's asked to quote from the policy to back up his interpretation, and he refuses--but also refuses to yield on the substantive issue. This is the very definition of WP:TEDIOUS and an extraordinary waste of editors' time, and, while perhaps beyond the scope of this board, makes it impossible to edit collaboratively with him. THF (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you can't seem to handle someone disagreeing with you, but that's all it is, a disagreement. If you can't handle someone having a difference of opinion, Wikipedia is not the place for you. My judgment that a particular source is a fringe one is not a personal attack on you, nor does it give you license to make up all manner of demonstratively false accusations about me. My differences with you regarding article content or policy are not breaches of civility nor, as has been pointed out to you, do they fall under the purview of this page. Your behavior, however, is certainly a breach of civility and is covered here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can handle a disagreement. The problem here is that you don't just disagree: you insult, you don't participate in discussions except with non sequiturs, you make false accusations of sockpuppetry, you indiscriminately revert, and you treat attempts to get you to clarify a position that isn't supported by policy as "trolling." THF (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have always been willing to clarify my position. What I'm not willing to do is go around the same ground over and over again because you are unwilling to accept that I don't agree with you, give in to your arbitrary grandstanding demands, or put up with your bizarre fabricated, insulting accusations. I no longer think you are a sockpuppet and I withdraw my accusation and strike my comments. You have my apologies. I apologize for confusing one tendentious, obnoxious, accusatory, conservative editor who has a three letter user name beginning with T with another tendentious, obnoxious, accusatory, conservative editor who has a three letter user name beginning with T. I regret the error. Gamaliel (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• You treat discussion like Argument Clinic. You suggest WP:FRINGE is the reason to exclude a source; I give a detailed explanation why it does not, and your response is "I think it's fringe." I ask you clarify with a quote from the policy, and you refuse. You've wasted countless kilobytes insulting me, yet refuse to simply copy-and-paste the text that supports your argument -- and the reason you've refused is because the policy does not support your argument, but you won't concede the point, either. That, sir, is tendentious, and it's a violation of WP:CIVIL to boot when you call me "obnoxious" and a "troll" for asking for resolution to a disagreement where you refuse to defend your point but refuse to concede the issue. THF (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't concede the point because I don't agree with your position. The fact that I won't agree with you is not tendentious, nor is it refusal to discuss, nor evidence of widespread bias, or any of the other many many things that you've accused me of baselessly. If I don't agree, the solution is to find other editors who do and form a consensus, then my disagreement becomes irrelevant. The solution is not to keep insulting and haranguing me until I give in. What you are doing is pretty much the definition of tendentious editing. I am completely baffled why you can't handle the fact that one editor won't give in. Is it because you think I insulted your friends at Regenery? Whatever the reason, let it go. There are thousands of other editors on Wikipedia. Surely one of them must agree with you, go chat with one of them and leave me alone. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to "give in": I'm asking you to support a position that has no evidence of being supported by policy. Why do you continue to leave kilobyte-long insults instead of simply copying and pasting the text that you think supports you? How are we supposed to resolve the disagreement when you announce that you will neither defend your position nor concede it? THF (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have stated my position clearly and repeatedly and I believe it is supported by Wikipedia policy and practice. I have run out of ways to repeat the same position over and over again. I have nothing more to say on the matter. What is tendentious is you coming back for pass after pass like you are trying to find cracks in the testimony of a witness. Please save that for your day job. I don't agree. Let it go. Gamaliel (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point: You simply assert that policy supports you over and over repetitively regardless of what facts are mustered against you, but refuse to back it up with an actual quote from policy. Once again, you take the time to make a personal attack on WQA instead of simply quoting policy on the article talk page. THF (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already made my case. Agree or don't agree. I'm not going to waste any more time with this matter. The only thing you've proven is your inability to work with others and to handle disagreement. If you weren't so insistent on trying to bend others to your will we could have worked something out by now. Gamaliel (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Except you continue to edit-war when you refuse to provide any defense for your position after it was refuted and multiple editors point out you're wrong. THF (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have been more appropriate to say: "Except you continue to make edits, and refuse to repeat you position over and over again to appease me, and other editors who have pointed out that we don't agree with you". Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't stated a position. He's just repeated the word "fringe" when WP:FRINGE plainly doesn't apply to a mainstream political opinion source, and refuses to clarify what he means by specific reference to the policy. THF (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(od) You're telling me that you really don't understand why this statement that you tried to add to a BLP falls under WP:FRINGE?: Moyers's speech was singled out by conservative author David Limbaugh as an example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. ... Seriously -- stop wasting everyone's time. WP:FRINGE applies to THEORIES not to PEOPLE. This means that no matter how notable David Limbaugh is, the theory can still be (and IS in this case) a fringe theory. Not only that, but WP:Undue also applies here, since this is a highly non-notable aspect of Bill Moyers life. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Gamaliel, please refrain from the personal attacks. Please strike references to "obnoxious, accusatory." Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is "trolling" or "tendentious editing" going on in this situation, they're not issues that WP:WQA can deal with. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• An even bigger issue with the attempt to insert the Limbaugh insult into a BLP is that the insult actually was synthesised by THF. I cannot find any direct naming of Moyers's speech as an example of Bush Derangement Syndrome in the book, as accessible at Google Books. So, if anything, THF needs a slap for SYN crime. ► RATEL ◄ 10:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, SYN is synthesis of material that isn't in the source. I summarized material that was in the source, because a sentence was more appropriate than quoting several pages. All Ratel demonstrates here is either a lack of reading comprehension or a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy--at best. I'd hate to think he's deliberately making a false accusation to waste my time and to POV-push. THF (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oy, wakey! You took (a) a section on Moyers in the book that does not mention the bullshit and pejorative theory of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", then took (b) the separate section on Bush Derangement Syndrome, that does not mention Moyers, and YOU put them together in this classic case of synthesis: Moyers's speech was singled out by conservative author David Limbaugh as an example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. I invite editors to check the evidence at Google books. ► RATEL ◄ 06:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, thanks for demonstrating the lack of civility I've been dealing with on the WQA page. Meanwhile, it wasn't a separate section: it was a concluding subsection to the section mentioning Moyers: your interpretation requires a reader to believe that Limbaugh just had a non sequitur in his book that didn't refer to anything. It might help to know that Limbaugh was directly referencing Krauthammer on this joke (which no one but you seems to think is an attempt at an actual medical diagnosis), even referring to the same Moyers language. In any event, this isn't the page for content disputes. THF (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the forum in which to continue your content dispute. Article discussion belongs on article talk. A discussion of an editor's alleged long term disruptive pattern belongs at RFC/U, not here Gerardw (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree: can you please note the lack of civility that Ratel shows even here? THF (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pure frustration with your inability to acknowledge tendentious editing and clear rule-breaking. ► RATEL ◄ 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(commenting here in regards to both alerts brought up by THF) Reading the WQA against Ratel above, it's evident that several editors have expressed frustration with their behavior. It's also evident that Ratel does not care about these opinions. Not necessarily saying Ratel is wrong in this, but it's clear this isn't something WQA is going to be able to resolve. This is a method of dispute resolution, and look what happened with both discussions. Sorry, I don't think WQA is going to help any further. The next step, as noted by Gerardw above, is an RFC/U. Swarm^(Talk) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree: you need a bigger and more flexible forum.

Ratel and Gamaliel, you're two editors, and you can cite these threads as proof that each of you tried to resolve the dispute. You've met the minimum requirements for filing an RfC/U. Now go file it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser & Avraham (& me)

I have grave concerns that Debresser and Avraham and one or two others are operating as a tag team to assert ownership of a series of articles concerning Judaism, in contravention of WP:OWN.

Their behaviour includes:

• reverting every edit I make to such articles (for example [27][28][29][30][31] - five reverts in under a couple of hours)
• ignoring wikipedia's deletion process and just blanking articles they don't like (eg. [32][33][34])
  • even blanking the talk pages ([35] [36])
• refusal to use article talk pages to discuss anything, despite repeated requests, even cautions from the ArbCom to do so
• refusal to point to specific edits they feel have specific issues, despite repeatedly being asked
• complaining about my edits in extremely general terms, and when challenged for details respond with your entire edit history, or similar, which I don't feel is constructive for me or for wikipedia
• WP:STALKING me, and encouraging others to do so - [37].
• calling - in their edit summaries - my edits as vandalism, or similar disrespectful wording

I also feel they are deliberately engaging in behaviour that seems designed to wear me down and waste my time (IZAK is vaguely involved as well, but he seems only to be interested in poisoning the well and trying to irritate me by plastering defamatory propaganda on my talk page, he doesn't actually engage in actual articles, so I don't consider him a major issue here).

I would like someone who is Not Jewish, nor interested in the bible or Judaism - basically a disinterested observer - to comment on my concerns to them / me (I don't mind them discussing me either, but I'd like some review of these issues too, as for me that seems to be lacking so far) Newman Luke (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like forum shopping to raise this here when there is an ongoing discussion Wikipedia:ANI#User:Newman_Luke. I'd suggest you withdraw the comment. If you wish to proceed, please notify the users of the Wikiquette alert per the instructions at the top of the page. Gerardw (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish to proceed. I would like someone to comment on my concerns, rather than ignoring them like my concerns can be entirely ignored. I'm not asking for someone to take a particular stance, or viewpoint, just for them to take one. Newman Luke (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Newman Luke and the WT:JEW archive links brought there. User:Newman Luke is making drastic changes to existing articles or creating new redundant articles with poorer citations which are full of original research and other NPOV issues. He will use Christian gospel as sources for Judaism's view on a topic, and lacks a fundamental understanding of how religious law has been shaped by halakha for 1500 years. What almost all of us at WP:JEW have to do is massive article correction and enhancement after he is finished making his incorrect and non-consensus changes, which means that yes, his edits are watchlisted because of their nature. After ANI, the next step is an RfC which will request that he make no major changes to Judaism-related articles without using talkpages or WT:JEW. As for etiquette, I do not think he has been spoken to in abusively or improperly. The very fact that he is looking for someone "non-Jewish" to respond indicates a gross assumption of bad faith, at least in my opinion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the context, asking for someone non-Jewish seems to be a reasonable way to find a non-biased editor, since most of the articles in question are about Judaism. It would be easier to accept that an editor was not biased if they weren't talking about their own religion. -- 146.187.151.207 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue may be the ignorance of Newman Luke about the history, development, and textual sources that relate to Jewish religious law; something that someone Jewish, and especially people who have spent decades studying said law, would know more about. Would we ask a biologist to rule whose understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was correct and whose was wrong? I'd hope we'd ask a physicist. -- Avi (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham, here's a quote : "Are you qualified to edit this article?" and "You obviously have no hands-on experience with widgets." - that's from WP:OWN and yet again its condemned. Avraham, just because you're Jewish doesn't give you any right whatsoever to claim your stance on an article is superior. As for asking a physicist about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I'd hope we wouldn't. Have you not understood WP:NOR ? NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH - we do NOT ask editors who are practitioners of any topic to put their knowledge into an article. We use sources. It doesn't matter what you or I might know about a topic, what matters is what the sources say. Now stop commenting on editors instead of on the content. Newman Luke (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to suggest an RfC myself on the topics whereby disputed bits (i.e. the bits being added and subtracted and the bits which are being written differently) are graphed out on the talk page with supports, opposes, and discussion under each. The redirect articles can be listed as merge candidates. The problem is that as an outsider I haven't the foggiest on interpretation, and figure it would be hard for anyone not familiar with the material to do so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be discussed at WP:ANI#Newman Luke. One point, Casliber, is that every regular contributor to WP:JEW that I know of agrees that Newman Luke's additions and changes are irresponsible at best, downright misleading and incorrect at worst. This is not a content dispute, unless one editor can call into question the judgment and consensus of the editors who have been working on these topics for years. This is a behavioral issue where one user refuses to accept that the consensus has been pretty much unanimous that his emendations exhibit a distinct lack of understanding of the subject material (for goodness sakes, when are the GOSPELS or the Q'URAN acceptable sources for Judaism's view on something?, forum shopping here and WP:3RR, etc.) and a distinct inability to accept consensus. The next step is an RfC on Newman's behavior, I beleive. -- Avi (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Avi is Avraham.

Avraham, you are massively misrepresenting WP:JEW. There you, IZAK, and Debresser make all kinds of general spurious claims, and well-poisoning, but as others there have noted, you have singularly failed to point to specifics as I have repeatedly asked you to do (Rebele, for example, states there that "Almost every post above consists of two parts, talk about the articles and ad hominun attacks about the authors. Unless you know enough about an editor to write a biographic article, don't mention him" - that hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of your approach there).

Now if you have specific concerns about specific edits, then tell me what they are. Use the talk pages of the specific articles, preferably. Otherwise you're just poisoning the well - you have no evidence, just spurious claims.

Here's a quote : An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. .... That's part of WP:OWN it condemns such behaviour.

Here's another quote: The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. . That's from WP:OWN as well. WP:OWN is policy, compliance is compulsory. Now can you point me to where you have addressed the specific topics and not the actions of the editors?

Avraham, I'm asking here for a disinterested 3rd party - specifically the kind of person who wouldn't use WP:JEW - a genuinely disinterested 3rd party, to comment on my concerns about you and Debresser ignoring WP:OWN. I'm entitled to ask for an outside view, and this here is the forum for requesting one. I really don't see what you, Avraham, think you are doing by trying to prevent one from commenting here. Newman Luke (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the informal, non-binding forum for addressing civility issues. I reviewed your initial complaint and am not seeing incivility. (Other editors may have a different opinion, of course.) Please post an article RFC to solicit input on your concerns. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham has a perfect right to post here, as does Debresser. I, as an outsider to this contretemps with you, can aver Debresser is a gentleman and a scholar, and the accusation that anyone is stalking you as a result of the project page post is untenable. Perhaps you would do well to seek consensus on talk pages, perhaps even using a Request for Comment on specific issues in order to get more editors giving input? Collect (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Newman Luke (talk · contribs) has posted this complaint about me, and a complaint on WP:AN3 without notifying me. That is also a matter of Wikiquette. Apart from that it seems he is forum shopping here, since he is himself under discussion at WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Newman_Luke. He also seems to have the wrong picture who is the disruptive editor here. And if he is (suddenly) willing to hear what problems other editors have with his edits, let him discussing them. Before making complete rewrites of large articles that have seen much input before they reached their current version. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Collect, thank you for your praise. It feels good to be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy

This edit summary is the latest instance of Nableezy response to critical claims, to me posting a mere warning of edit warring trying to cool off the recent outbreak. Until recently, and for a long period, his talk page welcomed visitors with this warning. Multiple blocks, warnings of incivility, and his common disruptive editing are not productive here on WP. --Shuki (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. For an editor who has been repeated blocked and topic-banned, Nableezy saying "Fuck off" to another editor is a disappointing indication of continued lack of interest in following WP's civility and other rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because I see Shuki "warning" me for edit-warring after I made one edit to rewrite text that both badly misrepresented the source and used an unneeded, and unreliable, source, and my reverting once after Shuki reverted, Dailycare re-reverting, and Gilabrand re-reverting without, and of this I am almost certain, even looking at the text and the sources used to be uncivil. I also see Shuki "warning" me after I opened a section on the talk page explaining why the edit Shuki was reverting to badly misrepresented the source as uncivl. Since I first made that post to the talk page, Shuki has made multiple edits, including the "warning" and posting here, without once even attempting to defend the edit that so badly misrepresented the source. I also see you raising blocks and topic-bans, which had nothing to do with civility, as some supposed "proof" as uncivil. That said, I wont tell Shuki, or you, to "fuck off" again. Ill just say "go away", I might even add a ;) or a link for good measure. nableezy - 00:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. To answer your question, even if what you say above is the case and the entire story, is not an excuse for telling a fellow editor to "fuck off." That is one of the rules of wikipedia. As to my raising your multiple blocks and topic bans, those were -- as is this -- under the heading of "lack of interest in following WP's civility and other rules." Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not required to leave an edit summary when editing your own talk page, you could just leave it blank. Gerardw (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Rapido Deleting other user comments from talk pages, WP:NPA issues

Ref User_talk:Rapido#Deleting other user comments from talk pages and originally this deletion

User:Rapido considers it acceptable to remove other's comments from article talk pages. These comments were non-offensive and not within our accepted and rightly limited bounds for when talk pages should be refactorable. It would appear that Rapido takes exception to the description of his long-term multiple AfDs as a "crusade" against a group of articles (UK pirate radio). This is a term that has been applied independently to Rapido's efforts here by a number of editors previously, myself included.

When challenged on this deletion, his response was grudging. Although restoring the text, and thus avoiding any further sanction, this was not done with any spirit of community or acceptance that his action was against consensus (of at least three editors). This edit summary is far too close to WP:NPA. When challenged over the edit summary, he then responded that he had previously requested the commenting editor (myself) to not post to his talk page (in response to criticisms of his personal attacks to yet more editors on an unrelated AfD). He appears to believe that some sort of "deflector shield" policy can be applied, where a request for editors to not post there will thus excuse his actions. As I have no wish to breach his self-declared policy, accordingly I'm posting to the wider forum here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be retaliation in response to: [38] and [39]. Unfortunately Andy Dingley has taken it upon himself to question many of my edits with accusations of personal attacks, in effect this has become harrassment which I no longer want. I have already asked him before to stop posting on my talk page, unless he criticises everyone equally, rather than just me (his accusations of personal attacks on an AFD are of course nonsense)... however he refuses to do this, and has continued to post spurious accusations that I am sailing close to NPA to my talk page. As for his above comment is that the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith by User:Aleksdeg were non-offensive; I wonder whether this has anything to do with the fact they are both corresponding with each other, and continually talking about me being on a crusade (applied independently [...] by a number of editors previously simply means just Andy Dingley and Aleksdeg, no-one else as far as I'm aware), which is totally unfounded and very insulting. Regarding User:HaeB, I simply posted a response on his talk page on the subject of why I thought his reverts were not necessary (he ignored the huge discussion that took place on the article page) however he retaliated by looking at all my edits and criticising each one. Simply asking people to not post to my talk page does not constitute an excuse [for my] actions, as Andy Dingley writes above (which is, by the way, yet another assumption of bad faith from that particular editor). I now request that Andy Dingley and HaeB both stop harrassing me; I believe these two users are attempting to bully me out of Wikipedia, just because they disagree with some of my edits. Rapido (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have now removed your last comment on your talk page (where you claimed immunity from criticism) and then blanked the whole lot, including other editors' complaints of your behaviour at BBC Persian Television. This version represents it as it was.

This WQA post is in response to your talk page deletion of other's comments and subsequent behaviour in relation to it, not anything else. It's not even in response to your rapid AfD tagging of a new article I created on a topic which you've no past history of involvement anywhere near. It would be wrong according to policy of me to accuse you of stalking a contribs log, but I cannot honestly claim to not be suspicious here. At root though, this is about your edits, not mine (I haven't even edited Thameside Radio, AFAIR): you removed another's talk page comments, an action we only rarely justify, and your reversion of this was a grudging action that contained attacks on two editors, not any acceptance that you yourself might have been at fault.

As to my Sekrit Plottings with User:Aleksdeg, they're over here. Thanks for pointing out that User:Aleksdeg was involved in both issues, I hadn't actually noticed (sorry Alex!). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding BBC Persian Television, unfortunately an IP editor took exception to my edits, and posted multiple personal attacks all across Wikipedia over a period of a few hours. As usual, nothing was done about it. I would be interested to see this immunity from criticism claim, which I never made. It may surprise people to be aware that I have all right to blank my own page, and I chose to do so after AOBF and personal attacks from various parties. I would also be interested to see these attacks on two editors; the only attacks I could see were from User:Aleksdeg, in an article talk page posting which also contains WP:SOAP unrelated to the subject. Rapido (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As crusade is ascribing motivation to the contributor, rather than focusing on the content, I would consider it mildly incivil and ask that Aleksdeg consider using more neutral phrasing in the future. Rapido is correct in that blanking his own talk page is perfectably allowable. On the other hand, I'm not seeing evidence of anyone attempting to bully Rapdio off of Wikipedia. Most signficantly, removing other editor's talk page comments in other locations, except under narrow circumstances, is a significant policy breach and, had Rapido not reverted, would have been in my opinion be grounds for referral to more formal Dispute Resolution forums.Gerardw (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• More from Rapido. I've just noticed this little exchange. In particular, it refers to this edit, "deletion of 85% of an article's content" being marked by Rapido as "minor".

Rapido has established a track record. It's a record of attacking articles on radio by deletion, and by gradual (and not so gradual!) deletion of sections of articles to weaken them, prior to and during these deletion attempts. These behaviours alone, ignoring all the rest, I consider to be unacceptable and against the consensus-based editing of a large number of other editors who've contributed to radio-related articles. I do not consider "crusade" too strong a term to use in relation to his actions. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is both inappropriate and unproductive. An editor consistently working against consensus would be grounds for an RFC/U, not name calling. Gerardw (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually my request for HaeB to stop commenting on my talk page was in response to their continued harrassment of me on various edits. Andy Dingley's talk of "attacking" and "weakening" articles is nonsense and extremely offensive. If you will look at the edits, you will clearly see that the material removed is uncited or not from reliable sources. It has become obvious that Andy's attacks on me are merely retaliation for nominating at AFD an article he started (Retrotronics), and over a month ago an article of a pirate radio station that he seems to have been a fan of. I would ask that he withdraw all personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and simply leave me alone. Rapido (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with notyourbroom about incivility

Resolved

Please refer to Talk:Pittsburgh regards the discussion about "Pittsburro" in the Etymology of the name of the City of Pittsburgh. It was a robust, but not a hostile discussion. I posted a comment which was cited to a source that did not support my argument. I withdrew it within minutes. user:notyourbroom chose to undelete my comment (to which he had not yet replied) and throw it back in my face in an effort to degrade and humiliate and "win". I made an honest error. If my cite supported his position and not mine, he could have used the cite. I have a right to withdraw my comment before there is a response. He further continued the matter by archiving the discussion. I have again removed my comment and will continue to do so until there is third party review. I am the Botendaddy 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The restoration of the comment was technically correct but unnecessary as there were no replies, it was within 4 minutes, and Notyourbroom could simply cite the reference in their own post. I've unarchived the discussion, not sure what was up with that. I'm not commenting on Notyourbroom's motivation and recommend both editors assume good faith and move on. Gerardw (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Gerardw. I did not previously explain my rationale for closing the discussion (other than briefly in the closing statement itself), but the final comment of the thread indicated that Botendaddy had no intention to pursue the content dispute further, and there were no other parties to the discussion. Thus, I deemed closure of the thread appropriate. All statements made since then have been comments regarding my behavior and my attempts to give reasonable replies to those comments, and I feel that those discussions are best restricted to user talk pages or to a project page such as this one, rather than having them dilute on-topic discussion on article talk pages. (In that regard, I should have restricted my replies to Botendaddy's complaints to my own talk page.) Best, —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do not mean to escalate, but I would like to say a few words in my defense. I am confident that if you were to examine my conduct in this matter, you would find no instances of accusation, name-calling, or other elements of uncivil discourse. Rather, I have attempted always to explain my understanding of Wikipedia's philosophy and best practices and to demonstrate how my actions have been consistent with that understanding. Where possible, I have linked to specific WP:___ pages for further reading purposes. I am an imperfect editor (as are we all) and I am occasionally prone to lapses in composure (especially when I perceive a possible misuse of power) but I take the principle of civility seriously, and I feel that my actions reflect that commitment in almost all cases. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No defense necessary. WQA is not a judgement of an editor overall, just a means to (hopefully) deescalate a particular situation. For an article talk page, generally best to just let the conversation age into quiescence. Gerardw (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize to notyourbroom, I made a mistake initally and shouldn't have hit save without checking my reference. I shouldn't have escalated it. I am the Botendaddy —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

TheFEARgod

I am not very happy about the following comment on Human Rights Believer's talk page. I posted a short message asking TheFEARgod to remove it as it's a personal attack, but he reverted my message and then sent me the following message:

No. Enough of polite robot-style warning templates and other... I hope he sees the comment and has a feeling of something human, to let him know someone thinks that way. Now, if you don't mind leaving me alone.. Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is out of order. I would like, at the very least, to remove the inflammatory comment from Human Rights Believer's talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Alerted here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a personal attack; I removed the comment. Gerardw (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy's message was not even a warning template, TheFEARgod. You weren't right to claim WP:DTTR in the first place. Swarm^(Talk) 04:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't claimed anything..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There are times when you can tell all you need to know about an editor by their choice of username. TheFEARgod vs. Human Rights Believer - sounds downright metaphorical... --Ludwigs2 05:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

well I took it 5 (gosh!) years ago.. I can't tell if I would take the same now.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can WP:RENAME yourself. Gerardw (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

Resolved

 – Complaint withdrawn. Looie496 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem when one of my notices at a talk page gets removed. However, I find this edit comment incivil. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's somewhat strident, but after your heavy-handed dealings with the preceding issue over on Commons (threatening a user in good standing with blocks while seemingly ignoring his being harassed by a banned troll in the same thread) and then gratuitously inserting yourself here too with an attempt at getting the same user blocked at WP:AN3, when it was plain obvious that his opponent was editing in bad faith while he was not, you shouldn't perhaps be too surprised at such a reaction. Under these circumstances, what positive purpose could dragging this user to yet another noticeboard possibly serve? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, Viriditas' edits at Commons violated local policy. When he announced to file a DR just to end this conflict, I warned him not to follow this path. But this is at Commons and I do not think that it is helpful to discuss this here. At en-wp, I just reported an on-going edit conflict which started at Commons and I informed him as a participant in this edit conflict as required by local policy. If he removes this notice, this is fine with me, if he is calling me names, this is an unnecessary aggravation. I do not want to get him blocked for this. However, as he already asserted that I am acting in bad faith before this incivility was issued, I would like to see these incivilities discontinued. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a civility issue as far as I am concerned. Eusebeus (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dropped a comment by their talk page, but in light of your apparent previous conflicts, I think the best solution would be to just stay away from each other for awhile so you can both cool off. Swarm^(Talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a civility issue from my perspective. "Insanity removed" is a comment on the contribution, not the contributor. The admin responding to the AN:3rr report concluded Your edits were clearly a good-faith, obvious improvement. So for Viriditas to characterize the situation as insanity is very, very low on the incivility WP:Gray_Area. Gerardw (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to close this. I am sorry for having opened it and having wasted your time. When I saw the edit comment I was upset and one should not continue editing while being upset. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

David A

Resolved

I'm afraid I have to once again report on the lack of civility shown towards myself by David A. I find it rather rude for an editor to taking a pot shot at myself in the Edit Summary of an article I've never been involved in, as can be seen here: [40]. I stumbled on this purely by accident, and otherwise would never have known that had occurred.

It follows in the vein of other fairly emotive comments ([41]; [42];).

Irrespective our editing differences, I think it only fair to ask that when we communicate we do so with civility (an RfC is also a possibility, but I would hope it doesn't come to that).

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please notify user on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian is well aware that I'm not taking "pot-shots". I genuinely believe in every word I say, and all the chances/good faith I've given him over the years have been explicitly proven wrong, and he generally breaks any deals at first opportunity, or uses extremely underhanded tactics, including ongoing intimidation attempts, misleading subterfuge, insincere sarcasm, very contradictive arguments from conflict to conflict, and trying to use my handicaps as a weapon. As for the authenticity of the reasons for my problems with him and his methods, for a quick overview you can always refer to this, this, this, this, and maybe this. He's tried this type of game tactic before with both me and others, and it's getting tiresome to have to deal with. I don't have the time and energy any more. Dave (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Restoring this as still not addressed. Irrespective of whatever differences may exist between users, it is not appropriate to make derogatory comments about another user in an article's Edit Summary, particularly when the defamed person is not even involved in said article. Many thanks Asgardian (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but you've brought up a stale incident. These instances have occurred almost a week before you brought them here, and now it's longer than that. I'll leave a comment on Dave's page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • He responded and I think that's a sufficient assurance that this came about as a result of some frustration, so it won't happen again. This is therefore resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

Marknutley is repeatedly calling me a "twat" - cf - [43] and [44]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Care to tell them why? mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Now additionally calling me a "moron" - cf - [45], [46] and a "little shit," cf - [47]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Has it occurred to either of you to simply ignore such trivialities? Collect (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I keep that in my back pocket for the next time I see Giano blocked? Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See Pippa_Passes for whether "twat" is a triviality... --BozMo talk 18:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems the issue is whether the current usage "Related Words for : twat bozo, cuckoo, fathead, goof, goofball" is what was meant or not, no? I rather think the context of the use is important, and it certainly appears that the historic vulgar meaning was not what was intended. This is not the only word which hits that problem, to be sure. And the advice to ignore the whole bit is quite in order. Collect (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley is advised that referring to another editor in these terms is a personal attack, and that continuing to do so after having been warned to stop is grounds for his account being blocked from editing. If Hipocrite is violating policy, the proper approach is to complain to an administrator at WP:ANI, not to hurl insults. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"Twat" & "moron" are undoubtedly incivil. Editing other user's comments is beyond uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sometimes valid reasons for editing another user's comments. In this case Hipocrite claims to be removing spam, which would be a valid reason if the claim is true. There are never valid reasons for calling another user a moron. Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see he has not bothered to say why i got angry. The reason he edited my post was due to it being to a blog which is sceptical of AGW, that is the reason he calls it spam and it is the reason he continully edited my post even when warned not to. The blog post had a very nicely condensed version of the senate minority committe report whic his why i linked to it, so people could in fact read it and then discuss wheter or not it could be worked into the article mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was apparent from the history diff'd in the original posting, which is why I'm saying Hipocrite's actions go beyond incivil (Looie496 is correct that there are spam and personal attack exceptions to the no edit rule but they aren't relevant to this case.) Gerardw (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you review the history, as I contend that the only time I edited as opposed to removed or replaced his comment was to change a link to prevent spamming a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you review your attitude towards sceptics of AGW, linking to a blog wiht information pertaining to an article is not spamming mark nutley (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a moot point -- the exception is for vandalism and personal attacks. There's no mention of "spam" at WP:TPO. If it ain't one of those, leave the comment alone. Gerardw (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note in case anyone cares, but Mark has already offered an apology for an outburst after what he no doubt considered a provocation (regardless of whether it was intended as one, or not). --GoRight (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I care. Can we mark this as resolved, then? Gerardw (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)