Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

Cptnono

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

Cptono is a bully editor and uncivil to other users. Here is a statement he made on the glenn beck talk page:

Blah blah blah. You took such a good step in attempting to find sources. But we all know the Earth revolves around Mars. Also, double check what "reliable source" is just because a couple seem off. And if you really really ant something to change in the article, start providing some drafts. Cptnono (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And here is a statement he made on my own discussion page:

Go cry yourself to sleep, sweetheart.Cptnono (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed his history as an editor, this is part of a clear pattern. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have little use personally for the editor you're complaining about. But this is extremely weak sauce. The advice in the first quote seems reasonable (write a proposed draft/change). The second comment is a bit dickish, but so what? There may indeed be a broader problem with him (or not) but there's no there, here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

These are just the two most recent examples. This is routine behavior for Cptnono, and he has done much worse in the past. He, like many editors, bullies new users, and users who disagree with him. And I would suggest saying something like "Cry yourself to sleep" when someone is raising legitimate points, is bullying. As is his other statement. I shouldn't have to tolerate. Nor should other users. Free exchange of ideas is fine. Free reign for bullies and jerks is not. If this is how things are on wikipedia, I will not contribute any more. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Read this: WP:DIFF. Compile a bunch of them if there there to be dealt with, and the open up an RFC/U (see WP:RFC). I strongly doubt anything will come of this specific complaint. It's just too minor in isolation. You'll have to demonstrate the broader problem, if it's there to see.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't minor. Veteran editors name calling and belittling new users, is a problem and it frankly reflects poorly on wikipedia. I've watched Cptnono as I've read articles for some time. He is a habit of attacking other users and using wikipedia editorial policies as a vessel for bullying. I am not going to take hours out of my day to trace every statement he made and build a case against him. Either the editors here are willing to do their homework to keep wikipedia free of cyberbullies or they aren't. But you can be sure, I will no longer contribute. Just don't feel like being attacked without any moderators stepping in. Especially when I raise a very legitimate concern, and it is clear Cptnono is abusing his veteran status to help advance his own partisan viewpoint in articles. Good day.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I got a warning for it. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Your comments were out of line and I am not bullying you. Simply asking you to follow our standards. You still haven't provided a proposed line with a source attached. That is a simple enough request.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My comments weren't out of line. There are serious problems with that article. I pointed out what they were on the discussion page. I didn't even make any edits tot he actual article, I just wanted to bring problems with it to peoples' attention. Then I supplied some links to prove the point. I have no interest in attaching my name to an article that is obviously the victim of partisan consensus building. I noted that fact and you jumped all over me. I also have been watching you as a wikipedia reader for some time, and this is part of a clear pattern with you. I wish you no ill. But don't bully me and don't call me names. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do not see how "Am I the only one who suspects this article was crafted mainly by pro-Beck editors. The "disputes" section is an obvious attempt to obfuscate his numerous controversies." and "The bias is clear. Hide behind whatever pretend-editorial rules you want to" inappropriate then we are done here.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are my honest opinions based on the text in the article and its history. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but should I not express concern about bias in an article? I clearly saw evidence of bias, and you dismissed my concerns with a wave of the hand. You then used the rules as a bludgeon when it appeared I had raised some legitimate issues of bias in the article. There are plenty of good, unbiased articles on wikipedia. The Glenn Beck page does not appear to be one of them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to show this isn't isolated. It appears there is another posting on this page regarding Cptnono. The person in question certainly made a snide remark to the editors, but that doesn't warrant this response from Cptnono:

"What does the mean you stupid fuck? Who do you think created that page? I know you are sad that no one agrees with you but shut up already. Cptnono (talk)"

Again, this guy has a history. You can it ignore it, or you can acknowledge it for what it is: bullying. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I have a history of incivility. I can acknowledge that. But I was not "bullying" you. "1) Do not attack other editors by assuming they are doing something like that. 2) Controversy'section are frowned upon so the info needs to be neutral with a neutral section header. 3)start your comments at the bottom of pages not the top." is not mean an anyway. But you just said you "Have no interest in wrangling with users" so maybe you should stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And I would feel worse but calling someone a fuck was a response (albeit an inappropriate one) to an NPA and my responses to you were based on your continuous accusations of malicious editing. Pot calling kettle black.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You were bullying. The snippet you just posted was not an example of that, what I posted of your statements was however. I saying specific editors were unbiased, I was observing that the page was biased and it looked like it was edited by people favorable to Beck. There is a difference between that, and what you did, which was to target your attack at me specifically. Forget it though, if wikipedia is going to let you continue using the F word against users (whatever your justification), I want no part in wikipedia. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The bullying started when you said "cry yourself to sleep sweetheart" on my talk page and when you said "Blah, blah, blah" in response to points I had raised. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

He is continuing to bully edit on the Glenn Beck Talk Page. I am trying to draft a reasonable entry, and he is just blocking it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not continuing to bully you. Three editors agree that it should not go in and have provided reasoning. I have offered you several suggestions and not been uncivil since I was warned. You on the other hand have repeatedly asserted that editors are not including it due to bias which is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My most recent suggestion [1]. Your most recent attacks/assumption of bad faith: [2][3] Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like this isn't so bad but it isn't helping: [4] Consensus is part of what we do here and your response to not achieving it does not need to be to assume that others are intentionally editing in a malicious manner. If you notice, I have been editing the page for awhile and have been happy with its neutrality. It says some scathing things about the guy. If you do not think so you should request that it be checked for neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You are just using the rules to be a bully editor. Plenty of editors agree with the addition, and you and the others are blocking it for political reasons. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it outrageous that in an article on a major political pundit, who frequently talks about Islam and Terrorism, the fact that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorist is close to 10% doesn't get mentioned. That is not a neutral article at all. You are just allowing beck fans to dilute the content. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continue to take his words out of context? If you really want to rail about Beck simply go to DK or HuffPo or MMfA and post your thoughts on their boards. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again how are those words taken out of context. He said that many people say only 1% of muslims are terrorist and he thinks the number is closer to 10%. In 2003 he said something similar, stating that 10% of them want to kill us. Just because he was making another point when he said it, doesn't mean the statement has no meaning. He said it. That is a fact. It has been covered by major news organizations. That is a fact. This is exactly what I am talking about. Clearly users like Arzel are beck supporters and are protecting the page from additions that they feel are negative. There is no way anyone can listen to the program where beck says the number is closer to 10% and feel it is being taken out of contextDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't care for Beck, and never listen to him. What I don't like are POV pushers that see something on MMfA, HuffPo, Daily Kos, or one of the other far left blogs come here to promote their point of view. The first I even heard of this incident was here, which leads me to believe that it is not that big of a deal. You should really take your issue up with all of the people that answered the orginial poll which gave Beck his ammo to begin with. Arzel (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to rail about Beck. I just want the article to accurately reflect what the guy is about. And I think him saying he thinks the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%, is significant enough to include. When I look up a public personality, I want access to controversial statements they've made so I can make my own judgment about them. By all means, include the context, and include his explanation. But include it you must. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing is not OK. I am sorry you feel beat up on but you came to the talk page and started rocking the boat and not assuming good faith. You are the continuing to be uncivil.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, you are being a bully editor. You are using the rules as a weapon to keep relevant details out of articles. You are misusing consensus as well. I looked up the consensus guidelines. At this stage, we should actually be getting mediation on the entry. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And the user just won't stop:"Because it is basically being written by his followers already.""he beck fans are able to have their way on wikipedia because they know how to use consensus as a weapon." WP:NPA can apply in two ways "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." The later would apply if I was a fan but I have already said on the talk page that I am actually not a fan. Editors should not have to deal with the repeated accusations. I can understand it happening but he has been asked to stop several times. I get that he disagrees and feels bullied but such feelings do not allow for him to continue to assume the worst of faith. So maybe it is time that he is given a firm reminder and notice that further personal attacks will lead to a restriction on him editing the article.Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its time to ban Cptnono's account because he bully edits and because he is basically preventing a highly relevant news story from being included in the beck article. Cptnono, I'm not going to wrangle with you on the beck page (which is why I haven't edited the actual article), but its clear you and many other editors are restricting items on that page for some reason. Can I prove its because you are biased? No. But I have a very strong hunch about it. And here is just another example of you bully editing someone.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And I would just ask the powers that be to examine cptnono's entries and his interactions with other users over the past several months. I am not the only one he has bullied, attacked or been uncivil to. And he has made a practice of using wiki policy as a weapon. What is more, he uses it selective to get his way on articles. I've taken the time to look up every guideline he cites, and with the possible exception of assuming good faith (a guideline I think is deeply misguided) he is missapplyuing all of them, or providing an incomplete picture of the guideline. Also suggest someone examine the Beck page. It has significant issues. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been warned for being uncivil to you and not continued. Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive so it obviousley would not be needed. Even more importantly it has to be pretty extreme to warrant a block. Civility blocks are pretty rare and my one dickish comment to you was not severe enough. I am not saying I will make it again but it wasn't bad enough for a block. You on the other hand have ignored requests to stop. SO I don;t want to see you blocked neccassarily but it might be time for you to not edit that talk page anymore especially since you have already clearly said you are not interested on working on the article. If you do not want to work on the article you should not be there. I would welcome reviews of the page. Some people said the same thing you are saying a few months ago and they came in gung-ho. I sat back and watched and in the end they adjusted like 1 paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I was actually blocked for civility once (for three hours) but that was part of arbitration enforcement where decorum standards are much stricter. So maybe a good way to close this out is for me to be nicer (I haven;t even been mean to you since this was opened) and you do the same. But if you continue to make personal attacks you will need to not work on that talk page anymore. You should also probably consider working on the article since you are not improving the article right now.Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

But I didn't realize there was yet another one.[5] I have linked you to NPA and spelled out exactly what you are doing wrong. Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing here. Will someone please close this string, which has already been open too long?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono looking at your most recent responses on the Beck page, I don't believe you've become more civil. Perhaps your natural style is just a little peppery, and you don't realize how it comes across, but most of your posts come off as insulting. And the difference between what you are doing and what I am doing is this: I make general criticisms of the page and those who have edited it as a group, whereas you make criticisms of specific individuals. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have considered the article, but you;ve told me my addition will be deleted by you if I make it. You keep wielding "Consensus" and other guidelines as weapons. But when I look them up and compare them to our discussion it is clear you are misusing them. So far no one has provided good reasons for keeping the entry out of the page. A number of people have agreed it is relevant. And those who disagree, clearly won't change their minds no matter what. Which is why, out of frustration, I am saying the fans of beck are controlling the page. It may be against guidelines to assume good faith. But when it is so obvious they blocking consensus, what is one to do. I mean, one of them actually argued it shouldn't be included because in his view calling muslims terrorists is a compliment in their culture. I am sorry but Beck's assertion thatr the number muslims who are terrorist is close to 10%, and Zakarias response on CNN (as well as reactions in the Huffington Post and coverage in the NY Daily News) make this a major statement and controversy. It should be included. I assume anyone who wants to know about his views on musilms and terrorism would want that included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Cptnono looking at your most recent responses on the Beck page, I don't believe you've become more civil. Perhaps your natural style is just a little peppery," Maybe that is the issue. Can you point to which response you are talking about since I do not recall saying anything lately that would be seen as offensive. Also, the content discussion should be kept over there and not here.Cptnono (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have twice had occasion to remind Cptnono about civility guidelines: [6] and [7]. The guideline Comment on content, not on the contributor is there for a purpose. Unfortunately the reminders did not appear to have the desired effect: "he can fuck off for making that comment" and "kneejerk garbage". I suggest that Cptnono take some time to consider why they were blocked for incivility after facing an Arbcom enforcement case. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have received a block (due to articles under AE having stricter standards) and warning since the Nov 17th one so it is stale and handled. And yes, on my talk page I did refer to your warnings as knee jerk garbage. Asking "Have you read WP:CAPTION" is not uncivil. If I would have said "Have you even read CAPTION" or "Hey, idiot, go read CAPTION" that would not be civil. It was an honest question that you read the tone in incorrectly. And your second warning was for saying that you had not presented an alternative. There was no personal attack there. We were having a discussion on how to improve the article and I was asking for you to do more. It was an overreaction on your part. And "knee-jerk garbage" on my own talk page is far from crossing any lines. Stop poking editors on their talk pages for no good reason and you won't have to deal with it in the future. The double standard shown in the above and below reports (editors making attacks then me getting grief for responding) is ridiculous but I can at least understand where Deliciousgrapefruit and Walter Görlitz are coming from. But this latest comment from Kenilworth Terrace reeks of a game being played or a simple overreaction based on other mistakes (I don't know which). And since since there is no true personal attack in this recent comment, no block or warning is warranted since I already recently received a warning based on bullet point two of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Blocking for personal attacks we should be done here. There have not been any further personal attacks since F&W sent me a reminder. Cptnono (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The object of posting here was not to rehash previous discussions but to give some useful advice: (1) Comment on content, not on the contributor (2) Don't be uncivil when given useful advice. Take it or not -- your choice. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just a civility issue. He is bullyediting and controlling the beck page. Just look at the discussions. He pretty much controls what goes on there and what doesn't. He is policing it, and using policy guidelines as a weapon to steer the page in the direction he wants (IMO). I did blow my top at him in a post, and I appologize, but it is very frustrating when the page is clearly being controlled by one editor who appears to be very biased in favor of the subject. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. I also was way out of line with my comment so I hope you know that I sincerely regret it. Also, you are free to say I am biased here all you want. Just don;t do it on the talk page. And it is not "policing" but simply watchlisting. Notice that the recent conversationbstarted by me was because there was an edit war starting. Better to use the talk page than to edit war. Feel free to jump in but keep the accusations of bias out since I don't need to tell you anymore what my biases are.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't need to tell me your biases, you are showing them through your actions. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have to keep on rocking the boat?Cptnono (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a major problem when one editor effectively controls the content of a page. At this stage, a mediator needs to step in and issue a decision on the article and including 10%. But you are not the person who should be making that call. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Profanity directed at editor on editor's talk page

• Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Walter Görlitz (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

• Bit confused. Are you reporting yourself for calling two other editors "dolts"? ← George ^talk 12:15, 12 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)

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)

SeikoEn

• SeikoEn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ukrainians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and also user talk pages

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: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], here he calls the restoring of the consensus version of the article “vandalism”: [13][14].

He was told to changes his behaviour several times: [15][16][17] Yesterday I warned him that if he continues his aggressive behaviour I'll report it to administrators: [18] [19], 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 [20] and it was declined [21], he continues to send it personally to administrators [22][23], 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 [24] 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)

[|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'sPonyo^{bons 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

• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hallstatt culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.[25] See User talk:Dbachmann#Editing the Hallstatt culture article and [26] (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.[27] --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)

User:Duke53

• Duke53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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: [28], [29], and he warned 888fortune both on that editor's talk page [30] and user page [31]. Subsequent discussion between Duke53 and myself occurred at Talk:Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks#Naming, after which he once again reverted 888fortune [32].

    General rudeness: [33], [34], [35]

    Taunting/baiting: [36], [37], [38], [39]

    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)

Insult

• 174.119.109.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One unsigned user insulted another user with this comment (he commented another user and called him "insecure rascal"). I do not know what is procedure for for acting in this cases, but I trust there are users who know. Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me: let them keep talking it out on the talk page. "Insecure rascal" would be one of the most inoffensive things an editor can get called here that I've seen; it gets much worse ;> If it escalates into serious incivility, well... BTW: you must notify editors you discuss here - use {{subst:WQA-notice}} for that. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified editors about this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I "insulted" user:Megistias is because this issue needs to be taken seriously, and I can't believe at the things this user is getting away with. The maps he produces are a bigger "insult" themselves, he is cherry picking sources and counter-fitting history. I do not intend to insult the user any further, but believe me, he deserves a permanent ban. I have nothing against the Greeks and the truth, but when user:Megistias pushes a personal agenda rather then a scholastic one, it is clear he does not deserve to be here.

"The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted." Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

( 174.119.109.116 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) ).

see the user's follow-up comment which *is* serious incivility and which shows his comment about being against a single author only to be utter crap85.75.242.25 (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@85 it is already known that you're not a new user, so please tell us what was your username? Btw don't make personal attacks like calling people who disagree with you trolls.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

please cut the sophistries...there was no disagreement between me and the IP on the map...the IP is a troll because only a troll could make all the comments he did also yes im an old user (older than you i guess...unless you tell us what your previous username was..in other words have you stopped beating your wife yet?) but ive ALWAYS edited as an IP..now do you have any comments RELEVANT to this case or are you here to dazzle us with your sophistries?85.75.242.25 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:Theosis

• LoveMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User in question has engaged in a long series of personal attacks focusing in particular on one other editor (User:Esoglou). Attacks have included charges of lying, laziness, mental incompetence. Bad enough if done once. Unacceptable as a pattern of ongoing behavior. Richard S (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and say it again. On an article talk page: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please in advance forgive my frustration that I am sure will reflect in my reposne here. But uh..Fair enough to the critique of me but uh...why is Richard ignoring Esoglou's vio of the WP:3rr and focusing on me? [40] This diff is off of the same talkpage Richard was on that same talkpage at that moment making comments. Richard appears to be very selective in what he notices. Notice all of the other Wiki policy violations that Esoglou has committed and no one. NO ONE. Is publicly saying anything to him at all. No one went to his talkpage and posted that he stop as it looks like he is committing 3rr no one has said anything to his citation tag abuses and attacks that reflect bad faith. No one is addressing that on the Dec 16th Esoglou committed 3rr on the theoria article [41]. No one is saying anything to esoglou or filling reports on his behavior and when I do nothing gets done. Heres where I reported Esoglou to the 3 RR noticeboard TWICE before and nobody is doing anything [42], [43] Except complaining about me calling Esoglou lazy and incompetent. This is the exact same behavior that is running editors off of this project and the administrators are attacking the people whom out of frustration make comments critical of this type of disruptive behavior. Funny but isn't this very noticeboard a noticeboard to point out behavior and be critical of it? Why the double standard? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding WP:CIVIL. It's simply, "be civil". There are no loopholes. --13² 20:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)