Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive112

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


Griefers keep messing with historical article

The article about Vietnam People's Air Force has people with bare IP addresses going in and reverting referenced information to unsourced, and likely wildly exagerrated numbers about aircraft inventory. Is there SOMEONE who can put a lock in the article, semi-protected I guess, so this can be stopped? Openskye (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Forum Shopping and antagonistic behaviour

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – AN/I initiated Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Forum_Shopping.2C_Disrupting_Talk_Pages.2C_Failure_To_Assume_Good_Faith... Gerardw (talk)

As I was inexperienced back then (a week ago or so), I thought that putting arguments on different talk pages related to the discussion would help in getting more discussion on the topic. However, I saw my mistake and eventually linked back my discussion of 2 different questions on different concerns to 2 talk pages where the discussion is supposed to take place. Now i'm accused of forum shopping ...

And as i have noticed, several users have been really antagonistic towards me in general. Maybe it's the fact that my posts are too long, but that doesn't mean they have to bash my arguments with inappropriate response, I hope someone look into this and tell me what could I do. Thank You. Redefining history (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is clear: Most people are opposed to redefining history. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)

I haven't looked at your contributions, but I'd be glad to give you an opinion if you could provide some diffs of what you're talking about. And HH might have been playing that one for a laugh, but he's right. Your username might be inspiring some suspicion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue that people have isn't because of your account name or that you like esports. It's because the first thing you did when you started editing was to create several pages that are questionable on an individual basis and when they were all nominated for deletion, you negated their arguments and simply said you'd outlive them, or else re-create the articles after being deleted. When people come across that, they don't generally give many second chances. I wouldn't say this is an issue of people being antagonistic, as most people don't automatically decide to start a witch hunt for people, simply because of their usernames.
In addition, it probably wasn't the best idea to recruit people from the forums to further your cause. Just saying. DarthBotto talk•cont 06:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've lost count but he has taken part in somewhere around 15 different conversations about the same sources at this point. His edits are highly disruptive such as this one where he copied a massive wall of text into an RFC [1], the first reply here sums up the situtuation nicely. [2]. He has however not slowed down one bit, his behaviour on IRC was summed up here [3]. At this point the editor has been told the same thing dozens if not literally close to 100 times. He is arguing from ideology and out to prove us all wrong on his campaign to bring justice to the world on behalf of "Esports athletes". I would love to provide difs of everything but in a week this editor has managed to rack up hundreds of edits all on various pages all about the same sources for the same topic. He was warned last night to stop creating new topics on the subject and look here we are again. I feel at this point there is little left to do but ask for a topic ban. Ridernyc (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:HuskyHuskie

Resolved

--Senra (Talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just about had it with this editor. I'm one of those people that when I see an article with no sources (for example), I will quickly affix an {{unref}} tag (or a {{refimprove}} tag if more than one section of an article is without sources). Now, other users may come across the tags, disagree, and then remove them (which is fine; not everyone is going to agree with everything you do), but...starting around here (which stemmed from this), this editor has basically been following me around and removing tags I placed; not only that, but s/he is leaving very discourteous edit summaries along with them. I took him/her to task about it, to no avail.

Afterwards, s/he continued to leave comments on my talk page, in threads with uninvolved editors, in a manner that almost suggests that s/he is trying to start a WikiBattle. I told him/her to leave me alone, which s/he said s/he would do, but eventually s/he started doing it again. S/he eventually stopped again after I warned him/her I would take the matter to an admin, but... s/he soon went back to his/her old tricks (apparently since I told him/her to stay off my talk page, s/he is now berating me in edit summaries instead).

Basically, all I want to do is place a maintenance tag and improve an article without this user disputing everything I do (and attacking me). I didn't try discussing it on his/her talk page this time because I figured it wouldn't be right to post on his/her talk page when I told him/her to stay off my talk page. Would someone please get him/her off my back? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from improving articles. Placing tags is not improving them. In any event, there's no evidence of HuskyHuskie following you around -- your recent edit summary contains many "tags" but the example you cite above is from May. Gerardw (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you not read all the diffs I added? Maybe the first few are from May, but the most recent ones are from a few days ago. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
As might be expected, there are two sides to this story. But my short version goes something like this: Erpert is an "editor" whose tags I've occasionally disagreed with, and when I have attempted to discuss the matter with him, he complains that he is being harassed. I make no claims to being a perfect gentleman, but my actions--including multiple good faith attempts at discussions over these differences--have always been in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia; but as best I can tell, Erpert is either disinterested in or incapable of rational discourse. One more quick point: the claim that I have been "following [Erpert] around" is ridiculous; since my first interaction with him in late May, according to his edit summaries he has placed approximately over 190 tags (not an excessive number, I hasten to add), and I have touched upon probably 5-10 of these.This is hardly stalking behaviour. Now, to the particulars . . .
While I will add diffs below, if someone really wants to know what is going on here, a good understanding can be gained by reading this section, which I have lifted off of Erpert's talk page and placed into my user space in case he realizes how embarassing his responses are and subsequently deletes the section. This section shows me following up on a point raised by another editor (what Erpert above calls "threads with uninvolved editors"), trying quite diligently to talk through and reason with Erpert, and it also shows his blatant refusals to consider anything I say. (Also on his user page, in the sections below, you will find less decorous examples of my behaviour, such as sarcastic criticism of his wanton tagging, and another section where I once again patiently tried to make my point, but did so after promising to stay off his page [Hey, it was weeks later, and I really had forgotten.])
Anyway, another editor, User:Muhandes, had pointed out his concern that Erpert was placing a tag inappropriately, possibly because he misunderstood the reasoning behind the tag (in this case, WP:PEACOCK), and Muhandes further suggested that Erpert provide more helpful edit summaries[4] (probably around 80% of Erpert's edit summaries simply read "tag"). Anyway, my feelings about Erpert's work were similar, and I tried, really, really tried, to explain how his work comes across to other editors.
Let me share a few examples to show how unhelpful these edits by Erpert have been.
  • In this edit, he places an NPOV tag at the top of the article. It states, "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." Why did Erpert place this tag? What did he see? I go to the talk page and find that he says . . . absolutely nothing. No post back then, no post since then. Ahh, but surely he left a clue as to his thinking in the edit summary? Sure enough, instead of his typical (tag) edit summary, we have . . . (Sigh...). That's it—Sigh.. So what are the problems? We don't know, and instead of explaining his tag, he just indicates contempt for the editors who were there before him (you know, the ones who actually wrote something). And this is just a single typical example of Erpert's work.
  • In this tagging, Erpert claims that there is a concern with possible WP:OR. The tag reads, in part, This section may contain original research. . . More details may be available on the talk page. Now I do recognize that "may" means that it is an option for the tagger to include "more details" on the talk page, but given the fact that the section did at the time of the tagging, contain five sources (that's five sources in the section), it seemed to me that wikiquette might call for an explanation of what the specific concerns are. How are we supposed to know what he is concerned with, and, not knowing that, how are we supposed to improve it?
Accordingly, I attempted to discuss this Erpert, but he ordered me off his talk page
Now, despite his comments, I have not been stalking Erpert, and have only occasionally come across his work. When I do, problems like those cited have been rife. Yet I have only reverted those that I considered the most troubling, and each and every time I have done so I have left a detailed explanation either on the talk page,[5] in my edit summary,[6] or both. I only wish that Erpert would a) do the same, and b) in the spirit of Wikipedia, discuss such differences of opinion.
Frankly, I have no idea what Erpert is thinking when he does this. I cannot tell if he is sincere in trying to improve the encyclopedia (though that seems most likely to me) or if he just enjoys seeing tags appears under his power to make visible changes to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I just wish he would be more considerate. Yes, Erpert, I really said that. You see, while my tone occasionally devolves into the uncivil, I'm always willing to talk with those whom I agree. That willingness to discuss our disagreements, as the ancient Greeks would have told you, constitutes a cornerstone to civility. And you'll always find me standing on that corner, waiting to talk. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and Erpert? I don't practice reciprocity in talk page bans. Though you have banned me from yours, you are always welcome to come talk on mine. I've never been afraid of discussion (hell, I'm not even afraid of "personal attacks"; my mother taught me well.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"Lazy-ass editors"? "Sit on a broomstick and spin"? Going on and on about how I won't make it to being an admin (which I don't want to be anyway)? How is that being civil? And nowhere in WP:ES does it say that simply stating "tag" is unacceptable (it does say "even a short summary is better than no summary"). And if you aren't stalking me, what do you call it? The diffs I posted proves that you don't just occasionally come across my work. I brought the situation here because I'm starting to take this personally, so you really need to back off. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Your talent for hyperbole is notable. I mentioned the admin thing, if memory serves, in one single post, and even then, I did not claim omniscience; I simply said what it looked like. And you still fail to acknowledge the content of my concerns, that is, what it is that caused me to comment in the first place on your tagging.
It is quite common, Erpert, when an editor notes behaviour by another editor that concerns them, to check out some other diffs and make comments. This I did, what, four months ago? Then, this week, I again saw an edit of yours off my watchlist, one which actually made reference to one of my less than sugary edit summaries last spring. I wasn't stalking you, bud, any more than it is stalking someone to meet them at a party, have an unpleasant conversation, and then run into them at the mall four months later. Get over it.
And while you're at it, you might want to read Gerard's comment above: No one is stopping you from improving articles. Placing tags is not improving them. I'm not opposed to tagging articles, by you or anyone else, but if you do it without making it clear why you are doing it, you're not improving the encyclopedia, you're just littering.
Sometime even your asshole-uncle can have some pretty good advice, but it can be hard to recognize because he's not all warm and motherly. I have tried to talk to you patiently and rationally, but you wouldn't engage. So your already-irritating habit of incomprehensible tagging, combined with your abject refusal to discuss possible other approaches to this practice (which other editors also recognize is not as wonderful as you seem to think it is), simply does not bring out the best in me. HuskyHuskie (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Deary deary me. Both of you stop it. On the one hand it is true that any edit summary is better than none at all. Help us all Erpert (talk · contribs) please. If you are going to tag an article with a terse summary such as tag then at least take the time to explain your action on that article talk page. On the other hand, you HuskyHuskie (talk · contribs) should calm down. Whilst your tone here remains civil, it is my opinion that it is only just so. I suggest you both take a short break from editing any articles. Then Erpert should take up HuskyHuskie's offer to discuss your differences on HuskyHuskie's talk page. Do let me know how you get on --Senra (Talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying, but...as I said at the beginning, if I place a tag like {{unref}} in an article that doesn't have any references, does that really need an explanation? How is that littering? And I've been using "tag" as an edit summary for years and this is the first time anyone has ever had anything to say about it; thus, I didn't see how it could be a problem. And I have no problem with discussing things, but you have to approach me right (in order to get respect, you have to give respect). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Consider A (S-train). Having the unref tag sitting there since 2009 hasn't improved the article at all. Disregarding bots, there have been no edits since 2009. I have no reason to doubt the information in the article is incorrect. So what benefit is the unref tag? Gerardw (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
We are all guilty of writing poor edit summaries from time to time. In my case such as [7] and [8] though I do believe I make an effort such as [9], [10], [11] and [12]. I am also in the process of (slowly) preparing an article for major improvements. In this case, I posted a note on the talk page first then added [13] and removed [14] tags in the article—full history. The key I think is moderation (i.e. not too many short summaries) and if someone queries one of my summaries I will explain it --Senra (Talk) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Erpert, your complaint centering on the argument that "if I place a tag like {{unref}} in an article that doesn't have any references, does that really need an explanation?" is either disingenuous or ignorant. I have specifically addressed that matter several times, including here: (emphasis added for this Wikiquette posting)

The History section of this article has had a tag added to it that claims it may have original research. Unfortunately, since the section already has several sources cited (at least five), it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain which claims the tagger considers to be original research. There is one statement "Swanson far exceeded its expectations, and ended up selling more than 10 million of these dinners in the first year of production." that (appropriately) has a "citation needed" tag on it, but that's not original research-looking, it's lack of sourcing. Frankly, when I see editors whose tagging of articles constitute in the neighborhood of 50% of their total edits, I wonder if they're helping us or not. At the very least, when someone comes along and leaves a nebulous tag like that on an article, I think they should be required to explain what their concern is. Of course, some tags do not need an explanation. For example, if a tag says that an article has "no sources, and indeed, it has none, then I can understand what's the problem. But tagging like this, without leaving an explanation, is just rude and ignorant. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[15]

I have never complained your tags when their purpose was comprehensible and actionable. Even those that I would not place myself, if they actually had any promise at all of eventually improving the encyclopedia, I have left alone. The problem is that you do not appear to have given any thought as to what happens after you plant your drive-by-tag. Other editors are confused and puzzled, and not knowing what to do, they do nothing. And then your tag sits there and sits there and sits there. And sits there. And sits there. That's litter. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Will you stop calling my editing ignorant already? What is it with you? And it isn't litter just because you say it is. In addition, the part of my argument you failed to focus on is that no one seemed to complain about my using "tag" as an edit summary until you came along. Why? Maybe because if they read that and then actually looked at the tag, then they'd know what my problem with the article is. If they disagreed, they'd remove the tag and state why they removed it...without being insulting or smart-alecky. See how simple that is? (BTW, thanks, Senra; at least someone cares where I'm coming from.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This is growing tiresome, isn't it? I will endeavour to make this my last post here--a last attempt to open your eyes.
  • The section which uses the word "ignorant" above is from over three months ago. I considered removing the last sentence, but I thought you'd accuse me of editing it to make myself look better, so I left it in. After all, it doesn't help my case that I spoke that way, does it?
  • Your premise that if one merely read the tag you placed, they would understand it, is, as I have said repeatedly, not always true; furthermore in those cases where it is true, I have held my silence. I have only addressed cases where your tags purpose was unclear.
  • If your interpretation of Senra's comments is that they support your side in this matter, then you really need to re-read them. Senra very clearly (and appropriately) chided me for my tone, and has taken you to task for your behaviours. I leave it to others to decide which is the greater concern.
Lastly, Erpert, how do you know that other editors have not removed your tags? It's clear to me from your delayed reaction to my comments (several months) that you do not monitor the tags you place. It appears that you never once noticed my creation of talk page sections explaining my removal of your tags, so I'm guessing you don't watchlist the pages you tag. But let's suppose you're correct, and that no one else has removed your tags. The fact that other editors have not removed your tags in no way supports the conclusion that they understand them or agree with them. It is just as likely that they have chosen to not invest their time in trying to explain to a passionate drive-by tagger why his efforts are often pointless. Think about it. You have sucked up hours of my time because you refused to engage in a normal Wikipedian discussion, and instead have dragged this matter here. I have had plenty of disagreements with other Wikipedians before (I think my personality rather makes that inevitable), but I have never had a conflict last this long? You know why? Because when I post my thoughts on other editor's talk pages, whether they agree or disagree with me, they DISCUSS the issue. I'd estimate that in roughly half the cases, the other editors quickly persuade me of their point of view, and in the other half, I persuade them. Then, guess what happens? We both go off on our merry way, possessed of our new consensus, and we never conflict again. You are the ONLY person I have encountered who was unwilling to even acknowledge that an issue I brought up might be worth considering. And this, despite the fact that I am not the only editor who has questioned your tagging. What I could have and should have done is simply removed those of your tags which were inappropriate without commenting, since apparently it is my comments that have gotten your goat so badly. But instead I invested a boatload of time actually doing what YOU FAILED TO DO--I created a section on the talk page of the article explaining my removal of the tag. Think about that! You created non-actionable tags and failed to create an explanation on the talk page, and in an ultimate sign of courtesy and good faith, I created a section explaining why I was removing your tag! Not once, but every single time!!! I didn't have to do that. Why the heck couldn't you have the courtesy to do the same? Personally I suspect it's because you don't really understand the purpose of the tags very well (as User:Muhandes pointed out), but either way, I wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself, to discuss the matter, and in the process, to become a more valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. And the offer is still open. But if you insist upon spending your existence here pissing on every lampost you come across, just because it's there, then fine. Some people, I suppose, do not require sentience to have a happy life. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

severe comment HuskyHuskie (talk · contribs) cease and desist and you too Erpert (talk · contribs). This is indeed getting tiresome. There are over 3,300 words above that could be better spent developing articles. For example, if either or both of you care to pop along to Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire#Article improvements, your writing skills could be used more effectively. You will see I am only looking for 500 words or so. In the meantime, as I stated earlier, both of you should stop editing anywhere on Wikipedia for a few days (to cool down) then come back and discuss this issue on HuskyHuskie's talk page (here) as suggested by HuskyHuskie --Senra (Talk) 12:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I need only 500 words for the Ely, Cambridgeshire#Politics section as described at Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire#Article improvements. I even provided a link to one on-line source to get someone started. Any well cited prose will suffice as I can copy-edit further as necessary --Senra (Talk) 12:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Aside from this, I can easily cool down (as I have been making edits since then). I can also kind of understand why HH's comments are so long (albeit repetitive) because I brought him/her here, but WP:TLDR still applies, I think. S/he also seems to have an issue with WP:IDHT by not seeing my point (which doesn't necessarily mean s/he has to agree with me), but I guess it is what it is sometimes. I guess I'm the most surprised that no one else has ever taken issue with his/her insults in edit summaries. But I can move on from this. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Consider A (S-train). Having the unref tag sitting there since 2009 hasn't improved the article at all. Disregarding bots, there have been no edits since 2009. I have no reason to doubt the information in the article is incorrect. So what benefit is the unref tag? Gerardw (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually read through all of this because, perhaps like Huskie, I've been bothered by a small number of editors tag-bombing and drive-by-tagging articles to such an extent that the flow and readability of the article is disrupted, and half-decent articles begin to look like something the cat dragged in. I used to end up spending a lot of time hunting up good refs for these articles but as I'm involved in different projects now I try to point out relevant guidelines such as Tag bomb, etc. to editors who query my removing excessive tagging. I try to be polite (doesn't cost anything!), and the "offending" editors seem to understand. IMHO it would help if "tagging" editors took the time to improve the article by editing it instead of tagging it. Hohenloh + 00:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Hohenloh, both for that term and the link to the essay. It comes reasonably close to my feelings on the matter; I may simply include a link to it in the future, instead of being so "bombastic" in my edit summaries. (Yes, I am patting myself on the back for that pun!) HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Southpole1

Southpole1, who has been repeatedly blanking the article's talk page, should be reminded to avoid qualifying another editor's attitude as "obscene" (see here moved to here), particularly when the other editor has been trying to resolve an editing conflict by asking a third opinion.Racconish Tk 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC) ...or writing this editor is "blinded by arrogance".Racconish Tk 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – please keep discussion at WP:DRN Gerardw (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Ankitbhatt has repeatedly made aggressive and hostile posts in the DRN discussion thread and on the talk page for Ra. One. He has been give multiple warnings, include extremely direct statements on his talk page. Right now, his attitude is a significant impediment towards resolving the dispute and his last post suggests he intends to continue. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew this would happen. Thank you for doing this. I know that I was always unwanted in Wikipedia. I have always stood up for justice, fairness, proper editing and have tried my level best to keep discussions civil. Nobody has even taken the step to understand my situation. Very well, I officially quit Wikipedia. Whatever the outcome, I am not going to know of it. Thank you very much Ravensfire. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ankitbhatt is a very useful, hardworking and constructive editor. While I think he should avoid using harsh remarks, we all get angry, frustrated and furios sometimes, don't we? Scieberking (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not going there. Ankitbhatt has repeatedly belittled and insulted editors in this dispute. Yes, everyone does get upset at times, but venting belongs outside of WP. Attempting to get your way in a dispute through verbal bullying is not a good thing, and that's exactly what he was trying to do. DRN is trying to help resolve things and get editors through the dispute and back to working together. That does include his view, but when he puts his comments in the middle of personal attacks towards editors he disagrees with, he is making the process difficult at best. He needs to dump his attitude. Every editor in the dispute will be held to the same standard. Ravensfire (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2011 (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.

AndyTheGrump

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Andythegrump has four times accused me of conduction a smear campaign against the occupy protests,[16][17][18][19] I have asked him to withdraw these allegations but he has refused and basically accused me again[20] I would appreciate him being told to remove these accusations which are obviously untrue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that TLAM had been engaged in a long-running effort to include material on supposed American Nazi Party support into the Occupy Wall Street article, against a clear consensus, and actually linked an article describing attempts to connect the occupation movement with Nazis as "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests" [21] as supposed justification for including such fringe material, I think that he/she may well find that others may find assertions as to what is 'obviously untrue' less than convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Without finding fault with the reversions, I'll note that "remove POV statement" might be preferable in the future. In any event, it's not possible for ATG to remove content in edit summaries. Gerardw (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
And what of the talk page remarks? Might they be removed? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


Andy - lots of stuff gets printed in reliable sources which one may "know" is a smear. The problem is that Wikipedia policies require even "wrong stuff" to get into articles. That said, temperate edit summaries are wiser than intemperate ones. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
As was repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia policy does not require the opinions of every fringe political movement to be included in articles, as a matter of appropriate weight, and significance. If TLAM had argued that other fringe groups be mentioned too, his arguments might have seemed a little less skewed - still wrong, but more neutral. Maybe I should have worded the edit summary in question better - but it should be noted that TLAM made the edit in question after being told that there was no consensus, and no justification. In any case, it wasn't me that started using the word 'smear', but media sources - including one that TLAM seems to think justified his position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"Best practice" is to avoid using the word no matter who else "started the fight." And the rule is not that the person asking that a source be used must then give every possible source - just that the source proffered be given some weight if it is printed by a reliable source. Our own infallibility is problematic. <g> Collect (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Nazi Party support for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement appears to be widely reported. It is even making news down here in Australia, just today there was a radio report of the anti-semitic nature of the protests (apparently these protesters blame Jewish bankers). Someone needs to persuasively explain to Andy the desirability of maintaining civility. --Nug (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"apparently these protesters blame Jewish bankers". Nope. Apparently there have been isolated cases of this, blown out of all proportion by sections of the media in an attempt to discredit the demonstrators. And note that these same media sources are entirely silent on the widespread condemnation that such antisemitism has received from other participants, and even more silent on the notable presence of Jewish people at the occupations. This is the very essence of a smear campaign. Incidentally, could you let us know which Australian radio station you were referring to, and the nature of the broadcast in which this was reported? Vague assertions are of little use as evidence for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Note : Nug was formerly known as Martintg (talk · contribs) and Tammsalu (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
All of which are properly linked, so the reason for noting it here is non-utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As ATG has refused to remove his personal attacks I have done so, he has responded with further attacks,[22] I really would appreciate someone telling him to stop accusing me of pushing an agenda and conducting a smear campaign. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop doing it then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In fact there is little or no coverage of the story in news sources. All the sources TLAM presents are from opinion pieces, mostly in publications which are not even rs for news. TLAM should be aware that we are no supposed to provide coverage to stories that the mainstream has ignored, and his long campaign to do so is POV-pushing. "Smear campaign" is just another term for that. TFD (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
And another personal attack in edit summary [23] The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why are you placing templates on his talk page while the issue is under discussion? It seems to be harrassing. TFD (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Because of this[24] Now that is harassment. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That is a factual statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Andy you need to take a tea break and come back when you're able to be ore civil. LastAngryMan you are misrepresenting policy on the talkpage, you do seem to be pushing an agenda against consensus and I can understand why Andy is frustrated with your behavior. When a broad consensus disagrees with your proposed change and you keep using the same faulty arguments that tends to get annoying and may ultimately come to be seen as a form of disruption of the I didn't hear that kind. Drop the stick both of you and go do something useful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I can name five editors who have said this warrants a line in the article, all i have done is post the number of news and google hits, this is not pushing an agenda nor is it conducting a smear campaign, it is reporting what reliable sources have said. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you ever breathe in? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard ban proposal

I agree with Andythegrump. Last Angry Man does have an agenda which is clear by all his edits related to the Occupy protests. I propose he be topic banned from all noticeboards because he has made half a dozen recent request posts which have been rejected by administrators. He's wasting a lot of administrator time by making such nonsense noticeboard requests. Also, several editors have expressed concerns about sockpuppetry since TLAM seems more knowledgeable in Wikipedia terms for someone who's been here for such a short time. Pass a Method talk 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Please provide diffs showing were I have half a dozen requests on noticeboards about the occupy movement? Or half a dozen request on any subject in fact. And which have been "rejected by administrators" and which have been called nonsense. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Mark, I think "half a dozen" wasn't meant as a literal numerical count but more as a figure of speech, like "one in a million." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Um -- try not making claims about anyone's identiry, Boris. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Draconian solutions do not work, and the claims implicit above in one comment that a person is a sock belong in the ArbCom area, not here. Lastly, hyperbole does not suit any noticeboard when such an act is being sought in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not draconian. TLAM has a habit of getting into conflict with established editors, and then going to noticeboards with his problem. Pass a Method talk 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You need actual diffs as a minimum for the claims you made. And SBHB was "less than helpful" with his implication that TLAM is a sock of a banned user. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that this is an appropriate place to be discussing topic bans, claims of sockpuppetry etc. If the latter is raised at a more appropriate noticeboard, I'll be glad to offer my thoughts on the matter. 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Are the attacks continuing? Gerardw (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Not since the last one i posted here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Vegaswiki making personal attacks

Regarding a content dispute on Rubén Rivera, User:Vegaswiki resorted to an ad hominem attack against me. I warned the user not to do that. The user then blanked the warning and repeated the attack. I warned the user again. In response, the user undid my reversion of the ad hominem attack. I now bring it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets get this straight right off the bat. I will make no comments about the content dispute. Except on your own talk page or under very particular circumstances you may not edit or delete another editor's talk page comments. This is a far more serious infraction IMO than the incivility of which you complain. Also, I note that you appear to have made no attempt to resolve the dispute except by templating the user and as noted before blanking his comments on an article talk page. Blanking template warnings BTW is specifically allowed and is considered evidence that the person concerned has seen and noted the warning, you do not have the right to complain about an editor blanking a template warning on his own talk page. So back to the civility issue. The comments made were certainly rude, but were on the less severe end of the spectrum. Certainly they did not warrant you going straight to a level 3 warning then immediately to a level 4. It seems to me that this could be rightly called pouring fuel onto the fire. Maybe you should just consider leaving this part of Wikipedia alone for a week or two and try to be less confrontational yourself when you disagree with other editors. In such cases you are far better to calmly discuss the issue and make you case without inflamning things by placing templates on editors' talk pages and calling their posts on a talk page vandalism, regardless of whether they are uncivil or not - an entirely different thing altogether. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
From WP:NPA: "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed". I know these aren't the most serious of attacks, but I don't want to let any personal attack against me stand, so as I see it, I am within my rights to remove any ad hominem attack. I've discussed the issue on the article's talk page. Also, I know that blanking one's own talk page is acceptable (except for active block notices), which is why I didn't try to revert that. I'm simply describing the user's behavior. Whether I was right to start on level 3 or not, the user is continuing the attacking behavior and not collaborating on the issue. As for "leaving this part of Wikipedia alone for a week or two", check the page histories. I am not actively editing the page. As edits concerning BLP policies appear on my watchlist, I address them. You're not addressing the issue of incivility. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to remove the entire comment -- WP:NPA discusses this. In any event, I've redacted the personal attack portion of the comment and place 3rr warnings on both user's talk pages. Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have no problem with the remaining part of the user's comment, which I could have and should have left in place. I maintain that I am within my rights to remove personal attacks against me, though, no matter how "minor" the attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you're not. Looie496 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Because of this - Nick Thorne talk 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerned, though not really my business

I was cleaning user pages out of my watchlist and stumbled upon some Talk namespace edits that concerned me. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lionelt&diff=prev&oldid=457883397 I don't really remember any prior interactions with either of the editors involved, but it sure seems like at least one of the participants could use some wikiquette coaching! (sdsds - talk) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm sure we could all use coaching. This report, however, is a bit on the vague side; moreover, the language used in the discussion you're pointing at strikes me as far from unprofessional. Unless you wish to point at specific users breaking specific guidelines at specific times, I suggest we take the advice to use wikiquette coaching to heart and close the thread. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

University at Buffalo

For months now I have tried to revise and add useful information and pictures to the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Throughout this time, my facts and pictures have been reputed and removed by User:Mtking. Even though the page has minimal pictures (compared to other large research universities), he has taken the one's I add off multiple times. The pictures that I have uploaded show the University in a good light and reflect its history and its current nature. The pictures are also copyrighted well and have been taken by myself and a colleague of mine. I feel harassed now because it is so hard to edit and revise this wikipedia page. Thank you so much for your time and effort reviewing this case.

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Davidhar (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I see a content dispute, not an etiquette issue. As the other editor has suggested, discuss on the talk page of the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese incivility again

Roselese is an experienced editor with a history of incivility with a number of editors. On this particilar occasion she made this nasty accusation: "Kuru is ignoring the fact that Lionelt and NYyankees51 are tag-teaming."[25] Not only is she unfairly accusing myself and NYYankees, she is accusing Kuru of complicity. – Lionel (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ros's claim is unsubstantiated. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Not that it seems anyone cares... more personals attacks here: [26] I wonder if the absence of any sanction whatsoever has enboldened her? – Lionel (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that if you don't want people to accuse you of tag-teaming, you give them no ammunition to do so. Without expressing an opinion myself, that pattern of edits is suspicious, especially as NYyankees51 had never edited the article previously. Black Kite (t) 04:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The IP (from 3RRN) left a section on my talk devoted to the article, essentially amounting to an accusation of vandalism.[27] I imagine that NYY is one of the 60 or so editors stalking me, and went to investigate. But for the IP posting to my talk NYY doesn't edit the article. Noone was brought in. Noone coordinated anything. – Lionel (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) This is not a question for WP:WQA. Potential WP:TAG TEAM issues have already been mentioned by multiple wikipedians in connection with WikiProject Conservatism. That is not helped when invitations are extended to topic-banned editors.[28] None of this looks good. Mathsci (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no complicity implied by Roscelese to Kuru, only knowing or unknowing disregard of the activities of Lionelt and NYyankees51. She leaves Kuru's motive unspecified.
As for "nasty accusation", I don't see it. It's not nasty, and its more of an observation than an accusation. Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

User Feedback has for a long time made dickish comments to users who in his opinion are wrong including to me. I've kept quiet about this for a long time but I can't take his dickish attitude anymore. Voices in my Head WWE 02:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks from IP 75.21.113.40

An IP contributer, 75.21.113.40 made a testy demand for content on the talk page for Steampunk, which can be seen here. I replied with what I thought was a diplomatic response, and was answered with belligerence. This IP has subsequently had an angry back and forth with another user on that talk page and on their own talk pages. I won't get into those arguments here. Seeing that the IP seemed relatively new, I placed a standard welcome on the IP's talk page. I did not mean to be condescending, but that IP took it as such, and very hatefully removed the welcome. I later replied to a subsequent posting by this IP on the Steampunk page. I think my reply was quite civil, and was meant to help the IP understand how some WP policy works. The IP replied on the talk page again in an angry manner, seen here. I was later rewarded by the IP with nasty accusations, seen here on my talk page. Because I am not the only one who has been at the receiving end of this IP's talk page rants, the IP has been warned a couple of times. I am requesting that someone truly intervene to stop this IP from continued belligerence. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a case of biting newcomers to me. It was not completely empowering and certainly not inviting. You did indicate that that reliable sources are required and offered that the editor add the material, however the opening tone was harsh and focused on the wrong thing. And then to culminate in anon's most recent responses: Warning to future newcomers.
Anon's response was unnecessary and hostile. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump again

Once the previous complaint was archived he has again started with personal attacks[29] I should like some thing done this time please. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We could start with a SPI into 'The Latest Angry MarkNutley Sockpuppet'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Not here, but you're welcome to bring it up at WP:SPI. The issue here is telling people that they're not wanted to edit Wikipedia articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Because we don't want sockpuppets of banned users on Wikipedia? I see from TLAMs user page that he has now stormed off in a huff - looking at his talk page history, his claims that he wasn't Nutley were rapidly falling apart. Given TLAMs behaviour, never mind the more technical evidence, I'd have thought that a SPI was a foregone conclusion. In any case, The Last Angry Whoever wasn't 'editing articles', he was dragging up yet again an argument for which he has had no support, on the basis of misleading descriptions of material he'd found in Google searches (Nutley's favourite tactic, by the way). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
SPI is the place for SPI complaints. This playfulness of some referring to TLAM as "Mark" or "MN" etc. is quite improper if one actually wishes to follow WP:CIVIL and the attempt by some to drive off editors is fraught with peril - it has been done so many times now that I fear ArbCom will actually someday pay attention to it. Cheers. - and have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks by User:DCGeist

Stuck
 – unlikely to be resolved to mutual satisfaction of all parties Gerardw (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This began as an inappropriate imposition of a "consensus" on Free as a Bird that was developed in a time frame that meant no European was likely to be able to contribute. Despite attempts to restore the article to its state at the beginning of the WP:BRD process, DCGeist edit warred to keep his personal preferred version, a process that also involved making threats in an edit summary. Meanwhile on the talk page, we have:

To say nothing of other time-wasting contributions such as this and this while other editors have been trying to find a solution.

I admit I was frustrated at the start by the unilateral imposition of an opinion that appears to have been developed on another page, but DCGeist's conduct since then has been utterly revolting, while I believe I've been as calm as possible. I have also tried to move the discussion forward, something DCGeist doesn't seem interested in doing.

I'm looking for some advice to be given to DCGeist (who seems to be something of an infamous edit warrior, judging by his block log) along with any comments on my own conduct, should those be judged necessary. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You opened the door [30] with intemperate comments. Escalating things by reverting other's comments wasn't helpful (see WP:TPG). I recommend focusing strictly on the content or walking away. (Yes, DCGeist's comments are inappropriate.) Gerardw (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and the paragraph above starting "I admit..." was about that. I was frustrated because DocKino had decided to ignore my comments on the talk page and impose his version of consensus. An exclamation of frustration not aimed at a particular user doesn't justify the vitriol that came afterwards, though. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Absconded Northerner threatened to pull me into this, so I might as well join. AN was the first to drag the discussion into the mud and then AN just chose to drag us deeper. DC was his usual (sometimes over)aggressive, but proper, self--there's not a notion he deployed that AN did not first introduce.
It appears that AN is a rather new contributor here, one who wandered into a particularly volatile subject field, one who is intelligent and has something to offer, but also one whose ugly verbiage needs some serious reining in and who (as DC already pointed out) needs some strict instruction in what "vandalism" means and does not mean. DocKino (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between using a few "bad words" in a discussion and making blatant personal attacks. --Onorem♠Dil 13:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Concur; while provoked, DCGeist's response was clearly not "proper." Gerardw (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't accept that my comments provoked this response. I regularly follow AN/I as a cheap form of online theatre, and there is often much, much worse language than I used - there's a "Oh jesus fucking christ, unblock him already" on there right now that doesn't seem to have led to any personal attacks from anyone else. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)AN, concur the response was not "justified" but neither were your initial remarks. Gerardw (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)DocKino was the one who really started this whole mess, by imposing his own consensus developed after far too short a time, refusing to look at the talk page and generally charging in like he WP:OWNed the page. His subsequent refusals to discuss properly while raising ridiculous strawman points like this have only inflamed the situation. Handing out spurious warnings and reinstating them when they have been acknowledged is just another way in which he exhibits bad faith. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
And he's done it again. Having removed an unnecessary warning from my talk page once, something I am perfectly allowed to do, he re-adds it once then after an acknowledgement and request to stay away, he posts it again. I'm getting sick of this guy. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This is rapidly spiralling out of control, and unfortunately I currently lack the time to get stuck into the deeper issues here, however: All involved parties need to stop edit warring on talk pages/user talk pages in violation of policy. Otherwise this will end messily with several blocks, and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
So what happens now? Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Nudge. Is anything going to be done about these personal attacks? Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Still nothing? Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • comment It seems to me that Gerardw (talk · contribs) had it spot on four days ago. As far as warring on a user-page, I too would remove what I felt was inappropriate comments. However if the original poster (OP) reverts I would not escalate by reverting again. Rather I would simply post the diffs (original post and my revert) with a comment such as "I am not comfortable with you (diff2) reverting me (diff1) on my user page". Rising to the bait just makes you look as bad as the OP --Senra (Talk) 11:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Nuh-uh. WP:UP makes it clear I'm allowed to remove warnings, and WP:HARRASS makes it clear that he was wrong to reinstate them. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, you might want to see DocKino's response when gently advised that he was wrong for edit warring on my talk page. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Don’t let yesterday use up too much of today – Cherokee proverb. Move on. We all have content to add to this encyclopaedia --Senra (Talk) 13:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
So it's okay to make personal attacks then? Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You have made it perfectly clear that you believe it's okay for you to make ugly personal attacks, such as in this edit summary. And let's look at this contribution to a Talk thread, where rather than address the merits of a carefully formulated proposal (that had already generated editorial improvements and support from multiple editors with different perspectives) in a specific and rational way, instead you launch into a screed about "unbelievable POV-pushing." Your edit summary in that case seems to fairly sum up your attitude toward our collaborative process: "No. Just no." So exactly why should anyone be taking your plaints here seriously?—DCGeist (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Neither of those are personal attacks, so stop pretending otherwise. Read WP:NPA and learn what it means before making unsupportable accusations. The second link in particular is purely about content. You, however, make personal attacks, threats ([31] [32] [33] etc) and constantly edit war to get your way - a quick glance at your lengthy block log is enough to prove that. It's clear you insist on getting your way by bullying and cajoling, and such activities are to be discouraged. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As the resident Aussie on this board I feel constrained to warn you, Absconded Northerner, to be ware of the boomerang. You are at least as culpable as DCGeist, and in fact are guilty of very self serving selectivity in your interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack. You take the worst possible interpretation of what DCGeist has said (for example, a number of the diffs you provide as evidence contain absolutely no incivilty at all) and deny making personal attacks when your own comments are clearly worse than many of those you complain about. It is well and truly time for you to drop the stick leave this matter alone and stop edit warring as well, lest you attract the attention of those who have little tolerance for such antics and have the power to enforce their judgement. - Nick Thorne talk 10:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
OK, you asked for it. In this edit summary you said (with my emphasis)

Undid revision 458162180 by DCGeist (talk); this has been discussed on the talk page (Amber Tamblyn, Odette Annable, Charlyne Yi) - and stop stalking

If you think accusing another editor of stalking is not a personal attack then I've got some bad news for you sunshine. Your whole attitude throughout this sorry affair has been one of totally unwarranted self righteous indignation. You need to learn a great deal about how to work with other people in a collegiate manner or else I suggest you might be better to leave Wikipedia to those who can. Trying to steam roller your own opinion over that of others - which you have ironically tried to do even on this noticeboard - impresses no one here and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it wastes everyone's time and in the end I predict if you continue down the road you have apparently set for yourself you will be on the receiving end of an enforced Wikibreak. Continue on after that and you will eventually end up with a permanent block and despite what I expect will be your protestations to the contrary at that time, it will be all your own fault. - Nick Thorne talk 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
No personal attack there, Nick, just facts. It has been discussed on the talk page - something that DCGeist ignored in his haste to revert me. The discussion was in relation to a couple of edits by me and User:Kevinbrogers and was amicably sorted out on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. DCGeist took no part in that discussion at the time so it's remarkable that he pops up to revert me right after he and I have had a falling out on a different talk page. Look at his interactions with me, then please read WP:HARRASS and you'll find I'm right about the other part too. Your implied threats are rather tiresome and I'd appreciate it if you were to stop making them. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
If you really think another editor is stalking you, take it to AN/I otherwise shut up about it. In any case it is not appropriate by any means to make such accusations in an edit summary. It is a personal attack whether you see it that way or not and regardless of whether the other editor has been engaging in such activity or not. I made no threats to you implied or otherwise - I have no power to make any such threats in any case. What I did was make a prediction of the likely outcome of you continuing to act the way you have so far over this incident. My powers of prediction are not perfect, I may well be wrong, but I have been around Wikipedia for a long time and I have seen what happens to others who have acted in a similar manner in the past. Take it as a friendly warning to help you become a more productive member of the Wikipedia community (or not, whatever.) You seem to be adopting a seige mentality and accusing everyone else of attacking you. I recommend that instead of accusing everyone else, maybe you would be better advised to reconsider you own actions. In the end they are the only things over which you have any control. Oh, and this is not an administrative noticeboard - you can call for admin intervention but there is no reason to assume you're going to get it and you have no right to demand it. Standing there, hands on hips, petulantly demanding an admin close this discussion simply looks childish. - Nick Thorne talk 23:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Senra but you're not helping anyone here. If you don't want to be involved, I suggest you stop reading this section. You aren't an admin as far as I can tell and your continued insistence on ending this with no solution is grating at best.
  • I have provided multiple diffs illustrating DCGeist's problematic editing while people attempting to pin something on me have provided nothing at all. Everybody who has provided an opinion has agreed that DCGeist's three comments at the top of this report are unacceptable, and an uninvolved admin has given DocKino a friendly but strict message about his edit warring (only to have it spat back in his face).
  • So I ask again: what is to be done? Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

General Response

I'm getting a little fed up with people treating me like dirt for making a simple Wikiquette assistance request in the face of statements from DCGeist that nobody has denied are personal attacks, and harassment from DocKino that resulted in a strong piece of advice from an admin. For some reason several uninvolved non-admins are taking it upon themselves to describe me as the guilty party here. Incidentally, the irony of these people taking time away from their busy editing to tell me I should spend more time editing is breathtaking. As I've said above, every one of my claims is backed up with a diff, and I've seen nothing that denies any of my points. Why is it therefore wrong of me to continue to press for resolution on this matter? That's what this board is for and that's what I'm doing. There's an incredible amount of WP:BITE taking place here and it's pretty sickening. If I were paranoid I'd start thinking that it's a case of people deliberately BAITing me into making a personal attack, something I have never done and have no intention of doing.

Just to be clear, I'm not going to drop this until I see an admin close it. If that admin chooses to take no further action, I will be disappointed, but as long as the reason is explained - and they usually give decent reasons for any decision - I'll consider it the end of that matter. This is not too much to ask. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not what you want to hear, but it's clear that nothing is going to happen here. This noticeboard is a toothless joke. You've been not exactly civil yourself, but DGC has made blatant personal attacks. Oh well I guess. This isn't an admin board, and demanding an admin response before you let it go isn't likely to be a helpful stance to take. It sucks...but it is what it is. Yes, it appears that personal attacks are going to be ignored in this case. Bookmark the discussion so you can reference it if something comes up again in the future. --Onorem♠Dil 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem in Absconded Northerner (talk · contribs) attacking me. Keep it up. Then you are not fighting with the other five editors Radiopathy (talk · contribs), DCGeist (talk · contribs), GabeMc (talk · contribs), Sabrebd (talk · contribs) nor DocKino (talk · contribs). Absconded Northerner (talk · contribs) and Uniplex (talk · contribs) both started this charade here and here and when consensus under reasonable debate seemed to develop on the talk page with the five other editors agreeing and you two disagreeing, Absconded Northerner (talk · contribs) escalated the issue here and especially here not to mention all the article reverts. The behaviour of everyone (all seven of you) in this silly fracas has been contemptible to say the least. None of you have properly supported your own WP:POV with citations and this ranting at people in this thread who are so obviously trying to help you is not winning you any friends. I find it extremely disingenuous that you are demanding admin support when clearly this is an issue of both of your own making. Cease and desist. Walk away now before the situation develops further against you --Senra (Talk) 15:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Now you're just making things up, Senra. I'm not fighting with anybody and certainly not Radiopathy, GabeMc or Sabrebd. They've put forward their suggestions, I've put forward mine and we're coming to consensus. If I had a problem with them I'd say so. Back off and stop putting words in my mouth. I have mentioned specific problems with two editors and they have not been addressed. You are not helping at all, and it is you who should cease and desist. You aren't helping anybody so I have no idea what you're doing here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really, really disappointed by the lack of any useful response to this. Maybe Onorem is right - I'll bookmark this discussion and use it in the future as yet another example of how rules are routinely ignored by admins. I don't know what the point of having policies is if you're not going to enforce them. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Which part of this is not an admin board do you not understand? This is not the place to ask for admin intervention, try reading the information at the top of the page, especially the section headed "Avoid initiating a request if:". Have you tried the dispute resolution noticeboard? Or better yet have you considered how your actions and words may have contributed to this fracas and how you might have acted differently to prevent it spiralling out of control? Anyone who brings a case to any of these noticeboards is going to find that their part in the dispute is going to come under the spotlight. So you better be sure that your own behaviour is beyond reproach. Generally you're much better off to step away from the issue and get on with improving the encyclopedia. I recommend you try it. - Nick Thorne talk 11:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Before you "... bookmark this discussion ..." Absconded Northerner (talk · contribs), you may wish to carefully consider the fact that admins. do watch this page. In fact Taelus (talk · contribs) commented in this very thread soon after your fifth post, out of your twenty so far --Senra (Talk) 13:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No one is faulting Absconded Northerner (AN) for requesting assistance. Assistance has been offered:
in the form of validating that DC Geist's response did cross the line and
advice for AN to adjust their own behavior to avoid similar situations in the future.

As WQA is a voluntary, non-binding forum, AN is welcome to take the advice or not. The frustration appears to be a lack of understanding of the WQA process ... as Nick Thorne has noted, it is not an admin board. This is not to say no admins watch the board, merely that volunteers who respond are not expected to be admins. AN, my advice remains to adjust your own behavior and drop pursuing this issue. If you wish to pursue it further, posting a notice at [WP:ANI] is an option. Based on my observation of past disputes that I see as similar to this one, it is my opinion is likely you will receive feedback there similar to what you have received here. Gerardw (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why Nick Thorne or Senra think their opinions are helpful - they seem to consist of repeated statements that policy should be ignored combined with innuendo that I have violated policy myself. Neither of these are true, so it's clear that the opinions of both Nick Thorne and Senra can be ignored as utterly irrelevant. Gerardw's reply is more helpful, as was Onorem's. It boils down to the fact that DCGeist has been able to get away with what everybody agrees are personal attacks. Nick Thorne and Senra, for reasons of their own, think these are acceptable. Nobody of any import disagrees with my belief that this is wrong. I guess I'll have to accept being proved right in principle. I suggest that the two editors I mention here review WP policy to discover exactly why they're wrong. The same goes, of course, for the two editors whose conduct has been roundly condemned during this discussion. 85.210.8.81 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC) (Absconded Northerner, who can't sign in right now for various reasons)

Uncivil behaviour on Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) and edit warring on the article

It appears that User:KAMiKAZOW isn't quite sure about civility. "Walter Görlitz: Shut up." and "And before Walter Görlitz starts lying again". At least the editor needs to be told to avoid personal attacks. The edit history on his talk page after notices about his editing behaviour Shut up, troll and F* off! add to my frustration with the editor. The former was after a legitimate 3RR warning was placed. The second was after the editor placed a 3RR warning on my page incorrectly.

The edit warring and not understanding WP:3RR shows that a visit from an editor who is disinterested in the subject article may be in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do 3 reverts. I also told Walter Görlitz to stop talking to me after he repeatedly accused me of made-up things on my Talk page (even after another user already told him in the Ubuntu talk page that I didn't do 3 reverts, he posted the warning template on my talk page). He continues to harass me and leave messages on my Talk page. I just want to be left alone by this individual, yet he goes on and on. Please make that stalker stop. Thank you. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:3RR, "undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." That happened [34], [35], [36], [37]minor, [38] a bit more than rearranging, but only in a minor way, and [39]. I tried to explain 3RR to you here and [40] (not sure which I did first). However, KAMiKAZOW doesn't seem to understand WP:3RR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I will not comment on the content dispute (I am a kubuntu user). However, the following statement of KAMiKAZOW is unacceptable; "Walter Görlitz: Shut up. I am no longer willing to talk to you troll!" Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can see he claims that [41] is a forbidden revert. That part was never disputed and previously simply contained false info that was corrected by me. [42] is also in no way a revert, just a clarification. He makes things up about me and purposefully provokes me all the time. As for some other edits by me, I already explained on the Ubuntu talk page that in hindsight I admit that my edits could be interpreted in a way I didn't intent. I didn't redo my misleading statements involving Fedora. Yet even after that, he accused of continued reverting, posted a made-up warning on my Talk page, ignored my wish to not talk to me anymore. I had a fruitful discussion with Josh but Walter continued to spread lies about me. I honestly feel harassed by him. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain this simply.
You undid another editor's work. That means, as per the definition, you reverted something on the page.
Do you understand? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I would comment that it's not entirely clear that KAMiKAZOW has exceeded three reverts. If I understand what Walter Görlitz is saying, he is counting each of the five edits linked above ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47]) as having changed another editor's work in some form, on the technicality that at some point in the past, some other editor must have written and/or phrased the material differently, even if you have to go all the way back to September 16, 2004 when the article was first created. If that's the way it's being interpreted, I don't think that's a reasonable application of 3RR and it doesn't appear that KAMiKAZOW has been editing in bad faith. In terms of civility, however, telling other editors to shut up, f*ck off, etc., is clearly inappropriate, despite whatever perceived rationalization KAMiKAZOW might feel he has to justify uncivil behavior. Glancing at the Talk Page for the article, both editors would do well to take things down a notch or two and focus on working out the content instead of each other (just a suggestion). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation is, unfortunately, the correct one. The same happened to me when making good faith edits. However, the editor who opposed my edits drove this point home by taking it to WP:ANI and I was blocked for the behaviour. I could have taken this there, but recognized that KAMiKAZOW was trying to improve the article and so decided to bring it here instead, mostly because of the harsh language used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
So, based on your interpretation, if an editor makes four edits to any given article within a 24-hour period, changing something about the existing wording of the article (let's say, replacing one adjective with another in each instance), technically you believe that to be a 3RR violation, since at some point in the article's history, some other person inserted the word that was replaced? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That is my understanding. But you'll also notice I let it go to six, including two minor edits, and would have allowed it to go longer because the editor was, for the most part, editing constructively and in good faith (despite making bad leaps of logic in the edits). However, this isn't about the number of edits or reverts but rather about the editor's response to my attempts to inform about 3RR. That's why the section starts with "uncivil behaviour". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
In counting six, are you counting edits he made in which there were no other editors making any intervening edits between KAMiKAZOW's edits? AzureCitizen (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Why are you focusing on the 3rr violation? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Because a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. In your first post (above), you said that KAMiKAZOW's "not understanding WP:3RR shows that a visit from an editor who is disinterested in the subject article may be in order," so I assume you felt it would be best to clear that up when you started this thread. In my opinion, KAMiKAZOW has gone right up the bright light of 3RR, but not past it, with these three edits: [48], [49], [50]. The sole edit that came before was not a revert in the normally accepted 3RR sense, and the edits that came afterwards had no intervening edits by other users. Without a doubt, he needs to check his attitude and put his incivil comments in check, but we shouldn't mistakenly (i.e., unintentionally) mislead him into thinking he's violated 3RR when the two of you are embroiled in a content dispute. Hope that helps clear things up... AzureCitizen (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits policy? This is the first I've heard or read about it. Thanks for clarifying. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Immediately below the pull quote on what 3RR is. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem. In closing, I'd suggest KAMiKAZOW give WP:CIVIL a read and consider that it's never appropriate to resort to insults and name calling. In addition, as the initiator of changes that were contested, WP:BRD suggests he really should have worked towards consensus on the Talk Page instead of rushing to 3RR. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz was harassing me. I won't ever apologize for defending myself against harassment. He (falsely) invoked 3RR against me, even though he was involved in the “edit war” and the 3RR page clearly says “Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive.” This proves that he wanted to be aggressive against me. He pretends to be the victim despite being the aggressor. He demands a “civil” attitude towards him although he is actively working to push other peoples emotional buttons to anger them.
The facts are that I was the one initiating the discussion on the talk page to resolve the content dispute and that I already admitted that I used misleading language and that that was not intentional (it is clear from my user page that I am not a native English speaker and despite relatively good English skills I occasionally make mistakes as that one). After that I did not re-add the controversial part about Fedora. Nonetheless he kept escalating the dispute which peaked in this very discussion here. Under no circumstances I'll give in to his narrative that he's the victim. The worst thing I'm guilty of is getting emotional when I am attacked. He OTOH acted in cold blood. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The facts are you were pushing a POV and it was resolved and your behaviour was not appropriate. It is your emotional response that you're being called-out for. I didn't act in cold blood, which is tantamount to calling me a reptile and is another personal attack, I acted in the best interests of Wikipedia and its policies. I did not escalate but I sought resolution. Sorry you can't see the facts. Please learn how to be a cooperative editor aside from going to talk to make a point. There's a lot more to it than that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Oncenawhile

User:Oncenawhile's behavior is unacceptably hostile on Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language, constituting a violation of WP:Civility, WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith.

In fact, this user precipitated an ongoing hostile debate on the page with his/her aggressive comments, "How did this propaganda survive the deletion debate?", despite knowing full well that it went through the afd process [51].

The user then later followed up with this extremely unhelpful statement which violates all that I listed above: "This debate is perhaps the most absurd of all the valiant attempts I have seen to keep Zionist propaganda out of Wikipedia" [52]. The key issue is that Oncenawhile is so comfortable bomb-throwing, tainting all of his/her opponents as propagandists, which therefore implies that he/she is the real "arbiter" of truth. One cannot work with another editor that assumes they have a monopoly on the right and attacks others that disagree.

The troubling part is when I asked Oncenawhile to strike these comments, s/he doesn't even recognize how s/he has done wrong [53]. S/he thinks its perfectly acceptable, and not even negative, to label editors propagandists or as having specific political beliefs they have not claimed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Plot Spoiler, thank you for your post. I would ask that you kindly retract three key misrepresentative statements above: (1) "tainting all of his/her opponents as propagandists"; (2) "attacks others that disagree"; (3) "label editors propagandists or as having specific political beliefs they have not claimed".
I have not portrayed any editor as such, or attacked anyone. The reference to propaganda was my interpretation of the content being debated, NOT a comment on the editors themselves. The characterisation of the content as such is supported by its being pushed on a number of single-agenda propaganda websites. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Your incredulity at these charges puts on full display your ingrained WP:Battleground behavior. Its troubling that you do not recognize the wrong you committed and continue to refer to material you disagree with simply as "propaganda," rather than engaging with it in a more appropriate and mature manner. And it is a logical assumption that if you believe certain editors are posting Zionist propaganda, they are therefore Zionist propagandists. Don't cloud this issue at hand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The statements you pointed to are not at uncivil. They are factual. You may object to their contents, but that does not make them uncivil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If you believe that dismissing certain sources as simply "Zionist propaganda" is a simple factual statement, then you seem to be affected with the same battleground behavior and uncivil behavior as oncenawhile. If you are the arbiter of civility on this page, I have made a big mistake by even attempting to address the issue here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not uncivil behaviour and as far as I can see not an issue which we can resolve. It's certainly an opinion. It's not an opinion I share, but there's no name-calling. There's no bad behaviour. There is an inherent POV being presented, but that's not uncivil. Remember, "the aim of this page is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour". So if you want a resolution, feel free to continue. If you want Oncenawhile punished or sanctioned, you'll have to go somewhere else. But as far as I can see, the other editor is only voicing his opinions not attacking other editors. Perhaps others would like to voice an opinion on the behaviour listed above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

False accusations by User:Jack Sebastian

Sebastian and myself are engaged in a content dispute at another page (New Amsterdam (TV series)) where he has made several accusations against me, and also initiated a DRN. In the meantime he's followed me to other pages, in particular to Talk:Ben Linus where I had noticed that some comments were out of sequence, and in conformance with WP:REFACTOR ( "Restructuring... Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion") I moved a few recent (well, 2009) comments placed out of sequence at the top of the page to the bottom. Shortly after I found Sebastian had reverted my edit, stating only "undo as per WP:REFACTOR", which made no sense. So I reverted it with a comment that may have been provocative ("undoing revert by stalker"). Predictably, he then reverted my edit, but added the false accusation that I had "delete[d] others' conversations". In fact, not one word was deleted. I only moved entire sections. Then he proceeded to archive the page to make reverting difficult.

The edit history:

  • 04:02, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (784 bytes) (step 3 was filling the new archive. Step 3 is removing the info from here, as it is present in a linked archive) (undo)
  • 03:54, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (80,023 bytes) (like this - step 1 of 3) (undo)
  • 03:52, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (79,966 bytes) (Undid revision 459641006 by Barsoomian (talk) undo as per WP:REFACTOR - we don't delete others' conversations. If you want to get rid of older conversations, you archive them) (undo)
  • 23:30, 8 November 2011 Barsoomian (79,971 bytes) (Undid revision 459477319 by Jack Sebastian (talk) undoing revert by stalker) (undo)
  • 00:39, 8 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (79,966 bytes) (Undid revision 459434856 by Barsoomian (talk) undo as per WP:REFACTOR) (undo)
  • 18:09, 7 November 2011 Barsoomian m (79,971 bytes) (ordered chronologically) (undo)
  • 01:45, 3 March 2011 Sanders11 (79,966 bytes) (tidy) (undo)

I posted on his talk page here, pointing out that he had made a false accusation against me (now enshrined forever in the edit history) and asking him to respond. He deleted my comment and when I reposted, he made this unpleasant response, full of more accusations of bad behaviour on my part, including an assertion that my edits were wrong, though on different grounds, but not withdrawing let alone apologising for his initial charge. I'm not experienced in negotiating the formal dispute mechanisms here; though I see that Sebastian has very often, but I need a bit of guidance: First were my edits above wrong or ill-advised? Second, how do I deal with this guy, who continually attacks my work, integrity and character? Barsoomian (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I would think that the first step would probably be to not attack the work, integrity and character of someone else, but that seems too obvious. Kidding aside, you might want to invest in a mirror; everything you have been accusing me of is what you yourself have been engaging in.
I think you left out some rather important bits, like the accusation of stalking you to this edit. I readily admit that I looked at your edit history (as you appear to have done with me). Your behavior at Talk:New Amsterdam (TV series) was so outrageously uncivil and filled with personal attacks that I went to see if you were like this with others. While looking, I saw an edit where you appeared to be refactoring the posts of other users in the talk page of the Linus article. We aren;t allowed to do that, especially with material that is over two years old. The proper thing to do was to archive the material in the original order that the initial posters intended, which I did.
As far as I can tell, that was the only edit I have made to a page that Barsoomian has worked on (apart from the New Amsterdam article and discussion pages), so I am not sure where the "In the meantime he's followed me to other pages" is coming from.
And yes, I deleted his personal attacks from my page. No one gets to drop the f-bomb on my page and expect it to get any real consideration. I even state it in a large friendly yellow infobox at the top: "I am polite and appreciate politeness in turn. If you act like an ass-hat, I'll ignore you, report you, or simply point and laugh." To my credit, I didn't point and laugh, but I did file a complaint at AN/I (upon consultation with an editor at DRN); that can be found here, and was filed about a minute after this one was - I didn't know about this until I posted there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll point out that when he says I "drop[ped] the f-bomb on [his] page", I actually wrote "WTF are you talking about...." asking him to explain the original complaint above. If he takes exception to that, I'm truly sorry for him. Barsoomian (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see here for my suggestion. m.o.p 05:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:EricOntario

I can imagine the the author is angry and disappointed about the speedy deletion of his article, but his reply to me contains to many insults... Night of the Big Wind talk 09:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I have refactored the above to fix the links.
It looks like your notification to the user was accidentally made on their user page. I have removed that and placed a notification on their talk page. By the way, reports should be made using very neutral language (not as here).
Yes, EricOntario made an uncivil outburst (diff). However, experienced editors should understand what is mentioned in the report, namely that EricOntario is a very new user who is concerned that their article (probably similar to this) was deleted very soon after creation, and some allowance for frustration and total lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's processes should be made.
I recommend that EricOntario read WP:CIVIL and understand that the normal anything goes of the Internet does not apply at Wikipedia. I do not think anything further is required for this isolated incident. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Incivility (curse words, swearing) by User:Lugnuts

User:Lugnuts told me to stop bitching about it!., with the "it" referring to my bringing up problems with the article List of cases of penis removal. Seeing as I had already nominated the article for Afd, 'i was fixing' the problem by having the article go through deletion, but he felt the need to swear at me just because the debate wasn't going his way. (he wanted to keep the article)

When I left him an explanation as to why the article should be deleted (it wasn'ta legitimate list, it was full of cases about random people unlike other lists which link to actual wiki articles), he told me to "get the fuck off my talkpage"

He was also very nasty and rude during the debate, saying WTF?! Is that the best rationale you have? Seriously? There are lots of secondary sources from multiple reliable outlets. End of., and saying "fail" in the edit summary, and "You clearly don't understand this"

He also falsely accused me of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cases_of_penis_removal&diff=459854566&oldid=459853455 not assuming good faith (I never attacked him, I used the word "abuse" as a synonym for the word "misuse", ie., like "abusing his powers" when I noted Lugnuts was not paying attention to wiki policy, he told me to "come back when you are relevant'". Bunser (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow... I can't begin to defend those actions. There's really nothing to do but admit that the behavior was uncivil. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
My talkpage, please don't bother me again. What about the constant hounding from this "user" to anyone who disagrees with his deletion rationale? Note that I was informed about this, but the link provided was incorrectly formatted by Ian.thomson. Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you provide evidence of the hounding through diffs? Even still, it does not excuse uncivil behavior. While I'm not disagreeing with telling someone to leave you alone, telling someone to "fuck off" is completely unacceptable. Pardon my mistake in simply placing the topic name where the example template said "topic," and resuming work elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Just look at every keep comment in the AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Lugnuts is not telling the truth. I have not responded to Spanglej and Tom Morris's keep comments on the aFd. And it was Lugnuts who hounded my comments when I replied to Cirt, and Lugnuts who attacked Richard-of-Earth .Bunser (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Bunser created the AfD, it's hardly hounding for him to respond there. Please read policies before accusing others of going against them. Do you have diffs of him hounding you? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a case of hounding as explained above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, but thanks for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Lugnuts just attacked me again, quote- It's not an attack before you go crying to the admin again. Thats like saying, "i'm not cursing you when I'm saying you are a piece of ****"Bunser (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"Thats like saying..." Sounds like original research to me. Lugnuts (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that's an article policy, right? Not a behavioral policy? Your behavior has from unacceptable to unexplainable. You don't want an admin to push you into the hole you're digging yourself, do you? I recommend not saying anything to or about Bunser and only commenting on article content. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Bunser is certainly not asuming good faith with lines like "Thats like saying, "i'm not cursing you when I'm saying you are a piece of ****". That's what I was trying to point out. I've never said, and never will say that he is a ***** of ****. OK? Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have just closed the AfD as no-consensus because of the amount of vitriol on the page, so it can be started over more peaceably. I am in fact not referring primarily to the edits above, but to the behavior of another user whom I blocked for a short period for also vandalizing talk pages of those opposed to them in the argument. I would strongly suggest to the editors above that they just disengage. Their replies to each other here are not helping anything. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chancellorpink

User:Bubblegumcrunch is repeatedly attacking other editors as vandals. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


My position is very clear. I am not repeatedly attacking "other editors". If you read the page in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chancellorpink you will see my position. I believe the evidence indicates that user Mark of the Beast is, at the very least, supporting vandalism by his behavior. No one else, just Mark of the Beast. I believe he nominated a page for deletion in support of a vandal, and that his nomination was not in good faith. I believe the process, as it pertains to the page in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellorpinkto was begun with suspicious timing and motive, especially the standard for notability has been demonstrated. Mark of the Beast has never addressed why he first WENT to the page, only 3 minuets after a vandal blanked the page, to nominate it for deletion. It would take longer than 3 minutes to carefully review the page and its sources in order to reach a proper conclusion as to whether or not notability was met. Yet the nomination occurred 3 minutes after the vanadalism/reversion. That's simply not enough time to make a good faith nomination for deletion, and the timing of the visit and nomination clearly appears to aid a vandal in their desired goal: to eliminate the page.

It was a page that stood unmolested for nearly 3 years. Then a vandal blanks it and replaces it with a slur, which is immediately reverted. Then 3 minutes later, Mark of the Beast appears to nominate the page for deletion. Again, where is the time to review the page? How could a nomination be made in such short time? Why would it be made, on a page that had just been rescued from vandalism? Then after the nomination is made, the vandal reappears to add some language to the reverted page, and that language is reverted again. Mark of the Beast has never answered the questions as to why he went to the page, only 3 minutes after it was vandalized, and chose to nominate it for deletion, only three minutes after a vandal tried to remove the page, etc. His nomination comes sandwiched between two acts of vandalism by the same person, and it is made in a period of time that is simply not sufficient to indicate a good faith nomination.

I believe the timing of these acts of vandalism, in relation to Mark of the Beast's nomination for deletion, should render his nomination as questionable, at best, with respect to good faith. I believe the good faith doctrine says as much, expressly. I believe the nomination should be dismissed, especially as the nomination is meritless on the facts. If nothing else, the timing of the nomination appears to be an effort to give the vandal what the vandal wanted, the destruction of the page. I would hope this site would look down upon any efforts that would appear to aid in the service of vandalism.

One does not have to BE a vandal, but to in any way aid a vandal's end should call into question good faith. A nomination for deletion made in 3 minutes or less, following vandalism, fails to meet the standard of good faith.

As for "etiquette", I am sorry, but in a case where there are TWO separate acts of vandalism on a page, and in between those two acts, someone nominates the page for deletion, only 3 minutes later, I do not believe that good faith needs to be assumed, even by your own rules, which, about the guideline of good faith, state: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)." Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Bubblegumcrunch, as previously suggested by Tigerboy [54], please drop the WP:STICK. If the nomination is bogus the community will keep the page and if it's not, it's not. If you wish to pursue the claim that Mark The Beast is sockpuppet or meatpuppet, the place for that is WP:SPI, not the AFD page. Gerardw (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I will pursue it, don't worry, hopefully to a place where they actually read. You people act like there is never a valid controversy and everything is above board 24/7. lol Must be nice. To quote my dear Friend of the Vandals, Mark of the Beast, "Whatever." Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

False accusations and general incivility

I need some assistance; perhaps help and advice as to how to deal with civility issues which are causing me some distress.

My belief is that I have been subject to incivilty and rudeness from a user, manifested during discussions over recent content disputes; even with false and offensive accusations being made. I have attempted to engage the user on their talkpage, but have been unable to get any constructive response.

Example diffs showing the user's actions:

  • [55] note the edit summary invokes WP:POINT (my edit which was reverted is here).
  • [56] the user made "wind-up", WP:HOUND and WP:POINT allegations against me in defence of a 3RR action.
  • [57] my advice characterised as a demand for an apology.
  • [58] the user made allegations of a "blatant and more importantly disruptive anti-metrication campaign".
  • [59] an accusation of POV-pushing (which I deleted [60]).
  • [61] a post to another user's talkpage characterising my contributions as "rubbish" and making a false accusation about 3RR entrapment.

Example diffs showing my attempt to engage the user:

  • [62] challenging a rude edit summary - [63] the non-conciliatory reply.
  • [64] advising substantiation or an apology - no reply.
  • [65] explained my advice again - no reply.
  • [66] asked for a retraction - no reply.
  • [67] a message about their inflammatory message to my talkpage - no reply.
  • [68] my strongly worded request for a retration - no reply (despite a further reminder [69]).

What can be done about this - or have I got to grin and bear the false accusations and general rudeness? -- de Facto (talk). 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Declaring my involvement, not in this particular dispute but on that article, I must say I found Martin's response to the notification of this request on his talk page particularly unhelpful here. That said, IMO it does help demonstrate the problem with this editor at this article. None of the points raised in that message - itself not exactly civil - are an excuse or good reason for the rank incivility and the repeated accusations of bad faith that Martin has been dishing out to de Facto and others, and I believe it would be helpful if this were made clear to him by outside editors. Pfainuk talk 18:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just read the response on his talk page and it seems very helpful and elucidating. The message is not uncivil. It seems to be factual. The editor appears to be requesting two things
  1. that his accuser don't have all of the facts and a sub-point appears to be that they don't accept information from others who may, and
  2. that his accusers identify themselves so that he can focus on discussing the issues rather than attempting to be overly broad in responses and having to give background information.
If you see something that's not civil, please identify it directly. I have not looked at DeFacto's diffs yet, but the statement by Pfainuk seems biased. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I just read the progression of the discussion. It seems to me that DeFacto and Pfainuk are irritating martinvl. While some of the responses are uncivil, they are always backed by reasoned responses as to why. For instance stating that there were "absurd and unjust allegations" is followed by an explanation. Perhaps Martinvl should tone the rhetoric down and DeFacto and Pfainuk should walk away for a while and stop engaging and inflaming the editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I must admit, I'm quite bemused by this response. I would note that I haven't edited the article or talk page at all since 29 October. There are four editors (not three) involved in the current dispute - and I'm not one of them. I have reviewed my contributions and I feel that I have stuck clearly to the topics at hand, only bringing up behavioural issues when WP:3RR and WP:CANVASS were clearly broken.
I am also surprised that you did not find Martin's message uncivil. Frankly, I find it difficult to see how trying to push another editor into dropping a request for assistance here by threatening to post a retaliatory complaint can be considered civil. I note as background that a core part of recent discussions has been how WP:OR is to be defined, and the frequently poor quality of sourcing for certain pieces of information.
As to your second post, I'm afraid I'm unclear as to who and what the third and fourth sentences refer to. I note that the reference to "absurd and unjust allegations" was made by de Facto in reference to a false allegation made by Martin to another user (that de Facto "has trapped me once with a 3RR"). Pfainuk talk 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't know what you expect. First 3RR and CANVAS are WP:ANI issues and have nothing to do with Wikiquette assistance. I could see, however, as the subject of the comments, how they may be less civil than you would like. However, I'm a neutral third party and don't see a sufficient volume of incivility. Feel free to ignore my suggestions for walking away for a while. It's just a suggestion and it seems that you have an axe to grind. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The 3RR was dealt with in the normal way and the canvassing turned out to be pretty irrelevant because it failed. Hence not going to ANI: there would have been no benefit to the encyclopædia in opening an ANI thread. I brought them up only because I'm trawling through my contributions to find what it was that you felt was objectionable in my contributions and I'm afraid I'm drawing a blank. I note finally that as for walking away, I did that nearly two weeks ago as other editors got caught up in a discussion that did not interest me. The existence of this thread demonstrates that it did not help. Pfainuk talk 21:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Walter Görlitz, thanks for taking the trouble to comment on this. Did you say that you'd read through all the diffs? Then that "they are always backed by reasoned responses as to why." Actually none of the remarks that I challenged were backed up by a reasoned response. That's part of the problem as I see it. Unsubstantiated allegations were thrown, then when challenged - nothing but silence. The only reason I'm here is because I couldn't get any response at all, reasoned or otherwise. Please clarify your comments. -- de Facto (talk). 21:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I confused the issue by mis-attributing the only really uncivil act to martinvl. I didn't look closely at who made the comments. Looking at his actions:
  1. Reverted as per WP:POINT. Link mine. Nothing at all uncivil.
  2. Explanation of actions. Does stated that he felt he was being hounded. Not uncivil.
  3. Not willing to offer an appology and states that he will "await guidance from the administrators". Nothing uncivil.
  4. Not sure how accusing an editor of having a campaign is uncivil if he's proven it as he did above.
  5. Asks for POV-pushing to stop. Nothing uncivil about the request. Do you object to the claim that you have a POV or that you stop?
  6. Blaming someone else for being trapped into a 3RR isn't uncivil. He doesn't state your edits were rubbish rather that he was reverting a lot of rubbish. Do you feel your edits are rubbish? Was he only reverting your edits at the time? Not sure how you've made this mental link.
Then come attempts to engage. It seems that those responses are less civil than those you're accusing the editor of.
It seems martinvl's responses are not outside of civil response. May I suggest WP:DDE or just let it go? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Walter, with all due respect, you appear to be taking Martinvl's comments at face value, and without looking at the context and motivation (and to be frank truth) behind them. There was no WP:POINT editing (can you see any?) on my part. There was no POV-pushing on my part (can you see any?). There was no campaign on my part (did you see one?). The comments were all unsubstantiated, and requests for clarification or retraction were ignored. That, in my books, is uncivil. OTOH, there is possibly much bitterness on Martinvl's part after being subject to repeated challenges (by several editors) over his blatant OR and non-neutral edits, this may in some way explain his actions. His method of defence against the challenges, particularly those from me, appears to be insult-throwing. -- de Facto (talk). 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am taking them at face value. However, suggesting that martinvl was being uncivil is not supported with the diffs that were offered. You may not like his actions, but that doesn't make them uncivil. Now if he used profanity or started in with ad hominem attacks the lack of civility would be clear. WP:CIVIL: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Wikipedia:Etiquette is also a good read. I don't see incivility so I'll step back and let others respond. Perhaps someone else will see it your way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

After going through all the diffs provided, I think WG has pretty well hit the nail on the head with this one. I doubt you will find much support for your view of things DF, you have simply not shown where Martin has stepped over the line. - Nick Thorne talk 07:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
OK Nick, thanks for the comment. I rather thought that false accusations and inflammatory edit summaries were "over the line", and then refusal to retract them (or attempt to justify them) compounded that. Perhaps Wiki's line is further out than I thought it was. Do you think that I should go to JimWae's talkpage and put the record straight (to clear my name) or just leave it at that, with the possibility that others reading it there in the future may believe it to be true, and possibly hold it up as "evidence" in any future duspute with or against me? -- de Facto (talk). 08:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any more advice about how to deal with the false accusation of 3RR trapping in this post to another user's talkpage please? -- de Facto (talk). 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignore it. It's prima facie ridiculous. An editor can't "trap" another editor into 3RR, so any reasonably knowledgeably wikipedian coming across the comment will know its bogus. Gerardw (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Protect IP edit war and general unhappiness


Things are very unhappy and hostile on the Protect IP page atm. This conflict started when Xenophrenic started reverting all other editor's edits and then beginning a very long, pedantic, bullying process on the talk page of Protect IP and Elinruby's and my talk pages. I tried to reason with Xenophrenic on the article talk page but the things he does and the things he says on the talk page are not always the same. I suggested to Xenophrenic that both he and I refrain from editing the article and I asked for a RFC to try to get new input from other editors. And that is when Elinruby arrived. He quickly discovered that he was having exactly the same problems with Xenophrenic that I had. Once Elinruby started editing Xenophrenic seems to have forgotten about his agreement to not edit and this caused me to post on the talk page about his behaviour. I posted what I thought was a reasonable assesment of his actions, but he removed it saying it was a personal attack. He may have a point. But only a wee bit. Honest. :| Probably I could have been a bit more calm about it but frustrations levels were high as I could not get any sensible answers out of him. At this stage I am still refraining from editing the article and Elinruby is suffering the same treatment I got from Xenophrenic. It has got to the stage where they are arguing about individual words. It is difficult to cite diffs as Xenophrenic often makes edits in which he changes many things but only documents some of them. This makes the process of following what has been done very difficult. Elinruby has been doing a good job of trying to be calm and sort this out but things are not going well. Please help. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This board is about incivility, not content disputes - your reason for not posting diffs would seem to me to refer to edits to the article itself, I would not expect them to contain any incivility except in the edit summary which of course would not be hard to post - so we need to see what you're on about before we can intervene, please provide diffs. Also, have you advised User:Xenophrenic of this report, as required in the instructions at the top of the page?
I am not seeking help with the content of the article but with Xenophrenic's constant harassment of other users. I have advised all involved users of this request. If you read the talk page of the article you will see exactly what I am referring to. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
No. You need to follow the instructions at the top of this page, which includes the requirement to include diffs. Be respectful of the time of the volunteers here. I for one have absolutely no intention of wading through some discussion looking for what might or might no have offended someone. It is your job as the complainant to explain just what breaches of Wikiquette you are talking about, it is not our job to second guess you. - Nick Thorne talk 07:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This was posted while I wrote the abovebelow(edited by Nick Thorne to correct the thread of discussion). I understand your point and will provide some examples, probably sometime tomorrow. Or perhaps Morgan Leigh can work on this now. In the meantime though -- I have never been in one of these before so I am not sure what the time frame is -- please do not close the issue as it does indeed deal with a serious ongoing problem.Elinruby (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Please be more careful when you post to maintain the correct thread of the discussion. The way you had it, it looked like I was replying to your post below, which would make it entirely out of context. I hope this is not a reflection of the way you have interacted with other editors in the discussions that are the subject of this complaint. To be blunt I am not at all impressed.- Nick Thorne talk 12:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes it did, but I wasn't sure how to fix it besides noting the discrepancy textually. I hesitated to move your comments from the order they appeared in my edit window, since I was complaining about other people moving/losing my comments. So if the way I handled it was incorrect, the incorrectness was nonetheless based on respect for accuracy and for you. I do agree that you were answering Morgan Leigh not me. Thank you for making it right. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I have found Xenophrenic exhausting to deal with. The article has many serious factual and POV flaws but all editing has stalled because of his behavior. Attempts to find middle ground have been met with comments that he is all out of favors, sorry, or doesn't have time for casual surfing (when asked to google EFF + the bill name to verify that the EFF has many many papers on copyright legislation, not just the single position statement he insists on citing to an individual author). When I ask him to show me where exactly it says something in a page he is pointing to, he says he is out of "pointers," as though I were asking him for help setting up a link or something.
We are, yes, to the point where multiple threaded sections with many entries deal with individual words in a single sentence, the same one, by the way, which triggered the RfC that brought me there. Xenophrenic simply says nope, you are wrong, please take this to RSN or Wikiquette assistance if you disagree, and refuses to provide any rationale for undoing other people's edits. He then claims that he has provided one, and will be glad to reiterate it if I am having trouble understanding. If I say sure, we loop through the process again. His behaviour fully bears out the notice on his user page that he does not assume good faith, quite the opposite.
This answer most likely does not meet the documentation standards required, but I just spent half an hour trying and failing to find Xenophrenic's warning to me about civility. He said (for example) that he was upset that I called him "dude." Xenophrenic likes to move big blocks of text around, including other users' comments, and continues to do this despite repeated requests that he stop, because it makes me work harder and feel paranoid ;)
When I saw the message about this post, I was holding my head in my hands over Xenophrenic's contention that I need to make a whole separate wiki page for a Verisign executive rather than simply link to the man's official bio on the Verisign site. This, mind you, was in partial response to his demand that first Morgan Leigh and then I somehow prove that this executive and the other authors of a white paper can be considered experts. This demand is in reference to the same sentence mentioned above. This same sentence is also the subject of an RSN post asking for a ruling on an edit Xenophrenic refuses to discuss, because I am simply wrong, he says. He is currently arguing with people over there about it.
There are also POV issues since all of these weird demands tend to push the article in a partisan position, but I agree with Morgan Leigh that Xenophrenic is beyond unpleasant to deal with. I don't think I have behaved impeccably either, and will admit to a comment in an edit summary about ankle-biting, but I think the talk page may in fact support the comment. I will say that I have done a complete re-write of a page on a public figure who is both reviled and beloved with far less drama than I have experienced on the Protect IP page over whether the Paul Vixie et al can be considered experts on DNS. I will try to get provide a more specific answer with cites reasonably soon, but the RSN post is a fine example of an ongoing problem in the meantime, in my opinion. I'd have walked away days ago if I did not think the article was really important.Elinruby (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Since this is taking longer than I estimated, for which I apologize, I just wanted to say that I am working tonight on diffs for Morgan Leigh's request. I am mostly a Wikimedia person and have not been through the process before, but I think I am getting there, based on the instructions and the examples of the other posts. As a side note, I don't think that what we have is edit warring exactly, as (I think) that status would require that I be re-inserting text he has removed. I have done this a couple of times with very trivial changes out of sheer incredulity that anyone objects. For the most part though, the dynamic is that I ask Xenophrenic for an explanation and he refuses to provide it. I hope to provide some documentation tonight; if not it should be tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Since diffs to substantiate the above complaint were never provided, and this issue has been archived today, I won't bother responding in defense. (This comment posted to the archive.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Incivility by User:AnkitBhatt

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ankitbhatt.2C_pattern_of_personal_attacks Gerardw (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No admin action necessary, and discussion does not seem to lead to de-escalation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

After spamming my talkpage with something I have no interest in, this user then resorted to name calling. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not spamming. I will ask editor to leave you alone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The comments may not be welcome but WP:SPAM states:
"There are three types of wikispam. These are advertisements masquerading as articles, external link spamming and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced."
None of these are the situation. Please deescalate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I see this in the vein of "Click here to take our survery!" spam. You know, the type of email any sane person would delete without reading. Now address the issue about the personal attack. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
In any case, I know this will once again be classified as a personal attack by the concerned editor and others, so I will proceed anyways.
Frankly, I'm least bothered by this issue. I have handled the case of another off-handle editor reporting me to Wikiquette very recently. In my view, I asked Lugnuts to peer-review Ra.One in greater detail. Seeing the really surprising tone he used to me (who is a complete stranger), I wanted to leave him alone as he certainly seemed to have issues. However, his last comment "bother someone else..." and "time-wasting process like peer reviewing" got me upset. After all, if a previous article of his didn't get a review, is that my fault? One can always ask an unfamiliar editor to peer-review your article just so that it gets noticed and the backlog is reduced. If I have done any wrong in doing so, please point it out. And I want to make it clear to Lugnuts that this isn't my first peer review - I have worked very heavily on 2003 Afro-Asian Games, a GA, and I know all the works of a peer review. Don't think I am a novice who needs ticking-down or any editing lessons from you. At that time, no editor considered it "spamming" to ask an editor to peer-review. Quite the contrary, it shows interest in improving Wikipedia standards. And I have a strong reason to believe the self-bruised and arrogant tone used has a connection with a recent WP:Film-related event, but I will not disclose it for the fact that some more unwanted comments come tumbling out. I hate unpleasantness, my wish was very professional and I had no intention of hurting, harming or "spamming" anyone else. And the way he's making the matter is like as if I have committed a grievous and unforgivable error. Please, enough of hysterics. The way Lugnuts jumped with joy at the very idea of dragging an editor to Wikiquette signals imbalance, and I don't generally listen to such people. Walter, please sort this matter out as you see fit. I have work to do on Ra.One, and cannot waste time on such silly and ego-inflated issues. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 10:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Way to gloss over the personal attack issue. How was that justified? Explain. Lugnuts (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't. Ankitbhatt, posting again on Lugnuts talk page after his first response was inappropriate. WP is a volunteer activity, Lugnuts is under no obligation to edit at all, let alone take some action you want them to. To be clear, you were quite wrong to keep hounding his talk page.
Lugnuts, while not finding fault with any of your actions, in the future, I'd suggest just ignoring post from editors who exhibit WP:IDNHT behavior -- the result ends up being pretty much the same and it's less work. Gerardw (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I violated all WP rules. I'm a criminal. I always break the rules. I never get along with anyone. I was wrong, I was uncivil, I behaved inappropriately, I am a fool, I am not fit to be in Wikipedia. In short, I am at fault all the time and everyone else is right to put me down. Is that all you want to say? Great. Because I've heard all of this much before, and it doesn't bother me anymore that I am always specifically targeted and that everyone will willingly take the other person's side. I am busy, and whatever happens hereafter will have more permanent consequences. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 12:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
"I was wrong, I was uncivil, I behaved inappropriately, I am a fool, I am not fit to be in Wikipedia." Correct. Close the door on your way out. Still awaiting that apology, or are you too "busy"? Lugnuts (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's a realistic expectation. Is it not sufficient that Ankibhatt leaves you alone if the future?Gerardw (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Apology? You won't be getting any apology from me in my lifetime, Mr. Lugnuts. Please show off your over-smart attitude somewhere else. Not in front of me. And yes, you too can follow your advice and shut yourself on the way out. And as for Mr. Gerardw, if you think that I am still violating every rule in the book, go ahead and get me blocked. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 13:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you please both step back? Lugnuts, we understand you felt annoyed by the message. Ankitbhatt, we understand that you acted with the best of intentions. Now you can both shut the fuck up. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2011 (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.
(edit conflict) After further review of the Ankitbhatt's history of personal attacks, I've referred this to WP:ANI. Gerardw (talk)

Punk

Is saying a user is actiing like a punk in an edit summery on a tal page a PA?Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, would you feel attacked if someone called you a punk in an edit summary? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the context. Is the term being used in a derogatory fashion or is it being used in the genre and sub-culture way? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are good [[70]]. Yes, it's incivil. Gerardw (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
As I had said on the articls talk page, no more uncivility or I would report it, I don't care who the target was.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Denniss

Denniss has been uncivil in edit summaries while reverting my changes to Fritz X twice (quote "what's your problem ?!?"). I left him a message on his user talk page, asking him to be a bit more civil. After that, I noticed that his user talk page contains more complaints about his edit behavior and that the history of his talk page shows he has removed at least one negative comment (from user User:JackJackUK). It seemed to me that Denniss would not get the point if I left it at that, so I gave him a "no personal attacks" caution. The user promptly removed it, again being uncivil in the edit summary (quot "You really seem to have problems ......."). I would like some advice and/or assistance on how to help Denniss understand that this is not the way to behave on Wikipedia.

    — SkyLined (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see above: "Include diffs that show the situation". I checked the article history and yes it's somewhat rude. More importantly it's becoming an edit war. Perhaps taking it to the article's talk page would be a good start. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
SkyLined should have taken this discussion to the article talkpage after Denniss' initial revert, which contained a perfectly fine edit summary. Removing content from one's own tallk page is perfectly acceptable behavior. Adding a template to the initial post on Denniss's talk page was unnecessary. Gerardw (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I should explain a bit more: the contents of the edit to Fritz X is not really relevant to my complaint and the dispute over that edit has been resolved. Rather, I felt that Denniss was uncivil during the resolution of that dispute and wanted to talk to him about that on his talk page. After posting a message, I had a look at the other topics on his talk page, and its history, and noticed that I was not the only one complaining about his behavior. I figure that I could no longer assume good faith and that a caution would be the right thing to do. However, Denniss removed my caution with another uncivil edit summary.
@Walter Görlitz: I'm not sure what diffs would be relevant here. The relevant information is on his talk page and its history: it contains plenty complaints from various users. I'm not suggesting all of these complaints are valid, but I do think they support my claim that Denniss has a tendency to be uncivil to other editors.
@Gerardw: Responding to complaints by removing them is not civil behavior in my oppinion.
I'm looking for assistance in convincing Denniss to be a little more civil. If you do not consider my current complaint valid, please do tell me what I could do if I had a valid complaint about a user being uncivil and ignoring my attempts to talk to him about it.     — SkyLined (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
In some contexts removing comments without replying would be consider rude, however it's longstanding WP practice that removing other's comments from one's talk page is permitted. See WP:TPO#owntalk. Gerardw (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and Personal attacks by User Kansas Bear

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – consensus is no civility violation by Kansas Bear. Gerardw (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please pay attention to User: Kansas Bear tone of writing here Talk:Abd al-Qadir Maraghi.He also posed unfounded accusaons and personal attacks against me here Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis to poison atmosphere against me.[71],[72], [73], [74], He accused me to do personal attacks against other users , but all of them were reaction to his unfounded claims and were not personal attacks, I also deleted some of my comments like this [75] to prevent further tension, but he continued personal attacks directed at Azerbaijani-ethnic people and me.I really could not tolerate these personal attacks,that would be of your kindness if you explain more about the problem that these statements have , to the writing editor.With Respect--Orartu (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but disagreeing with you does not constitute a personal attack. Reviewing the talk page I find your (Oratu's) contributions more inflammatory than Kansas Bear's; I recommend you tone it down. Gerardw (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If I am faulty, and he is innocent, I leave wikipedia and they can contribute freely.--Orartu (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
the worst that can be said is that he commented on another editor, however it seems that you were both doing that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
User Kansan Bear is a valuable user, well known to everyone for his neutrality. The point of this discussion is the recent attempts of User Orartu for accusing everyone that has any kind of disagreement with her. Just see two examples here and here. It seems she is misusing wikipedia's notice boards to find a means to push away every user that has any kind of disagreement with her. I kindly ask admins to pay more attention to such behaviors.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Please pay attention to personal attacks of Aliwiki against me.Thanks--Orartu (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to show us some of these attacks for us to notice, pay attention to or comment on them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
For example his above mentioned accusations against me.--Orartu (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave up.They can do what they want.--Orartu (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We've already pointed-out that those actions are not attacks. I assumed that there were more actions that would constitute attacks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPA says:Comment on content, not on the contributor. but both Aliwiki and User: Kansas Bear comment on me, not on discussed subject.Here[76] Aliwiki has talked against me:" He proposed a deletion, and he has started accusing all the users who has disagreed with him there. I'll keep this report in mind"--Orartu (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry in some instances it is necessary to discuss editors, especially in WP:ANI. If the administrators looking at your case feel the need to chastise a editor in the discussion for talking about another editor they'll do so. I'll use a Christian principle which may be lost on you. In Gospel of Matthew chapter 7 Jesus talks about hypocrites who have logs in their own eyes pointing out the speck in the eye of someone else (Matthew 7:3–5). That's essentially what we have here. You opened the ANI dispute. That's certainly talking about another editor. Now that the other editors are discussing the activity and explaining why they did what they did, they have to mention your behaviour. You cannot turn around and claim that it's a personal attack. It doesn't work that way at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Unfortunately, User:Orartu is commenting against users who disagree with her in the contents. Her actions are exactly the opposite of what she said :"Comment on content, not on the contributor". I believe she should change her attitude towards other users. including me. Regards, In fact 04:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please don't misread what I wrote. You're the editor with the log in your eye and you're trying to get the speck out of the eyes of other editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I mean this one"the worst that can be said is that he commented on another editor, however it seems that you were both doing that". --Orartu (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me.What I must do?Please guide me as a neutral one.For example what reaction should I show against accusations?--Orartu (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I have refrained from commenting on this case so far as other editors seem to have been making all the appropriate comments. However, it is apparent, Orartu, that you are simply not getting the message, so I hope maybe I can help you understand by making it simple. What you are being told is that you are wrong. You have not been on the receiving end of any incivility, in fact it is the other way round. You have been accusing others of incivility simply because they disagree with you. This is itself an act of incivility - in other words it is you that has acted in an uncivil manner. You have also accused others of racism, a very serious accusation, without any justification - again an act of incivility. Then you have been making changes to an article without meeting the most basic Wiki Policy requirements of verifiability and reliable sources and no original research and then you accuse others of wrong-doing when they quite rightly revert you - still more incivility on your part. I have no doubt that you are well intentioned, you think your edits are correct, but that is no defense for the way you have behaved, especially when it is you that is not following policy.

You ask what must you do. Well, first you need to acquaint yourself with the policies I mentioned above. You need to make absolutely sure that your edits comply with those policies in every particular and more important than anything else you need to assume good faith on the part of the other editors of the pages you work on. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and that is not possible if one of the parties throws unfounded and inflamatory accusations around about the others involved. Do not accuse others of racism. Do not make edits to articles that are not supported by reliable sources. Discuss proposed edits on the article talk page before you make contentious changes and if the consensus goes against what you want to do, don't make the changes anyway or continue to go on and on about it. Accept that the community has decided differently to how you may have liked, and leave it. - Nick Thorne talk 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here[77] I said wikipedia is not propaganda site of Iran's government or pan-iranist blog to reflect only their pov, but User:Kansas Bear answered:"...not to reflect someone's personal vendetta against the Iranian government. And as user:In Fact has illustrated, your "posts" consist of grievances against the Iranian government and are not relevant to the discussion at hand.", when they are free to say accusations like this to me directly(But my statement is general and is not personal attack to anyone), then I must have right to say, they are mafia gang, otherwise you are clearly taking sides in this dispute.--Orartu (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
They are not a "mafia gang". Are you sure you know what that means? Doc talk 11:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
And as an other member of that mafia gang (!) , I ask other users to explain to user Orartu that I'm not poisoning any thing :[78] ( the funny point is that my job in real life is a medical doctor of Toxicology department !!)-Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hysterical. What's up with the "Likely" judgement on the SPI report? Is that incorrect? Doc talk 11:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne said "other editors seem to have been making all the appropriate comments": are these appropriate comments?"...not to reflect someone's personal vendetta against the Iranian government. And as user:In Fact has illustrated, your "posts" consist of grievances against the Iranian government and are not relevant to the discussion at hand.", other comment of User:Kansas Bear: "You are "not neutral" either. Your personal animosity towards other editors which you continue to post on SilkTork's talk page is a clear indication of your battleground mentality and non-neutral editing. --Orartu (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has made the comments you talk about in this discussion, which is what I was talking about. Read my first sentence. However, the comments you complain about are not personal attacks and do not violate civility. What they do represent, in actual fact, are comments on your behavior. If you do not wish to be called for a battleground mentality, then don't act as if Wikipedia is a battleground - it is not. You are bringing this all on yourself. It is time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Thorne (talk • contribs) 13:11 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You're losing me, pal. Work with me here. In this edit, it was established that it is  Likely from a technical perspective that Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs) and In fact (talk · contribs) are (in fact ;>) the same user. 1) Am I reading this correctly, and 2) What do Alborz and In have to say about this? Doc talk 12:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean admins are not neutral,[79], [80], [81], [82] and ....have judged very neutrally in last disputes.I know in this case admins are neutral too, but I say User:Kansas Bear and his friends are faulty like me, and they must be blamed.About sockpuppetry investigation,Yes you are reading correctly,two accounts belong to one person. --Orartu (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA is intended primarily as a guide as to how we should guide our own behavior. We're not saying that other editors are following it perfectly, we're saying they are not making gross violations that warrant intervention. Your (Oratu) own conduct -- e.g. calling other editors "mafia" -- is not appropriate. What I suggest is ensuring your own behavior is scrupulously correct. You will then get a much better reaction from other editors. Gerardw (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • To User:Doc9871 : The checkuser says : same city, but two different buildings. What is bad about it? I deffended myself by stating some examples . (edits that have been done exactly at the very same time, before and after checkuser results)
What would you do if you were me ? How would you feel if after nearly 3 years of editting in Wikipedia, somebody claims that you are a sockpuppet ! I feel really bad. Could you understand me ? In fact 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The SPI is still open, and best discussed there. Gerardw (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Orartu has also made another personal attack against me, which was deleted by User:SilkTork !!!!!!!!!!!!! She told me :"New Assistance Force. In fact 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. You are not going to achieve anything by pointing-out every instance of what you perceive to be a personal attack. You have lost credibility. I for one just sigh when I see another post from you on this subject. I look at the supposed infraction and then look at what precipitated it. You can't keep accusing others of the very things you're doing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Orartu called me a member of the mafia gang! What do you call this ? What is your suggestion ? She is opposing anybody who has the opposite ideas of hers, anywhere, any how. In fact 18:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's uncivil. However, I think we've already come to that conclusion. Please, drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we should be closing this. I don't see anything here to warrant any action regarding Kansas Bear. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I fully concur. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2011 (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.

Continued incivility and character assaults

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

A editor with a history of ethnic promotion seems to clash with several editors prior to my arrival. Unfortunately I am the current pick. The list is long so i will focus on the recent attacks. What confuses everyone is why they edit the editor and avoid discussing the issues with an edit - inline with policy? But Usually other editors get reported [83] but that usually backfires.

  • Name calling filthy little hands from Serer related articles .[84]
  • doing work for Berber Master- [85].
  • 'You have also revealed yourself that your lack credibility and integrity - and much more comments here:[86]
  • You do nothing for African articles [87]
  • Do not destroy this article with you stupid games (where destroy is adding an photo) [88].
  • Been called a vandal as well, but I think i have listed the recent stuff.
  • calling others names stupid woman (I have added this to show it is not just me).[89]]

With regard to their claim of Stalking When an editor does things like this: [90] and Tamsier has even nominated the Islam article for speedy deletion [91] and edit warred over it! [92] He also nominated a user page for speedy [93]; attacked the admin in an unblock request calling them "people like you always cowar to the muslims" We keep tabs on their habits.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I have a conflict of interest (I am a fairly vocal Christian and the reported editor appears to be an ardent Muslim) and so will only say that the editor is certainly not cooperative and the case should be brought-up at WP:ANI rather than here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The reported editor is anti-Islamic. My work is not in religion but as an Africanist. I will take it up at a stronger place because it is not working.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This editor Halaqah has made my life hell from the moment I came across him on the Serer people and everything to do with Serer. I have been totally drained by this editor who have a campaign of hate against me and is taking it on all the Serer related articles I have edited. I have reported them before but nothing came out of it, indeed my reports where either not taken seriously, trivialised, and on one occastion, it was I who was blocked eventhough I have detailed their disruption for weeks whilst they couldn't be bothered. I have not the energy to be going around looking for diffs here are some Serer related articles where they have pursued me and tried to distroy all articles to do with Serer religion, history and culture. See talk pages and edit summaries of the following Serer related articles:

etc etc.

Whilst I come here to edit and source and clean up unsourced articles, this editor this editor add tags and insults in the edit summary and is making people leave Wiki (e.g MenAfruka). I want this editor to be barred from editing Serer related articles especially when it concerns Serer religion and Serer medieval history which has a huge chunk detailing Serer resistance to Islamization and Arabization. I have lost total trust and confidence in this editor. Sorry I'm being honest. It would be preferred if other editors edit Serer related articles. Not this one.

Tamsier (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made his life hell. That is almost funny considering all the above. New editors often think someone is out to get them if you dont agree and follow policy. My contributions are free for anyone to check. You will see times when i disagree, when i agree, when i defend (even Tamsier) based on merit. Am I the only editor (or the first editor) you have these problems with? So what is the most likely answer. Wikipedia is a Pro-Islamic place or you might be the problem. Can you please point to one incident which is in violation of wiki policy? There is no point citing my edits. I edit Africa, since i came here in 2006. The theories and the blames is just too much to believe.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2011 (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.

Request for a review

Resolved
 – title changed Gerardw (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only see section titles like this as uncivil and tainting any discussion that might occur on the talk page. I attempted to retitle, notifying Bittergrey (talk · contribs) appropriately and it was not received well. I'm not bothering to engage substantively in the actual content of the section because I believe it will be fruitless, all I want is that my user name not be mentioned in an accusing title per WP:TALKNEW. Feedback or suggestions would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe your first dif is incorrect. I believe you're making reference to "This is WLU's article so hands off!" and so that would be this edit. It is rude to state that another editor is showing ownership in a heading, but only if it's not true. We'll wait for the other editor to comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Oops, you are correct, I've replaced with the proper diff. Thanks, and will wait to see if Bittergrey comments. If I am genuinely displaying page ownership, the appropriate posting (in my opinion) would be at AN or RFC/U since the talk page isn't going to gather much attention. But as you said, wait for Bittergrey's comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, discussion was crippled by WLU. His comments include "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading", he has suggested shunning me [94], and has made comments to the effect of 'the only good indian is a dead Indian': "...he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned.". Were the real problem one of my editing practices, viewpoints, etc., I would have the option of changing and the problem would go away. WLU doesn't see this as an option.
As shown quite clearly by the diffs in my original comment, WLU has reverted all substantial changes, back to his version. Those two diffs represent 14 revisions/10 users[95], and 22 revisions/12 users[96]. I could go back further, since this has been going on since February and, thanks to WLU, has spread from it's original location to include multiple articles. Ironically, he tagged me with a 3RR warning[97] when he was the one who gamed 3RR gamed 3RR ([98][99][100][101] -28 hrs) to force his version.
He has also shown a repeated unwillingness to learn about the subject, coupled with an unwillingness to let others edit. Archives three, four, and five are bloated with examples of this.
If he isn't willing to engage in discussion, the civil thing to do is to get out of the way and let others improve the article. BitterGrey (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I can comment on all of those issues if anyone is interested. Historically discussion sections with BG tend to sprawl (here, here, here, here, the paraphilic infantilism talk page and archives, here, here).
I see the accusation of ownership in a section title as pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:TALKNEW even if it's accurate. If it's getting into a discussion of whether I'm actually exerting page ownership that would seem a question for a RFC/U or other venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, WLU, an appropriate counterargument would have been to give examples of changes by me that you hadn't reverted. For example, you could have pointed to the change away from your preferred spelling of "behaviour" - and hoped that no one notices that you reflexively reverted my attempt to make the same change. I'm not stating that you are unable to make changes to your version, but that you are unwilling to let others make changes.
As for sprawl, this is the the second round of an issue that started at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) in February, then was spread to multiple unrelated articles by WLU, and then restarted after an RFD Androphilia and gynephilia. At one point, WLU had involved so many pages in his anti-BitterGrey/pro-CAMH effort that he couldn't keep them straight. For example, here[102] he requests than an admin make an edit on his behalf to a locked article, but he makes the request in the discussion page to an article that isn't locked. He retracted with the admission "Oops, wrong page".
I don't ask that Wikipedia editors be perfect, but there comes a time when they need to drop old vendettas and let good Wikipedians edit. This used to be a place where anyone can edit. BitterGrey (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that we might have some unbiased eyes on the article, I'm going to reattempt an edit[103]. Per the Fringe theories guideline: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Since A) Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are not independent and B) it contradicts the APA's widely published consensus document, the Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders, Blanchard's fringe theory must go. In WLU's version, it is discussed in three locations in the article. (Two of those locations contradict each other.) While this edit might seem a no-brainer, WLU has reverted it five times[104][105][106][107][108]. However, he seems not even to be clear on who's fringe theory it is[109]. BitterGrey (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, that's correct and the fault is mine. I assumed a simple revert and it actually changed the title to remove my username. In this case I consider the issue closed, my apologies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No apology required -- WQA is intended to be about resolution, not blame. Gerardw (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
So WLU didn't even look at my edit before making accusations? This violates assume good faith: He assumed that I had just reverted him in a beligerant and warlike fashion - like he has just now reverted me. That isn't civil. BitterGrey (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by Sswonk

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – referred to ANI Gerardw (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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

At user talk:Sarah777 SSwonk made a statement that I considered to be highly inappropriate [110], so I gave a "formal warning" explaining why I felt that way [111] (copied also to Sswonk's talk page). Perhaps this was over the top, and certainly Everclear has disagreed with my assessment. I disagree that it was, and would normally just continue to discuss it civilly so we could reach an agreement. If I had been presudaded that it was inappropriate, then I would have redacted and/or altered all or part of my statement. However, Sswonk's response to me [112] (also at mine and his talk) was full of personal attacks, "I formally reject your authority, because you use it to stifle critics, prop up your ego and spread fantastic, poisonous lies about other editors", leaving me disinclined to reconsider my original statement.

I would like independent validation that Sswonk's comments were personal attacks, that they are and were inappropriate and either a civility block of Sswonk, or a statement noting that a block was considered but rejected that explains why it was rejected (this is not saying that I cannot see any justification for not blocking, quite the opposite, but if a block is not considered appropriate I feel it would benefit all parties to understand why). Additionally, I would like independent eyes on my original "formal warning" and feedback on it's appropriateness or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf the consensus which has developed recently is the WQA is a place to help editors resolve civility issues, not a place to request for blocks. I'll review the situation and offer an opinion if you'd like, but if you wish formal admin review I'd suggest reposting this to WP:ANI. Gerardw (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll copy this to ANI. I wouldn't object to more feedback if you so desire though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2011 (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.

"Dismissive and arrogant"

Resolved
 – thread removed Gerardw (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has basically accused me of article ownership and having a "personal grudge" in my editing. Ceoil responded, sort of agreeing with the anon. When I responded, merely asking the anon. to assume good faith, Ceoil's response here was to accuse me of being dismissive and arrogant. It is one thing to face baseless accusations from an anon. who, as far as I can tell, has made no positive contribution to the article, but to be attacked by an established editor, one who should know better, is another matter altogether. Rather than lose my temper, as I have in the past, and say something I would regret, I would rather someone intervene and suggest everyone be civil. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 19:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

* I have removed the thread because it violates talkpage guidelines. The anon's commentary on editors' behavior is out of place and would not bear fruit leading to improving the article...it essentially amounts to trolling and such threads should be removed on sight. I suggest ignoring Ceoil's lack of judgment.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how this report sat here for almost 24 hours before Ceoil was notified. At any rate, I was wondering why I couldn't find the thread on the talk page, and it's probably fine to remove. What I see is that Ceoil was explaining to the OP without using wiki-jargon. I had no idea what AGF meant when I first came here, and we can't assume the IP would know. Agree with Bearean Hunter, this isn't worth an "investigation". Truthkeeper (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This board is staffed by very few volunteers so sometimes things sit for awhile before anyone can go to them. As far as the AGF, that's not a reasonable criticism, as RJ not only provided a link to AGF, but expanded out the words. Gerardw (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Miszabot will clean the thread soon enough -- I think it better not to slap hats on discussions in case anyone else wishes to comment. Gerardw (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized as soon as I hit save that it was the wrong thing to do. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Activity log

Informed accused party of dispute - requested submissions before preliminary judgement is issued --Thehistorian10 (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Judgement"? There aren't any judges here, just volunteers offering suggestions. Gerardw (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive112&oldid=1142555855"