Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive53

< Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive53)

Disruptive editing (User:Mdd)

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Take this to WP:ANI. DendodgeTalkContribs 22:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is WP:DE trying to oversimplify the broader subject of software development into the narrower scope of software engineering. This user has been making huge edits that lack WP:NPOV without getting buy-in from other users. It started when the user wasn't satisfied with a template that listed software engineering as one of many disciplines related to software development. So the user gave the template a double title [1], implying that all those other disciplines fall under the category of software engineering. Considering the edit history of the software engineering article over the fairness of the classification without certification, it's hardly a neutral point of view to suggest that everything involved in software development is summed up by software engineering. When I reverted the template to what has been accepted for years on wikipedia, the user became more disruptive by replacing the template on the main article and all related articles (again without buy-in) with a template which is obviously WP:POINT. When I reverted to the original of what was accepted yet again, the user got even more disruptive by merging the software development process article that had been active for 8 years into another article, waiting only 3 hours for discussion after the merge suggestion and having no by in. The user used the excuse of wanting to show the example of what the user thought the article should be, but could have used the WP:Sandbox to make the point. The user is now edit warring.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talk • contribs)

There are really a lot of false alligations here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to register the following arguments here.
  1. I have no history of simplifying things, and the contributions I made last year don't deserve such predicate.
  2. The huge edits had nothing to do with any lack of WP:NPOV. The hugh edits was an editwar about replacing and old template with a new template
  3. Merging two articles is not perse disruptive as Neon white explains here below.
  4. Waiting only 3 hours for discussion is a lie. I gave him more then a day to respond, whjich he didn't. He simply didn't notice the message I left him.
  5. Urging someone to use WP:Sandbox after making over 40.000 edits to wikipedia and wikicommons is a heavy insult.
--Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Merging articles without consensus is an incredible attempt at WP:OWN. I would have honestly thought that Mdd had been in Wikipedia long enough to know not to do this. That said, this is NOT a civility issue, and should be addressed at WP:ANI -t BMW c- 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
That's actually incorrect, consensus is not required to merge articles. From WP:MERGE - "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument." However if a merge is likely to be controversial then a proposal/afd is a good idea to avoid confusion and reverts. Reminding Oicumayberight to assume good faith and not name drop policies out of context. --neon white talk 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the 2 articles (I wrote a series of articles on the subjects) they are related but not mergable...of course, this is content and not civility. As noted, this has already been moved to ANI by myself. -t BMW c- 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point neon white, thanks. Now Bwilkins, I think it is far from obvious that the two article are not mergable. There is hardly an other Wikipedia (at least German + Dutch) who makes this difference. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that the disruptive editing is now moved to the talk page. He appears to be suppressing my voice in the debate. He hid by archiving my previous yet settled debates here but selectively re-posted counter points that had been addressed in those debates without my replies as if there was never a response to those counterpoints or settlement. He's clearly beating a dead horse here. If he thought that the debate wasn't settled, then he shouldn't have archived it. The state of the article in the past two years has been a result of compromise and collaboration with software engineers, but he is trying to hide that fact. His latest act of suppression was to demote by two levels here a new section I created in the discussion page that was in direct response to the neutrality dispute tag that he put on the main page. It looks like he's selectively trying to hide the parts of the discussion that he finds difficult to dispute. Now he is threatening to remove content in 3 days if I don't respond in a time of only his choosing in the manner of only his choosing here. Why can't he just wait till other users respond to the neutrality dispute. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: User:Oicumayberight seems to accuse me of creating an archive on the talkpage to archive a two year old discussion, and changing the talk page lay out of a "new chapter" in a "subchapter", calling this disruptive behaviour. How more crazy can it get? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (User:Oicumayberight)

The comments Oicumayberight just made is really the other way around here. I am improving all kinds of articles and he has been referting my work for the past two days.

He doesn't consider what I am writting on the talk pages, and hardly response there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This appears to clearly be retaliatory. -t BMW c- 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there clear evidence of wikistalking here? or are just involved in the same articles or similar areas. Can you provide some diffs from unrelated articles? --neon white talk 10:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
My answer here. The editwar here had spread over different articles because we were arguing about and old and new template, which is present in over 20 articles. The matter about these two templates is resolved for now, because we agreed to keep both for the time being.
Now I wonder where you got the idea of Wikistalking? The reason I came here was because Bwilkins gave me a warning, and I checked his moves once. So I admit: have I now Wikistalked Bwilkins? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You were accusing User:Oicumayberight of reverting your edits to a number of articles? --neon white talk 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok sorry. I accuse User:Oicumayberight of a lot of things, but not wikistalking. He was just reinstalling the "old template" on several places where I had replaced it. I can accept that. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not stalking. There are plenty of good reasons for looking at another editor's contributions to see where they've been. Wikipedia:Assume good faith tells us to assume you had good reasons. There's no problem. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that Bwilkins interfered here, and asked me to restore the situation. I am however not very happy with his whole argumentation here.

  • He claims I acted as if I owned the article, but the actual situation is that Oicumayberight is acting for two years, as if he owns the article. I just came around.
  • Bwilkins conclude that my remark here "appears to clearly be retaliatory". In fact I was considering aletering or ringing some bells here for a day ore two.
  • Bwilkins claims here to be the expert (the only), because he made a series of articles there. I think he could be more thoughtfull here, writing me off as just a retaliatory discruptive user.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact I think Oicumayberight is still beeing very uncooperative. It looks like he wants to fool me. He is very politely giving all kinds of answers in the discussion we had yesterday. But he hardly is giving any real info or real facts. He seems to be stalling the situation here. Pretending to be the expert, and pretending to know for sure, that I oversimplify thinks. Now he seems to be a graphic designer with some preoccupation about software development. He keeps repeating the oversimplify argument, which brings us no closer to an other. I have tried to get some hard evidence to prove the intro he create is corrupted.
Now if this situation continues, it would be nice to have a real indepenent expert to judge this situation. In the light of my previous comments I have problems accept Bwilkins as expert here. (But I hope he can prove me wrong). So if the situations continues here, which cost me a lot of effort, can I look for an other expert to look/judge the situation? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You should avoid commenting on the person. Rather comment on his specific actions with reference to evidence in the form of "diff"s. Otherwise, outside editors cannot easily understand what you are talking about, and we may even take the view that you are attacking the other editor's character. Jehochman Talk 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You mean I should state that Oicumayberight keeps accusing me of simplifying things (Just a selection of the past two days: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), and that is why I would like an expert opinion here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was closed and moved to WP:ANI based on the fact that it was NOT a civility dispute. Please refrain from continuing an unrelated discussion in this forum. It appears that most of this discussion should have taken place on the ARTICLE talk pages long before now, then this never would have been brought forward here. -t BMW c- 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a " closed sign" or "resolved sign" here, and I can't find any reference on WP:ANI about this, so how can this discussion been moved? You message seems like a nice way to say "get lost". I followed Jehochman advice and showed that Oicumayberight keeps accusing me of (over)simplifying. He also keep (which I can show if you like) twisting the timeline around and needlessly keeps accusing me of disrubtive editing, after you gave me a (questionable) warning. Aren't these wikiquette alerts? I am sorry. I have little experience here. If you want this to stop, couldn't you simply add a close sign or find one to do so. This is my first time here, so please explain? For me indeed the saga conmtinues? Oicumayberight has newly accused me yesterday here of disrubtive behavoir. Haven't you made it your job here to at least look into that. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
See here the top of this entry [13] where the Wikiquette entry was closed and advised to move to ANI. I took the liberty to move it for you. As you decided to continue commenting here, instead of at ANI, the ANI entry was archived here [14]. None of the issues you have noted have to do with Civility. Common sense dictates that you discuss merges. If you TRY to merge without consensus, and someone disagrees, you then have a prolonged discussion in an attempt to achieve consensus either way. This is NOT a Wikiquette issue, it's common sense. -t BMW c- 15:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Masem

  Resolved
 – amongst the parties, without 3rd party intervention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This Edit accuses me of Vandalism. Masem has made no contribution to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#NotMemorial. I have requested that he review the comment both Here and later. His response was to issue a 3RR (fair enough) but without the courtesy of notifying me. I wish him to either justify his identification of Vandalism or take it back. Lucian Sunday (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, your edit was not vandalism; I mistakenly hit the wrong rollback button, so I apologize for that. However, you were approaching a 3RR violation clearly from the page history which I did warn you about (and technically you had surpassed 3RR at that point, but I gave the benefit of the doubt); You subsequently deleted the warning (implicitly acknowledging it), and then reverted WP:NOT once more after the warning, and thus necessitating the actual 3RR report. Yes, I didn't mean to call it vandalism, but your actions still had to be notified and reported. --MASEM 06:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The filing party (Lucian Sunday) requested that the subject (Masem) either justify his identification of vandalism, or to retract it. Masem formally retracted it and apologised, stating that it was a genuine accident/mistake. Despite this, the 3RR report on Lucian Sunday was legitimate. This matter is nothing more than a misunderstanding, and has been resolved amongst the parties without any third party intervention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wishuponsarah

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – AIV or 3RR, but not civility

This user has been war editing the article Physician. He/She neither adds to the discussion/talk page nor cites/sources any of their edits. They have been repetitively vandalizing. Many other users have warned him/her before. Wishuponsarah has been simply blanking the warnings off of their talk page and has continued to edit war and vandalize. Please help us control this user. Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of warnings of your personal Talk page is tacit acceptance of the warning. If it's true vandalism, report them at WP:AIV. If it's 3RR, visit WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR -t BMW c- 11:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Causteau Policy interpretation. What constitutes a justification to revert edits, and what constitutes an edit war

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Visit WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR as mentioned by complainant already

This discussion pretty much defines the differences of opinion needing comment. For anyone thinking that the discussion is going ahead and therefore needing no help, please look at the rapidly expanding archives for the discussion page of the E1b1b article, since this editor started to monitor it only a few months ago, which shows that this type of policy misunderstanding (well, that's my opinion) keeps coming up but never gets resolved. (From the occasional brief glance at this editor's work in other parts of Wikipedia, similar problems occur elsewhere. His own talkpage is also quickly building up archives, containing frequent accusations of edit warring and the same typical responses showing that this editor believes when he reverts edits, it is actually he who is most closely following Wikipedia guidelines.) There are on-going problems editing the article in a normal way. Changes of existing edits are being reverted, so the only way to get in new material is to add text which often covers similar ground to older edits. The article quality must therefore get worse over time. On the few occasions when third parties have entered discussion there has often been some improvement in the situation, and having more third party involvement seems the most promising way to get a more constructive situation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute to me and not an issue for Wikiquette alerts. Follow the steps at Dispute resolution --neon white talk 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
No, an editor who claims that they can revert as much as they want so long as it is to keep a reliably sourced statement in an article, and that such behaviour cannot constitute an edit war represents a problem. Admittedly it's not exactly a civility issue, but it's definitely not a content dispute, either. Note that Causteau is not joking or just expressing themselves ambiguously; they have just been warned for 4 consecutive full reverts on The Jerusalem Post, and this was not their first edit war. The following was part of their justification: "And WP:3RR does not apply to re-inserting material from reliable sources -- that is how Wikipedia functions: on verifiability!" [15]
The quotation is from the ANI thread that I started on this editor (see archive). I hoped that an admin would explain very clearly that this is not how Wikipedia functions. Instead an admin with a (long past, I believe) history of edit-warring on related articles decided to treat Causteau and me symmetrically, which Causteau apparently took as confirmation that their interpretation of policy is sound.
In my opinion it would be the duty of Khoikhoi and Elonka to give some explanations to this editor (Andrew and I are obviously not taken seriously by Causteau), but they simply didn't respond when I asked them to do that. Causteau apparently believes that these two admins are backing them.
Moreover, as to civility, Causteau's bizarre and over the top accusations of policy violations against everybody who disagrees with them, often repeated almost literally several times in one thread, his extreme condescension, and all this while misunderstanding policy very fundamentally, are definitely a severe civility issue. For evidence of this, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive172#Synthesis,_editorializing, and abuse of primary sources and Talk:Press TV, as well as the continuation at Talk:The Jerusalem Post.
A general problem pattern seems to be that this editor never lets anyone know if/when they realise that they made a mistake. It's totally unnerving if you have to deal with someone who tries to edit-war in a statement from 2000 that purports to contradict that an event in 2004 happened. If this editor subsequently does not admit that they made a mistake, there is no basis for collaboration.
I have been somewhat active at WQA in the past, and I believe this is a good place to deal with this situation. The alternative would be for Andrew and me to just report the editor for their next 3RR violations until their block log is so long that we are taken seriously. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

-

This is definitely not a content dispute., but this misunderstanding is understandable. The passage I have selected as a reference is a pure and simple discussion about policy, at least until very late in the discussion. Have a look at that aspect and please be careful not to give up too early. Just comment on those policy discussions if you want.
I can understand why other Wikipedians tend to assume, perhaps want to assume, that such cases are something technical that they can't follow. That happens a lot with this particular editor, but I think that anyone who has ever edited an article together with Causteau knows that all these problems come from his understanding of policy. It very rarely has anything at all to do with a disagreement about actual facts. He often defends my old edits from my attempts to change them for example, on the basis of his interpretation of rules, so he says.
Indeed, the problem has perhaps been worsened by the fact that the actions of some admins (not only in the article I work on) have seemed to take his side - at least by his own interpretation. This is now a problem which repeats. Just being nice to each other and trying to talk things out on the talk pages has failed repeatedly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Following are direct quotes from the key part of a policy discussion which I (and apparently others) believe represent the core of a constantly repeating problem in articles where this editor, possibly with good intentions, is working in recent months. These particular comments about Wikipedia policy concerning reverting and bad faith versus good faith came out of a discussion about whether the word "common" could best be replaced with a more exact and detailed description. In other words, the "reliably sourced material" which caused such heavy debate, is one word, which is only being accused of vagueness. There was no dispute about facts. Nevertheless the core of the position against adjusting the text was only that the if anyone removed the word, it would be according to Wikipedia policy that such an edit should be reverted "in no time", simply because the word "common" (like many other words) can be found in a scientific article, and is therefore properly sourced. Believe it or not, this is a typical debate for anyone trying to co-edit an article with Causteau, and the types of reverts being threatened in this discussion happen constantly. The normal reaction of most editors is to avoid editing those articles. I agree with Hans Adler that the problem has been oddly exacerbated by some admin comments which Causteau understands to be supporting of his position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source ... from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

...it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase [using, in particular] the very word the study itself uses! Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

...this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst there does seem to be etiquette issues in the debate, i still maintain that this is down to a content dispute and could be solved using dispute resolution. Third opinions and rfcs will often provide editors with correct interpretations of guidelines and policies leading to a consensus. Saying that the user needs reminding about AGF no personal attacks and edit waring --neon white talk 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You've already provided the solution: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. From my view, the original NWQA tag was correct. -t BMW c- 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
On account of the user having now taken his personal attacks to the 3RR board, i have issused a final warning about personal attacks and civility. --neon white talk 13:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I find this a bit confusing. On the 3RR board the same Wikipedian has said that this should not be handled as a 3RR case. There is clearly a problem that needs handling, whatever the correct way is. The editor involved has openly stated his own "policy" (quoted above) which is in conflict with Wikipedia norms and is tantamount to an open threat to start an edit war whenever anyone tries to edit. I just would like, if at all possible, to be "allowed" to try to make an article better and not to be reverted by someone who reverts without seeing any need to discuss the case, read what is being reverted carefully, or compromise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Update. First in case it is not clear, the 3RR report, which was accepted, concerned other edits - examples of what can come from a more general problem which I had proposed was a Wikiquette problem, perhaps. In short, this Wikiquette report, which seems to be something knows what to do with concerns the same editor's own explanations about how he interprets Wikipedia policy as forcing him to revert, sometimes within seconds of an edit, anything that has been sourced from a verifiable source, including minor grammatical words which are being replaced with words which are equally well sourced. I would think based on previous experience with other policies and admin statements that this editor interpreted in favor of giving him rights to revert without consideration, that if someone not involved in editing with him would explain the error, this would help greatly. Now here is a new post from the same article discussion page, justifying reverts, done within seconds, of three different edits: [16], [17] etc. So the problem is not finished.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

New 3RR report. Reason for also continuing to post here is that the edit warring is a symptom of a Wikiquette problem that goes down to policy understanding and/or abuse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil and vitriolic "Angry Mastodon": User:Nukes4Tots

This guy is out of control and needs a breather, if not more significant admonitions from Administrators. See his user page for how he responds to other editors. He reverts comments from his talk pages in an attempt to supress the reproach from other editors who seem to give a damn about civility here. As you will see, he's been blocked before. I'm not the only one. Critical Chris (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 09:31, October 25, 2008 Nukes4Tots (Talk | contribs) (29,126 bytes) (rv: Go fuck yourself with this condescending bullshit. If you're right, Source it.. If not, shut the fuck up.) (undo)

See the discussion here: Talk:B-2_Spirit#Conspiracy_theories and more of his vitriol here: User_talk:Nukes4Tots

Edit comment in question was on my talk page on which Critical Chris posted a duplication of his comment on the B-2 talk page that can be seen here: [18] This was outright condescending and is an escalation of CC's attempt to get a conspiracy theory posted on the B-2 talk page. I freely admit to cussing on a edit comment on my own talk page in response to a spam post. CC is not editing in good faith and his post was tantamount to trolling. Sorry for feeding the trolls. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Also note his testy edit comment (on which my comment was based): [19]. "Add this to your rap sheet guy, you're getting quite the name for yourself aren't you?" Critical Chris is posting this as if my comments came out of nowhere. This is not the case. Further, he calls me a "Mastadon." Is this not also a personal attack? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, "Mastodon" was not intended as an insult and is a technical reference to: Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons. Before placing this noticeboard posting here, and only after further escalation of uncivility on his part, I warned him already on both the B-2 Spirit talk page, and his personal talk page, which he promptly reverted. I've repasted the text below for reference purposes. I've tried to assure him, this is not a fruitful road and to please consider taking a break and bring himself back to the table when he's ready to edit collaboratively and collectively with other editors.Critical Chris (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC) From your reverted talk page: "Your flippant attitude on B-2 Spirit talk page:" "Looks like you've got quite the rap sheet here on your userpage guy. From the B-2 Spirit talk page: "I'd be remiss If I didn't remind you to WATCH IT! and be careful with your handling of others edits, and of your regard for the contributions of other editors. There are a variety of other editors on here, some newcomers, and you poor attitude which apparently compels you to make thoughtless comments such as "you're wasting server space with this discussion," can only serve to marginalize the collaborative editing process. Keep it up and you'll end up on WP:WQA and other noticeboards. I suggest you take a breather and return to the article when you are in a better frame of mind."Critical Chris (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Then you come back with this: (cur) (last) 09:31, October 25, 2008 Nukes4Tots (Talk | contribs) (29,126 bytes) (rv: Go fuck yourself with this condescending bullshit. If you're right, Source it.. If not, shut the fuck up.) (undo)

BTW, I'm not attempting to post any so-called "conspiracy theory." I did attempt to offer encouragement to other editors who have complained of their edits being reverted. All of my edits are in good faith, I'm not "trolling" or "patrolling" which, in my opinion, is a complete psychological projection on his part (the pot calling the kettle black if you will). The "spam" to which he refers is my repost of Wikipepia guidelines that I recommended he read, which I felt could genuinely help him to become more civil and constructive here. A careful examination of his user talk page history and edits will conclusively show that Nukes4Tots has a history of incivility and disregard for the spirit of collaborative editing, manifold Wikipedia policies, and basic common courtesy and ettiquite. LOOK AT HIS TALK PAGE HISTORY, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. I'm a bit concerned at this point that if he is left unchecked to his own devices and inclinations, this will have a chilling effect on many other editors' and their willingness to make meaningful contributions on Wikipedia. Nukes4Tots --will-- continue his anti-social behavior with other editors. It seems the only thing "Nukes4Tots" understands is a shot across the bow. It's time to draw the saber and put him in his place. In the interests of civility and a better Wikipedia, we cannot let this BULLY! run rampant as he has telling many others in the future to "shut the fuck up" and stop "wasting server space" making sarcastic comments about "Yiddish BLOG entries," etc. I'm mean really? Is this what you want Wikipedia to digress into?Critical Chris (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, it seems like User:Nukes4Tots, looking at his contributions, the user can use a lesson and etiquette and to assume good faith. His edit summaries leave a lot to be desired, and so does what he says in the various talk pages. ThePointblank (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)

  Stuck
 – Pattern of problematic comments - needs to move onto RFC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I made these edits and reverts to Bigfoot per WP:NPOV. I'm fairly consistent in editing out weasel words regarding scientific analysis of fringe theories. I placed the following warning, after observing that other longstanding editors have warned Sean7phil of the same issues in the past. It appeared that WP:DTTR may or may not apply, but that is not germane to this discussion. Ludwigs2, who has been blocked several times for uncivil and other comments, decided to comment to my warning here, a wholly inappropriate comment. My point was not to WP:BAIT. In fact, Ludwigs2 has had no edits to Bigfoot, and was stalking me to the article and to my warning. I would ask that he be blocked for the uncivil comments for an extended period time, befitting his continued attacks on various editors and his past block history. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Not much point coming here if you want a block - that's usually done at ANI. I hope you'll have diffs of the 'continued attacks on various editors', whether you decide to take it there or keep it here. Someone else is probably going to have to deal with this complaint, as I'm off for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right, the block comment will be taken up if Ludwigs does not adhere to warnings. He's been "hounding" me across various articles, and I honestly don't read his edits too carefully, but I know he's been blocked previously for his activities, so I assume he's not played so nice with other editors. I don't intend to review his edits, except in the cases where his edits cross paths with mine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The edit concerned certainly bears a remarkable resemblance to this failure to assume good faith which was noted as a way of creating new disputes rather than resolving disputes. Ludwigs does not seem to have taken the good advice to heart, or has quickly forgotten it. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I thought OrangeMarlin's original warning was perhaps a level too high, judging solely by the diff provided, but considering the history of User Talk:Sean7phil, it seems to be about right. Bearing that in mind, I do think that Ludwigs2's response was inappropriate. Taking Dave souza's prior WQA links into consideration, it seems that Ludwigs2 is under the misconception that warning messages should be judged on the status of who made them (not something I've ever seen codified in policy). This is complicated by Ludwigs2's prior history with OrangeMarlin, of course, but even so it does seem that Ludwigs2 is prone to assuming bad faith when he sees a warning message. As to how to proceed with this concern, I'm not sure. A request for comment might be appropriate, assuming that editors have attempted to resolve this issue with Ludwigs2. I'd like to see what other editors have to say on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig's behavior really does seem to amount to nothing more than stalking of OM to try to further disputes. I'm not sure if it is blockable but it is very close. This sort of behavior just isn't acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to phase out the user of the term "stalking", as it is a word that has a specific legal meaning in criminal law. As a replacement, try hounding. I agree that Ludwig2 is out of line, and note that Ludwig2 has been a proponent of unbanning User:Jagz,[20][21][22] which might be somehow related to this. I do think that Ludwig2 has been hounding OrangeMarlin as part of a larger wikipolitical conflict. Ludwig2, would you be willing to stop commenting on OrangeMarlin's activities related to issues where you had no prior involvement? Jehochman Talk 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Was not aware of that name change. JZ's internal vocab is now updated. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Also was not aware of that term change. is that mentioned somewhere "officially"? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Come on folks. Where have you been? WP:HARASS was just updated this morning. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
By you, Jehochman. You changed the policy, then engaged in discussion at the talkpage, and are now browbeating people for not being aware of the page? (sigh) --Elonka 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that good natured sarcasm is wasted on some... Shot info (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm really not sure what the issue here is. I have Orangemarlin's talk page on my watchlist (per previous communications with him). I saw shawn7phil's rather angry comment here (now deleted), and I thought it would be advisable to suggest that shawn calm down and take a longer view of things. telling Shawn that OM is not an administrator is not problematic (OM isn't, and Shawn did not seem to be aware of that fact). the second suggestion could have been phrased better - I apologize if that caused any offense - but still, my intent was to get Shawn to stop being angry about the issue and find a more productive approach. wp:BAIT has very good advice in that regard, whether or not BAITing is actually occurring.

That being said, let me point out that I've asked OM a number of times if he would like to sit down and work out whatever personal issue is going on between us (on his talk page [23], on mine [24] and on the page of at least one admin [25] - I can dig up a couple of other places if you like), because it's obvious to me that this is mostly just a bad case of interpersonal friction. he has to date refused to do that, for whatever reason, but since he's opened this wikiquette, I'll happily renew the offer. this would be an excellent forum for that. so let's clear the air. OM do you want to start? --Ludwigs2 21:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(P.s. to SHEFFIELD) no, I don't think warnings should vary according to the person giving them (since warnings are supposed to be from the community as a whole) but I did want Shawn to understand that OM himself had no power to block. was that unreasonable? --Ludwigs2 21:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on that topic are pretty well summed up here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
yeah, you're right. and on rereading, my original comment was a bit snappier than I'd meant it to be. well, let's hope OM and I can work this out here and now. --Ludwigs2 22:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, guess I'll start...
Jehochman - I've given your proposal some thought, and as it stands I'd prefer to resolve the personal issues that underlie the problem rather than resort to making voluntary restrictions on my editing freedoms. however, I might consider such (as a last resort) on the condition that Orangemarlin promises the following:
  1. That he will not tell people they will be blocked or banned in any way that might lead others to assume he can and will do that himself. Statements like that, given in the middle of a content disputes, are unnecessarily threatening to newbies who don't know wikipedia's structure, and will lead them to a very bad misconception about the way wikipedia works (since they would assume that they could be blocked simply because someone disagrees with them). this would not apply to the use of warning templates, but would apply to edit summaries as well as regular talk areas.
  2. that he will refrain from using 'POV-pusher', 'uncivil', or any other terms that are generally considered to be mildly insulting, and refrain from implying them by linking essays such as wp:civil POV-pusher and wp:DNFTT that might also cause offense. of course, he would be free to say whatever he liked on user talk pages or administrative pages such as wikiquette, ANI, or ArbCom, but he would have to agree to keep them out of article talk pages, edit summaries, project discussions, and any other area that's supposed to be for the development of the encyclopedia.
  3. that he refrain from making reverts on any page where he is not willing engage in talk page discussion towards finding a consensus. that would not apply to vandalism, and with clear violations of policy the talk page discussion might be little more than a terse explanation of why the edit violated policy. but - generally speaking - making reverts without discussion simply encourages other editors to respond in turn (particularly newbies, who might think that's the way wikipedia is supposed to work), and that will just lead to edit wars.
all these strike me as eminently sensible and civil behaviors regardless, so I don't think any of them would be a great hardship. In turn, I will listen to whatever restrictions he'd like me to volunteer to make, and if they're reasonable we can strike a deal. I'd still prefer to resolve our personal differences without this kind of thing, but... --Ludwigs2 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, just a note...I'm sure you already know, but most warning templates RIGHTLY warn people that what they have done could cause them to be blocked, and ANY user has the right to do so. Any user also has the right to disengage when needed. Any user also has the right to call a spade a "spade", if it fits...-t BMW c- 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm ignoring Ludwigs' comments, since this is about him and his uncivil behavior. He's been rightly warned by everyone, and I'll request a block if he persists in his uncivil behavior. Otherwise, my request has been adequately reviewed, Ludwigs has been adequately warned, so I think we can mark this thread as resolved. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
BMW - yes, I know that. you'll note that I made an exception to template usage in my comments. I was actually thinking of OM's tendency to tell people authoritatively 'you will be blocked'. but, as it is...
OM, you can ignore anything you like - that's your privilege - but please note that I have been making good faith efforts to resolve this problem. Wikiquette is not a mechanism for warning people, it's a system for resolving disputes between people; since you refuse to help me resolve this dispute, I can rightly say that this is entirely your problem, and has little or nothing to do with me. If you don't want to settle this now, fine, but I will make sure that any administrator who contacts me about future issues is informed that you have refused to participate in any proposed solution, and thus you are clearly harassing me out of some petty, irrational grudge.
I have no interest in playing games with you, OM, and I will make what efforts I can to treat you civilly and fairly, even if you insist on nursing whatever bad feelings you have towards me. but I am not about to take responsibility for something that is apparently happening entirely inside your head. your choice; your responsibility. are we clear? --Ludwigs2 02:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It's common for newbies, even experienced users to threaten with blocks where they believe a user is violating basic policy. It doesn't mean that the user can necessarily enforce blocks themselves, or that blocks will be enforced at all. The same applies for those sorts of terms where they think that someone is a problem editor. I expect all users to adhere to the point outlined in #3, because if they don't, they can end up blocked.
Ludwig2, I'd certainly be one of the first to let OM know if I thought he was conduct was out of line, however, if OM brought up a valid concern like this in the future, I wouldn't consider it a form of harassment by a long shot, nor is it something that is confined to his head, nor do I see it as an attempt to play games with you. Given your emphasis has been on suggesting just that, I don't think the warning has gotten through to you and I'm marking this as stuck.
At least 3 administrators on this occasion have found your comments to be inappropriate, and I agree with their assessment. Further, this is not the first occasion - you'd made inappropriate comments in a previous WQA quite recently as pointed out by dave, and subsequently made another problematic comment after the WQA was closed. When a pattern like this emerges, that's precisely when I'd encourage users to open conduct RFCs. If OM hadn't asked for a block, I'd have told him in my initial comment to go straight to RFC/U, because the desired outcome wouldn't include the word 'block'. Given the exceptionally short lapse of time between the incident dave pointed to, and this one, I still think it's appropriate to open an RFC/U. If it's come to that stage, you really should rethink your approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist - I have no problem with rethinking my approach, and I'm happy to admit that my comment was excessive. however, that doesn't really get at the deeper issue here. OM is constantly angling to get me blocked, I keep trying to discuss the matter with him, and he keeps refusing. an afternoon's worth of discussion would clear the issue up nicely if he'd only participate in the process. I really don't want a hostile environment where another editor is always trying to get me in trouble in one way or another. If he wants to open an RFC/U then so be it, I'll participate and accept whatever the result is, but it strikes me as odd that we'd want to place bureaucracy ahead of simple conversation that way.
I mean, I honestly don't even know what his issue with me is. maybe you can discuss the matter with him off-wiki and let me know? I'm open to all sorts of possibilities, but I just don't even know what's going on. --Ludwigs2 05:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Once again, this report is regarding your behavior patterns. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) I disagree OM...using the ABC model (see my userpage), an antecedent causes a behaviour, leading to a consequence. You have to track back to the antecedent. -t BMW c- 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yup... and then the consequence is debated endlessly and fitfully... :) Sorry, couldn't resist. MastCell Talk 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
lol - MC, all I can say to that is 'geewhiz...'   --Ludwigs2 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

←Amusing as all of this is, I will take up the recommendation for an RFC/U. Though these comments are humorous to an extent, Ludwigs' response belies a behavior that there are no consequences to his uncivil attacks on me. He has ignored all warnings, engaged in tendentious blaming of others for his behavior, and he now shows a lack of respect for what was written here because he can join in the humor. Well that stops now. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So - again - you don't want to talk about the issue, you just want to find an administrative means of getting me in trouble. that strikes me as being against the spirit of Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy... well, please notify me when you decide to do whatever it is you're going to do. --Ludwigs2 03:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okayfine. If it's appropriate for me to ask, I'd like an administrator to formally request that Orangemarlin sit down and discuss this issue here in this wikiquette. if it's not appropriate, or Orangemarlin refuses to do so, then I'd like to ask that this discussion be closed as RESOLVED and/or UNFOUNDED, with a note that OM has (apparently) declined to pursue the issue. I see no reason for this thread to remain open (indeed, I see no reason for it to have been begun in the first place) if OM has no interest in pursuing a resolution. --Ludwigs2 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Difficulties with 85.82.179.226 (talk · contribs)

  Resolved

-t BMW c- 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

After removing a comment an anonymous user (85.82.179.226) had made on a discussion page, which seemed at the time to be forum talk, I received the following on my talk page:

(Diff:[26])

After looking at his comment that I removed, I decided that I probably shouldn't have deleted it, and decided to offer an apology. But he responded:

(Diff:[27])

I don't know what to do, exactly -- I think I'll just ignore him if he flames me again. I'm not sure where exactly the right place to report this stuff is, so please forgive me if I am posting it in the wrong area. Regards, ♪TempoDiValse♪ 21:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right place and right time! Just as a heads up, please use diffs as recommended in the instructions for this page. I have warned the IP user on their talk page. Please also ensure that you notify the other party when a WQA event is filed so that they have an opportunity to reply, and even so that they know there's a problem. -t BMW c- 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks -- I have provided the diffs. I was hesitant about warning him because I didn't want to get flamed again -- even though that wouldn't really be such a big deal. Thanks again! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, nobody expects the Spanish Inqusition -t BMW c- 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
My response was an attempt humor, it was not intended to offend you. On the contrary, I appreciated your apology, especially given my language, and that was all I meant with the response. I know the original comment on your talk page was harsh and bordering to the unacceptable, but I was just becoming so fed up with the behavior and attitude of know-it-all Wikipedia editors in general and my fuse finally blew when someone, namely you, had removed an article talk page comment of mine and reprimanded me for "forum chat"! If my response was over the top, I apologize, but I honestly think the attitude and discussion climate on Wikipedia is extremely poor and that really frustrates me, given how often the site is used as a source of authority. Anyway, that's no reason to take it all out on you and I apologize once more. --85.82.179.226 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
(if I ever told my Editor that I used Wikipedia as a "source of authority" he'd fire me. It's a good place to start research, and the references/links from any article are more the authorities, which is why we insist on them) -t BMW c- 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about work, but about how its used as a reference in general in e.g. polical discussions. --85.82.179.226 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
And its worth pointing out, anon, that if you dislike the "discussion climate" in Wikipedia, decide instead to shine out as someone who doesn't allow their "fuse to blow". Trust me when I say I know of what I speak. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I hope you do because I have no idea. --85.82.179.226 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, allow me to use small words, then: when you see mean words being added by mean people, do not add your own mean words, because it makes everyone mad, and makes it harder for people to be nice. Also, your milk and cookies will be taken away, and you sent to sit in the corner.
Clear enough, now? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 (talk · contribs)

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – has been moved to WP:ANI

Tired of these type of comments from this user here, here, here, and here. I'm concerned about these accusations that lack WP:AGF. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OM ... you've been around WP so long, I'm surprised you have used WQA :-) I left something short of a template on Firefly's talkpage, simply because I felt with the general atmosphere (and the fact that I have run into them before somewhere) that something more "personal" may help. I would ask that you remember to advise the other party in future situations so that they have a chance to reply, and to understand that their actions have been in appropriate. -t BMW c- 23:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes I have been around way too long, and I'm making use of this section because it fits my needs. Otherwise, I'll say something rude to them. And I merely forgot to inform the other party. Real life interposed itself on me. Damn phone calls from customers, sales reps, vendors, banks, and Obama/McCain.  :) And seriously, a canned call from Obama did interrupt my train of thought. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing my fancy schmancy template on your page LOL. Hope the light warning I gave does the job. -t BMW c- 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

←Additional concerns here and here. Quite possibly this needs to be elevated. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments noted. Hopefully my reply, and a good night's sleep will assist in the situation. -t BMW c- 10:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, you missed this one, which also targets you. I left a note at Firefly322's talkpage, which is how I noticed this WQA. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is a link to a previous Wikiquette alerts discussion concerning similar behaviour from this user. Verbal chat 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you expect from someone who considers it their "civil duty" to attack other editors? I've found interaction with this editor to be an unpleasant exercise involving constant off-topic personal accusations of various forms of dishonesty, and this is apparently not an isolated impression. I'd suggest shunning, unless/until a more content-focused, collaborative approach is substituted, but perhaps I got up on the wrong side of the bed today. MastCell Talk 18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment User should first be given a brush to sweep up all the policy names that he/she seems to drop everywhere. Well actually most are just random essays of no consequence at all but still better explaination would help. There's an isssue of wikilawyering there. Recommend the user be reminded to assume good faith and not consider afd nominations as a personal insult. See if the behaviour improves. --neon white talk 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment His statements on his talk page state he follows the policy on good faith, but in the next sentence, he then paints editors and admins as being "parasitic", and "hollow on the inside". I think he has the best intentions, but he comes about it in an manner that is totally rude and offensive. I would have an admin give him a very stern warning to assume good faith, and see if situation improves. ThePointblank (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that someone mentor the lad/lass. They are clearly not some bumpy anon right off the bus from CrazyTown, so they might have something to add. If Firefly won't accept mentoring to help him focus his attentions on article quality (and away from editors), I say that Orange Marlin might be correct in that the matter might need to elevation to AN/I (though that should be a last resort). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
OR is acting as a WP:TROLL. At least 5 AFD's in the past week confirm this. He or she is making aggressive value judgements against my contributions per the troll guidelines. I also believe that wikiquette is being abused in the same way that C.S. Lewis felt that his Oxbridge world was being abused by niceness creep (i.e., the N.I.C.E. organization in his 1947 book That Hideous Strength.) (Two of these AFD's closed as WP:SNOW: [28] and [29], two AFD's closing per WP:SNOW is a clear indication of WP:TE.). --Firefly322 (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, your points are going to be better served if you take the time to offer the same level of good faith that you are requesting. While they are piddling examples, you needn't wikilink every name, term and wiki policy/guideline, and certainly not every time - it implies a need to show that you know from whence you speak (that can be done through what you say, not your name-dropping) as well as an assumption that we are somehow unaware of them. I can assure you, we are.
Another thing to remember about Wikipedia is that, while editing here, you will not be the smartest person doing so. Ever. Allow me to repeat that: ever. It bears repeating because its more beneficial to work with other people, who often have direct or ancillary knowledge greater than yours. I've interacted with OrangeMarlin before, and he can be an annoying fellow that you want to slap with a trout until your arm falls off, but there is no value whatsoever with calling him a troll repeatedly. Maybe he is targeting your article creations. If you really think so, ask an uninvolved admin to weigh in, and get their take. Any merit your accusation has is whittled away by your unwillingness to engage sociably with your fellow editors, or resistance to using the process in place for precisely these sorts of problems. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Manipulation and Editing Control: Alastairward (talk · contribs)

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Since nobody has been kind enough to lay out the breach of etiquette that I'm accused of, I'll suggest that it has to do with my edits of the South Park articles The China Probrem and Pandemic (South Park)‎.

I have been removing OR and speculation from all the South Park episode articles but recently a few users have taken extreme exception to my edits (including the one who left this note here). An Admin (Nightscream) has already addressed the issue on my talk page but the abuse seems to keep coming from the editors who objected to my edits. Alastairward (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue warnings about personal attacks and remind users to discuss edits on the talk and use dispute resolution if necessary. You are correct to remove original research from articles. I'd also remind editors about verifiability, self published sources and original research not being acceptable. If anything User:Alastairward should be given a barnstar for working to improve these articles. However be careful not to get involved with an edit war, i'd post a rfc and therefore gain a consensus and effectively end the dispute. --neon white talk 12:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Original Research is indeed not preferable for articles. It should always be avoided. Also, sections that are called "Cultural References" are a breeding ground for absurd facts or opinions. I don't think I'm the only one who is often annoyed by the stupid "this camera angle in that scene is also used in this or that manga, only different." Unfotunately, Alastairward keeps removing sourced "cultural references" too. Even when those sources are non-user-editable, like a newspaper website. This is well-demonstrated in his (our) treatment of The China Probrem. I do have to say that Alastairward is always polite, but he is also obstinate in his opposition of Cultural References, even of valid ones. I would like to refer to this section: Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles#What_this_guideline_is_not. Stijndon (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a matter of preference, it's clearly stated in policy Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. Wikipedia is also based on verfiable sources, blogs, forums, wikis and fan sites are not verifiable. I have reviews the edited made and the websites used were very debatable as reliable sources. The citations removed were not newspapers. Remember anyone can create a website, info needs to be backed up by reliable second party sources. You both need to cease edit warring on this article and use the talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard if the debate is the reliability of sources. Alastairward's edits seem to be in good faith so i fail to see an etiquette issue here. It's a content dispute use the dispute resolution. From the debate on your talk page it seems that you are not get completely familiar with the principle of original research so a read of WP:NOR is recommended. --neon white talk 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not the lack of cites as much as his attitude towards removing them and the users posting. Several cultural reference sections have been cited, only for him to remove them with a snide remark blatantly breaking WP:CIVIL. Look at his history closer, and you'll see what I'm talking about, most notably on the china probrem. He has caused numerous editing wars by removing both the much-loved sections and their valid references and needs to be stopped (an admin telling him to stop was apparently not enough). He loves to slap guidelines in our faces, but he obviously does not follow his own links because others have pointed out policy pages he continuously breaks, and it needs to stop. I got a little steamed at him (his snide remarks are a primary cause, the edits are OK if they follow policy) and recently had an admin tell me to cool it, but he is no better in his remarks back to us in the talk pages discussing the editing wars he causes, and in his edit summaries (e.g. "Yawn, ...", etc.). Either way it needs to stop so we can all get on with our lives since we have better things to do. I'm all for improving WP, but the cultural references sections are one of my favorite reasons for reading a WP article on a SP episode recently aired (or re-ran), and if removing them was not bad enough, removing them when they have cites (on every single episode article), which do indeed keep them from breaking OR (although the remover in this case breaks WP:CIVIL in the edit) is enough to make me and others stop reading them altogether, and my survey results reflected that. As one user put it: "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, looks like a duck and everyone knows its a duck, its not a duck until Matt or Trey explicitly say so somewhere other than the actual episode", and that to me sums up this whole situation, only it does not mention a snide user removing references to the duck to everyone on Wikipedia's dismay. I am certainly only one of many on this side, and while numbers don't help correct WP policy breakage, it does mean something as one of SP's biggest draw is its cultural parody, and leaving that out of a WP article on an episode is like removing any mention of Microsoft vs. Apple/Microsoft vs. fill-in-the-blank from Microsoft's page because Microsoft.com does not ever acknowledge their existence. For the best of WP and its SP articles, leave the references in, (especially those with borderline un-needed cites due to blatancy), as any true SP fan/knowledge seeker would really want them there, and without a popular demand Wikimedia and Wikipedia would not even be here at all.Another-anomaly (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


In response to Neon white, the problem that Alastairward failed to mention is that he is completely removing cited sections such as Episode Continuity and Cultural References in various articles. Stated by Alastairward himself in the discussion of The China Probrem on October 19th, 2008, "Wikipedia is editable by all, nobody owns an article". This was in response to my repsonse that he removed an early version of the cited section. At that point, the section was not cited and, although it was true, I was aware that the information was not cited and therefore he was right to say that. However, I included the section again with a new title and sources to prove the facts. The websites provided a full video of the episodes I mentioned and according to Wikipedia, having a video depicting the episode in the website used as a source was verifiable for Wikipedia Standards. I provided 3 sources, all websites to the videos of the episodes i mentioned, and yet again, Alastairward removed it without any explanation before he did so and if he did state his resons TO DO SO, and we discussed a compromise, as one is suppose to, then we would have both seen reasoning for a compromise of the situation. However, he stated his reasoning afterwards and I suspect that he disabled the undoing of edits. If it was him who disabled that, it must be a clear violation. However, it is important to know who disabled that action, who removed the references for the entire article, why Alastairward is allowed to completely remove cited sources and whole sections, and why he is/was being hypocritical about including Cultural References, a section that he and Stijndon formed a compromise about and included it in the article of The China Probrem. If he was able to form a compromise of that, why is he unwilling to make a compromise of Episode Continuity; a section that I included after taking the neccesary time to include references that verified the information I provided and added to the list of references, supported the facts I stated, just for him to completely remove the section. How is that legal under Wikipedia standards? I would very much appreciate your response to this matter and I thank Anthony and Stijndon for their testimony to this matter. --J miester25 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange to see such polite conversation from J miester25 and Another-anomaly, a change from the tirade of abuse and the open hounding they've demonstrated towards me recently. What I've said all along is that simply citing any old blog or fan site and saying "there cited", is not adequate. That's why I moved the speculation on so many South Park pages to the talk pages for discussion. Doing so has kept the main article clean and allowed cites to be dug up on the talk pages (which has proved successful so far.) J miester25, Another-anomaly and Stijndon have all worked against that, simply saying that cites are there and reverting my edits (or simply reverting without an edit reason), with J miester25 and Another-anomaly going further. They've left abuse on my talk page and the talk pages of other articles and tracked down old South Park related edits on other talk pages going back weeks or months to hound me there too. Would they mind explaining that to me here? Alastairward (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange to see you editing something correctly without a snide yawn or other sarcastic/uncivil remark.
In the discussion page of The China Probrem, under the secion Trivia is incorrect, I included my reasoning to edit a section that explained the continuity of the moral used in the show. The original section, that i edited, did not include references. Since that did not include references and probably was shadowed by the first reference at that time, which was South Park Studios, I did not see it a violation to edit that without a source. The section that I fixed was removed because Wikipedia does not support Trivia sections as being reliable, as mentioned by Alastairward. I saw his reasoning, and therefore changed the section title to Episode Continuity, as it really is, and provided 3 sources supporting the information that i provided. Meanwhile, I noticed that under the discussion section of Trivia is Incorrect, i noticed that several other users took offense to the complete removal of the Trivia section i provided. So, I figured that the NEW section i included with references would solve the problem and the hostile text that users provided against Alastairward. Even when i provided the section with the references, AGAIN, he removed the section and asked why it should be continuity, as he did not see how it was as any sort. I was willing to provied my reasoning and show that the references I provided proved that it was by having him watch the excerpts of the videos that i provided in the references, but before i was able to do this, the section was removed. What Alastairward should have done was ask for reasoning before he removed and mark the section for discussion. He did not do any of this and removed it anyways. I think that it is a clear violation to remove the work of others that have been cited just because it is not what he agrees with. A section/article should not be bias and based on his opinions. As he has stated before, "Nobody owns an article." He has completey gone against what he stated and although he claims that he moved the speculation to the talk pages for discussion, he has also removed the cited facts. South Park Studios is not a blog or fan site. It is where the raw data of South Park Episode articles come from. The only reason why the unediting is a success is because either he or an admin has disabled the action to do so. Anthony, Stijndon, and I are not upset over the removal of uncited information, we are upset over complete removal of cited information that adds more insite to the article. If a section is cited with factual evidence to verify the information to add more to an article, a single user does not have the right to remove it. He does however, have the right to discuss it. If the section does not include references, the section does have the potential to be deleted. Since this is the other case, Alastairward does not have the right to completely remove facts from an article. I apologize for the hostile messages I exchanged with Alastairward and I did so for his stubbornness and his unwillingness to resolve this issue. I am offering a compromise to this situation so that Anthony, Stijndon, Alastairward, and I are happy. I would like the information included and i would like a REVISED title to the section. I would also like the references included in the section so that it is verifiable information that i added before that was removed. I would appreciate if Alastairward would not remove CITED INFORMATION blately just because his opinion does not match the information. If he doesnot agree with the information, he should bring the topic forward ONLY in the Talk Page so that a compromise can be resolved from the issue and marked the field in the article to be Under Construction so readers know the information provided is true, but that it will be tweaked in the near future. --J miester25 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
We can discuss the article on it's own talk page, this page is to be used to discuss my apparent lack of wikiquette, which you have failed to provide evidence for. When I get time, I can list all the edits you and Another-anomaly have made to hound me and throw abuse, I would like your explanation of that behaviour and why you think it was acceptable. Alastairward (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The South Park studios website (where Matt and Trey directly contact the outside world without Viacom/Comedy Central) is certainly a valid source, especially since primary sources should be even more highly regarded for credit than secondary sources, which many times are, in fact, user-editable websites, and even at that anybody with a job title editing a website for pay or as an official position is a USER, so even those can be disregarded almost as easily as any old blog or wiki, and many news websites are calling themselves blogs just to add to the confusion. But Alastairward is right on something for once: We are here to really discuss his etiquette on WP and his snide remarks in the removal edits of the content everybody so enjoys, despite his opinion against it for whatever reason. The issue of his removal of properly cited content is a part of this discussion because thats what everyone is so angry about, since (again) cultural references/parodies/satire constitute a large portion of south park episodes, and a decent list of them should be present on the actual article since it is just as (if not more) important than the plot itself because of Matt and Trey's emphasis on it. Moving them to the talk page as you stated still gets them to us one way or another, but seeing as they are a major part of every episode, why not move the plot to the talk page? Or the Picture? Or the episode number? I'm sure that constitutes a "compromise", since the only sources for the episode number is the South Park studios website itself and God forbid we place any primary sources for a major part of the episode. South Park acts very much like a median to parody popular culture in a satiric manner, so removing the cultural references is utter blasphemy to a SP article, and causing harm to Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, and Alastairwards hostility to anyone believing this not only gives me the impression that South Park goes completely over his head (he is a Star Treck follower/editor as well, a completely different breed of show), but also causes edit wars between him and a few too-literal non-specific WP policy followers and the rest of the South Park fans/WP users that actually know more on the subject and what it stands for than the opposition. At times its like an English major is editing an article on computer science, citing references without knowing anything about the article's target, although they (at least believe) they are "following" all the guidelines written for doing so for every article, not just special topic-specific rules. If we can use the actual episode as a source for the plot (which constitutes only roughly half a SP episode, the other being satire), why can't we use it also for the satire itself and add the cultural references to the article, not the talk page, where they belong alongside the plot so that the entire episode is thoroughly explained, not just a minute (completely secondary source referenced) plot description? Another-anomaly (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
And I would like an explanation why you found it necessary to delete cited information --J miester25 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment Firstly, wikipedia is not based on what we like to see in articles, content must be sourced by reliable second party sources (the episodes themselves and South Park Studios are primary sources). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fan page. Secondly, editing an article, removing OR or disputed info might be edit warring, however it is not uncivil or anything to do with etiquette. Etiquette is interaction with other editors rather than editing practices. Disputes over content do not belong here, take this to dispute resolution, i suggest a rfc and the reliable sources noticeboard for the disputed sources. Editors have been warned about personal attacks and edit warring so i will assume this can be taken forward in a civil manner. --neon white talk 17:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Neon White----------Explain to me this: The plot section gets it's information from South Park Studios. You do not see a problem with that. But at the same time, you have a problem with information that i have provided from the SAME SOURCE and you are saying i can't include it in an article because it didnt come from a secondary source? If thats the case, just delete the whole thing. You have been so narrow minded on this whole issue about "Oh its not a secondary source" and you have completely ignored the fact that Alastairward has removed just ONE section that didnt come from a secondary source, but came from a primary source, while the plot came from a primary source, and you dont see a gap there? Alastairward, I appreciate your cooperation in forming a compromise, but I now have a problem with Neon White. --J miester25 (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There has been much dispute about the original sourcing of plots previously without much agreement. This is the policy which applies "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." from WP:NOR. THis includes plots, however they may be ok as they can often be agreed upon and written in an objective manner without much contrversy, whereas critique and analysis etc are purely subjective and should only come from secondary sources. In summary it depends what it's sourcing, avoid using it for coontentious points. As i have suggested use the noticeboard. Considering the previous discussion i'd have thought rules about personal attscks would be crystal clear here. --neon white talk 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a job for a quick read WP:RS followed by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard -t BMW c- 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to go?

There is a user who is doing the following:

  • Misrepresenting other editors instead of tackling their actual arguments (using ad hominem).
  • Repeatedly posting content from their talk page onto a guideline talk page, making it appear on the surface they are posting a new argument when actually their point of view has already been discussed and rejected many times on the same talk page.
  • Repeatedly claiming consensus doesn't exist when there is a large talk archive demonstrating the consensus. When asked to provide substantive arguments the user refuses to do so then goes quiet for a few weeks only to repeat the whole process again. This is demonstrative of forum shopping the same issue repeatedly on the same talk page.
  • Using their talk page to make false accusations of harassment, especially using misrepresentative and personal attack edit summaries and page titles, when actually the user has been reported and blocked for edit warring on this subject. The user then misrepresents the comments of the admins on the same "harassment" talk page.
  • The user tried to get mediation, by again posting the same refuted point of view from his talk page, but this was rejected by the mediator when it became apparent there was nothing to mediate.
  • The user is also demonstrating obsessive behaviour related to certain editors by his talk page to archive the edits of other editors and then misrepresenting the edits of other editors.

Since the edits on the surface do not appear to be obvious vandalism (even though the claims of the user are untrue this is only demonstrated after reading the talk archives) the normal administrators vandalism forum doesn't seem to be the right choice. Repeatedly misrepresenting other editors with false claims of harassment is actually a violation of WP:NPA. The user has been asked to stop quite a few times by multiple editors but this has had little effect. Therefore I am a little unsure where to take this. Does anyone know which would be the correct forum? Fnagaton 08:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would say WP:AN or WP:ANI - based on your description, the user needs a mentor, badly. -t BMW c- 11:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Try user conduct RFC if that hasn't been exhausted already - you may need to use an admin noticeboard mentioned by BMW during or after that RFC though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. Fnagaton 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the edit summary for discussion

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.

No one is perfect, and no one is going to be sanctioned - yet. With that in mind, future discussion is likely to result in diminishing returns for all involved. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


I am not sure what the rules are, so I would appreciate some help. The editor Flyer22 made 2 edits ([30] [31]) to the article Ephebophilia, without actually changing anything. He only made the edits so that he could discuss article content in the edit summaries. As far as I know, that is not in accordance with policy – and regardless, if everybody did that, it would be much more difficult to work together on articles. Therefore, I posted advice to his talk page advising him to stop doing that. He did not respond well to this, but posted an angry note on my user talk page.

I am always happy to learn, so I would like to know:

  1. ) Does any policy deal with using the edit summary for discussion without actually making any changes to the article?
  2. ) Should I have done anything different? If yes, then what should I have done?

I thank everybody for their help in advance. --Law Lord (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to Help:Edit Summary, in particular this portion on their Talk page. Hope it helps. -t BMW c- 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Common sense dictates that edit summaries should be used to document your edit. Occasionally a "null edit" may be made to make something visible in the article's History page. That's the only compelling reason I can see to make such an edit. In this case, I am inclined the shrug and say "if they wanted to do that, okay". It really doesn't burden the server any more to store that text in an edit summary than to store it on a Talk page.
On to things that I do feel more strongly about. Your initial note to Flyer22 made use of an inappropriate template, which was probably annoying - and some editors may be irritated by any templated messages (see WP:Don't template the regulars). Also, when you write a specific message after a templated one, your own words can easily be overlooked. So in future, I'd strongly recommend that you write out the entire message by hand, just to avoid this sort of reaction. Also, I'm afraid that comments like "I think you should be blocked" are usually received poorly. Unfortunately, things went rapidly downhill from the start, and sometimes things just escalate that could have been much more polite.
I hope this doesn't sound too much like "shooting the messenger". Really, I'm just trying to explain why you got the "spiky" response you did. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I am female, as my user page says. I am not a 5'3" male who was contacted by a modeling agency at age 16. Jeez. Secondly, I am in agreement with SHEFFIELDSTEEL on this matter. Thank you for relaying my feelings so well. I am quite familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, and the "ghost edit" thing is only something I do occasionally, usually with editors I am familiar with. In other words, they get it. I do not ever appreciate someone treating me like a newbie or a vandal here or that I do not know what I am doing. Law Lord very much came across to me as having a god complex. If you notice, on my talk page, an editor, months ago, politely asked me to stop making statements in my edit summaries that were not part of the page discussion while I was at the Vegetarianism talk page. That is how I like to be approached. I am very close to stopping my "ghost edit" instances. It is just that it is sometimes too tempting not to do that instead of going to the talk page or an editor's user page about something so unimportant, not to mention that it quickly gets the point across to other editors editing the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, I used the wrong template when asking you to stop. However, the focus here must be that you violated policy even after having been told not to. Then, when being asked to stop by me, you came across as quite aggressive and told me that you had been warned before and that you intended to continue violating policy. --Law Lord (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, calling me "ignorant" might be seen as a personal attack. --Law Lord (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As has been pointed out above, I am not necessarily in violation of the rules, but you were. WP:Don't template the regulars. I also did not say I intended to continue violating policy. I came across as quite aggressive? So did you, as pointed out above. And, wow, bringing up "ignorant" in my edit summary? How do you know that I was not calling that whole section ignorant? You are sure out on the warpath to get me blocked. Yeah, keep trying, man. I am a trusted Wikipedian, with rollback rights, for a reason. Goodbye. You have wasted my time long enough. It is a sad day on Wikipedia when editors try to take down good editors when they should be focusing more on improving crappy articles, taking down vandals, or more pressing matters. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand how this has escalated so much. It is plain that the "ghost edits" made by Flyer22 were not an appropriate usage of the edit summary, and I think the community would ask him her to refrain from doing it. It also seems clear that Law Lord was, ahem, a bit over-aggressive in confronting Flyer22 about this. However, neither offense is anywhere near blockable. Aside from the sniping going on here, is there any ongoing problem?? If not, why don't you two just agree that it was an unfortunate confrontation and go your separate ways? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am female. And it is simple how this has escalated so much, as brilliantly pointed out by SheffieldSteel. Law Lord and I going our separate ways? I'd love to. Tried to before. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Copious apologies here for the gender snafu. I usually make it a point to say "he or she" when I don't know for sure, and in this case if I read more carefully I would have known, so there is no excuse whatsoever. I just dropped the ball this time. I have corrected it above. Sorry!!
As far as going your separate ways, that is great, but I would just say that I think your comments on this page have been somewhat incendiary, and therefore counterproductive towards that aim. FWIW. Anyway, hopefully we can mark this as Resolved soon. Thanks! And sorry again for the him/her thing, I'm really embarrassed I messed that up. :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree very much with your conclusions Flyer22. The fact of the matter is that you are getting very much personal in this discussion, when it fact, you should address the issues. My conclusion:
This issue can stop once Flyer22 admits that she has violated policy. However, she seems nowhere near admitting that. --Law Lord (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You got personal. You do not dictate when an issue can stop. And you can disagree all you want, this essay is policy as far as I'm concerned, because no experienced editor should do that to another experienced editor (not that you seem that experienced, anyway), and I did not necessarily violate any policy. SheffieldSteel pointed out "null edits" above. You are damn straight I am not admitting to doing anything wrong in this case. There is nothing to admit. Not one editor here has said that what I did is a violation of policy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is:-
Both editors have, I hope, learned something from this. Anyone fancy a nice cup of tea? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, SheffieldSteel. You have been very helpful. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2008 (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.

User:Ibaranoff24

  Stale
 – The incivilities halted long ago and warnings now would be inappropriate

User: Ibaranoff24 has repeatedly made personal attacks against me. He has ordered me to “back off” when I have been adding sourced information into an article because he disagrees with it (here [32], and here [33]). He has repeatedly accused me of “pushing POV” (here [34], here [35] and here [36]), when all I’m “pushing” is sourced information. He has now accused me of sock-puppetry simply because another user is supporting me (here [37]). He has also shown agitation and aggression through use of bold, all caps and exclamation marks (as here [38]) and made statements regarding my edits such as “I refuse to bow down to flakey editors trying to insert bad sources and poor writing into articles in order to dumb down their content.” ([39]), and edit summaries such as "responding to user's arrogance" ([40]). Prophaniti (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - a MedCab case was opened here regarding the root dispute between Prophaniti and Ibaranoff24 (content dispute at Hed PE). I am confident that if we can get both parties to discuss the issue politely, all of these problems can be resolved. [ roux ] [x] 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
After reading the dispute i think both editors need to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia:Five pillars. I've never seen such a misuse and misconprehension of policy! This could have easily been dealt with at the reliable sources noticeboard. --neon white talk 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
If you are suggesting I have been acting in the same manner as Ibaranoff24 then I would have to assume you haven't been reading the discussion at all, sorry. There really is no comparison.
The medcab resolution is for solving the dispute itself, this is regarding the personal attacks that have arisen throughout, something separate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Once the dispute is solved everything should calm down. None of the personal attacks are that serious, though the user in question could do with being a bit more patient and stepping away from a dispute if tempers flare etc. --neon white talk 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If the "attacks" are occurring as part of the medcab, they are part and parcel of that activity. BMW(drive) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority are from before the medcab started, a couple are from the start of it, but personal attacks are personal attacks, a medcab project is no excuse. Prophaniti (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The MedCab is now closed. [ roux ] [x] 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the NWQA tag: the medcab is unrelated to non-civil behaviour. Most of the incidents took place before it, and it has been closed because Ibaranoff24 refuses to co-operate with it anyway. As such, could it either be dealt with here, or could someone refer me to where to take the issue if not? Prophaniti (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored here. The issue is not yet resolved: if this genuinely isn't a wikiquette issue, I would like someone to refer me to where I should take it. All that's been said so far is "There's a medcab.". The medcab was not explicitly related, and went no where anyway because Ibaranoff refused to co-operate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the NWQA tag. The simple reason was this: while MedCab was active on the case, there should not have been an additional discussion here. If the behaviour is still continuing, then please provide NEW DIFF's of that activity so that we may move forward. -t BMW c- 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The behavior has ceased in the sense that I have given up for now and left Ibaranoff to his own business for the time being. What I have been looking for since coming here is some kind of warning to the user in question, even an informal one, that his behaviour is unnacceptable. I know this board cannot enforce blocks or anything like that, and that's not what I'm after, just some kind of warning to him that he has been completely ignoring basic rules of etiquette, and my own repeated warnings of such have gone completely unheeded. If this isn't the place for that, then as I say, a redirect to where to take it will do just fine. Prophaniti (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You can find templates here --neon white talk 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That said, knowing WHEN and WHEN NOT to template/warn other editors will be key to your career on Wikipedia. You truly need to properly understand policy (note above about lack of understandings). You then need to properly understand procedure (opening this WQA while MedCab was open is a good example of what not to do). You then try and resolve issues first before templating/warning. I fail to see any requirement to template the other user at this point. True, he ALSO failed to understand policy, but that requires EDUCATION and not TEMPLATING. Good luck. -t BMW c- 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The medcab was about resolving the content dispute. The report here was about Ibaranoff's unnacceptable behaviour, unrelated to the content of the article itself. The two are unrelated. What I am trying to achieve here is Ibaranoff being warned about his behaviour, because any warnings I myself give will simply be ignored. Just something to show him this is not about some personal vendetta, but about him ignoring wikipedia's most basic of rules. I have, in the past, received a 48 hour block for not breaking a rule, the reasoning being that I was (apparently) not enormously polite. I'm not looking for that much, but it is not right that this user should have not even a basic informal warning for doing so much more. In a nutshell: it's not right that he should be allowed to get away with such behaviour, without a warning he will only continue with it in the future. Prophaniti (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) If you actually think there's no relation between the MedCab and Civility, you haven't read the ABC concepts on User:Bwilkins. If the uncivilities have stopped following the MedCab, this issue is closed. Go back to your normal editing, and if they arise again, action can be taken. There is no need for any action to be taken at this moment in time, because discussion (and the MedCab) have bene enlightening to all. -t BMW c- 13:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The medcab is very much unrelated, for exactly the reasons I've outlined above. In addition, Ibaranoff refused to co-operate with the medcab anyway. The issue I'm pushing here is not that incivilities are continuing: the fact that they occured needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. Prophaniti (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me reiterate ONE LAST TIME: no incivilities are continuing. In your discussion with the user, you advised them you did not appreciate the comment. You have both grown up a long time since then. No further action will be taken at this time. If the actions restart, please advise. -t BMW c- 22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect: as far as incivilities go, it is Ibaranoff who broke the rules, and he has shown no such signs of "growning up". The only reason he hasn't continued is I have taken the time out to do this, and not provide him with further fodder.
So allow me to reiterate one last time: this is not about making the incivilities cease. They have done, because of my own actions. This is about the proper action being taken against a user who knowingly broke rules and has thus far shown no signs of remorse. Prophaniti (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
By your own admission, there has no further incivility. You have mentioned your issue with the editor directly. A MedCab occurred. There has been no further incivility. We don't spank the child long after the activity. AS NOTED: return to your original editing patterns. If the incivility RETURNS, immediate action can be taken. Please, stop. -t BMW c- 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I'll bear in mind for future reference that wikipedia policy is that breaking rules is 100% fine, so long as you take a breather every now and then or do it so much that the victim of the rule-breaking gives up from exhaustion. Prophaniti (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Look, nobody said that. Rule-breaking must be dealt with at the time it occurs. You have overexaggerated the actual "incivility". You DEALT with the problem directly with the user, which is how it's supposed to be done. You then had a MedCab that shut this WQA down. Learn the process. I promise that if it happens again, and you advise us in a timely fashion (an don't have other related actions being taken) then it will be dealt with. Being "slightly uncivil" isn't like commiting murder that has no statute of limitations, it's more like your dog peeing on the floor - if you don't deal with them moments after they did it, then all you're doing is torturing the dog for no good reason. -t BMW c- 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it's coming across incorrectly, I'll note this isn't at all an attack on yourself or anything like that. No ill will intended.
But it really does come down to this: a user broke the rules, quite heftily. This is being ignored. Ergo, users are allowed to break the rules. The dog comparison really doesn't work, a dog doesn't think like a human being. A much more apt comparison would be to the 48 hour block I received some time ago. I got this for -not- (yes, -not-) breaking the rules. The justification was "You nearly broke the rules, and you were a teensy bit rude about it too". Now someone has done much worse, and is getting off with nothing at all.
I'd already given up on this particular dispute from exhaustion, for the time being. Now I'll likely just give up on it full stop, if this is how blatant rule-breaking is going to be dealt with. Prophaniti (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It hasn't been ignored, there's a wikiquette alert and the user was warned and the behaviour stopped. That's a solution. --neon white talk 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you BMW for that. That really is all I've been after all this time: something other than my own warnings to the user (which go ignored) about his behaviour. Thanks once again, I also now consider the matter resolved. Prophaniti (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg L

  Resolved
 – Complaining party advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User accompanies a tirade of false allegations and straw-man arguments with an invitation to me to "pour petrol over yourself, and set yourself alight". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I didn’t invite him to do what he alleged above and he full well knows that. His claims are utterly baseless. He is just wikilayering here. I employed exaggeration to point out that he is making an overly big deal of an issue on which no one else agrees with him.

    This editor is becoming a real pain. He has twice deleted an animation and everyone else has been telling him he should not do so. Please read Wikipedia_talk:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass for context and to gain insight into how this editor is being disruptive. I further ask that this editor be sanctioned for wikilayering and misrepresenting my actions, which constitutes a violation of WP:Civility, which states “[incivility includes] Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.” Greg L (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a concern that the passage may have been represented out of context. Though please be aware that the editor may not have understood the metaphor. Regardless it still could have been dealt with in a better way. Although dealing with troublesome editors is often trying, remembering to stay civil is a must if you want to avoid an escalation. I think a warning about etiquette and working with other editors in a civil manner would suffice at this stage. --neon white talk 11:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I considered the possibility he took my “orange robe” metaphor out of context. But, given…
  1. his shot across the bow when starting the whole thing off: “I removed the animated image from this essay; and … intend to do so again”,
  2. as well as the way he crafted his arguments (he can hold his own),
  3. his quick propensity to slap down others’ writings as “droll”, a “straw man”, and “baseless tirades”, and
  4. he was last doing an ANI here on October 27, and the one before that was on the 22nd so he is clearly not “new” to this forum,
  5. his experience as an editor: note how far back 500 edits go (not far),
…I concluded that he knew full well what he was doing: he came here to get help with a smack down on the principle road block standing in the way of what he was threatening to do (keep on deleting the animation with impunity). It appears he baits editors with arrogance and his smack downs. Note that I didn’t fall for it. So he seized upon my metaphor that clearly meant “you can go blow this way out of proportion in the proper venue” and came here. Doing so was pure and simple Wikilawyering, which is a big waste of everyone’s time and risks good editors getting a blemish on their record if he lucks out with a knee-jerk reaction from an admin. I truly believe he should get some sort of sanction for this stunt. I detect a dose of “attitude adjustment” is in order. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Some assuming of good faith and civility seems necessary ny all parties involved. Also, arguing over a short essay of no consequence? Seriously? Check your priorities. --neon white talk 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Policy does not require me to AGF in the face of evidence, such as that I cited above, to the contrary. Nor have I been uncivil. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, you started the incivility with your baseless tirade remark. Now, I have read through the discussion twice and it appears to me that Greg L exhibited a great deal of patience with you before making the comment you complained about. —Travistalk 23:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
        • The uncivil tirade to which that response was given was "you can now wade in and delete them all because you don’t like them and also because you have now found some organization to cite that recommends the practice. ... In the mean time, don’t start whittling away, bit by bit on Wikipedia’s content. ... Sufferers of epilepsy don’t need patronizing paternalism by you or me or anyone else." and it was, indeed, baseless. Perhaps you would now like to address the petrol comment, cited above? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that was incivil or a lack of good faith. It was helpful advice. The fact that you began a discussion stating your intention to disrupt the article with an edit war - "I removed the animated image from this essay; and, having been reverted, intend to do so again" - leaves very little room for good faith on the part of other editors. Wikipedia works by consensus, this means you should use the talk page to discuss edits and gain consensus, it's not a place to declare unilateral action. --neon white talk 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Removing a harmful image with a clear explanation of why an editor is doing doso is not an "intention to disrupt the article with an edit war" and describing my motive as some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is both uncivil and a failure to AGF. My post on the talk page was an attempt to gain consensus; and my removal of the image in the interim was, as explained, to remove something harmful. Perhaps you would now like to address the petrol comment, cited above? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The idea that the image is 'harmful' is your own only and consensus must be gained. I have quoted your comment from the talk page accurately and i think it is clear that you declared an intention to ignore consensus and edit war. "I removed the animated image from this essay; and, having been reverted, intend to do so again" is not an attempt at gaining a consensus on any planet. As has been pointed out many times, representing phrase out of context is not good etiquette. --neon white talk 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's address it. There is no doubt whatsoever that the "petrol" comment has been unreasonably taken out of context - and no, in the post that it's in, it is not uncivil (although Greg could've possibly, to avoid this atrocious complaint, made a different choice of words). I will also note that it is remarkably futile to expect other editors at this venue to look at a couple of sentences in isolation - that's not how we work here, and if that's how you go about reading posts, then there's clearly a big problem with your editing. I dismiss the complaint as frivolous.
Greg (among others) seems to have shown a remarkable sense of patience when attempting to discuss this with you, despite your inappropriate comments like "baseless tirade". He, as well as Travis and L'Aquatique, have found that you were beating a dead horse, and I happen to agree - you need to stop because you are showing all signs of being a tendentious editor. That sort of disruption usually ends up with a ban, and given your track record and block log, that wouldn't be out of the question. I urge you to drop it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
In future, instead of the petrol comment, perhaps Greg could suggest that the other editor dress up as Spiderman and climb the Reichstag. That should eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Anlinguist, incivility and impersonation

  Resolved
 – Editor seems to have ceased editing for now, if it resumes reopen the alert

User:Anlinguist has recently made several edits to Talk:Anal–oral sex that I would characterize as being incivil or disruptive (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4).

Recently, the user has taken to impersonating other editors with which he has disagreements (diff--the other user is User:Nightmareishere who also posts as User:98.220.43.195). This would seem to be a breach of Wikiquette, and I seek your help. superlusertc 2008 November 07, 06:01 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it looks like the impersonation was a confusing attempt at citation. I withdraw that aspect of the complaint, but I'll leave this open. superlusertc 2008 November 07, 06:10 (UTC)
Seems spamish but how are they disuptive? the user has never even edited the article and hasn't made any edit for 3 days, i suggest you let this one go and if there is further deabte consider using dispute resolution. --neon white talk 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TCO

  Resolved
 – User warned.

See the last new topic on Talk:Michelle Malkin. I don't think anyone needs to put up with that kind of thing just for having an opinion. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs or be more specific. Bearing in mind that the last topic on a talk page may change. --neon white talk 13:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious. It's the same one as last night and it's the only one with swearing in it([41]). Maybe I should have just posted this on the admin notice board. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Fennessy: please have a little patience, and WP:AGF. This is the correct location for your complaint. You were asked a basic question as you failed to follow the procedure for this page. By the time someone looked into your issue, many additional discussions may have taken place on that page. Thank you for providing the diff. You also missed another key point: you are to advise the other party of this WQA entry. Offending user has been warned for personal attacks. -t BMW c- 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, all I wanted was him to be cautioned. Job done. ʄ!•¿talk? 16:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User identified by various IP numbers (162.84.184.38, 71.247.12.83, 141.155.135.66, etc.)

This same user who does not have a Wikipedia account has been asked several times by other editors of the Existentialism and Phenomenology articles to bear in mind Wikipedia policy on etiquette. Examples: accusing editors who cite sources of plagiarism and making statements like "there is not a single decent phrase in your proposal"[[42]]; comments like "I expect you to continue in bad faith, but hope that you find in your cold hearts...(etc)" [[43]]; and most recently comparing me with "Rain Man", which I suppose is a way of calling me autistic [here]. This is hardly conducive to editing. I am thinking of a RfC on user, but it's going to be hard putting together all the information because the constantly changing IP number means a succession of different User Talk pages. Can anyone help? (I have posted a notification on the Existentialism Talk Page, as the user now has several different user/talk pages corresponding to the different IP numbers.)KD Tries Again (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

  • It is not true for Verizon changes my IP at will and I use only one at the time; once it is changed, I cannot use it anymore. Sincerely. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that discussion of these issues was taking place at [this talk page] - which you continued to edit after your IP number changed; similar issues with respect to another article on [this Talk Page]. I could start a topic [here], but by your own account you might have a different Talk Page tomorrow.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

IP -- I don't think anybody has accused you of intentionally rolling your IP address. But even if it's Verizon doing it, it does make things confusing.
How would you feel about just creating a dummy account for now until we get this mess straightened out? I think it would make things easier on everyone, and you would not be sacrificing anonymity (in fact, since your IPs would be hidden if you registered, by many measures you would be more anonymous..) You don't have to, obviously, but would you consider it just until we straighten out this dispute? What do you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Still in full flood, now [here]. Oh, and at random other places on the Talk Page, e.g. "Please, do not waste out time by arguing boloney." (sic)KD Tries Again (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think that the good faith is being diminished while the anon continues to edit while sidestepping the reasonable suggestions of Jaysweet. If the verbal unpleasantness doesn't stop, the anon might need something of a time-out, so as to reevaluate their behavior. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a "timeout" is probably not feasible, given that the IP addresses the user is editing from are all over the map. If the editor continues to agitate to the point where a long-term block is necessary, it looks like it will be a game of IP whack-a-mole. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For anyone reading this, it is still ongoing. The IP refuses to get an account, despite my pleas (he/she claims that he/she had an account, but it "expired", which I am pretty sure is impossible, but whatever -- and he/she was allegedly so annoyed by this that he/she refuses to get another one). Strong disagreement remains over the wording of the lede text, and patience appears to be waning all around, resulting in some borderline personal attacks like this one from Der Zeitgeist.

The content dispute itself is too subtle for me... the IP's point appears to be that he/she believes the wording is confusing to "laymen" in philosophy, but others feel that his/her proposed wording is more ambiguous and awkward... I think. Maybe WP:RFC is the way to go here? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably right, because regardless of the merits of the content dispute, the anonymous editor's approach is impeding consensus and forward progress. But...Question: Because the editor refuses to get a User account, will WP:RFC just be a waste of time, as he/she will continue the same behavior from another IP number? KD Tries Again (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I wasn't talking about a user RfC, I was talking about an article RfC, i.e. get more people to comment on Existentialism and hence more eyes on the page once a consensus develops. The nice thing about that is even if you make no progress on the discussion, now there are more people who have the article on their watchlist and can revert any non-consensus changes. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Thanks.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

User:Matt Deres

This user violated WP:NPA in this comment. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have recommended he remove it. I don't see it as a true violation of WP:NPA. The comment is usually reserved for use in specific common situations when people have been ignoring past results as society moves towards the future. "Moon colonies" are, after all, highly discussed in scientific fields. You also have failed to advise them of this WQA entry. -t BMW c- 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:AlistairMcMillan

On the WebKit page this user, with neither a link to the project nor an understanding of it, has a clear agenda to keep certain contributors (or non-contributors) listed as such, while denying others. His own criteria for inclusion fails for some of the ones he protects, and he refuses to listen to long-term members of the WebKit project with official status in the project (committer, reviewer, known long-time contributor). His personal page indicates that he has had such issues in the past with other pages as well. He should be removed as "editor" of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.207.134 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:AlistairMcMillan sought a third opinion over attempts by an IP editor to repeatedly insert claims into the article WebKit; I offered the opinion that such claims were OK only if supported by valid references. At the time, no such references were forthcoming; however, an Apple developer has now offered to provide a reference. A number of editors - including AlistairMcMillan - regard this as a satisfactory resolution. Under the circumstances I do not believe AlistairMcMillan has "a clear agenda", and I would add that his "own" criteria for inclusion appear to be entirely consistent with Wikipedia policies.
AlistairMcMillan does not appear to have been informed of this issue; I will take the liberty of informing him now.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 01:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I just would like to point out that it is difficult for me to "refuses to listen to long-term members" when they post anonymously and never identify themselves. And yes I "had such issues in the past with other pages as well". I tend not to support people who are determined to have their company/product inserted into articles without reliable sources to back them up. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering that your first edits on the article were more than four years ago, I also find it hard to believe any claim that runs along the line of "doesn't understand the project".
I think this Wikiquette alert can be closed & archived now. Warren -talk- 05:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Gnevin twisting policy and enforcing personal taste

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – to mediation or article RFC; content dispute.

User:Gnevin appears to be enforcing personal taste and twisting wikipedia policy to back it. He's removing illustrations of a subject with the accusation that they are meaningless decorations despite the evidence that the same icons have meaning in other languages: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. This user has no justification for removing illustrations other than the opinion that they are childish. That's a matter of personal taste, not wikipedia policy. It's twisting a policy that is mostly about the use of territorial flags instead of generic symbols to back the user's opinion. The user is calling images that are used as examples "decorations" simply because the user doesn't see how they are examples of the subject matter of the article, despite evidence that many foreign language translations use the same images. And the user has yet to explain in graphic design terms what is childish about the illustrations. The user obviously has a problem with illustrations that have any style applied to them regardless of any addition communicative value. I've compromised with the user in the design article, but now the user is overreaching and on some sort of power trip. Discussions seem to be one way. The user is not disputing but instead forcing an opinion with reverts. The user is ignoring the consensus reached here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#What is fair icon and symbol use? that the images can be replaced with photos as long as the photos are just as effective. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

More WP:FORUMSHOPing? Your hardly assuming WP:AGF are you now? At the end of the day WP:CON is for removing these. Your the only user I see pushing for them to be included Gnevin (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
We are beyond the point were assumptions of good faith need to be made. Your impatience and hostile actions are the evidence. You've shown your personal taste by calling the images "childish." And your consensus is weak at best. Everyone else has expressed concerns of a different nature that were all addressed. Your the only user who is pushing for removal on the grounds of personal taste. Anyone else who's debated the use of icons has been more willing to listen to reason and compromise. You've ignored the compromise on the design page where an opposing user agreed to keep some of them with a little rearranging. And now your ignoring the compromise on the multimedia page were another user agreed to replace icons with photos, not to simply remove them. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Their is no WP:CON to replace the images just to remove them. You suggested on design and MOSICON. In both case no one agreed to it . On design the con was for removal which happened ,you just added images after that happened. On MOSICON no has agreed to your suggestion . We are never beyond the point of Assuming good faith . And your consensus is weak at best at least i have a consensus.Gnevin (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You don't have a consensus on removing the images because they are quote "childish". The only consensus you have is from those who tried to prove a negative. 2 of those 4 users have compromised. In the design article User:Necz0r expressed a different concern with the icons here, and compromised with an edit keeping the icons here. Regarding the multimedia article, User:Andrwsc agreed that replacement was better than removal in this discussion. The only other so-called consensus you have are the users who admit to failing to see the meaning or the relevance to the subject matter of the article, which IMO is more of a confession of their lack of pictorial literacy than a grounds for removing content. It's inconsiderate of the readers and editors who do see meaning (that transcends language as shown by all the links above) and have had no reason to complain for the last 2 years. I'd say that the global reuse of the same icons for the same reason is my global strong consensus that they are effective in communicating. What are you going to do next, remove the icons from those 16 other foreign translations? Obviously most of those people aren't going to need to revisit the article and are unlikely to know that what worked for them is being challenged as if it hasn't worked for anyone at all. So where is the rest of your so-called consensus? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikiquette alerts are not a place to continue discussing content disputes. Post once and let editor's respond. Ther differences above are just article snapshots where is the evidence of incivility? This seems to be clearly a content dispute and doesnt belong here. Follow the steps at dispute resolution and remember to assume good faith and that wikipedia is not a battleground --neon white talk 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Dismissing my edits as "childish", and removing content based on personal taste isn't very civil IMO. I've taken steps to get expert opinions to resolve the dispute over content and was accused of forum shopping here. That's why I brought the dispute here. This user could be much more patient in getting resolution over content IMO. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You haven't provided any evidence of personal attacks or incivility. Article editing isn't a civility issue it's a content dispute (see Wikipedia:Etiquette). This page is for etiquette issues only not for resolving disputes. --neon white talk 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice: "Wiki is a serious encyclopaedia not a children's book" Talk:Design#Article Icons
  2. Feigned incomprehension, playing dumb: "With out the link below them the icons are useless as they could convey a 1000 different means" Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#What is fair icon and symbol use?
  3. More Belittling:"Not to mention how childish and unprofessional they look" Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#What is fair icon and symbol use?
I know that I haven't been as civil as I should have been either, and I'm sorry. But at the risk of being accused as childish again, I have to say "he started it." Oicumayberight (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless the editor is calling another editor childish then that isnt a personal attack, whilst respecting other editor's contributions is civil it is not required that every contribution is met in a positive manner. It's simply not clear enough that the comments were intended to be derogatory and not valid concerns about the style of the images. --neon white talk 12:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Here we have another problem. You say that it may be a valid concern about the style of the images. But when I go to a forum where I'm most likely to find a qualified opinion about the style of the images, I'm accused of forum shopping. That's not assuming good faith. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
You are currently discussing this here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Icons_on_wikipedia,Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology,Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection,Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#What_is_fair_icon_and_symbol_use.3F and Talk:Multimedia . While so possibly at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Graphic_design andDesign. Visual arts and Graphic design where inform in a non neutral way. Anyway I'm tired of this build a consensus for re-adding the icons and don't do so till you have achieved such consensus Gnevin (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There's no rule against asking for multiple opinions on a topic, unless this is being done in an underhand manner or blatent canvassing then you need to assume good faith on this point. --neon white talk 18:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Icons_on_wikipedia and Wikipedia:Canvassing. "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion . use of visual communication with symbols and icons on wikipedia is under attack and I could use a little help defending them here are far from neutral Gnevin (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)" Gnevin (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
"I removed the images and they should not return.""build a consensus for re-adding the icons and don't do so till you have achieved such consensus." Now we can add taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility. This is about you, not the icons. Your bossy tone here isn't making you look any more civil. And you commanding me not to re-add the icons is clear harassment. Besides, I already have my international consensus. I usually am civil until people are uncivil with me.
You have yet to tell me why you think the icons are childish in professional terms. Maybe you don't know any professional terms. All I've heard was knee jerk reactions from personal taste using belittling tones. Maybe you aren't even part of the profession. I've searched the edit history of both of those pages, and couldn't find your user name making any positive contributions to either. It's just removal and reverts. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
user:Andrwsc expressed the issues with the icons better than i ever could at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#What_is_fair_icon_and_symbol_use.3F. I am sorry if you believed my last edits was bossy but I was just making the point that its is now up to you to generate a consensus to re add the icons as the consensus is currently for not having them. I am not taunting nor have ever taunted a user on wiki as it not WP:Civil to do so and saying I am is a lack of good faith. Lets not turn this is too a Ad hominem type of discussion. My final word of this is as above the Icons should not be re added until such time as a consensus is formed Gnevin (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have my international consensus. Speaking of user:Andrwsc, the user agreed to have the images replaced, not removed. But you didn't want to wait for that. So instead you ignored the consensus reached with Andrwsc just like you ignored the agreement reached with User:Necz0r on the design page. So you started pushing me to violate WP:3RR as you threatened, as shown in the edit history. Those icons were on the article for 2 years without complaint. You could have waited a few more days for the replacement. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User Flyer22 seems to be attempting to prejudice an Afd

  Resolved

I am requesting the assitance of a third party to mediate on the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article for deletion nomination here. [60] I believe the user Flyer22 is trying to influence the outcome of the vote by using Proof by assertion and thus being in contravention of Wikiquette as outlined here[61]. Everytime an editor makes a argument for deleting the article, Flyer22 writes paragraphs and paragraphs of reasons why the article should not be deleted, simply reiterating her viewpoint over and over again. I believe her copious comments are neither helpful or justified, and are not allowing a fair or truthful deletion procedure. I have voted for this article to be DELETED, but all I want is a fair procedure. I do not want this article to be deleted or kept simply because of Flyer22's excessive proof by assertion. Paul75 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin will review the afd and base a decision on valid points relating to relevent policies. Invalid points, no matter how loud or repetative will have no effect on the outcome. That said some of the comments bordered on personal attacks so i have posted a warning about staying on topic and not commenting on other editors. --neon white talk 00:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance neon white. I am always a little unclear about what constitutes acceptable behaviour in an AfD, so your input is much appreciated! Paul75 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Info about that can be found at WP:AFD#AfD Wikietiquette and WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD --neon white talk 12:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Even though this "dispute has been resolved, I wanted to say, there is nothing wrong with pointing out a biased "vote" whatsoever, and it has been done in deletion debates here before. This is not the first deletion debate I have pointed out a biased "vote" in. Writing paragraphs and paragraphs of reasons why the article should not be deleted, simply reiterating my viewpoint over and over again every time an editor makes an argument for deleting the article is exactly what goes on in deletion debates. I have not stated the same exact thing over and over again, anyway. My "copious comments" are helpful and justified, and do not stop a fair or truthful deletion procedure. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User placing many protection templates on his own talk page

  Resolved
 – User voluntarily removed inaccurate template. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User Blueking12 placed a bunch of misleading protection templates all over his own talk page, and user Xenocidic removed it. Bluekink came back, and reverted his revert. I reverted his revert, and placed a small note on his talk page. The user then placed a warning on my talk page, removed my comment, and edited his own page a couple dozen times(?), then placed another protection template on the top of his page along with my name, which I reverted again.

Here's the user's diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blueking12&diff=cur&oldid=246826721 And here's the template he added after I reverted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blueking12&oldid=249737663

Check the page history for all the other confusing edits.

Because it is the user's own talk page, should I have allowed him/her to place protection templates there? Or are the strictly for use only on actual protected page? — ThreeDee912(talk/contribs) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't mean anything so it's largely pointless. However the second looks like a personal attack to me. --neon white talk 01:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The template that calls out ThreeDee is indeed a personal attack and is right out. He has since removed it, though, so hopefully that will be the end of it.
As to the question of misleading semi-protection templates, my feeling is that's probably not okay either. Contrary to popular belief, one can't put whatever one wants on a talk page, and the semi-protection template seems to be misleading.
I suspect maybe Blueking12 was confused about the meaning... maybe he didn't want new users editing his talk page, so he thought the template saying they were "prohibited" was merely a notice that they shouldn't, as opposed to explanatory text to accompany a mechanical prohibition? I dunno, anyway, as long as the templates don't come back, it's resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It is correct that you cannot put anything on a talk page, anything offensive should be removed, however i cannot find anything that specifically says that you cannot have misleading templates. Maybe the correct use of protection templates needs addressing elsewhere. --neon white talk 00:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree there is nothing that explicitly says you cannot put misleading templates on a talk page, but I would point to WP:IAR and the supplemental essay WP:COMMON. An inaccurate protection template could certainly be considered at least mildly disruptive. <shrug>
Anyway, I'm marking this as resolved, since the user in question already removed the template. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg L incivil

  Resolved

The latest post by user User:Greg L at Talk:Mandelbrot set#Animation is inappropriate and disruptive to any discussion of the text associated with an animation (itself good) that he has made. He has been asked to chill. Please take a look at this and give guidance. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you egg him on, then seem surprised that he got a little upset? He hasn't even been uncivil towards anyone in particular ... there's no violation of WP:NPA that I can see - in fact, your previous post to the diff you provided was rather provocative, and more along the lines of WP:NPA. He responded in a snarky manner to your snarkiness. Perhaps you need to take a few steps back and see cause/effect. -t BMW c- 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you BMW for helpful guidance. Following that, there has been exchange on Greg L's page that he has promised with my agreement to delete. Name calling on the article talk page should now cease. Cheers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Silly_rabbit civility

  Resolved
 – Both parties advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Silly rabbit to maintain civility in edit summaries. The result was a rapid escalation, with several accusations and that user then quickly archived the discussion. I was attempting to reduce the frustration caused by derogatory summaries, but in the end the user accused me of provocation. Due to intersecting areas of interest, it is unlikely that we will be able to avoid each other, so I would prefer this to be resolved. What else do I do? Is this user in fact being civil and I am misunderstanding? See User talk:LowKey, User Talk:Silly_rabbit, and Flood geology as well as the edit histories. LowKey (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I know User:Silly_rabbit is a respected editor of the Wikipedia community (once even offered to be nominated for administrator but he rejected the offer). He has definitely helped me (and I am sure many other editors) to become familiar with the Wiki conventions. If I am not mistaken, he has also made more than 15000 edits (and received quite a few barnstars). He also contributes to a diversity of articles in different fields and in mathematics, I can say for sure that he is very knowledgeable and rarely makes mistakes.

Nevertheless, from the evidence you have provided, Silly Rabbit seems to have become a little 'agitated' (this could have been because you were 'totally incorrect' and continued reverting his edits even though it was totally obvious that you were incorrect. However, if you are sure that you are correct, then this is probably not the case). Perhaps this is because of his recent (but not appropriate) block when edit warring with another user. Because of this, he may have continued this edit warring or so-called 'abuse' to WP:3RR. I don't know much (if anything) about flood geology so I can't judge who was right or wrong. Maybe someone else could do that. If silly rabbit was correct, then he should have perhaps explained why on the talk page instead of being 'uncivil' (if he has explained then just ignore me). If he was wrong, you should have explained this (if you have, ignore this because I haven't seen all the evidence) to him. If he continued being uncivil, then it would have been appropriate to contact an administrator. But I doubt that he would have continued being uncivil if he saw he was wrong.

Perhaps, discuss this on the talk page of the article. If edit warring continues (without any explanation on the talk page), then block silly rabbit but it is important that:

1. You are certain that he is wrong and is abusing Wiki rules

2. Even after you are sure he is wrong and try to explain to him, he continues abusing WP:3RR without supporting his claim

(I would not say that he archived the discussion just to 'hide' this dispute so it is probably just a mere coincidence)

Topology Expert (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See (if appropriate) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Topology Expert (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not the issue here. The issue about "reverting his edits" was arguably more a case of restoring my own, and is old news, and is also not as characterised by Silly rabbit regarding consensus. I addressed this in the current discussion on my talk page as Silly rabbit raised the issue as part of the current discussion.
Civility is the issue, in particular in edit summaries, regardless of whether the edits themselve are "correct" or not. See the copy of the discussion on my talk page under "Please watch your edit summaries". I have no doubt that Silly rabbit is highly respected, particularly in the various maths-related articles. It is in the evolution/creation related articles where the incivility occurs. I at one point thought that maybe two different people were using the same account (especially as a wiki-break was announced on Silly rabbit's user page, but editing continued). As a result of me asking Silly rabbit to be more civil in edit summaries (and to attribute edits to the correct user), Silly rabbit ultimately accused me of tendentious editing, of being unwilling to adhere to consensus, and of raising civility merely as provocation. The accusations of tendentious editing and provocation were then repeated in an edit summary - demonstrating exactly how much notice Silly rabbit was going to take of my request about civil edit summaries. 3RR was raised (incorrectly) by SR a long time ago (before the block that you mentioned), and SR also deleted my response to that accusation as a "troll". As SR has also archived all discussion of the current disagreement, with an uncivil edit summary, I do not know what else to do. The archival was no coincidence. Read the last entry, and the edit summary of the archival. I would not say it was to hide the discussion either, but is was definietly to end it at a point of SR's choosing.LowKey (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not carefully reading the evidence. Currently, all the evidence is against silly rabbit. He has definitely been uncivil and when accused, has chosen instead to deny it with another attack. Clearly (was not clear to me earlier but after carefully reading the evidence it is), he has chosen to hide his 'defeat' and attack without any justification. I am shocked at this and I think that a firm warning should be given to him.
I am certainly against silly rabbit now and I am convinced that he has been both uncivil and placed personal attacks to support himself when he (probably) knew that he was to blame. I will not be surprised if he is blocked after continuing this behaviour. Perhaps other Wikipedians should be informed (possibly other editors who know silly rabbit well from Wikiproject mathematics) to have a look at this evidence.
However, I still can't believe that this is silly rabbit who is being uncivil and I am highly suspicious that someone may have taken over his account. Perhaps this should also be put into consideration. Topology Expert (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
LowKey, you seem to have escalated discussion about one specific edit summary,[62] which stated (fine. Added scare quotes, and suitably reworded this to indicate that in no way is this being presented as a scientific theory (regardless of what fringe lunatics want to call it).) That's clearly rude about the proponents of this particular creationist "hypothesis" which is the subject of the section, but makes no reference to any editor. I appreciate that you've been arguing for sympathetic treatment of creationist views, but that doesn't mean it's a personal attack on yourself. WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV/FAQ set a requirement to avoid giving such views "equal validity", and escalating this dispute suggests WP:Civil POV pushing. Silly rabbit has backed away from the dispute about civility, I'd suggest that he should avoid calling creationists "lunatics" in edit summaries in future, and that should be an end of it. . . dave souza, talk 10:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Dave, the one edit summary was only the last of a pattern that has been evident over a long period. In creation/evolution related articles SR is generally rude and abrasive to those who disagree, and that often in the edit summaries. In a simple and polite manner, I asked that edit summaries be kept civil and I gave "lunatics" as the example of an uncivil content in a summary. SR responded by saying that "lunatics" was not at all uncivil, and in fact seemed to be saying that NOT calling the group in question lunatics would be to give them undue weight. SR then threw "religious zealots" in for good measure, and also asked me to explain how "lunatics" is uncivil. (and you said I escalated this?) I provided a quote of examples from WP:CIVIL and bolded the relevant ones (yes I threw in two more based on SR's response to my request). SR then made unsupported accusations of refusing consensus and tendentious editing, and claimed that the civility request was part of this "pattern". SR then also said that my request was meant only as provocation. SR then archived the discussion, with the same accusations in the edit summary. How is that backing away? That is closing the door.LowKey (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just let him have his Trix already! --NE2 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that an administrator would be comfortable to block silly rabbit after all his time to Wikipedia. Silly rabbit is definitely a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and any block would be inappropriate. But his recent behaviour suggests that some action should be taken against him. Maybe place this on the administrator's noticeboard to get their opinion on the matter. If I was an administrator I would not block silly rabbit; at the very most I would only firmly warn him not to repeat his behaviour. Topology Expert (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not pushing for a block. I just wanted the incivility toned down. At this point though, I also want the accusations retracted.LowKey (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
As I said, User: Silly rabbit has been uncivil on two occassions (the other occassion was on Fidel Castro). He was blocked (temporarily) for his first 'abuse' but he still chose to continue this so-called 'abuse' by being uncivil. I informed the admin noticeboard of this dispute so hopefully an admin can sort this out and bring it to a close. I am in support of silly rabbit but I think that he should be a little more 'calmer' in his edit summaries (I think this 'abuse' has occurred in mathematics too). I also don't think that a block would be appropriate (it would be detrimental in fact since silly rabbit is such a valuable editor) but perhaps a firm warning should be given to him so he does not repeat this behaviour. Topology Expert (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I was quite civil over the Fidel Castro affair. Please read the posts I made to the user in question, as well as the thread I started on the talk page. I should think that any observer who bothered to really check the whole thing out would come to the conclusion that I was the very picture of gentility. I was not blocked for incivility, nor was that ever raised as an issue. Furthermore, please re-read Dave's post above very carefully, which I think summarizes the issue here nicely. It is better not to escalate this any further. While it may have been ill-advised to use the word "lunatics" in my edit summary, it was entirely hyperbolic and not directed at any editor. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have said what dave souza said, except he said it better. I'd call this over. --barneca (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, this should never have been raised on the administrators noticeboard, and the Castro issue should never have been linked to this. I would like to apologise to Silly rabbit for those two developments. They certainly didn't help reduce tension levels. Nevertheless, I still want the accusations struck (we can't do anything about the one in the edit summary). I would then be most happy to consider the issue closed. Meanwhile, can someone please tell me what would be the correct way to informally address perceived uncivil behaviour if a quiet word on the editor's talk page is "escalation" (as both of the admins that have posted here have indicated)?LowKey (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Look, I initially supported silly rabbit and I am going to support him again. Unlike you and silly rabbit, I was not able to go through everything related to this dispute (read very carefully) and judge. As I said, I would definitely be against any block to silly rabbit and if at all any action is taken, the maximum should be warning silly rabbit (if at all action is taken). I only posted this on the admin noticeboard so an administrator could sort the issue out.
In this dispute, I have only seen other editor's comments and based my opinion on that. In the fidel castro affair, many editors wer against silly rabbit so I decided there must be some reason for this. But I never thought that silly rabbit's recent block was appropriate. I take back what I said and yes, silly rabbit approached the fidel castro affair calmly but the other editor ignored him (and reverted).
The best way to adress 'uncivil' behaviour would be to request him on the talk page (as you have done). I think in this case, it was appropriate to take the dispute here. Maybe silly rabbit was uncivil but even if so, I don't think it was necessary to create a whole dispute over one edit summary. The creation of this dipute was probably what silly rabbit meant as 'provocation'. Topology Expert (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Completely frivolous report. No further action warranted, unless more frivolous reports are made. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well how’s that for AGF? Believe me, I was not being frivolous. According to its lead, this page is for “perspective and help with difficult communication” and that is exactly what I was seeking. When I brought this matter to this page I asked exactly two (2) questions. They were.
 What else do I do? Is this user in fact being civil and I am misunderstanding?
There was then a whole lot of other nonsense about disputes, edit warring, admin actions, being for or against different parties, calling in other editors etc. SR understandably felt rather put upon, and I have apologized for (unintentionally) setting that in motion. I am happy to consider this settled, once SR’s accusations have been struck. But I ‘’’still’’ want to know
 …what would be the correct way to informally address perceived uncivil behaviour if a quiet word on the editor's
 talk page is "escalation" (as both of the admins that have posted here have indicated)?
LowKey (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Since your report 1) contained no diffs and 2) concerned an editor whose edit summaries and contributions looked quite civil to me (especially considering some of the contentious areas in which he has participated), I find it frivolous. I appear to have company in that assessment. So my answer to your first question is yes, you are misunderstanding.
As to your second question, it does highlight an issue often underlying problems with the whole idea of enforcing civility. Some people purposefully attempt to be uncivil, and some people purposefully attempt to perceive others as uncivil. Neither is a particularly good plan in general. For example, I could freak out and claim that you have accused me of bad faith and therefore claim that you are being uncivil. I could hunt down diffs where you call actions of the person you have reported here "hypocracy" and that you think his comments "may indicate that you really do need a wiki-break". Would this demand some action against you, or a retraction, or a strikeout? Hardly, it would suggest that I get some perspective and not dwell on frivolous things.
So what would I consider the correct way to address perceived uncivil behavior? Personally, I would shrug it off. All the more so if several others didn't perceive it as a civility problem, as is the case here. Go ahead, give it a shot. Stick that "resolved" template at the top of this thread and get on with editing under the policies that matter to the content. Tim Shuba (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. LowKey has accused silly rabbit for nothing and attacked him just for the sake of it. I earlier was on LowKey's side but that was only because I had not seen all the evidence. Topology Expert (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Topology Expert, I find your comments here as extremely unhelpful in handling this matter. "Choosing sides" is not what this noticeboard is about; it's about spotting incivility, discussing it with the user (or warning them) to stop, and where possible, to settle misunderstandings. WQA is not limited to personal attacks; general incivility is also covered - to attempt to prevent entire areas of the pedia becoming highly-charged warzones that increase the likelihood of misunderstanding, and reduce the likelihood of collaboration.
Labelling any group of persons or users should be avoided where possible, and there's no doubt that Silly rabbit should refrain from calling a group "lunatics" in the future - if not for anything else, to avoid misunderstandings like this one. I wouldn't call this WQA frivolous, or meritless for that matter, like Tim Shuba did. The person who opened this made a good faith report, and the questions he asked were not unreasonable. If there were no diffs, someone should've asked LowKey explicitly and pointed at the instructions above. Other than these points, I agree with the remainder of what Tim Shuba said at 04:01, 12 November. I don't see anything egregious enough that should be struck or retracted, and try to shrug off perceived incivility. Focus on editing under the policies pertaining to content and conduct - it's especially important to comment on content rather than on another contributor during discussions, and in edit summaries. This complaint should be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why did this continue beyond Silly Rabbit's post at 2:02 on Nov 11? I believe that the phrase "While it may have been ill-advised to use the word "lunatics" in my edit summary, it was entirely hyperbolic and not directed at any editor" was sufficiently contrite. The editor was made aware of the issue, admits it was wrong, and I highly anticipate it won't happen again. Why was further discussion required? Problem solved, move along, but please do let us know if issues arise again. -t BMW c- 12:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that before tagging this as done; it was because the person initiating the complaint didn't feel his question answered about perceived incivility, and it was then prolonged by some of the unhelpful bits I've noted. I'd have closed this completely, but I'd like to clarify if LowKey has understood, and if that's the end of his questions re: handling incivility in general. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking sides is not my point. My point was:

a) Explain that it was pointless to argue about one summary

b) Silly rabbit had done the right thing because he accepted his 'fault' but was provoked (not that LowKey had done the wrong thing; he certainly had the right to say that silly rabbit had been a little 'unecessary' in his edit summaries. However, maybe posting this dipute on this page was unecessary and should be avoided for such 'minor' disputes in future).

When I said that I was on one side or the other I meant that I supported the actions and claims of that editor because I thought that they were appropriate. LowKey also asked whether silly rabbit was civil/uncivil (and whether he was misunderstanding) so I indirectly responded to this question by supporting silly rabbit. Topology Expert (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got some basic fundamentals quite wrong, and your comments reflect that, even now. I'll start off with a few problems in your very response above. In "b", you note that posting this dipute on this page was unecessary and should be avoided for such 'minor' disputes . That is utterly inappropriate and in conflict with the very first sentence on the page. Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. This was clearly the case, and he was quite clear that he did not wish to pursue this formally at this point. In your next paragraph, you explain what you mean by your support - that's your intention, but the manner in which you've expressed yourself is unlikely to resolve a dispute, and wasn't helpful. We're looking at comments objectively, and if you've been involved with that user, then it may be appropriate that you don't comment. If you found there was incivility, you note your opinion as such "I think comment X was uncivil" - it doesn't mean you support or go against one user as if this is a tennis match; this is not an admin noticeboard for blocks either.
Regarding your other comments: First, you step onto the unrelated issue of edit-warring and talk about blocks, then you say that currently all the evidence is against silly rabbit and I am certainly against silly rabbit now and I am convinced that he has been both uncivil and placed personal attacks to support himself when he (probably) knew that he was to blame. I will not be surprised if he is blocked after continuing this behaviour. Then you say regarding blocking that it would be detrimental in fact since silly rabbit is such a valuable editor but I informed the admin noticeboard of this dispute so hopefully an admin can sort this out and bring it to a close, followed by Look, I initially supported silly rabbit and I am going to support him again. Unlike you and silly rabbit, I was not able to go through everything related to this dispute (read very carefully) and judge. As I said, I would definitely be against any block to silly rabbit and if at all any action is taken, the maximum should be warning silly rabbit (if at all action is taken). I only posted this on the admin noticeboard so an administrator could sort the issue out. Finally, you say LowKey has accused silly rabbit for nothing and attacked him just for the sake of it. I earlier was on LowKey's side but that was only because I had not seen all the evidence. This is not just confusing for the editor who posted the WQA, but it also gives them the wrong impression about certain things too. We're not about 'sides', and that's what your comments appear to be about - we're about resolving differences equally among editors, where possible. Going to the admin noticeboard can escalate a dispute, and should be avoided where possible. Both admins and editors have this page on their watchlist so they respond. Per the instructions above, if extra input is needed urgently, that's when you go there - I see nothing to justify such urgency in this case. All in all, your intentions may have been good, but your comments here have been extremely unhelpful. Please bear this criticism in mind for the future so that this does not become a major problem again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, and thanks for the advice. I have known silly rabbit for quite a while and from my experience I knew that he could not be uncivil without reason. So when I supported him, I was just supporting him against LowKey because initially it seemed that LowKey was pushing for some sort of 'warning' to silly rabbit (if not a block)...

Anyway, I can't be bothered to explain my comments. First the discussion is about silly rabbit and LowKey and then it becomes about criticising comments made by other editors such as me. If this is how much trouble it takes to resolve a minor dispute, I would rather not participate in such discussions in the future (the only reason why I participated now because I had already read the thread regarding silly rabbit's 'uncivility'. However, unfortunately I did not read all the information so I was a little confused about the dispute) (and please don't comment about this post but thankyou anyway for explaining why I was wrong; I will follow what you said in future).

Topology Expert (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Neil Clark article and talkpage

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Prior OTRS involvement probably means WQA shouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole.. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article on Neil Clark seems to be the subject of multiple edit wars, accusations of sock-puppeteering, uncivil behaviour, claims of harassment, blog postings elsewhere, postings by someone claiming to be the subject of the article, etc. Not sure if this is the best place for an alert, but would be great if a wider group or editors/admins could keep an eye on the article. (Full disclosure: I have edited the article in the past, I think reasonably, but have been accused of acting improperly and so am leaving well alone now) LeContexte (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Spartaz mentioned in a previous edit on the article page a few weeks ago that there has been OTRS involvement in this case already. Hence, I think it is probably beyond the scope of Wikiquette Alerts here. I will notify Spartaz that he may want to weigh in. Thanks for trying to get more eyes on this! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jeebus, the deeper I dig into this, the more I am convinced I don't want to get involved under any circumstances. This is part of a wider conflict stretching over at least a year and involving multiple Wikipedia administrators and multiple outings of editors' real-life identities. This definitely transcends what WQA can deal with. Hopefully Spartaz can provide some guidance... Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Brewhaha@edmc.net

  Resolved
 – User has been indef'd for reasons outside of this WQA

I am noting here for the record that I have removed extensive material pasted here from User talk:Brewhaha@edmc.net. To see the material, please view that page or this diff. I have removed it because it represents a GFDL concern, duplicating others words without attribution, because it is long enough to overwhelm this page, and because I do not believe it is a Wikiquette matter. Odds are good that it was posted by the user himself, who is likely objecting to his indefinite block, notice of which was placed here. I have noted it so that other contributors can evaluate it and provide feedback as they may feel appropriate after viewing it at its source or in the diff above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time parsing what the user in question is trying to say, but in any case, I agree that a poorly-formatted many-signatures-missing copy-and-paste from another page is probably not too appropriate here.
If the user in question is reading this and would like to try again to formulate the basics of his complaint in a 100 words or less, I'm sure there are folks here who would be happy to try and help. Until then, I'm too perplexed to even say whether I think it's a wikiquette issue or not... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I tightened up the attribution. Since Mister Smith is trying to tell me that I'm not being civil, it does fit here. It probably should've been here long before it went to WP:AN. Smith himself considered WP:AN/U (something like that...offers 48hours to make decisions on users). In a way, I'm not surprised that they didn't answer, before, because I deleted a lot of my own words. I omitted user:jehochman's notice to me, because it was a sloppy version of something he put on WP:AN in way of a challenge. Since this issue is approaching a week old, and they haven't deigned to answer e-mail, it does belong somewhere other than my talk page. Where should it go? (mail)216.234.170.109 (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Where's the "confused as heck" emoticon when I really need it? Second, why do we have a Userid that is an e-mail address? Third, as there's a heck of a lot of "suspicions" but not provided in a logical manner, and without properly linked diff's (meaning the statements could have been edited by anyone), this has become more of a RANT than an actual complaint. I fail to see what the actual complaint is? If someone has been uncivil, then show us the actual DIFF for the incivility (see instructions at top of this page). If you feel an Admin has overstepped their bounds, see WP:Resolving disputes first. If the 3 revert rule has been broken, visit WP:Administrators_noticeboard/3RR. As an absolute minimum, be concise. Long, rambling, incoherent text does not help anyone make a decision. Try this "Editor X said/did Y to me/an article, which makes me feel Z, and here (insert diff) is the proof." -t BMW c- 11:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think -- and this is really a stab in the dark, cuz I'm as confused as you -- that Jehochman (talk · contribs) accused Brewhaha@edmc.net of incivility, possibly on WP:ANI but it's hard to say, and that Brewhaha feels it was an unjustified accusation. As to what exactly he/she would like to see happen, I am still puzzled. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, upon further reading, there appears to be some serious confusion going on here. What Brewhaha is asking for is that Jehochman be "denied the next administration term." I'm sorry to tell you, Brewhaha, but it doesn't work that way. Administrators don't have "terms". (Arbitration Committee members do, and coincidentally Jehochman is running, so you do have the right to vote for someone other than him if you would like...)
I have perused through some of the case, and frankly I don't think Jehochman did overstate his case. Most of the allegations are accurate. There's not much to be done here... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I was going to ignore the whole "don't vote to re-elect" Jehochman" part, as it was mildly amusing, and was actually written quite clearly, even though wrong :-) -t BMW c- 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Where does policy stand on using an email as a username? --neon white talk 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing specific in WP:USERNAME. Personally, who would want to be contacted that easily? -t BMW c- 23:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm very suprised it's not discouraged, considering it's discouraged everywhere else. --neon white talk 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The user is indefinitely blocked. If they are posting here with sock puppet accounts, those shall be blocked. We should allow this user to depart with their dignity intact. Please do not make critical remarks about the user. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo what Jehochman says above. Additionally, if an uninvolved admin would care to review the situation and evaluate the merits of User talk:Brewhaha@edmc.net being full protected, I'd be grateful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe any of us were specifically critical about the user, other than their inability to provide a clear complaint. Marked as "resolved" -t BMW c- 23:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal abuse

  Resolved
 – A good faith comment was misconstrued due to some unfortunate wording. Nothing more to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dennis_Brown has subjected me to what I feel is unwarrented personal abuse - "it makes it appear as if you are a pompus ass" [63] - the fact that it's wrapped up in what I feel are weasel words to make it more acceptable makes no difference to me. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you feel that way. The statement was sincere, and I feel that demanding that a closing admin define a policy for you was unreasonable, as the closing admin has no "duty" to provide any rationale or policy at closing if they so chose, and most will after the fact if you just politely ask. I don't think you meant your statement to come across that strong, but it did. I also took the time to quote you the exact policy you were demanding the admin to define. As for the statement, I feel pretty comfortable that it was appropriate for the circumstance. That you were so offensed is unfortunate, but it wasn't a personal attack as I was clearly addressing the issue at hand, even if colorfully. The amount of rudeness seems balanced with my statement, and I think the intent of the comment is clear enough. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
"That lighting makes it appear that you are wearing orange shoes" does not mean I think you're wearing orange shoes, or even that you are wearing them - although you may well be. To call this one entry "personal abuse" or even "incivility" is a huge stretch. Let's also put the rest of the context of the sentence in: "You may want to reconsider your request for the closing admin. I am sure you are a very nice person and all, but it makes it appear as if you are a pompus ass who is owed something when you ask like that. I have the utmost confident that you really don't think this, but I was concerned that others may construe your words in this manner" (italics and bold mine). It appears to be a comment about your edit, advising you that it may come across wrong. It appears the other editor has made a rather similar comment. I can understand that it an AfD that you were involved in was going "badly" you may get defensive (I've done it ... be careful of WP:OWN in that case) -t BMW c- 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, no incivility, but a misunderstanding. That said, Dennis Brown, it was simply too great a possibility that this comment could be misconstrued (out of context) as a personal attack. Things unfortunately often get lost in translation/communication on Wikipedia. :( This was an avoidable complaint, and I'm sure there better ways of expressing yourself or putting the point across; as a lesson for the future, a wiser choice of words on how Daytona2 or Daytona2's contributions may be perceived would probably be enough to avoid these sorts of complaints. Again, I'll emphasize that I don't think you were being uncivil or intending to be. But I'm sure you'd like to avoid (where possible) having to come here in the future as the subject of a complaint, particularly of this sort. ;) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If we are being honest here, I find your comments in this matter to be quite cromulent. (sorry, I couldn't resist. And yes, point taken.) ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Using the term 'pompous ass' is incivil, maybe not the worst you'll see but i'd still recommend User:Dennis_Brown choose his words more carefully in future to avoid offending other editors. --neon white talk 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive53&oldid=1133157195"