Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive58

< Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive58)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Bwilkins in topic User: Victor9876


QuackGuru seems to want ownership of the Larry Sanger page

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Recommend WP:RFC Gerardw (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru has consistently opposed any editing of the page for Larry Sanger for some time now, and a number of editors have tried to fix the article only to be deterred by the prospect of an edit war. See, for example [1].

After a fair amount of work reorganizing the article (among other improvements) by other editors, QuackGuru did a cut-and-paste revert to a version from a month prior, but claimed this was not a reversion [2]. I'm not the only editor to consider this inappropriate [3].

QuackGuru has now resorted to scattering all the "poor content" templates he knows throughout the article [4].

I've done an RfC on the article and another editor has asked for a third opinion, but the main problem seems to be that QuackGuru seems to be more focused on obstruction than offering any real contribution. (Even a "the introduction sucks" comment from another editor [5] was useful inasmuch as it prompted an attempt at improvement.) Rvcx (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a civility issue at all...y'all aren't even talking to one another. This is purely a content dispute, so another avenue of dispute resolution is more appropriate. That said, I'm not seeing why you are having an issue with his adding what, to me, appear to be valid tags noting issues with the article? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The talk page is a mile long with conversation, but I think everyone is finding QuackGuru very difficult to communicate with. Any changes at all are "mixing up" or "messing up" the article, and "fixed overlinking and redundancy" is how he describes reverting the entire article to a version from a month past. I consider it a Wikiquette issue largely because QuackGuru's tactic of repeatedly intoning "I restored sourced information" while completely ignoring attempts at discussion from others (such as the fact that The Colbert Report isn't exactly a reliable source) is seriously undermining any attempt to reach a mutual understanding. And of course any comments from other users are immediately deleted from User_talk:QuackGuru, leaving only complaints about "strange edits" and alleged intimidation attempts. Spreading tags on the article seems like just the latest way to express displeasure without actually articulating what he finds wrong with the article. Rvcx (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I too can see little wrong with the edits or the etiquette. The user is involved in discussion. This seems to be a content dispute and a third opinion or rfc would work better. As is often the case the 'pointing finger' seems to have more etiquette problems. In this case i remind Rvcx to assume good faith. --neon white talk 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually RfC was tried about a month ago, and 3O a week or so. Not that I particularly want to get involved again, but RfC and 3O just haven't worked. — Ched (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The page is protected now, making it a moot point, we'll see how that works. — Ched (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Hey,

I'm having problems with Colonel Warden at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Barker (Civil Servant). I am struggling to believe he is assuming good faith (excuse the irony!) and he is more interested in attacking me and the steps I followed than discussing the matter at hand. I am worried I will lose my cool and would appreciate intervention.

Looking at his talk page, I see other people have had problems too. Computerjoe's talk 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just notified. Apologies if I don't sound very neutral. I am just somewhat annoyed. Computerjoe's talk 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have some opinions about this situation, but I would like to wait for his response to your posting to make any further comments. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The AFD process, by its nature, is adversial. Nominations to delete the work of other editors undergo challenge so that this work is not removed improperly. Asking whether a nomination has followed the process laid out at WP:BEFORE is a proper question in this context and editors should not take this personally. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pretty sure I posted this link to AfD etiquette not that long ago about a different WQA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • My issue is that what I went through doesn't matter. The article's notability does. We should argue that, not steps taken. Computerjoe's talk 17:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The steps taken before a nomination are how one determines notability. If an editor hasn't done the necessary work before nomination, xe has zero grounds for stating that something is not notable. So asking whether you did the requisite work, when you state nothing about doing so in your nomination, is a perfectly valid question, and an issue that has taken editors to RFC before now. Your nomination was a bad one. It stated no deletion-policy-based rationale for deletion at all. Make good nominations, and you won't have people questioning you. If you want something deleted via AFD, explain why you think that deletion policy applies. Follow the recommendations at User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD and head off the questions before they are even asked.

          If you want to ask "Is this notable?" the correct template is {{notability}}, not {{subst:afd1}}. AFD is where you come after you have determined, by doing your homework beforehand, that something is not notable. And if you've done your homework beforehand, then for goodness' sake state what you did in your nomination! The rest of the world are not mind-readers. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

      • Also, the editor made several implicit personal attacks (such as presuming I was ignorant). Computerjoe's talk 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Being disputatious at AfD is not a wikiquette issue and editors are free to cite things like WP:BEFORE (not relevant in this case, but...). I don't really see a personal attack. The nomination is fine (I agree with it, in fact), but other editors are free to disagree and disengagement is probably the best course of action. Eusebeus (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Dispute is obviously fine but 'I question whether you have done the slightest work on this topic per WP:BEFORE or whether this is just a drive-by deletion grounded in ignorance?' does strike me as a little rude. I shall disengage, following your advice. Computerjoe's talk 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes you are right, it is rude and others may think it a valid WQA issue. My view is that with editors like Colonel Warden, who see themselves as committed to a righteous fight to save content and ramp up their OTT rhetoric accordingly, this kind of slur is best ignored. It doesn't convince; don't let it shouldn't provoke. Eusebeus (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong with him asking you that sort of question at all. Not rude at all. And you shouldn't nominate something that has already been nominated, without reading all the discussion from previous. Dream Focus (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If you don't think language like "drive-by deletion grounded in ignorance" is at least problematic, I urge you to review our policies on engagement with other editors. Eusebeus (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem here is a disagreement over the use of the term "ignorance". Officially it means "lack of knowledge", but the word has evolved to mean "stupidity" and/or "rudeness". As such, based on the typical action of the Colonel the word may have been carefully chosen to be ambiguous. We're not fooled. If a warning does not already exist on his page, it will very shortly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Jewish epithets and overall uncivilized talk

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've discovered discussions by users User:Spotfixer, User:RolandR, and User:Eleland, on User:Eleland's talkpage: Link.

I know rules on userpages are more relaxed than article talks, but this kind of anti-Israeli grouping has become quite common with the mentioned people. I don't mind if users who share similar opinions talk with each other, bu comments such as Jewish and obsessively Zionist admin baited me until he ran out of his 3 reverts, This confoems to a pattern of systematic abuse of anti-Zionist Jews, and vandalism of related articles, and Everywhere in the world it seems the law fucks the poor, weak and marginalized and supports the already rich and powerful. One would have thought a people's encyclopedia would be different.. User:ChrisO, an admin often involved in similar disputes hasn't responded to my message. He previously wanted user User:Brewcrewer temporarily blocked for this I understand your frustration. Since ChrisO was so experienced with these kinds of violations, I assumed he would be very concerned about my message: Questions but unfortunately, he hasn't responded.

I'm just honestly tired of some group of users being allowed to group up and talk about the evil Zionists while others continue to be warned/blocked for doing the same. This is all per Wiki not a battlefield and Wikihounding, though I'm sure some of you could find other rules that apply to this situation. Eleland has already been blocked for incivility for a separate incident but he continues to act inappropriate in his talk page. And, other editors have followed him.

Anyways, I don't know the exact punishments and to be honest I don't care...I simply want people to know what's going on. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's not a lot can be done for discussions on a user's own Talk pages where he is discussing among other editors that aren't objecting. Wikipedia is not censored and 3rd party incivility complaints usually result in being told to "avert your eyes". Most of the rant is devoted to kicking off at his 2 week block. My advice is to keep away from discussions on his Talk page that you're not involved in. --HighKing (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:ThuranX personnal attack on my user space.

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Blocked; see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility:_ThuranX. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This particular comment [6]] on my user space would be considered a personnal attack I think.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Complainant is a POV pusher on the Barack Obama page. He's insistent that we establish on Wikipedia that President Obama is not the legitimate president, because he was secretly born in Kenya. He's doing this over and over. When I added my support to a recently closed proposal, OUTSIDE the 'archiving' template area[7], he responded by warning me not to interfere with archived discussions by altering their content. I didn't do that. He refuses to apologize for the incorrect template, choosing instead to ignore me, and continue to show that policy intimidation tactics are his new weapon of choice. if he's saying that he's not illiterate, but simply prefers to let false accusations stand, then consider this me counter-filing against him for his false accusations against me. I did not violate the guideline, yet he refuses to redact his accusation. ThuranX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum - I notice that at some point AFTER my posting diff, someone moved my comment in. ThuranX (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
He doesn't have to redact anything, rather, you should be the one considering redacting a personal attack. Perhaps it would be best for all involved to relax for awhile and persue something different. Grsz11 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So he can falsely accuse me? Then so can I. thanks for the tip, I'll go edit my comment now. It'll probably be some ridiculous accusation that he can't deny either. ThuranX (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have tracked down the editor who changed my comments, creating about half this drama. I have also apologized to jojhutton for that accusation, and redacted the illiteracy comment. I still expect an apology from him for falsely accusing me, as he was able to link my eidt diff, and refuses to admit that i violated nothing at all. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Calling him a "coward" probably doesn't help much. Perhaps best to just walk away. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've taken this to ANI; blaming others for incivility is simply not good enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
He has been blocked. Tiptoety talk 05:08, 10 February 2009 (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:LoveMonkey

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – to RfC or mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya!

I wonder if someone (or ones) can stop by East-West Schism and Talk:East-West Schism. We're having several issues over there:

  • Editors who believe that NPOV is achieved by inserting POV content into the article to encourage other editors with differing POVs to balance it out.
  • Editors who make 5-10 minor edits to the talk page of the article rather than using the Preview button.
  • Editors who label any disagreement with them "Edit Warring," and other failures to WP:AGF.
  • Editors who use the talk page of the article as a forum.
  • Editors who act as if they own the article.

It'd be great to get a few new sets of eyes to look this one over. Thanks a lot! LOLthulu 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't read this page carefully enough. The editor I have specifically in mind is User:LoveMonkey. LOLthulu 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Please provide diffs for the specific civility issue. Most of your list does not apply here. --HighKing (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Read the talk page. He fails to AGF from the very top. LOLthulu 03:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
To be frank, most of your list suggests that you should try filing an WP:RFC of some sort; an article RFC ideally. Mediation is a good alternative to an article RFC if you're having trouble talking to each other, but you'll both need to consent to this step. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Gnevin, User:Garion96 and User:Kotniski edit warring to hide dispute.

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – RfC, mediation or an admin noticeboard if there's still issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Outnumbering users in a dispute is not an excuse to edit war to hide or downplay the seriousness of the dispute. It's obvious on that discussion page that there are multiple disputes regarding the guide, by multiple users, that have yet to be concluded. Multiple advocates for a guide that is obviously WP:CREEP removed tags before discussion has ended to downplay the seriousness of the discussion [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. At one point a User:Kotniski modified the tags refusing to accept that there were multiple disputes[15] [16] [17]. I was falsely reported of violating WP:3RR just for fulfilling that same users request to complete his modified version of the tag [18] [19]. And then he reverted what he requested after all that [20] which was more of a violation of WP:3RR than my fulfillment of his request. He also removed the original RFC before the 30 days[21] since the only response hasn't been in favor of the guide[22]. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs provided indicate an article dispute not a lack of civility. Citing a 3RR posting which resulted in the complainant being blocked[[23]] does not make a compelling case. Gerardw (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't just me that they were edit warring. User:Termer put the dispute tag there. Should I report it at the administrators notice board? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't understand what this is about. I've just been trying to focus the discussion - and the tags - on the section of the page that the "dispute" is actually about, in order to actually get somewhere. If every page that one or two users have some minor problem with is going to be marked at the top as disputed, then we might as well put a disputed tag at the top of every policy/guideline/essay page as a matter of routine.--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry Kotniski. I guess this is about nothing. Since I got a 12 hour ban for fulfilling your request, I have no business complaining. There can only be one guilty party in this case. Since the administrator didn't have time to investigate the case closer before banning me, then I guess I'm the only guilty one here. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see an issue of civility here. Avoid edit-warring and try a dispute resolution mechanism. It may so happen that mediation or an article RFC is all you need. :) If there is still a lot of edit-warring, then of course, go to an admin noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian and Farix refuse to honor the Merge consensus on AFD

Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion
  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – to AN or AN/I; filing party advised to avoid forum shopping.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The AFD [decision] was to Merge the article, not delete it. Please look at the discussion on the talk page for the author the information was to be merged to. Dream Focus (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a civility issue (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
They seem to be quite hostile toward other editors though. And when I asked before on the Merge article to see if policy was violated, she followed me there, and made [[24]] personal attacks against me. At the Merge article's talk page, an editor told me to take the issue here. Dream Focus (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you are still WP:FORUMSHOPing.[25][26] --Farix (Talk) 01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith. Where exactly have I brought this up before? You refused to honor a merger, someone discussing this on my talk page, so I went and asked about Merger policy on the merger policy talk page. I was told to come here instead. That isn't forum shopping. Dream Focus (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The wikilawyering policy page was before this. Check the time. It was a totally different issue. Just like when I first heard sales figures don't equal nobility, I went to the talk page about that policy and discussed it there. These are not related issues. Dream Focus (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The merger was done. Stop forum shopping already. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It was not a merger, as voted on by consensus. It was a delete. Every time someone tries to merge any of the information, you delete it, and become confrontational, as the talk page shows. Stop making person attacks, and focus on the issue. A delete is not a merge. Dream Focus (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please direct your attentions to this post by her. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mizuki_Kawashita&diff=next&oldid=269186780 The get over it, comment, seems rather hostile. Both editors were against merging anything. I see now, they have decided to allow a brief bit of information to be merged at least. But the issue of their incivility still remains. I want other opinions. Do these two editors seem overly hostile to others? I'm glad they finally caved in and allowed some information to be merged, originally refusing that in the discussion, but their general attitude, and aggressive nature I believe is not fitting of wikiquette. Dream Focus (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll echo Wilkins, not a civility issue. The comic is not notable and doesn't need mentioned anywhere. Grsz11Review 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(ECx2) And I'm sure anyone looking at this will also look at your contribs to see your forum shopping, semi-stalking behavior, and the warnings by admins on your talk page telling you to stop harassing me and others. And, FYI, no one caved in. That stuff will be removed eventually, it is just a compromise while the discussion continues. Note that multiple people are supporting the original version. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC) No one has made any personal attacks against you, despite your numerous ones against everyone else. Telling you to stop forum shopping is not a personal attack, its a reminder. All valid info WAS merged before the AfD ever finished. The AfD just confirmed it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Now even when she accepts the information merged there for the moment, she says it is only temporary, and will be removed eventually. Interesting. So you aren't going to follow the consensus and let it be merged, only tolerate a bit for now, and delete it later on when no one is around to notice. And stop acussing me of forum shopping, stalking, and other nonsense. How can I be stalking you, when I posted at those places first, you following me there and posting afterward? You aren't making any sense. Dream Focus (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Consensus was followed. You and the article creator just don't like how it was followed (and you only got involved following behind me). Anyone can read your talk page and see that I'm simply repeating what admins have told you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I was already involved during the AFD discussion, and then had someone post on my talk page about it, and then got involved again. It has nothing to do with you. Consensus was not followed. Stop distorting things, and making ridiculous accusations. Dream Focus (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The only incivilities here are several personal attacks by User:Kintetsubuffalo on both myself and Collectonian and your declarations that we are being dishonorable. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectionian and TheFarix. This does indeed look like some forum shopping by Dream Focus. Dream Focus is also making false accussations of personal attacks. Dream Focus, I hope that you re-read WP:NPA to get an understanding on what a personal attack is. Just because someone disagrees with you does not in any way mean that they are making personal attacks against you even if they being a little incivil, period. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who just recently had an encounter with one of the editors mentioned in this heading, I have to say I sensed extreme "ownership" issues on the editor's part, and a tactic of goading other editors with overly aggressive actions and rhetoric. If another editor opposes in a similar manner, this is promptly reported as an "attack" at a discussion board. I found the whole experience disruptive, and I can only imagine how off-putting such behavior would be to a new editor, or one, such as myself, who innocently wandered into this editor's "territory". Dekkappai (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your non-neutral response. You coming down here to attempt to inflame things is no better than DreamFocus jumping in your report above and trying to do the same (which got him a warning, FYI). Re-read the top of this page regarding what the purpose of this page is. It is not for you to continue piling on personal attacks just because you feel it is somehow justified because the two of you feel some need to back one another up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue needs the intervention of an administrator. Dream Focus was forum shopping and making false accussations of personal attacks. If the issue gets taken to WP:AN or WP:ANI, can somebody notify me?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 February 2009 (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:Tom Lennox

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Escalated to Wikipedia:ANI#User:Tom_Lennox; blocked.

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

I just happened to notice a user edit-warring and uncivilly dealing with other editors here. I am uninvolved, and wish to stay that way. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are generally required to advise them of this filing. However, as edit summaries are permanent, I have provided the user with a friendly level 4 warning for personal attacks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As actions continue today, I have opened an WP:ANI thread. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:02, 10 February 2009 (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:Headbomb

Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion
  Stuck
 – return to talk page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How should I respond to this personal attack? His tactics involve ... general dishonesty, blatant lying, and general Wikilawyering , etc... He should be flat out banned from the wiki. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading through things. They do seem rather hostile. Going to quote one bit:

That seems rather uncivilized. Dream Focus (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to notify the user you are complaining about that you filed this report. I already left a message on their talk page but in the future, please leave a note when you file a report. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There are better ways to deal with disruptive editors, responding by throwing around accusations and hyperbole is far from ideal regardless of the behaviour of the target. Let the admins deal with the editor and try not to get dragged down with them. --neon white talk 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with neon white; it is desirable you try to keep your cool and stay as civil as as possible, even when dealing with problem editors. If their editing is continuing to be a problem, then it should be taken to an admin noticeboard so that the community can decide if sanctions should be imposed yet. If you get dragged in and your own behaviour starts spiralling out of control as a result of another editor's, then the net loss is for the project. In this case, it is not a personal attack, but it is not the sort of commentary that one hopes to see either. Keep your cool. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To whome it may concern: What Headbomb and Greg have written cannot be considered a personal attack because what Headbomb and Greg have written are pure plain facts about Thunderbird2's poor behaviour. All the evidence of Thunderbird2's poor behaviour can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2. That page contains all the evidence of Thunderbird2 repeatedly being dishonest, lying, forum shopping, using bad faith edits, and violating policies and guidelines. So since all the evidence is at that page then obviously Thunderbird2 is again misrepresenting the situation (deliberately lying, again) when he wrote "without a shred of evidence". Also Thunderbird2 again misrepresents the situation regarding mediation because mediation was rejected since it became obvious that Thunderbird2 previously forum shopped the same issue and was wasting the valuable time of the mediator, this is demonstrated in the RfC/U. Since it is now obvious Thunderbird2 has not modified his behaviour, as has been demonstrated by this latest attempt to forum shop here, then as reflected by the consensus shown in the RfC/U please ban Thunderbird2 to stop the user from continuously disrupting Wikipedia in the future. Fnagaton 23:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • How should I respond to this personal attack by Fnagaton? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It is not a "personal attack" to completely refute your false claims with the evidence and conclusions of the RfC/U regarding your bad behaviour. The fact that you have again misrepresented the situation by incorrectly trying to claim it is a personal attack goes to further demonstrate that you deliberately misrepresent (lie about) the situation and goes to further demonstrate the dishonesty of your claims. I demand at once that you retract your misrepresentation and that you comply with the demands in the RfC/U. To wit: You remove all of the personal attacks, wiki-stalking and harassment on your talk pages, you then stop misrepresenting other editors and the other points in the consensus presented in the RfC/U that stands against your behaviour. So, the question put directly to you is when are you going to correct your behaviour? Fnagaton 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from, in no particular order, Headbomb, Thunderbird2, Greg L, and Fnagaton are accusations not adequately supported by diffs. The referenced RFC/u is to me inconclusive. The idea that another user's conduct justifies violation of WP:CIVIL is incorrect. To be blunt, I am seeing evidence of a long-standing, mudslinging edit war. After six days, there is little evidence any third party editor wants to get involved. It is my suggestion the affected parties return to the appropriate talk page and begin WP:CIVIL, good faith discussions of the content issue. Gerardw (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you specifically state which diffs you think are missing I will include them. The RfC/U contains a lot of diffs of the supporting evidence of Thunderbird2's poor uncivil behaviour. For example, Thunderbird2 uses his talk page to misrepresent other editors and despite the RfC/U specifically mentioning this Thunderbird2 has not removed the uncivil harassment content. The failure to remove the harassment content demonstrates Thunderbird2 is not interested in having a civil discussion. The RfC/U is conclusive in finding that Thunderbird2 has been violating WP:DEADHORSE for example, note the RfC/U has no editor refuting the claims or evidence mentioned in the RfC/U, not even one person spoke up in defence of Thunderbird2's actions. Fnagaton 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Same. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All my statements are supported with diffs. As far as the rfc is concerned, it is no more than an escalation of Fnagaton's campaign of harassment, which includes multiple accusations of dishonesty and lying and accusing me, as usual without evidence, of operating 6 different sock-puppets here and one more here, making 7 in total. The rfc is not even worth the paper it's not written on. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs cited by Thunderbird2 misrepresent the situation as I will now demonstrate below this pattern of bad behaviour is documented in the RfC/U against Thunderbird2. Thunderbird2 is being uncivil by trying to question my motives for creating the RfC/U and again the facts disprove what Thunderbird2 claims. This is because when the RfC/U was created two other editors were involved with Thunderbird2's repeated forum shopping and violations of guidelines and policies, these editors also commented on the RfC/U and certified it. Two other uninvolved editors also certified the RfC/U. These facts disprove what Thunderbird2 claims because obviously these other editors would not certify an RfC/U that was just a "campaign of harassment". Thunderbird2 has recently been told by another uninvolved editor to stop beating this dead horse [27], but as demonstrated by these latest edits Thunderbird2 continues to forum shop here by posting two frivolous "alerts" here. It is now obvious that Thunderbird2 refuses to correct the bad behaviour documented in the RfC/U, this continued disruptive editing is yet more evidence demonstrating why Thunderbird2 should be banned. Fnagaton 02:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, it was I, not Fnagaton who initiated the discussion on getting some sort of external opinion on your deadhorse-beating and repulsively dishonest behaviour. We were considering options, Fnag proposed an RfC, I wanted a ban. Then I thought that a ban request without an RfC would probably be jumping the gun, so we went with an RfC. At this point however, we've pretty much exhausted all options when it comes to dealing with your pointless wikilawyering. You lost, move on. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just because you admit to its incitement does not excuse the harassment. The only loser here, in permitting a guideline to be published without consensus, is Wikipedia itself. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Can this be closed and archived already?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No, WQA has become their Planet Cheron. Gerardw (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To all: Again Thunderbird2 demonstrates the same bad behaviour as documented inthe RfC/U. For example, Thunderbird2 has again made false claims of harassment and again made false claims about there being no consensus. Both claims have already been refuted here and in the RfC/U yet Thunderbird2 continues to violate WP:STICK and [WP:POINT]] related to the consensus and violates WP:NPA by continuing to make false claims about other editors. Each time Thunderbird2 does this it is yet more evidence that the user is repeatedly making disruptive edits and more evidence that shows the user should be banned. Fnagaton 01:03, 12 February 2009 (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:71.188.47.103

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Filing party advised that warnings were a little bitey
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After reverting some vandalism from this IP user on various pages, I started receiving harassing messages on my talk page. I responded, on both my talk page and the user's talk page, for the harassment to end, or I would send this issue for moderation. Today, the user blanked the entire thread on my talk page (as can be seen in the page's history), replacing it with the line "Leave me alone!" I have reverted my talk page, leaving the user's comment as well as a notice of the vandalism, and have notified the user on both talk pages that I have decided to refer this matter for outside help. --Ericdn (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It will be tough to moderate with an IP editor ... it's quite probably dynamic, and would change. I'll still see what can be done. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! 6 warnings all from you, I can see why they want you to leave them alone :-) After the first couple, you might have been better served by involving someone else, either through anti-vandalism or other admin incidents. I have added a "welcome" template that is generally used for IP users who have vandalized a page. If someone doesn't know the rules, it's important to give them the rules. I don't think much else can be done in this case, as again, it's an IP editor. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You'd be better served reporting this IP address as a vandal to WP:AIV, preferably after you've warned the editor and he still persists in vandalism. There's not a lot can be done here for anon IP addresses that may be dynamic. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help. Yes, I gave 6 warnings, but, on the other hand, I also had to undo 6 cases of vandalism from this IP address. In the past couple of days, there have been no further incidents. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to take a semi-Wikibreak due to health reasons, but I will certainly follow your advice if the problem reappears. Many thanks again! --Ericdn (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It would appear, based on the IP editor's comment about being "cyberbullied" that they have been whipped into submission. As a I suggested on your talkpage, I recommend staying away from their talkpage. Next time, take it easy on new editors...if nobody has shown them the rules (by using a Welcome template for example) then all the templating in the world will not help. 6 warnings was a bit excessive. Conversation with newbies can go a long way. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. If nothing else, I suppose this can be considered a lesson that needed to be learned, hopefully for both of us. I'll stop biting the newcomers and work on my patience, and I hope this editor will have a better understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Once again, many thanks to everyone for their efforts to help with this dispute. I'm fully satisfied with the resolution. --Ericdn (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2009 (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.

Chronic problems with overzealous reverts, BITEing

Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments11 people in discussion

Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I came across E dog95 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) at the end of January when I observed the editor issuing 4im warnings [28], [29], [30] as a first warning for typically petty vandalism [31] [32], [33] and left a polite note about it. The editor pretty much rejected my advice stating he/she disagreed with WP:BITE and warns "losers". Ensuing coaching on civility was also rejected. Looking further, I realized a general problem with bad reversions: of cited edits because of non-english sources and edits labeled as vandalism that shouldn't be [34]. However, the editor thinks I'm the one with the issues so I backed off. However, since then, the editor has been blocked for 3RR, continues overzealous reversions/mislabeling vandalism: [35] and BITEing [36], [37].

I think this user is a prolific vandal fighter, and wants to contribute constructively, but doesn't want to accept (at least my) feeback about not understanding our policies/culture. I think having other folks weigh in and some focused coaching would be very helpful here. I thought about recommending removal of TW, but if we can get this editor using it correctly, it would be better. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me introduce you to the "Preview" button ;-P (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This one looks like Wikiquette more than ANI material. Thoughts? Edit Centric (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this was brought here; Toddst's message was no different to what we would've posted had we come across the same issues. If an editor doesn't understand the policies/norms, or doesn't accept that his interpretation is way off, then what can we do? There's only so much education that can be given for an editor who's been here since 2007.
Biting newbies by using 4im warnings as first warnings is not acceptable because it can deter good contributors from this project, who are just unfamiliar with wiki-conventions. Referring to other editors as losers and new editors are useless, is not just uncivil, but an assumption of bad faith too. Assuming good faith and being civil are not optional; you're expected to do so at all times. Why? Because the purpose of this project is not just to build a high quality free encyclopedia, but to do so in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Failing to assume good faith, engaging in uncivil discourse, biting newbies, and so on, all go against this purpose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a problem here for sure - reverting this edit [38] which appears to be a simple layout change with this edit [39] with the edit summary "m (Reverted 1 edit by 128.243.253.113 identified as vandalism to last revision by E dog95. using TW)" is a serious no-no. Exxolon (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The talk page of that IP address, shows it has committed many vandals, several different editors giving warnings. Was that taken into consideration? When you find someone vandalizing something, don't you check their history to see what else they have done? Dream Focus (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
An IP's history has nothing to do with reverting individual edits - especially when we know it's shared, like that one. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.243.228.15 This person just kept vandalizing. If it was an honest mistake, something minor, then you should politely talk to them. If they did something specifically for vandalism, no sense saying "do it a few more times if you want, we never block anyone until the 4th offense, and even then the ban won't last but for a day or so, then you can start vandalizing again." The user you claim he was too harsh with, went on to keep on vandalizing, even after being blocked once. Dream Focus (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Question: You lost me. What does that have to do with this discussion? Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The complaint was he was too harsh on some first time offenders. One of those listed as an example, was later blocked for other things. So just giving him a few warnings, wouldn't have stopped him. I would also like to point out, that I found here he has in fact given polite warnings to people before. This editor doesn't seem to just give out harsh warnings to first time people unless he believes it is justified. Is there anyone he gave out a last chance warning to first, which was not later banned for disruptive behavior? Dream Focus (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: I don't believe I mentioned that editor above. It's not a consistent problem occurring in every instance, rather it's a recurring one with issues of WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. I also pointed out that the editor is a prolific vandal fighter. Toddst1 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Level 4 warnings are never given straight off. It's not a question of them being justified. It's not the way wikipedia works. Level 1 warning are used first because they contain instructions and guides on etiquette which we are required to assume will help an editor become productive. Assuming that an editor is 'doomed to fail' (demostrated here) violates civility policy. There are some issues of not assuming good faith and misuse of scripts here that the editor needs to acknowledge and correct. --neon white talk 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the editor in question is directly violating policy. However, I would be careful about saying that level 4 warnings are never justified as an only warning. Certain cases such as very serious BLP violations, serious threats and personal attacks, etc. may justify a level 4im warning. Likewise, an established editor who makes a personal attack, blanks a page does not need the instructional warning, so would be due a level 4 right off. That said, neither of those situations apply to the editor of this WQA so in this case the level 4 warnings are NOT justified, regardless of whether editors warned in this manner repeated their vandalism. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It's all personal opinion but i personally believe a level 2 or 3 is more appropriate for those situations. I think this editor could be reminded that vandalism only accounts (we're talking about obvious blatent disruption here) are often blocked without any warning so they aren't entirely necessary. --neon white talk 18:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that the user specifically told me that he has no intention of giving anything but [last warnings]198.161.173.180 (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It looks like E dog95 hasn't editing in a few days, hopefully taking a break to recharge the batteries and his sanity :). Seriously, the edit about not giving multiple warnings and that attitude is troubling. I am no saint and I am happy to call folks bad faith editors or trolls after dealing with them repeatidly, but we do have to remember that there are true noobies around here and lots of good faith IP editors, ect.(i actualy would prefer to edit as an IP but dont) and that gently 1st warnings can't hurt. I am truely amazed when I vistit a talk page and it has like 30 warnings on it, come on! The level of frustration at having to deal with "stupid" people and vandals I am sure gets to all of us at times, but that is what wiki breaks and others imput is needed for. Anyways, just my venting. Cheers, --Tom 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I was bold, and used a Single Issue WARNING about improper use of templates, with an extensive discussion of why. Driving off newbies is disruptive overall, as is a failure to WP:AGF on each individual occasion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Another major point that didnt occur to me originally is that these could well be shared ips at least one of the above seem to be a school. The editor has never posted a shared ip template on a talk page so the potential for an completely innocent user to get a level4 warning is there and could easily be misunderstood to be in reference to good edits they have performed. --neon white talk 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ukufwakfgr - lots of civility violations

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  Resolved
 – Blocked

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

I've been in a content dispute with Ukufwakfgr (talk · contribs · logs) over the past week or so, during which he has consistently refused to assume good faith, has called other editors liars, told them that they were "not working from a good frame of mind", and appealed a block on the grounds that, essentially, the Masons made Elonka block him.

Last night, I noticed that he had added a bunch of references to Daigo Umehara that included exlinks in the authorlink field, so I cleaned them up, removing only the authorlinks. This morning, he sent me a note asking what was wrong with me, and reverting me with a note to read {{Cite web}}, which he had apparently failed to do in as much detail as he wanted me to.

I'd honestly like him to settle down and become a productive member of Wikipedia: if we can't defend our arguments against determined opposition, are they really any good? But at this rate, I see him getting indef-blocked within the month. Can somebody who has the time to do it properly drop in and try to point him in the right direction? Make sure you read all of the discussion, so he can't accuse you of only reading the "scandalous parts", as in one of the diffs above.

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion here at archive 57.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2009 (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:Wuhwuzdat

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Blocked

by user:NawlinWiki indef

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.

Wuhwuzdat is placing TfD tags anywhere except that purposed policy weither it be a good or bad edit and action must be taken.I will not stand for such immature behavior. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

user above, and his suspected sockpuppets, have exhibited a pattern of vandalism. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. User appears to be an SPA sock. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2009 (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.

Incivility by User Wikilibs

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello,

User:Wiki libs keeps on deleting sourced material without trying to discuss with me or find compromises. Also he uses offensive comments and tries to belittle me because of my language skills. English is not my mother tongue, so I may make mistakes. But still I think my english is comprehensible. Besides, if my english is wrong anyone is free to fix it. I don't see why this sourced passage should be deleted just for that.

But for some reasons this user keeps on belittling me because of my language. I tried to discuss and find a compromise, arguing that anyone can fix my english if it's so wrong. But he just seems to ignore and keeps on deleting and making condescending comments to bellitle the relevance of my edits:

[40] [41]

I don't want to engage myself into a dispute or an edit war, so please, can anyone help or tell me what to do? Frankely speaking I consider the disputed passage is relevant for the article plus it is sourced with reliable scolar and referential published sources, so I don't see why it should deleted without any serious explanation.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, remember to notify a user you file complaint against on their talk page. I have already left them a note that this complaint exists. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry Fred D.Hunter (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In his original edit summary, the editor never claimed to write the poorly written content... he stated that he was replacing it after it had already been removed. So the comment about the poor quality of the text... or the fact that it was off topic and useless within the article in question.... was not directed at him. It was a general comment directed at the non-quality/off-topic aspect of the text... text which was likely added by several inexperienced users over a stretch of time where it started out bad... was never improved on... and ended up being a very un-required trivia tidbit within the song article. If the user felt that that my comment on the poorly written content was directed at him then I am sorry he made that mistake. His edit summary should have indicated that he wrote the text rather than just say he was re-adding it after it was justifiably deleted a long time ago for several reasons. As I have suggested in my own edit summary. A separate article about this so-called triad should be created. And if it were, then I would gladly help to improve it there. But it has no place in the article about the song so it was not worth working on there. The best overall edit was to simply restore the article to its earlier state. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Ignoring the conflict here, as that should be discussed on the talk page and use other DR if needed. Calling something 'poorly written' is not incivil it's one editors opinion and fair comment. Commenting on edits is fine under the general 'Comment on content, not on the contributor' rule. I see no real civility problems here and urge all involved parties to discuss and refrain from edit warring/reverts until the matter is resolved. --neon white talk 20:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Amandajm

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Amanda and I have been making progress on the layout of images on the Leonardo da Vinci article and posting on each other's talk pages, unfortunately this suddenly escalated when Amanda came to my talk page and posted: "PLEEEASE stop stuffing around...You have never worked as a layout artist, that is patently obvious!....I'm really busy and I get sick of having to revert layout edits that are a) not good solutions b) look bad c) diminish important pictures d)cause gaps in text when viewed on a wide screen." Amanda did also say that "I know you are meaning to be helpful. But too strenuous application of a set of rules can make things worse not better. You have editorial skills in other areas! Please use them!" I responded here [42] Although well-intentioned, the editor has preferences regarding having large images in articles, regardless of accessibility. I have brought this here because, in spite of the warm words at the end of her post, the earlier attacks were sufficiently unjustified. Tom B (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Amanda is a straight-talking Australian, don't take offence: keep talking. The essence of this is image size, and that's just a matter of preferences, not worth fighting over. The guideline is only that, though it is a criterion at FAC, when it becomes enforceable. My suggestion is: put image sizes aside for the time being, because winning such a small argument is no big deal in itself; you both have a lot to offer on a subject you share an interest in, so continue to work cooperatively on other aspects of the article, and the issue will probably resolve itself in time. In my experience, images sizes are often changed from thumbs to pixels to thumbs and back again by a series of editors and are impossible to nail down permanently. qp10qp (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
cheers qp, on image sizes there are some constraints outlined by wp:mos regardless of individual preferences and screen sizes...as you say, it is an FAC criterion. i'm sure A has a lot more to offer on the subject of the article in question, for me it's not about winning arguments but collaboration to develop a better encyclopedia. the most straight forward way i've found to stabilise image sizes is to remove all pixels and then to adequately justify any forcing. Tom B (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll vouch that although Amanda pulls no puches (nor should she), she is both well-intentioned (as you say) and usually right. Tom B, reading, I see no reason that you had to bring this to this. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and/or personal attacks by User:Mokele and User:Jwinius

Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments5 people in 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.

  Resolved
 – Users warned about maintaining civility during content discussions.

If its appropriate to request this and you have time, would you please check out comments made at Talk:Python_reticulatus#Debate_regarding_length_claims_made_by_various_zoos and Talk:Python_reticulatus#Verifiability. It is my position that I've endured days of personal attacks and incivility from User:Mokele and User:Jwinius.

  • User:Mokele has told me "Cry me a river. I see absolutely no reason to listen to a mere amateur. Come back when you have a graduate degree in herpetology. Until then, stop wasting our time" and represents his editorial standpoints as "I don't give a crap if the news articles meet some overly-vague WP rule...we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY" and has referred to my good faith edits as "unencyclopedic crap" (all comments at [43]). Please also note this edit summary by User:Mokele "Put up or shut up, amateur. Show me this mythical "outside arbitration", because you seem to lack the balls to use the talk page anymore."
  • User:Jwinius has informed me that I am "silly", [44], "petulant" , "irritable", "thin-skinned", etc. [45] etc. Each time I have specifically reminded this user about WP:Civility.

I've lost count of how many times I've encouraged courtesy in these users. Ultimately, this dispute is about a claim made by User:Mokele and User:Jwinius to disallow certain content at Python_reticulatus#Captivity that they deem unencyclopedic. Thanks for considering my comments. -- --Boston (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Now this is something. Let me read through this stuff. (could you please provide the specific diffs, so we don't have to rifle through the whole talk page looking for the specific referenced examples? Saves a LOT of time with things like this! :-D ) Also, did you notice both editors on their respective talk pages that you had posted a Wikiquette about this? Edit Centric (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've hit a "waitaminute" here, and it has the odiferous emanations of edit warring on the part of User:Boston. Boston, you've already violated the Three revert rule today. I would first advise you to stop the edit warring. It's definitely not apropos to engage in edit warring, then post a Wikiquette alert. If you're going to bring something substantive to WQA, make sure you're in the right before doing so... Edit Centric (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No, Boston has not informed us, nor did he on prior instances when he tried to use the 3RR to force his changes into place. I'm only aware of this page because I suspected he'd try something behind our backs in order to avoid letting us express our views on the topic. Mokele (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the article twice today (Feb 14th) in my timezone (EST). The appearance of a third time is me correcting my edit summary. If I did in fact violate this rule, it wasn't my intention. If I violated the spirit of this rule in recent days (I don't think I did but...), I'll own responsibility for that. I'm happy to sit back and wait for Administrator involvement. I'm not interested in more conversation with these users until the profanity, incivility, and personal attacks stop. Comments from User:Mokele are particularly inappropriate:

Comments from User:Jwinius aren't relatively minor breaches of civility:

Thanks for considering this situation. --Boston (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, how dare we get frustrated by a user who repeatedly inserts garbage into a page in spite of being given very good reason not to, fails to provide any worthwhile reasoning on why it should be included, refuses any attempt at compromise, and still drags this out. It's like dealing a creationist. Mokele (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I made reminders of policies in conversation after each instance. I haven't used the wikialert for etiquette before so did not post it (I actually of forget it existed). My reminders regarding civility and non-personl attacks were pretty much scoffed at. A vandalism alert to User talk:Mokele deleting paragraphs of encyclopedic content was quickly removed and characterized as "whining" [46]--Boston (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. This is so easy. First of all: Mokele, please try to avoid incivility in edit descriptors, such as this one. It is neither constructive, nor does it do anything but perpetuate the vicious cycle of edit warring and civility issues. Second, Boston, consider yourself strongly warned regarding today's violation of WP:3RR. You've been an editor here just as long as I have, and you should well know the ropes by now. I will also be posting these on the respective user talk pages. I see absolutely no profanity here, but there is a fair amount of angst and disagreement regarding article content. My suggestion to the three of you is to step back a minute, breathe, and then approach this again from a basis of Assume good faith. Edit Centric (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I did attempt to re-approach it, even making a compromise edit which combined both sides without any loss of information. It was immediately reverted as unacceptable simply because it wasn't what Boston originally wrote, and he refused to even discuss any compromise which represented more than a minor deviation from his original edit. Good faith has long since passed - he refuses compromise, refuses to discuss anything, refuses to listen to points, and uses reverts and admin actions as weapons to cudgel those who disagree with him. His unproductive attitude has eliminated any progress on this article, including one edit I have been planning for a while now, simply because I know he'll simply twist it into some sort of evidence that I'm out to undermine his precious edit. It should be abundantly clear that outside intervention is absolutely necessary at this point. Mokele (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and so it's abundantly clear, Boston has not made the least bit of effort, even after several posts here, to inform Jwinius of the existence of this discussion. I had to inform him myself. Good faith indeed. Mokele (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously being caused by a content dispute. I think requesting a third opinion would really help. --neon white talk 22:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
We already have a third opinion, the other user named in this dispute. He has repeatedly agreed with me in the dispute.Mokele (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologies, User:Edit Centric, you are correct in saying that I violated WP:3RR as seen here. My blunder was thinking about the calendar date rather than the fact that the rule is about edits made in a 24 hour period. I hope I might also benefit from the assumption of good faith in this regard. As to the editorial conflict at hand, I have been assuming good faith and believe these editors are genuine in their desire to make the article as good as possible. Mokele, in particular, has professional expertise potentially valuable to Wikipedia. To achieve their goals, however, they behave in ways that can't not be condoned. I'm always interested in compromise but Mokele's comments I've cited are far more than minor infractions, and I'm not weathering that level of abuse without getting paid for it. Even on this page he's called my edits "garbage" and spat out more angry words. Thanks for taking time to consider the situation and for the reminder about other wikialerts that are available. --Boston (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, the reason that I have not yet addressed the concerns regarding Jwinius is due to that fact. I was hoping that Boston would have accomplished this already, but so be it. My final thoughts on the rest of this have been posted here and here respectively. Please allow me to make this abundantly clear at this point; edit war stops, or this will get moved to WP:AN3, and will quite possibly result in a block. I personally don't want to see that happen, as I tend to try to be an optimist most of the time... Edit Centric (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The statement William M. Connolley refers to was not cited and was part of an edit that removed lots of encyclopedic material that was cited. If I am have supposed to have edited indelicately, please examine the (well-almost) equally indelicate alternative edit. In no case was there an issue in which a scientific journal was presented as contrary evidence to a news report. I would have received that with enthusiasm! The editorial issue is summed up by User:Mokele as "I don't give a crap if the news articles meet some overly-vague WP rule...we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY." --Boston (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009


Ok, has crossed a freaking line. AFTER this discussion was terminated by Edit Centric, Boston seems to have done NOTHING to try to work towards a compromise as instructed, but instead recruited even more admins/'higher-ups', and polluted my talk page with more of his dreck about me being incivil. He just cannot let this lie, even for a few hours. Consider this a formal complaint about his behavior with respect to this issue. Mokele (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Boston, *real* scientists have better things to do than run around with a tape measure checking every stupid and pointless claim a zoo makes. And I've got better things to do than put up with your puerile crap because your feelings got hurt. Mokele (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I think we need an admin in on this now. Boston, I already warned Mokele about trying to maintain civility, but that was not enough for you. I see that you deliberately went to Mokele's talk page, and copy-pasted a long laundry list that you deemed...let me read this so I get it right..."egregious breaches of Wikipedia guidelines". Yes, you are now taking the edit war to a new level. I DEALT with this, and I showed no favoritism in the process. I also warned you to stop edit warring.
Mokele, Please redact the profanity above. Everything else in that paragraph is understandable. Other than that, I got nothin'. I tried. Edit Centric (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to come down to the fact that major news sites report information about the size of a python, which are later disproven, and that zoos exaggerate regularly. There is apparently no way to determine the exact size of a living python. So while the wikipedia rules say that you can include anything that you can reference as being from a major newspaper, in this case it shouldn't be done, since they don't bother to verify claims for stories like this, and apparently often get them wrong. If it isn't scientifically proven and confirmable, then it shouldn't be in there. Anyway, have a consensus on the talk page about the issue, and see what everyone else believes, and then follow the consensus. Don't do an edit war. And even during a dispute, try not to be insulting or hostile, no matter how frustrated you get. Dream Focus 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't actually say that 'anything that you can reference as being from a major newspaper' is reliable. For many subjects books and journals are far more reliable. --neon white talk 15:07, 15 February 2009 (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:Doktorspin

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Doktorspin has been warned repeatedly regarding these types of edits. Now blocked 48 hours. Further occurrences will see escalating blocks. --VS talk 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I need help in dealing with the SPA Doktorspin. He is very insulting, and incivil towards other users, ridiculus them, and does not assume good faith.

Examples from Talk:Nativity of Jesus:

Example from AN/I:

Example from user talk:

Evident in his edit summaries:

Demonstrative that I'm not the only one who finds him incivil:

Thanks for any help rendered. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Question Carl, has Doktorspin edited in the manner complained of since I gave him a final warning and then William M Connolley blocked him (per this diff) - if yes can you provide a pointer to those exact diffs please?--VS talk 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the accusation of SPA quite disheartening. However, with the singleminded refusal of Carl to enter into a dialog over the material he continually removes extremely rude and aggressive. It occupies a lot of my time trying to find some way to make the material acceptable only to have it unconstructively removed again. He has been dauntingly unhelpful in the issue and I will admit that I have let anger of his behavior get to my comments.

I do not understand his refusal to deal with the issue. Can I sincerely assume good faith when he has continually made it clear that dialog is not open?

I attempted to halt the removal of the material in order to force a dialog, by putting in a 3RR against him. William M. Connolley responded by assuming that I wanted Carl blocked rather than the topic and I failed to get any dialog.

This is a very daunting process. --spincontrol 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Doktorspin - I have blocked you for 48 hours because you continue to attack editors that you disagree with, even after you were given clear warning by myself and at least one other administrator to cease such activity. Your edit here is the final straw. Blocks will escalate dramatically if you continue to edit in such a way - and if necessary a topic ban may be put in place.--VS talk 23:09, 15 February 2009 (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.

Incivility by Fnagaton and Greg_L

Latest comment: 15 years ago50 comments13 people in discussion
  Stuck
 – When blocks are desired, it needs to go to ANI and is clearly not resolved.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I came here a few days ago after being accused of lying by User:Headbomb (and the claim was repeated here also by User:Fnagaton). I was asked by gerardw to take the discussion back to the talk page, where I have now been accused of harassment by Fnagaton [66] and invited to sell leprosy by User:Greg_L [67]. What should I do now? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is actionable, although I agree that they are being impolite. Probably they are frustrated and offended by the squelching noises coming from your horse. Dropping the stick might bring this to an end. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Watch out Scheffield, the Thunderbird will unleash WP:WQA/SheffieldSteel on you for your "personal attack"!Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thunderbird, I suggest you simply walk away from the whole dispute and begin working on improving other areas of Wikipedia. Walking away is the best option as trying to continue the debate is only going to increase tempers on both sides, and you apparently have no chance of gaining consensus for your position. That said, I have no opinion about the actual proposal, and this is not the place to discuss it anyway. The fact remains that the only thing you can do now is to disengage. If you continue trying to argue about it I don't see any other possible outcome than you eventually being blocked for disruption, as your continued arguments are not changing anyone's mind. Don't take this as an attack on you or your position, this is simply how I see this playing out if you don't simply walk away from the debate. Is it really that important after all? The Seeker 4 Talk 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thunderbird2 is again using misrepresentation against other editors and forum shopping, both actions are in violation of the RfC/U findings about Thunderbird2's behaviour. To Thunderbird2, when are you going to remove the uncivil harassment and misrepresentation content on your talk pages which is documented in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2? To others, how long are constructive editors like Greg, Headbomb and myself going to have to be subjected to the continued misrepresentation, harassment and disruptive forum shopping behaviour of Thunderbird2? Fnagaton 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thunderbird2, listen to User:Theseeker4 because "you apparently have no chance of gaining consensus for your position" and you should "walk away" because "if you continue trying to argue about it I [The Seeker4] don't see any other possible outcome than you [Thunderbird2] eventually being blocked for disruption.". Please, Thunderbird2, listen to other editors when they tell you to stop. Fnagaton 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of alleged provocation, these posts [68][69] by Greg_L contain abusive taunts. They cite diseases in an attempt to make "facetious metaphor" Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • They cite diseases in an attempt to make "facetious metaphor". Oh dear! And if Wikipedia talk pages were frequented by 2nd-graders, mentioning leprosy might not be appropriate. Too many editors try to hide behind the apron strings of “civility” and come whining to WQA or start an RfC as an insincere battle tactic when they are loosing and their ideas or behavior have been criticized or mocked. The result? Some editors here trip all over themselves in an effort to write posts that are inoffensive when admins are doing “Monday morning quarterbacking.” Your criticism, Cuddlyable3, is absurd and insincere.

    I’m thinking that you are still smarting over my adding this animation to the Mandelbrot set article and you deleted it. Splendid *contribution* there; I spent hours with three separate programs to make it and keep it ultra-compact for fast load times ,and your *contribution* is to hit the “undo” link. So, we editwarred over that, and you came here to WQA to whine about a post of mine, and got soundly rejected and the blame placed on you for creating the conflict in the first place. That seems to be what you do: create editing conflict with others while simultaneously hiding behind a veneer of wikiword civility. Looking at your contributions, you seem to make frequent use of WQA’s as an editwarring tactic as you were here only eight days ago. Perhaps you’ve honed this tactic and find it a useful. However, it reminds me of insurgents in Iraq who hide behind women and children in the streets while shooting at Coalition forces (oops, I did it again: I used a “war” metaphor).

    Finally, all this was back in November; get over it. I note your block log, where one admin wrote Continued Disruptive editing despite warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators. So, just pardon me all over the place for not endeavoring to be more like you in my editing behavior and interactions with others; it doesn’t impress. Greg L (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Re. strikeout on 14 February 2009, see below

Greg L, your sarcasm and unique metaphors/similes towards others are truly provocative. Agreeably, they are rhetorical and not meant to be taken at all literally. However, how you say things is causing the problems here. Are you admitting above that you may have "criticized or mocked" someones "ideas or behavior"?? If yes, welcome to the land of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh dear! Sarcasm too has been outlawed on Wikipedia? Bwilkins, it honestly seems to me that you have confused en.Wikipdia with Red China. Our talk pages are marketplaces for the exchange of ideas. Wikipedians pitch ideas on talk pages and debate them and see if there are any takers in an effort to arrive at a community consensus on editorial content and MOS and MOSNUM guidelines. I demand that you point out where it is against Wikipedia policy on civility to “criticize” bad ideas or other editors’ bad behavior. Patently absurd. And you hope to be an administrator one day?? I suggest you go and actually read policies you linked to above. But…

    On second though, you just might be right about this. Perhaps Wikipedia is a venue where even really, really bad behavior should not be criticized because everything is relative—even *truth*. So, although I don’t exactly completely wholeheartedly agree with your belief system wherein it is improper to criticize others’ tendentious and disruptive behavior here on Wikipedia (doing so might make them feel poopy about themselves), I give you an A+ for effort! Thanks. I’ll try to do much better next time.

    And, to (finally) answer your question directly, yes; I freely admit that I have criticized Thunderbird’s behavior here. (*sound of audience gasp*) Greg L (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is against community standards when used to attack others. Wikipedia is not a public US forum with free speech rights (it is privately owned by Wikipedia Foundation). It is possible to discuss content and other editors behavior while remaining civil. Gerardw (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sarcasm is against community standards when used to attack others. I absolutely agree with that statement. No one should be subject to “personal attacks”. And what does that policy actually say since there seem to be a few editors here who are oh-so anxious to link to stuff in an “if I made it blue, it must be true” fashion?? The following paints a clear picture of the nature of conduct that is considered to be a “personal attack” on Wikipedia:

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:
• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

So with regard to my post being “used to attack others”, there is no evidence that I did this because non exists. Any reasonable interpretation of what I wrote that passes anyone’s *grin test* here reveals that I was not “attacking” Thunderbird with the equivalent of “you are a one-eyed, baby-killing palestinian homosexual” or some such nonsense; everyone deserves the right to participate here on Wikipedia and not be subjected to such treatment. I didn’t even suggest T‑bird has bad breath. My message clearly was (and is) quite simple: “no one is in the least interested in your proposal.” That much is plainly obvious and I utterly reject disingenuous or misinformed attempts to paint it as anything other than that. Notwithstanding T‑bird’s protestations, he didn’t really think for a nanosecond that I was seriously suggesting that he go into the business of selling a contagious bacterium to rogue nations (which would be a career suggestion, not a personal attack, if interpreted literally).

If someone here wants to make it against Wikipedia policy to employ facetious and glib metaphors to tell another editor that no one likes his or her idea, first go revise WP:No personal attacks. I conform my behavior to the community consensus on what constitutes a personal attack; not your interpretation of it. Now…

T-bird’s professing being “attacked” is pure wikilawyering to circumvent the inconvenient truth that he is being tendentious and disruptive and wants to persist at it. Anyone who has had the misfortune of having had to deal with T-bird understands this. User:Theseeker4 hasn’t had to deal with T-bird and still managed to write an extremely insightful post that hit the nail right on the head.

Now, no one is really that thin-skinned here; they just pretend to be in order to create wikidrama or to impress others with how they can write absurdly politically correct ramblings in hopes that it somehow qualifies them to be an admin. It doesn’t. Either that, or they are spouting off here without fully understanding the basic facts. Either way, I’m quite done here. Goodbye.

P.S. I don’t care if you drink beer, Gerardw; I doubt anyone does, but I will defend your right to proudly proclaim that fact on the privately owned Wikipedia Foundation. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see what the problem is with Greg's comments. They are clearly meant to draw attention towards Thunderbird2's weak unsubstantiated point of view and not personally directed at Thunderbird2 himself, therefore they cannot be a personal attack. It would be a sad day for Wikipedia when it is against policy to use a sarcastic metaphor when drawing attention to a fallacious statement. Wikipedia is not there yet and I hope it never will be. It is disengenuous when someone screams "personal attack" each time their weak unsubstantiated point of view is highlighted by sacrasm. It is also against guidelines for that person to beat the same dead horse and continuously forum shop their weak unsubstantiated point of view all over the place. For example when someone uses a forum like WQA citing "incivility" when actually there isn't any invility and wastes everyones valuable time and effort. Fnagaton 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Two more of Fnagaton's unfounded accusations of lying: [70] [71]. It seems he is unable or unwilling to follow WP:AGF. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The above post is another example of the user misrepresenting the situation because the diffs cited do not support the claims made by the user. In actual fact the diffs cited above are further evidence to demonstrate how the user is continuing to forum shop the same issue in multiple forums and continuing to misrepresent the situation, this bad behaviour is documented in the RfC/U Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2. WP:AGF does not mean an editor has to assume good faith when there is obvious and repeated overwhelming evidence of bad faith actions, this situation applies to Thunderbird2's repeated violations of guidelines and policies which are also documented in the RfC/U. The only remaining question is when is Thunderbird2 going to comply with the findings of the RfC/U? Fnagaton 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
And my question is when can this be closed and archived?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Not likely for a long time. Sarcasm used to undermine someone's input (and even to discourage it) is uncivil. All the rhetoric in trying to defend such actions are really allowing them to dig a big deep hole . I keep waiting for one big action that might help them fill it in and actually join the Wikipedia Community. Until then, I see a light at the bottom of that hole ... is that ... China? Nobody is blameless here, so a couple of people need to start accepting their role, and changing their ways (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Changing their ways would be Thunderbird2 agreeing to comply with the findings of the RfC/U and modifying his beahviour and removing the harassment content. Then people can move forward.Fnagaton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Bwilkins I generally approve of your role on this noticeboard. To date you have not struck me as someone who accepts naively any claim of incivility. Please consider whether the complainant is not frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive by claiming to be personally injured by what is, in reality, nothing more than gruff straight talk.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
GMW ... I appreciate the comment. I agree the complainant is pushing the envelope, however, as acknowledged, one of the "offenders" has, indeed, acted sarcastically towards them in order to dissuade additional input or put them down. Admission, and contrition are two separate things. I sincerely believe that once the sarcasm stops, everyone can move on...that's all I'm looking for from my POV. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Acted sarcasticly towards the point of view, not the person.There is a world of difference. I think you need to read the RfC/U against Thunderbird2 with all the evidence and then you might see that Greg's comment about the single purpose position Thunderbird2 keeps on beating (for months and months, constantly) is actually really quite reserved. Fnagaton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If you were to draw up a list of "speech acts" you don't want to see on Wikipedia, with 1 being negligible and 10 being the worst, where would you put death threats?1 Where do you put racial slurs? Where do you put garden-variety insults ("moron", "asshole")? What level is the cut-off for when a user incurs sanctions? What's at level 1, and what's at level 10? Where does sarcasm rate on the scale? And where is sarcasm specifically prohibited by WP policies?
1 user:EVula does get some creative ones, though, so even death threats can have redeeming features.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thunderbird2 is "frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive by claiming to be personally injured by what is, in reality, nothing more than gruff straight talk." - I completely agree with that quote. So what can be done about Thunderbird2? Fnagaton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Once you accept responsibility for your role, and then cut it out, then I expect Thunderbird will stop being "vexatious". If he doesn't, then I expect to see an RFC/U that involves both of you together. It's the easy and adult way, isn't it. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
"your role"? I accept all I did was: 1) Provide a stronger argument than Thunderbird2. 2) Refuse to accept Thunderbird2's lack of answers to direct questions. 3) Refuse to accept Thunderbird2's violation of guidelines and policies followed by Thunderbird2's harassment and misrepresentation when it involves other editors and myself. 4) Provided part of the evidence in the RfC/U which several other editors, involved and uninvolved, certified. Basically, I'm not going to say I'm sorry for being part of the group that helped change the guideline text for the better by developing consensus with other editors while Thunderbird2 repeatedly became disruptive to the process of consensus building. Are you trying to insinuate I'm somehow not being adult with your last remark? The fact is there is an RfC/U standing against Thunderbird2 and he needs to accept his role and modify his behaviour first of all. Fnagaton 13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You're correct, Thunderbird has had an RFC/U to do with handling of arguments and consensus. Your role was to include admitted sarcastic comments to demean and dissuade further editing by Thunderbird. You fail to see that those comments were an issue, and attempt to both laugh them off, and you also attempt to justify them. If you fail to see that this is the what appears to be the final issue in the resolution of this WQA, then I'm not sure how much clearer this can be made. The two are separate - whether you believe someone to be an SPA or a "pain in the ass", does not give you the permission to act untowards in their direction. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That was not my role at all and I don't think your summary is even slightly accurate because you are trying to call into question my motives by incorrectly asserting what you think I meant. Since you do not know my mind then you are incorrect to keep on trying to claim you know my mind better, especially when I have already stated the accurate interpretation. i.e. Any comments posted are there to draw attention to a fallacious point of view, not to demean or attack anyone personally. Also your summary misrepresents the situation because nowhere did I "admit" that any comments were "demean and dissuade", if you have any link supporting that claim then please post it, otherwise retract your unsupported assertion. Indeed I see Greg's comments as meaning to try to get Thunderbird2 to stop beating the same dead horse and to stop Thunderbird2 from violating guidelines and policies. I do agree with Goodmorningworld that the comments are gruff straight talk. I note you have not answered the question put directly to you about your "adult" related comment. Why is that? Please answer the question made above. However, applying your own (incorrect) strict interpretation regarding sarcasm back onto your own words (to demonstrate how fallacious your point is): I take your lack of answer to mean that your comment is intended to insinuate something against me personally by making a sarcastic comment intended to demean me and inhibit further editing. This means, of course following your own strict interpretation, you don't appear to follow the same "high standards" you expect for others. Now then, I see two future actions for you. 1) You answer the question and correct what you really meant such that you state that what you meant to write was not in any way a personally targetted comment, with a retraction of the original comment. I would then accept that correction, of course since to continue to call into question someone's motives in that situation is counter-productive and churlish. The conclusion from that is therefore that questioning the motives of someone after you've been corrected with respect to those motives is wrong. Which of course means you retract your incorrect assumptions about what you think "my role" is above where you call into question my motives. 2) You then drop this meta-debate here about sarcasm (it isn't the correct forum) and move it to the relevant policy talk page instead. Then if you really want to apply very strict no-sarcasm to the relevant policies then you'll have to persuade others that your argument has merit, which currently your argument does not. Fnagaton 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought your "adult" question was rhetorical due to the obvious nature of the meaning. The comment as intended was "as we are all adults" - an inclusive word meant to show collegiality and brotherhoodliness. No attacks, no incivility, merely stating what I thought to be obvious. You may be a 15 year old girl, I don't know; however in that case I was wrong to assume, but it would not make any of us less equal than others on Wikipedia. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I accept your apology and take it to mean that you have now retracted your unsupported claims made above. Fnagaton 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I invite anyone with the time and patience to read this discussion and this one and ask themselves whether either can form the basis of a legitimate consensus. While you are reading, please also consider whether there is any evidence there (or anywhere else) for the alleged provocation of which I am accused. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thunderbird2 this is not the place to forum shop the same issue that you have been forum shopping for the past months. In the RfC/U there is the evidence and it was concluded that you have forum shopped the same issue and that the link you have posted has already been refuted by much stronger arguments presented in the full archive (note not the cherry picked diffs you made above) of the discussions Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive/Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008). You have already been told by multiple editors to stop forum shopping otherwise it will lead to your block. As can be seen in the full archive link I've just posted and in the RfC/U you need to correct your bad behaviour with respect to the harassment, misrepresentation and forum shopping. When are you going to comply with the RfC/U? Fnagaton 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough of this one. It's obvious by Fnagaton's "holier than thou" attitude that they will never admit to having been part of this issue. Thunderbird's recent addition to the WQA did nothing but harm his "case". Based on your actions, the two of you are not meant for a community. There's not much more I can do than to recommend RFC/U's against the both of you for your actions, as at this point they're not blockable. Good luck to you both. If someone else wants to take up the mantle with this one, please go ahead, but to me, neither of these two actually want to become good community editors of Wikipedia. I'm out. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have again made an unsubstantiated personal attack by trying to question my motives. The comment about "holier than thou" is nothing but a personally directed attack intended to demean me and therefore tries to inhibit me making further edits. However I don't run away from people who try to misrepresent me, instead I challenge their statements and in so doing expose the weak unsubstantiated points of view to the bright light of day. The "they will never admit to having been part of this issue" misrepresents the issue because obviously I have acknowledged my part to the extent that is detailed in my "13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)" comment above, obviously there is nothing for me to "admit" as you put it. It is now up to Thunderbird2 to now ackowledge the RfC/U and to comply with it. This is against the backdrop where in another comment [72] you wrote "Maybe I'm off base expecting people to treat others fairly", well I don't see much evidence of you treating me fairly with your attempts to misrepresent me and personally attack me. I on the other hand have treated Thunderbird2 fairly because I followed the guidelines and created the RfC/U giving everyone an equal oppertunity to comment. The conclusion of the RfC/U certified by several involved and uninvolved editors is that Thunderbird2 needs to correct his behaviour. I think you need to acknowledge your part in this and accept that your point of view about sarcasm (when it is used to expose a weak unsubstantiated point of view) is not supported by the current policies and guidelines. The fact that I agree with earlier comments made by Goodmorningworld (the one I quoted) and disagree with your point of view (regarding sarcasm) does not deserve an RfC/U and does not deserve the personal attacks from you directed to me. I think you've made some comments while angry and when you cool off you can consider retracting them. Fnagaton 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Bwilkins is correct, the seemingly never ending saga is not adult. WP:CIVIL says no taunting, and Wikipedia says Sarcasm is intended to taunt. So there. But Wiki-Lawyering is not the point. And an inconclusive RFC/U isn't a magic talisman to excuse one's own substandard behavior. You're not getting any support from third party editors, so WQA is probably not going to be helpful to you. Gerardw (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Bwilkins is not correct because using a personal attack is not a valid argument. Therefore your claim is also incorrect, firstly about the use of "sarcasm" for the above mentioned reasons and also because you are incorrect about "not getting any support from third party editors" since there are the comments: From Theseeker4 (about Thunderbird2 beating a dead horse), Goodmorningworld's comment about Thundebird2 being "frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive" and the comments actually being "nothing more than gruff straight talk", then of course there are the uninvolved editors who certified the RfC/U. Thus the RfC/U is not inconclusive and there is plenty of support here and in the RfC/U. Not to mention the current sub talk page where once again the consensus is demonstrated that Thunderbird2 should drop the stick. Fnagaton 03:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've warned User:Greg L about civility and left a warning for User:Thunderbird2 about tendentious editing and forum shopping. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me I didn't get through to him. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)\

A bit frustratin' ain't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
See User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Suggestions.3F_.28if_you_have_a_few_moments.29. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Libellous claim

Greg_L has chosen to make claims above about me though I am uninvolved in his dispute. I commend editors here who see that as irrelevant. Greg_L's claim that I deleted his animation is untrue. (In fact I edited[73] 4 words of text he wrote. That edit has not been contested, not even by Greg_L.) A libellous falsehood goes beyond incivility and is not tolerable. Greg_L is aware that WP:Civility states “[incivility includes] Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.” I take the direct action of STRIKING (though not deleting) Greg_L's falsehood above. I do this on my own responsibility and refer to the record[[74]].

I see no reason to respond to Greg_L's inspection of a block log from 2007.

  • Cuddlyable3, Yes, without even inspecting the record, I recall that you are correct ; all you did was strenuously object to the animation; you did not delete it. Please accept my sincere apologies. Seriously.

    Where we got crosswise was your being uncivil to me here on Talk:Mandelbrot set and me getting a little cross with you for it. That precipitated what I would call, a wikilawyering action on your part where you came to this very venue to file a WQA about my behavior. That resulted in this correction, where Bwilkins (“BMW”) wrote as follows:

Wow, you egg him on, then seem surprised that he [Greg L] 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.

I was perfectly willing to forget all that. Actually, I had forgotten it. None of this would have even come up if you hadn’t weighed in here again to get in some sour-grapes digs against me. In rebuttal, I pointed out your cheap-stunt WQA wikylaywering stunt against me here in November and incorrectly recalled a detail of your behavior. I’m very sorry about that. But I really wish you would WP:Assume good faith and not presume that I intentionally lied when recalling events that happened in November. I don’t make it a habit of lying in real life. And I certainly don’t make it a habit to lie about another editor doing something they didn’t on Wikipedia, where there is a clear record to prove exactly what did and did not happen; that would be more than stupid of me.
Again, for the record, I will be first in line to proclaim that you did not delete the animation. I can not but notice that the last block on your block log has this comment by the admin: “Attempting to harass other users: Fresh off his block but no change in behavior”. Regrettably, I’m beginning to see a pattern with you. You seem to carry grudges. Note BMW’s post comment with regard to your filing a WQA. And here you are again proclaiming an endless list of grievances against me over how you have suffered at my hand. And it all started because I spent hours making a nice, compact animation to add to Mandelbrot set and you objected to that contribution [75]. Quite interesting. I really wish you would leave me alone now. Please??
I note that you have now twice struck the text in the above paragraph.[76] [77] Please note that this does tend to highlight a rather tendentious aspect of you. I’ve long held to the view that the proper response to bad speech is ‘better’ speech. Towards this end, you posted below that you did not object to my contribution of the animation. Very good. But then you felt at liberty to strike text in my post. Twice. Rather than engage in such childish antics as reverting you again (which would be no-doubt futile), I will allow what you did. Please, now, for God’s sake, leave me alone. Greg L (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Imagine my surprise, when I see this ‘let’s let bygones be bygones & work together in peace’-post from you on my talk page, where you wrote (in total)

Please satisfy yourself by inspecting the record that I have never deleted any animation you have submitted. If that is understood, I wish no barrier to our civil collaboration in future.

…and then I come here and see this. You will rarely see a two-sided Greg L. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This latest dispute

Greg L continues to post at voluble length his taunts, gratuitous references to diseases, his pet phrases such as "excuse me all over the place", continual assumption that his opinions represent "we" not "I" and presumption that Wikipedia is the place for his efforts at "dismissive humor" and "facetious metaphor".[78]. Examples of Greg_L's abusive comments include: "it would also make it look like you were more of a grownup if you didn’t come here to whine about how other editors failed to leave an after-dinner mint on your pillow.." later exacerbated[79]with an ilustration as "it would also make it look like you were more of a grownup if you didn’t come here to whine." and "..reminds me of insurgents in Iraq who hide behind women and children in the streets while shooting..". This behaviour follows the WQA[80] (which follows a previous WQA [81]) that I raised about Greg_L's incivility, which one hoped had put an end to Greg_L's ad hominem name calling such as balled[sic] faced, Mayor of the M-set and censor. I do not see that warnings to Greg_L have achieved the necessary improvement in his behaviour. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal and comment in regards to Cuddlyable3's post at Feb 14, 12:24 UTC

I wouldn't be against a 24 hour block for an adamant refusal to see that he did anything wrong. If he isn't willing to abide by our policies, then that's fine, he can go edit somewhere else where his behavior won't poison the editing atmosphere, somewhere other than wikipedia. It's obvious from the continued comments from admins and other users that his 'metaphors' are uncivil. He has been told this multiple times, but he has shown that he either doesn't care, or he is too self-righteous to see the truth. Under wikipedia policy, his 'metaphors', constitute as uncivil comments, and from the above post, it is obvious he isn't going to stop any time soon. In order to prevent further such comments from happening, I would say, at least, a 24 hour block is order. Maybe that will help him see that this behavior is unacceptable.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Keeping in mind blocks are meant to be preventative and never punitive, it seems to me Greg L has now acknowledged and apologized in good faith for a string of misunderstandings. I guess many editors would likely agree these misunderstandings were stirred up by his lack of civility (which I thought all along Greg L didn't see as a lack): Now that he knows there have been civility worries and he has had to deal with the kerfluffles and wasted time which have stemmed from them, let's see what he takes from this, hopefully tamping down a bit on how he says what he has to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I accept Greg_L's apology. His continuing comments to me seem to be a distraction from this specific WQA that I as an uninvolved part shall not comment on beyond this stipulation:
I have neither deleted nor objected to Greg_L's Mandelbrot animation. On the contrary [82], [83] and myself have expressed[84] our consensus that it is nice compact animation, a valuable addition to the article, Let's keep it (my words bolded); Greg_L was also reassured that Nobody has "objected to the very existence of the animation". Enough said. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Block: Fnagaton

Oppose Fnagaton reacted during a dispute with Thunderbird2 in a way that was unhelpful but not egregious. That is not actionable. He has taken WP policies, and I believe this WQA, to heart.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Block: Greg_L

One is reluctant to apply sanction to one of our hardest working contributors. It is fine when Greg_L apologises when confronted with a mistaken allegation. It is not fine that he made such an allegation without bothering to check the record that he inconveniently forgot. It is not fine to raise a content dispute, whether or not it exists as he believed, as an irrelevant distraction here. This WQA and previous WQAs all concern Greg_L's behaviour. Greg_L's stance in the references is unremittingly combative. The project in which all of us are active is to create a new encyclopedia, not to exercise smear tactics by means of vituperative sarcasm. It is not okay to denigrate other editors as whining babies or disease spreaders. It was not okay to link me to terrorist shooting. The list of Greg_L's vitriolic metaphors could go on but the community cannot let that happen. It must stop now. The principle WP:POINT is serious and relevant here. It does not assess whether a POV is correct or not. It puts focus on when disruption is caused that threatens the collaborative environment that we need to protect. That disruption can be measured by the burden of one editor provoking a string (3) of WQAs that must stop here. Editor's views have been expressed at length. A block has been envisaged. I agree with Gwen Gale who is mindful of the reason blocks are imposed. A 24 hour block is lenient and is no significant punishment. It serves as a signal that Greg_L's behaviour has transgressed our collective standards and that there is consensus that it must stop, if necessary by escalating blocks later.

Support 24-hour signal block Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This WQA is now closed; if you desire blocks or other binding disciplinary measures, then please try an administrator noticeboard - none will be issued here as clearly stipulated near the top of this WQA page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (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.

Removal of vulgarity

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An anonymous editor, or possibly more than one, has been inserting a crudely worded section onto the talk page for Wilfred Thesiger. Here's one diff where I've removed a vulgarity. I am not a prude -- I am happily editing cunt -- and do not object to the underlying question, but the tone seems out of place in an encyclopedia. I know the bios of dead people are treated with less kid gloves than those of the living, and talkpages have more latitude than mainspace, but still, there are limits. What is the correct procedure for dealing with this? I don't want to break WP:3RR. Is it the same for anon editors as for accounts? I have nowhere to leave a message for the editor(s), even if I knew what to say. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it - talk pages are for discussing how to improve the associated article, not asking schoolboy questions about sexuality. I can see how the same (kind of) question could be reasonable, e.g. "Madeup Skollar remarks that Thesiger may have been gay - is it worth mentioning this in the article?" would be fine, but the question asked was purely trolling. Cheers This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The specific diff you provided is simple vandalism, so you can remove such additions as many times as you want without worrying about 3RR. You can also leave warnings on the user's talk pages (IP's have talk pages just like accounts) and report repeat offenders to WP:AIV. Even though it is a bio of a non-living person, not a BLP, reliable sources are still required for any such addition to the article itself. The Seeker 4 Talk 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt help! I'd appreciate it if you could keep the page on your watchlist, for any further disturbances. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User Opinoso

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

In White Brazilian Talk Page: [85] [86] Is it possible for someone to talk to this user about this behaviour? Ninguém (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you object to? Toddst1 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This is one of those "here we go again's". At this point, we need to dig through the last Wikiquette discussion, and possibly revisit some of those items. Toddst1, lemme grab the links and I'll be right back here... Edit Centric (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Evidently, there's still issues happening since the last interaction for edit warring. The applicable discussions already engaged in;
At this point, the edit war and edit incompatibility between these two editors might be best taken to RFC. Edit Centric (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Updated links to show history. Before an RFC process, perhaps these editors would consider formal mediation? Edit Centric (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to him removing Fact Tags where the links are broken, and then, when called on it, making completely unrelated comments, including misconstruing my positions, that constitute ad hominems.

I am open to formal mediation. Ninguém (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, his aggressions and attempts to put words in my mouth seem to have escalated:

[87]

[88]

[89] Ninguém (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He's getting bolder, perhaps because he's thinking that no further discussion here is an endorsement of his behaviour:

[90]

Accuses me of vandalism, for an edit clearly intended to improve the article. Refuses to explain what he finds wrong with the edit, but unendling repeat that I have "suppressed information" and "added wrong information", both of which are false. Plus, seems to think it is a good idea to repeat that I "use phone books as source", which is blatantly false.

[91]

Calls my attempts to civilly discuss the issues at the Talk Page "obsessive". Is clearly "gaming the system", "wikilawyering", to keep information he knows that is false - his idea that White Brazilians previous to the Great Immigration were not of Portuguese descent. Has an idea that there exists an objective, "correct" concept of White races, which is contrary to the mainstream consensus that races are social constructs, and bases his edits on such idea.

Please, take a look at that, and talk to him about this. This editor has already been blocked twice for incivility; he has managed to make a lot of Brazilian editors quit either posting on Brazilian population articles, or Wikipedia at large. Ninguém (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. In the interest of resolving and closing this here, I'm suggesting that you take this one to Third Party Opinion, and put in a request there for assistance. We've done all we can do here, this needs to be elevated there before it can go any further up. If WP:3O does not resolve this, then formal mediation might be possible. Ninguém, go ahead and navigate to WP:3O and put in a request at your earliest leisure. Edit Centric (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: Requests for a WP:3O have been turned down twice now, [92] [93] mainly due to the failure of past attempts to offer a third opinion (and I can't say I disagree). An RFC has been ongoing for some time about one particular part of this issue, but has also failed to achieve anything thus far. Anaxial (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be interesting to settle the content dispute. But here I am complaining about his incivility. I particularly resent his repeated assertion that I use phone books as a source, even where this does not have anything with the discussion, such as in "Genetic Researchs" in the Talk Page. Ninguém (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém, to be terribly honest and pointed on this one, what I'm seeing here is a content dispute. He's being bold in his assertions, and you might be taking offense to something that he doesn't seem to think is offensive. (Saying that you're using the phone book as source material.) What I would suggest is doing the 3O thing, and going from there. One thing I DID notice; Opinoso, children get Y chromosomes from their dads, but mtDNA is passed down through the maternal side. But anyway...
I will however, place a reminder about civility on both user talks, noting that we've visited these issues before...Edit Centric (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Centric, there evidently is a content dispute. I have taken that issue to WP:3O. But the content dispute is the environment in which civility issues rise. For instance, the edit I made in "Genetic Research": perhaps it is wrong, and should be replaced by a different text. But it clearly is not "vandalism", nor it removed any information that was previously there. However, Opinoso cannot simply revert it; he has to claim that I am removing information, which constitutes vandalism[94][95]. Then, when I take the discussion to the Talk Page, he repeats the accusation that I removed information, and accuses me of vandalism:

You can't be serious [17]. Not only removed informations, but also substituted the original text for a confusing, nonsense explanation for Y Chromossome and mtDNA. Do not remove sourced informations: vandalism.

Again asked to explain himself, here he comes again:

You included unsourced informations and even worse: wrong informations. Also, you erased informations. Lots of vandalism in a single post.

But at least this time he comes with an attempt to explain his disagreement with my edit, in which he essentially rephrases my edit, but insists that a complete line of ancestors is the same thing as a "single ancestor". And then adds,

What's this? Nonsense, unsourced and wrong information. It's even hilarious. Please, if you are not able to understand these differences, do not post in this article.

And, though it does not have anything to do with the edit in question, he brings it:

Moreover, do not use Phone Books as source, please.

The "phone books as source" is completely false. I never used phone books as a source. I merely referred to them in the Talk Page, in a rhetorical question.

In the context of discussing the "ethnicity" of White Brazilians, this could perhaps be construed as an excessively harsh way of making a point. In the context of a different discussion, however, it is an ad hominem. It means, "you don't have the right to an opinion on the genetics of chromosome Y, because you have expressed an opinion that I deem ridiculous on the subject of Brazilian surnames".

The overall behaviour seems to be this:

1. If anyone edits the article in disagreement with his ideas, revert the edits. Repeat until 3RR becomes an issue.

2. If anyone makes more than one edit, and he disagrees with only one of them, revert all of them in a single move.

3. Try to avoid discussion on the Talk Page. Instead, take the discussion on the content to WQA, ANI, etc. Use the Talk Page preferably to discuss etiquette and procedural issues.

4. If impossible to avoid content discussion at the Talk Page, manage to make it a hellish experience to the other editor(s). Hopefully, they will get tired of trying to improve the article, and quit messing with his feudal domain on Brazilian demography/ethnography.

All of this may involve content issues, but it seems to me to also involve civility issues.

Thank you for your patience. I hope I'm not abusing it, or breaking any rules in posting this here. Ninguém (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, he's back to stonewalling:

I will stop "discussing" with him, so that all this can stop and leave you administrators take care of him. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009

Ninguém (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the point at the top: most of us in here are not Admins. We cannot issue blocks or bans. We're here to provide fresh, uninvolved sets of eyes on disputes and provide advice. We have provided as much assistance as we can, I think. If this is indeed an incident, you will need to pursue the next step in dispute resolution. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... but when I got to WP:DR, it says that this is the place to deal with uncivil posters.

On the content dispute, I'm trying to discuss it in the article's Talk Page. With the results I have posted above:

I will stop "discussing" with him, so that all this can stop and leave you administrators take care of him. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009

It seems a nice situation. I can't edit the page without discussing. I can't discuss, since the other editor doesn't want to. I can't complain about such behaviour here, because it is a content issue. And nobody is able to take a position on the content dispute, because the sources are in Portuguese. Ninguém (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreements about the allowability of sources belong at the reliable sorces noticeboard. Dispute resolution does tell you that if WQA cannot help (which, as you're asking for admin action, is the case) you may want to try WP:ANI. You might just want to ask for a third opinion on the sources/article itself. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Камень

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This user is an editor on both en.wikipedia.org and ru.wikipedia.org, and has been editing the article on asteroid 1999 RQ36. This object is the subject of current research, in particular radar shape modeling (I am very familiar with the work, although I am not a coauthor on the paper that is in preparation), as well as having a series of potential Earth impacts in the late 22nd century (hence the article).

On JPL's near-Earth object website (neo.jpl.nasa.gov), we routinely provide rough size estimates based on optical data, which we state are uncertain by up to ±50%. For RQ36, the optical diameter estimate is 560 m. The Arecibo and Goldstone radar data have provided a much more accurate size estimate (510 m ± 50 m). I therefore changed the article to reflect this, and cited "Nolan et al. 2009 in prep.". Камень contended that an article in preparation is not a reliable source, so I have linked a conference abstract describing the shape modeling and our online logs of the radar observations (see the article). Even this has not satisfied Камень, and he posted the uncertain value back to the article (here and on ru), and left this message on my talk page: "Next your action will call sys-op justice".

I consider this to be a simple misunderstanding on Камень's part, but it might be a good idea for one of the admins to explain that calling sys-op is not the preferred way to resolve a minor dispute. Also, have I breached etiquette by revising size estimates in the RQ36 article on ru.wikipedia.org and explaining my edits in English (my keyboard is not configured for Cyrillic characters)? I don't intend to return from retirement, but I have professional interest in RQ36. Thanks. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What I would do in this case is to solve the issue of reliable sources first and then that should finish off the possible incivility. Either the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or Project Astronomy should be able to confirm the use of the source. Honestly, as the other user obviously has English as a second language, there really is no incivility - what he said is not much different from the en.Wikipedia template about reliable sources and administrative action. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr tag-bombing users talk pages with 3RR warnings for single edits

Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments5 people in 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.

  Resolved
Closed for archiving. New concerns should be added under a new WQA thread.

it's passive aggressive, and that is not conducive to calm discourse. i made a single edit to an article, reverting one editor's edit - the first time i've ever reverted that editor. there's no basis for suggesting it constitutes "edit-warring". i'm aware that 3RR can be applied to a single edit - but that's in a case where an editor has previously been warned about a 3RR violation, and is skirting the spirit of the rule. this doesn't even show up on that radar. i acknowledge that Twinkle makes it easy to apply such tags and warnings, but perhaps it makes it a bit too easy, because in this case all it managed to do is piss me off, being unjustly accused of edit warring where no such state obtains. the tag bombing:[96]. i've made my feelings known on the talk page of the article in question - which, frankly, is where the edit should have been discussed in the first place by user saltyboatr, rather than doing drive-by tag bombing. Anastrophe (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(SCREEEEECH!) As we put the brakes on here for just a minute. Are you completely sure that this was on purpose? This might be a case of Twinkle glitch, or something else done inadvertently. Let's calmly revisit this one, and find out what's going on. Did you touch base with SaltyBoatr about this first? Edit Centric (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
no, it's not a glitch. he's done it to me and other editors in the past. Anastrophe (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. First of all, I don't see 3RR as being an issue here, so let's put that one to bed. Also, Anastrophe, it's customary (if not polite) to let the other user know that you've initiated one of these discussions about them, by posting on their talk page. No worries though, I've taken care of that detail note.
I also noted that you've addressed this in article talk, which is a "good on ya". I would definitely like to get SaltyBoatr's take on this one though... Edit Centric (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thanks for alerting saltyboatr. i always prefer discussing articles on their respective discussion pages - and the 'you may be in violation of 3RR' tag even says that's where matters should be discussed. so the irony of being robotically tagged on my user talk page simply adds to the annoyance. Anastrophe (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I know, I know. It does seem like an annoyance, but then again, it's simply that, and nothing else. If you know that you're in the right and on the level (be SURE!), then you have nothing to worry over, and have the resources on your side. As long as you're not actively engaged in an edit war, and providing justifiable edit descriptor comments, you're good to go. And now (hopefully)....SaltyBoatr? Edit Centric (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hold the phone a sec. I just noticed that SaltyBoatr did this at Yaf's talk page as well, same date. (Reference DIFF, Old revision)
Now I'd really like to know what the "411" is on this... Edit Centric (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
With this one, there is history. And peculiarly, the history leads directly back to the article in question, over the past year. Therefore, I've paged an admin whom I trust implicitly, to shed some light on this situation. Once he gets his message, hopefully he'll chime in here. Edit Centric (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a long term problem and long term pattern of edit warring here, and I am trying to be helpful to break that habitual problem. Do you have advice of how to bring back collaboration to the editing there? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And a point of fact here, Yaf and Anastrophe are in fact engaged in 'tag team' edit warring the good faith edits by use Hauskalainen. See the history[97]. How shall I encourage collaborative editing instead of this ongoing edit warring? Are edit war warnings on talk pages hostile acts? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Talkpages? They are generally permanent discussions. Who would revert discussions on Talkpages? ONLY 3RR violations (or close) should ever get 3RR warnings ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
no, he was referring to edit war warnings on talk pages, not edit warring on talk pages. Anastrophe (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
a single reversion by a single editor on a single article where no previous reversions of that single edit by that single editor on that single article have taken place most emphatically does not warrant passive-aggresively issuing a warning to the editor that he may be engaging in edit warring and that he may be blocked. that's not encouraging collaborative editing, it's throwing gasoline on the fire. clearly you did not like that i reverted a lengthy, for the most part unsourced, prose addition to the article. the way you register your concern is on the talk page of the article - just like the tag bomb you applied to me states! and i formally dispute your linking me and user yaf. i don't know yaf, and i've never communicated with him anywhere but on article talk pages. where's your evidence of collusion to suggest we're somehow 'in cahoots' here? bad faith. as i noted above, i've never reverted user hauskalainen before. Anastrophe (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, stayed up late here, so had to catch up on Z time. Looking back through things again, I have no doubt that Hauskalainen's edits are good faith edits. I also see that the few corrections to these edits were good faith corrections, and DID correct inaccuracies in Hauskalainen' understanding of the inner-workings of U.S. government.
Before I broach the other main aspect affecting this, let me get some input. This one is a bit complicated... Edit Centric (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Before THAT, let me attempt to stop the revert war that Hauskalainen is propagating at the article... Edit Centric (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, situation handled, back to the matter at hand. Since my last edit here, I see that active and productive discussion has begun at the article's talk page, so that angle of it is "TKO" (taken care of/totally knocked out). SaltyBoatr - Before I address your hasty 3RR warnings, please allow me to elaborate on something here. Amongst what I do here at WQA, I tend to view each WQA alert from a neutral perspective. I look at the following areas;
  • Each user's User Page, Talk Page, Edit History and all applicable logs.
  • Article page and talk page, edit history.
  • Related WQAs, AN/I's and other applicable discussions.
Parsing all of this information, I become intimately familiar with the "global view" of the situation. Having done that here, I can see where your view of this would be affected by the given history behind the article over the past year, and I'll leave it at that. To the point, issuing 3RR / Edit war warnings without clear evidence of 3RR being trespassed could be construed as incivility and / or "wikihounding". My suggestion to you is, in the future, be more judicious in the manner which you issue these warnings. In the case of articles where you have a history of being personally involved, I would suggest letting another uninvolved editor look into the situation and issue any warnings that are deemed apropriate. Edit Centric (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
here's the thing. i'm always quite rigorous in giving very clear (and often too long) edit summaries for why i did x, y, and z. i clearly and plainly explained why i reverted hauskalainen's edit. it was unencyclopaedic prose, it contained errors, and the need for the lengthy explication of those details was not at all clear. similarly, i'm highly collaborative on talk pages, very willing to engage in discussion of the article in question, the basis for additions and removals, rationale behind my actions, etc.. There is a ton of history between myself, user saltyboatr, and several other editors, all in relation to article having to do with firearms/firearms law. collaboration on the talk pages practically constitutes a serial novel in the sheer volume of verbiage expended. and that is how it should be. deal with the disputes on the article talk page. user saltyboatr has in the past reverted lengthy prose-style additions to articles that contained no (or few) cites, and i entirely support such actions - particularly on incendiary topics such as gun rights/gun control. regrettably, he reverted my reversion, with the edit summary "restoring passage, with addition of citation request tag. Give him a chance. Avoid edit warring this please.". he knows better. adding unsourced material to the article on Honey might fly for a few weeks (or years, in fact), but on deeply contentious topics such as these, unsourced additions have no chance of standing, and that is how it should be. Anastrophe (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The crime I am accused of here is simply pointing out a potential problem on a talk page. Mentioning a potential problem is not fairly called a "tag bomb" and comes hardly close to an act of incivility. Soul searching this, I am still mad at being personally, bluntly and falsely accused[98] of "being patently devoid of good faith". That is fairly described as an unrepentant personal attack. And, upon asking for an apology, I get a thumb in the eye[99]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
well now that we're dredging up old grievances, if i were to relentlessly label you and your edits as "anti-gun" or "anti-rights" you'd be raising a hue and cry. it is indeed patently devoid of good faith to constantly label your fellow editors and their edits as being "pro-gun". it's as simple as that. good faith does not assume that a given editor or his edits fall within a generalized, stereotypical label. Anastrophe (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is neither the time nor the place to air dirty laundry, dredge up old grievances or start direct incivility. I am therefore STRONGLY WARNING both of you to cease the above conversation track before it reaches that ugliness. It's getting us nowhere in resolving the issue at hand. That has already been addressed, and SaltyBoatr has been accordingly counseled in the finer art of the prudent issuance of warnings. In fact, there's a bit of dirty laundry there that I could have aired, but chose not to, giving the editor (and you know who I am referring to) the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who reads me here at WQA knows that I am a very patient, reasonable and honest person. Honestly, the sniping here needs to stop. If y'all have a content dispute, address it in a calm, concise manner on the article's talk page. Otherwise, it doesn't need said. Here are a few things for you to remember;

  • When you point the finger at someone, remember that you have three pointing back at you.
  • If you can't say anything nice...
  • You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

These are things that we learn in grade school, but unfortunately seem to forget as our lives become jaded by becoming adults. Everyone following this would do well to take these examples to heart, and try harder at applying them here. With that being said, let's put what's already done to bed, and concentrate on collaborating on what should become a good article. That is what we're here for. Edit Centric (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


New person adding to complaints against SaltyBoatr. FYI: I currently have two different computers connected to two different internet services. Earlier today the other(newer) computer was banned for a 3RR violation which never happened as a result of what I believe to be a report by SaltyBoatr.

The computer was posting under ID 141.154.110.173. I was posting on the Second Amendment board. Revision history is here so you can confirm that a 3RR violation never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&action=history

While there was an undo war earlier today, I stopped at 2 while the other person went to 3, realized he had stepped over the line and we then discussed the situation and reached a mutually satisfactory solution which resulted in him reverting one of his own reverts bringing his revert count to 2. I do not wish that person harassed unless he is the one reporting the bogus 3rr violation. The issue has been settled and I consider it closed.

SaltyBoart however, after a dispute over the validity of source material used in the Second Amendment article threated to have me reported for a 3RR as as well as a NPOV violation - here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:141.154.110.173

Since other editors have been having problems with Salty Boatr I cut and pasted the complaint in the discussion page with the disputed issue so that other authors were aware of his activities - here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

See section # 22 Additional POV bias issue - Chicago-Kent Law Review Issue 76 for full details of the dispute. It may be bit confusing since yet a third person (Philo-Centinel) hacked the complaint

As part of this complaint I wish to ask for remedial action for this harassment and ask that SaltyBoatr be banned to the maximum amount allowed by wiki for harassmewnt.4.154.237.88 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Um...no. That's not the way Wikipedia works, we're not going to play the "blame game" over you getting blocked, and I'll leave it at that. (I should have marked this thread "Resolved", sorry, got tied up IRL.) Edit Centric (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2009 (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.

Talk:Comparison of wiki farms

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Talk:Comparison of wiki farms is frequently used for personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and the like. Most recently, I requested that editor 2005 refactor his latest comment User_talk:2005#Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms_2. In response to editor 2005's comment, editor Timeshifter has escalated the situation considerably [100]. I think it's time for some outside help. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any incivility. Could you please provide diffs of the exact post(s) where WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL was broken? Thanks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If you don't have any problems with diff provided, then nevermind. Obviously, this is a waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Prom3th3an

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

There is a debate on the article Christian Bale as to what should be his nationality in the lead sentence. For some time, it was agreed to leave it at 'Welsh Born English Actor'. Prom3th3an then changed this to 'Welsh Born British Actor' with no comments left on the talk page, but the revision was marked

"English is certainly an inappropriate term in this case, conventional wisdom says British is the better word. Continual reversion will result in protection and or blocks."

No explanation was given as to why 'English' is was inappropriate term and why conventional wisdom says 'British' is better"

It was then debated again and User:Ha! did an analysis which revealed that most on the talk page preferred 'English Actor', but the infobox showed he was born in Wales. So this was changed. Promethean reverted this with the explanation:

"Rv To conventional standard established on talk apge"

No conventional standard has been established, the only one that has was 'English'. So this was reverted. I also left a message at Prometheans talk page asking him to comment on his changes. [101].

Promethean has returned to the page, changed it - left no comments on the talk page as requested, but with the edit note:

"Rv to conventional method. Please google the lead words, or must I spell everything out to you."

This is not particularly useful or constructive. So any advice please? White43 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "British" is more commonly used to differentiate between being an "English (speaking)" actor and an English (British)" actor. However, I don't see this as either a violation of no public attacks ot civility. It may more may not be a content issue, and may relate to someone not following consensus. As such, content and consensus are not the subjects of this board. Personally, I would keep it as "British", see List of British actors and actresses for the use of "British" as the standard. I would even look at Anthony Hopkins if I were you. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Anthony Hopkins is listed as a Welsh actor, so I'm not sure why you've used that as an example. Many, many British people are listed as English, Welsh or Scottish - so changing Bale to British must follow suit that every other person listed as English should be listed as British. So Promethean is not following consensus - who do I raise this with? White43 (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It is also worth pointing out that Christian Bale self-identifies as English, was raised in England and is believed to have English descended parents. The argument given by Promethean that there are many more Google hits For Bale as a British actor(if indeed that is his argument - as it has never been explained) is erroneous as British and English are often interchanged, despite being different. One could argue the same thing about any 'British' actor from Scotland or Wales also being listed as British. Joe Calzaghe is the exact mirror of Bale - in that he was born in England and raised in Wales, to a Welsh mother - but he's listed as Welsh - Not 'English Born British', the connotation of which implies he is English. White43 (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, you're discussing content. I merely gave my 2 cents about content, as I cannot perceive the civility issues at hand. As noted, this is not the correct forum for content issues. Can I also ask why you have not advised the Editor of this WQA, as noted in the instructions on this page? One final item: please use the "Preview" button. I note that most of your responses comprise of 3 or 4 edits to the same parts. This fills the page history, and makes following changes difficult. Thanks in advance. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree; based on the second comment by the filing party, this seems to be more of a content dispute than anything else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Obviously this is a content issue, but ignoring all rules for a moment i'll give my view. Disregarding whether it's accurate or not 'Welsh born english' reads like a contradiction and is likely to confuse. If you are born England, Scotland or Wales, then you're nationality is British. No offense to various nationalists but that's what your passport will say next to nationality. If you can verifiy his birthplace etc add it to the article in a seperate sentence. If he considers himself Welsh or feels strongly about that identity, source it and write it in the article body. --neon white talk 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh. You learn something new every day. I had thought England referred to the combined area and Britain was a subcomponent, but as neon said it's really the other way around.
That said, I can neither assert nor deny that White43's characterization of their communication is accurate. But ~if~ it's accurate, it seems troubling enough to be addressed as a separate issue from content. arimareiji (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Revan ltrl

Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

This user has been using uncivil language on Talk:Pink Floyd#Sales (a section which he initiated) while discussing what may be a legitimate complaint about another issue being discussed on Talk:Led Zeppelin. He has been warned by other editors including myself, and clearly regards these warnings as hostile, and feels the need to counter-attack; see especially his latest post [102] which I reverted. I would also like to apologize for my edit summary on my revert of this; in a previous post I warned the user his posts look like trolling (but not actually saying this is his intention), and on the edit summary I mentioned "trolling" as a reason for the revert, and may have been out of line making that accusation (which, of course, I can't undo). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the above statement, including the excuse.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide some more diffs. What warning were given and what were they for? I cannot see any recent warnings given on the talk page. --neon white talk 14:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
If there were several recent warnings, well, there's WP:AIV for such cases. This is a site to resolve cases and not to just block, right?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a good idea to discuss matters with the problem editor on his/her talk page as a first step in resolving an issue. From what i can see this editor misunderstands how wikipedia works, the problem is he/she isnt a new editor, in fact one who's many edits dating back to march 2007 should demonstrate a far better underestanding than the one demonstrated on this talk page. --neon white talk 14:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:AIV is not for incivility, it's for vandalism - and only where it's been warned properly. WP:ANI is for horrific cases of incivility, again where they have been properly warned. The last warnings on this specific user's page are more than 6 months old. Step 1 in dispute resolution is to discuss with the other party first. Step 2 is to visit us at WP:WQA for some informal assistance/some neutral pairs of eyes. Step 3 may be WP:ANI or it may not be. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to both of the posts above, do you think there is any hope in trying to discuss this further with the user? His posts have a trolling style, and all advice being given to him has been ignored. I already consider myself done talking to him, unless he tries to edit articles with insincerity again (changing an article in a way he knows is wrong, because he couldn't get the right edit in sync with a different article). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean "warning" as a precursor to admin action, which would belong on his talk page, but advice given within the discussion, warning he was exceeding the civility rules. He was told his accusations that others posting to him are admins, or people trying to assert authority unfairly, are out of line [103] [104] [105] [106] and previously warned that his posts resemble trolling [107]. He has been uncivil in most of his posts to this section, mocking previous replies; surely that is evident? My reason for posting this alert is that it has reached the stage where a post needed to be reverted, which should only be done in extreme cases. If it's extreme enough for that action, it's also extreme enough for an alert. This is not a request for a block, it is a request for a warning to be posted on his talk page by an admin, an action which for which I do not have authority, but which should accompany a revert of this type. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, most of the diff's you provided are your posts, and not the "offensive" ones. However, I have been able to see a few of the editors comments. So far, I fail to see any of them as violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. If he thinks you're an admin, then he simply doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. I see valid discussions of sources and article inclusions, and cannot see any points of incivility. Maybe I'm blind, or maybe I'm too neutral to see what may be perceived nuances? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted diffs from myself and another editor because I was asked what I was referring to by "warnings" given to the editor. The only really problematic post that I'm asking for help on, was the one I reverted: [108]. In case I'm not being clear: as I understand it, a revert like this should be accompanied by a user talk page message similar to: "Your edits have been reverted for (reason)... if you continue, you may be blocked", which I should not be posting because I don't have the ability to block. But I think I do have the right to revert an attack against me, and this revert should be accompanied by a talk page warning from somebody. That's what I'm requesting at this time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope. I tend to agree with Bwilkins here, I don't see anything that would quantify the incivility assumption. "please keep your shallow amateur analysis to yourself" hardly qualifies as incivility. I've read through all of this, and come to the healthy conclusion that no action is warranted. Knight, I understand that you've been with Wikipedia not but a year. Something I've learned over the past three years here is that you have to have a "thicker skin" on some things. Now, if the user had typed something like "Your edits are s^&%, go pound sand!", then I'd say you definitely had something there. In this case, nah. Revan's only error here was mistakenly identifying non-admins as admins, which is moot point at best. Edit Centric (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, consider him advised. (Bwilkins, check me on this, apropos?) Edit Centric (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good! Now let's not make it sound like I run the place though! LOL (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that "please keep your shallow amateur analysis to yourself" is not incivil, it's not the worst you'll hear but it's pretty rude. Though in this case there are similar examples of 'rude' comments aimed at the editor that may have antogonised the situation. I think it's one to keep an eye on. --neon white talk 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

By the by, I apologize if I'm taking the "no nonsense" approach to the WQA alerts, someone hasn't had their coffee today! (The Mr. Coffee went on the fritz this morning!) Edit Centric (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and for Noen white's offer to keep an eye on what heppens next. My sense is this user does have a legitimate beef, but is going about addressing it the wrong way, and can't tell when people are trying to support him. He will probably be reading all this anyway, so I'll just say he seems to be trying to take a flimsy excuse for resisting his changes at the LZ page, one that could be knocked over with a feather, and instead of doing that, wants to bulldoze the house next door in retaliation. (How's that for a metaphor!) I also don't really think he is as mistaken as he purports to be, about how Wikipedia works. Anyway, thanks again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up note: Another editor put back the talk page post I reverted, and admonished me (in the edit summary) for reverting it. I presume he did not realize I posted this alert. I've pointed him to here from his talk page. Hopefully he doesn't put it back again; I don't want to get into an edit war over this! If that happens, can someone make a decision on whether the removal was appropriate? That was never discussed here, so I presume nobody had a problem with that action. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That was me - I reverted your revert because I agree with the people above who didn't see anything that uncivil in the comment (I've been the target of far, far worse without being able to make a case for WP:CIVIL). However, I'm fine with letting it stay removed as long as everyone else is. Don't worry, we won't get into a revert war on that: if anyone reverts it again, it won't be me. Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I allowed to write here? I honestly don't purport that I don't know, and I don't expect you to give me a break, even though I'm a girlfriendless teenager! =P. But it seems as though you have given me a break, or I just managed to stay in line (Maybe I deserve some cred, even!). Well, Knight Ni obviously got insulted by my way of answering (that metaphor is there for a reason and it's quite good!), but me too by his appropriately far-from-discussable responds. This following example refers to his "analysis" and gives my side of the incident. Imagine yourself eating breakfast with your pal, discussing something rather important, and you slightly disagree, then all of a sudden, mid-sentence, he goes: "...you're eating pancakes with jam and sugar, your eyes indicate tiredness, you should get some sleep, using a bed...", all because your way of talking rubs him on the wrong side. Wouldn't that justify a "please keep your [...] to yourself."? It's true I've been a member for some time which, of course, raise expectations for one's knowledge about how things are handled about and everything, but my added activity here on wikipedia equals a month of your time spent here, tops. Yeah, I don't know how things really work here, and that has been pointed out to me several times, and I've been deliberately ignorant about it in some occasions. What was not pointed out here or anywhere else when naming my warning from last summer, however, is that I inspired a number of other, equally-experienced (not as experienced as you guys) editors, who shared my opinion and who thought that discussion led anywhere. backed me up, "He may be a little uncivil, but he's right" and so on. The more experienced editors whose opinion we opposed were left with nothing but wikipedia regulations and the reliable sources-argument, even when it comes to things as genres, but that's all it took, and that was that. But again, that don't give me no breaks. Well, I wouldn't say your intension with this discussion falls flat to the floor, Knight, and you kept a straight face all the way through, subtly stressing your experience and ambition within this site, and your unwillingness to be at fault. But like I said, the fact that you've taken offense pervades this whole thing. You say you won't even talk to me me anymore, which was demonstrated just now on the PF page. I wondered where your immediate respond went, and now I know. Good thing HexaChord stepped in. I don't know where this goes. Am I at fault? Can I start a counter-discussion about Knight? Do I have to apologize? I guess this is why I sometimes oppose these ways and deliberately ignore requests. This whole trial-thing freaks me out (see "The Trial" from "The Wall"). I didn't even know this thing was going on until now.Revan ltrl (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you're supposed to respond here when advised that your actions have been called into question. However, this is not a trial, it's a discussion. WP:CIVIL is a key tenet on Wikipedia - there is never an excuse for anyone to ignore it. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 08:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Good thing then I didn't ignore it. I'd like A Knight Who Says Ni advised as well. How do I get underway?Revan ltrl (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Victor9876

Latest comment: 15 years ago43 comments8 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – "Offender" now understands policy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've asked and then warned Victor several times to stop editing my comments at Talk:Charles_Whitman. It doesn't seem to be doing any good - in the more recent instances ( [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]), he's getting more aggressive and outright deleting them. In his defense, he disclaimed knowledge of the second recent instance: "Can you explain Aimaeiji, how your edit here [[114]] got posted by my account? Jwy posted the link to my talk page, I know nothing about it, or how my account posted your content.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)" were his actual words.

Open the first link to the contributions by the anon I joked with. One (1) edit. The one there now. None before, and none since. Arimareiji (hereafter referred to as Ari), came in unkowingly and unannounced as a Third Party Opinion, as a request by Jwy, who never formally told the community. In fact, look at the header he used to open his discourse and you will find a strike through the term Third. Yeah, Im contentious at times with others, when they post something, or argue over a post I have made. That is vigorous debate in my terms, and I have conceded at times when a good point has been made. Ari, prefers his own interpretations and there is no amount of debate to get him to change his mind. He uses double and triple entendre's, metaphors and other forms of rhetoric to twist things his way, and then faults the other person for their reactions or refactoring. This is not good debate skills, but he uses them to his advantage. As to the present situation, there are only three parties involved, Jwy and myself who were debating a situation and Ari who has inflamed the situation. I asked a question of Jwy and Ari jumped in to answer. I told Ari I was not addressing him, and he publicly mocked me on the page. In the best form I could muster, I asked him to leave it alone. But no! Not Ari, he enjoys this type of discourse when he has contempt for someone. Frankly, I don't mind bantering with someone who wants to exchange snipings, but to elevate and keep re-iterating the same verses over and over becomes annoying. He ejoyed all the battles he created and now he wants everyone to believe that I was war editing. My, my, how ironic! He came in warning me I would be banned, aggressively, while stating he didn't want that, passively. Then he fulfills the prophecy with this little tool Wikipedia has created for hunters like Ari. I'm sure he feels powerful right now.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When I took a look at his talk page, it appears others have had the same problem. If someone could politely advise him that this is a Very Bad Idea, I would appreciate it. It seems highly unlikely that anything I say at this point will matter, if this is any indication. arimareiji (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been perusing the cited diffs, and on this one, I'm seeing exactly what arimareiji is talking about. Victor9876, I see that you've been editing here at Wiki less than a year, so I'm going to chalk this one up to inexperience. Your removal of content from Talk:Charles Whitman is following a dangerous road of incivility and WP:ATTACK. Specifically, calling someone an "idiot" in the edit descriptor while you're censoring the talk page is yes, a very bad idea. Refactoring other people's comments without their permission, name-calling, soapboxing...we don't do that here. I am STRONGLY warning you to stop the edit warring on the talk page, along with the incivility. If you fail to do so, this goes to WP:AN3 as recommendation for an immediate block, for WP:3RR and WP:EW. (Yes, 3RR also applies to talk pages as well.) I will also be posting this warning at User talk:Victor9876 for record. Edit Centric (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If you noticed in the descriptor, I am one of the "idiots" I refer to.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
After taking a deep breath and a drink of coffee, I'm bringing this back here to the WQA from my personal talk page, as this is where we are addressing this. Cross-post begin -
Hello, you have warned me form the perspective of one complainer. There is another side of the story, are you willing to listen?--Victor9876 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Cross-post end.
No Victor9876, I warned you from my perspective, but only after reviewing all the pertinent diffs and edit histories of the talk page that you have been edit warring over. I warned you based upon my observations of your edit descriptor comments, revert and delete actions. Let's be perfectly clear on that point. I did not simply take arimareiji's word for it, I never do. I've made a commitment to the WQA process to always verify each WQA presented, from a neutral standpoint, before engaging. Edit Centric (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed with you Centric, for a person in you position. Ari messaged me to let me know he had committed to this action, and of course, his usual displeasure with me, and I have never been in this position to formally answer a complaint. My expectations were that at the least an inquiry would be made and I would at least be guided to this board with civility, and perhaps some concern. But what I find is, you had to take a deep breath and a drink of coffee and cross-post my message here, after previously rendering your perspectives and observations. I never said you took Ari's side exclusively, even though a "warning" is a good indicator, that some form of decision has been made against one. After all, how can someone be neutral after hearing only one party, when the other party, as hard as the evidence may seem, has yet to present their position? I merely mention this as an observation, not a character analysis. I do not apolgize for the discourse that has gone on. I do regret that it happened. I am not blaming Ari exclusively, but he was the one who came in without an introduction and statement of invitation (I know WP anyone can edit, but Ari had an agenda). I could make the case that Jwy and Ari formed a cabal, as I did on the talk page. I don't believe it was a cabal now, just poor communication. Communication that has led to this. --Victor9876 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an informal board. Edit looked at the diffs and the actions taken by you and the person making the complaint and warned you based on what he saw. That is the same warning he would give you if he happened across the talk page in question and saw your edits without being directed there by this WQA. The only judgment being made by Edit Centric is about your editing the talk page comments of others, not about the underlying dispute. Please note that no one here (that I can see) is using this board to oppose your point of view. This is simply about your language (calling someone an idiot is uncivil even if you are referring to yourself at the same time) and your actions to remove and refactor other editors' comments. The talk page in question is the place for the dispute, this is an informal board which analyzes behavior, not content disputes, and attempts to offer perspective WITHOUT going into the root of the dispute, only to advise and warn other editors about their actions. I just wanted to clear up that this alert here is not about the dispute but about your language and editing others' comments, which is not allowed. The Seeker 4 Talk 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize that you feel that way Victor9876, and I fully realize that I can't please everyone all the time here. I don't pretend to try to. Regardless of this, my baited breath and drink of Black Silk (why not, it's good coffee!), I still find that a fair amount of shenanigans have been going on at Talk:Charles_Whitman, and I don't need arimareiji to tell me that. (He only brought our attention to this.) I can plainly see from the edit history there that you've not only transgressed WP:3RR, you've run over it with a steam shovel. In addition and as I previously stated, you're refactoring and outright deletion of others' comments on the talk page is not cricket either. That's the reason for the warning.
There's nothing wrong with discourse. I'm all for it, and don't expect you to apologize for it. Statement of invitation? (This one raises an eyebrow, and has the odiferous emanations of WP:OWN) NO editor needs a statement of invitation to edit articles here at Wikipedia. As for the "agenda", unless you can quantify that remark, it has no weight. Everyone is welcome to edit articles here, as evinced by the ability of anonymous IP editors to come on and make contributions.
Not to be pedantic, but I know I don't own the article and even mentioned it above. The invitation wording was to show that Ari knew his reason for coming in and, if I may say, was uncivil for not at least making me aware of his purpose before accusing me of things. If this forum is about behavior, maybe Ari's and Jwy's diffs should be looked at as well. Again, to the agenda, he admits on the page he should have let it be known and struck the word Third in a leader on the page. I'm not saying he had bad intentions initially, but we're here now. And anons can be used to skew an issue.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
In the end, it doesn't matter that you're disappointed with me. All that matters is that you take away from this that it is not copasetic to violate content, 3RR and civility policies and guidelines to suit your own ends, and hopefully this will not be an issue in the future. Edit Centric (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No amount of excuses would have stopped a warning being given in this case so i recommend taking heed and reviewing your civility in future. --neon white talk 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(Was I TLDR there, neon? :-) ) Edit Centric (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I do take umbrege with the excuses characterization. There is a difference between excuses and reasons, I defer to the latter!Victor9876 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All moot point, consider yourself warned. Re-review of these diffs and edits yielded this, which is vandalisation of another user's talk page. You don't remove talk comments from another user's talk or user page, and insert your own. Added to the 3RR, civility and other content removal shenanigans, I'm this close (place index finger and thumb approximately 1 cm apart) to recommending a block, if the shenanigans continue. Edit Centric (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From the talk page, do you notice who used chutzpuh? Who's baiting? I did not copy and paste from anyone, that one still baffles me, Jwy admitted it was probably a cross edit conflict on WP's part. 3RR I admit, blanking to remove uncivil exchanges I admit. The warning not to antagonize me was from the exchange below! Moot point or not! Warning acknowledged.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to file a Request for Comment to bring in more fresh eyes, by policy you're always welcome to do so and I would wholeheartedly endorse it. As the old saying goes, "Many hands make light work." If I misunderstood and you're upset at the idea of more fresh eyes on the article, I'm afraid it's neither desirable nor possible to make any article an exclusive club. arimareiji (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you, you're apparently afraid a lot. Let Jwy answer on his own.Victor9876 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer what? "Insult insult mock stop quoting policy la la la insult mock insult stop quoting rules insult chutzpah chutzpah demand demand, does this answer your concerns?" doesn't seem like much of a question. arimareiji (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blockquoted the comments of mine that Victor pasted in from Talk:Charles Whitman, because without any formatting or even quotation marks they looked like new comment entries to this page. Which they're not. This is probably unintentional - but it could be construed as the converse of deleting an editor's comment, i.e. making it look like an editor commented "blah blah blah" on ABC page when it's really a quote from XYZ page. I'd recommend that Victor do the same for his own comment he pasted in as it has the same issue, but that's up to him. arimareiji (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Finally, Victor - I'm well aware that my conduct at Talk:Charles Whitman has been less than exemplary (I have bitten back a few times), and I'm pretty sure Edit is too. I can't speak to the WP:WQA process specifically, but I know WP:3O involves at least scanning through the context of discussion to make sure that quotes aren't being pulled out of context. Often it involves taking a read through the entire discussion, including past ones, and a scan over the edit history of the article.
The reason Edit hasn't addressed this is not because he/she condones or encourages it. It's because as violations of Wikiquette go, editing/deleting others' comments takes precedence over criticism.
Whether it's intended that way or not, editing/deleting others' comments makes civilized discussion impossibly laborious (i.e. you have to scan through diffs every time to see who really said what). It also breaks the basis of WP discussion, which is that any editor can come in to a page and see what's been going on, and trust that the record of discussion hasn't been tampered with. And as he noted, it's also a form of edit-warring.
As a trivial side note, the correct shortening of my handle would be the surname "Arima." I'm certain you didn't mean anything amiss by shortening it to "Ari," though. arimareiji (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you once again Arima for a fine dissertation on the elements of WP Style and processes. Since I have you to thank for our being here, and in an effort to practice my new civility and etiquette, I believe one of the concerns you related was my "refactoring" of your edits. So as an example, would you explain the difference between my refactoring and your reply in the last sentence I pasted above...where you begin, "Answer what...", and there is a list of words in a non-sentence format? Your explanation will greatly save me the error of repeating the mistake in the future.
Thank you also for your suggestion to blockquote the pasted exchange from the Whitman talkpage, however, I trust people to understand that the exchange follows form, so I'll trust that the reader gets at least the cursory evidence that I supplied in the opening statement.
I've never been able to speak for others with any success, but I'm sure Edit will thank you for saving him/her the time and effort to explain why he/she did not address the issues you did for him/her. And your right, tampering with edits is wrong, even if intended to remove questionable discussions and hide momentary errors of judgment. But still, there is that quirky little tool called Revert, that seems to bring it back at the request of a curious finger. I have been warned and changed my ways.
And yes, again, you are right, edit-warring has its drawbacks, which is why I would like to present the following, also on the Whitman Talk page, when a very popular and wise editor stepped into the thread to warn the two of us, you may recall ----

What I see is someone who helped another person with an employment issue get it straightened out. That in turn sparked his interest in the Whitman case. What I see here is that he has then used what he learned from his interest in the Whitman case to add a lot of content to this particular page. And yes, I think that avoiding the pages where he had a modicum of involvement with the subject is trying to avoid COI. I also see that this childish back and forth continues to deteriorate and again, I'd recommend everyone take a step back, a deep breath and slow down. I thought that responding to WP:3O involved working on the content that was under dispute. All I'm currently seeing is a pissing contest. Are you actually here to help with a third opinion on content or to chastise an editor? Can you actually point to anything that was added to the article itself that has skewed the facts of the article in some way to benefit this editor or paint something in an inappropriate light? I was under the impression that the content dispute was about something else entirely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O is about providing a third opinion between two editors who are resolved to disagree, not mediation and not to work on the article. I saw an editor who has a history of fighting with multiple editors, so I should have explicitly noted I was not speaking in the capacity of a "third opinion" - you can't be a third opinion when you're the fifth or sixth to see the same thing. Your familiarity with the page may have made it less obvious - sometimes it takes an outsider, or a new editor, to notice a pattern that builds over time. If you review the recent history, I believe you'll see the same pattern of advocacy rather than neutral editing. arimareiji (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After the lesson to her on WP:3O, and having admitted that you "should have explicitly noted..."(this isn't refactoring is it?) that you were not speaking in the capacity of a "third party" and gave your reasons why, and gave her a fine lesson on how others can come in and see what a person who is familiar with the article, can't see. That was brilliant, you even invited her to review the recent history, believing she would see what you saw, a pattern of advocacy rather than neutral editing. I was very impressed, I didn't agree, but impressed, yes.
I'm a new man thanks to you Arami.--Victor9876 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe this is an issue that deteriorated and wasn't completely one-sided. I don't believe you can find on User talk:Victor9876 a pattern of arguing over things, since most of the edits were from me, and I can state plainly that it was not incivil, no matter how someone might interpret it. No, I don't agree with refactoring talk pages, and I told Victor this. Having said that, I also have to say that it was my impression that arimareiji began his involvement on a note that seemed contentious to me, and yes, I did speak up and counsel that everyone take a step back, a deep breath and start over. But I don't see that it was completely one sided. At some point, Jwy said he would be away and would continue upon his return. Everything being discussed here happened in the interim, so it was never clear to me that arimareiji was speaking as an effort to actually assist in the debate that had been going on. It was certainly never addressed in any way that I could see, so I have to wonder how helpful it was when the first comments were not what I would consider helpful. I would suggest at this point that Victor stop messing with the previous posts and accept the admonition to stop doing so, arimareiji either address the concerns that were being debated and the issues at hand be considered re: the article or let it go, and the personal back and forth stop on the article talk page, because that is disrupting the editing process. Just my opinion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie: With all due respect, your exchanges with Victor on your respective talk pages show that you're very far from being a neutral party.
Victor: 1) I hope your sarcasm was only superficial and that you are indeed sincere this time. I would be glad for it if Edit's words succeeded in making an impression where mine and others' in the past have failed. 2) At the beginning of your comment you seem to be asserting that I've edited or deleted your comments. Could you please point to an example? arimareiji (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, arimareiji, but I can most certainly offer a comment based on what is being posted here while still having conversations with an editor. I have not defended him blindly, and if you'll look above, I most certainly did say he was wrong to refactor talk postings. And I do not hesitate to tell him when he is wrong or has stepped over a line. In any case, I don't see where you came into the talk page neutrally, since you began in a contentious manner. Eschewing my comments as not neutral does make them invalid, and I believe that at every point in the discussion where I interjected between you and Victor, I made an effort to remain neutral. I would suggest that your comment to me is not in keeping with WP:AGF. This isn't an us against him venture. I have done nothing to warrant doubt about what I said on either page where this is being discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Arima, I am happy to answer your question above per question #2). I have copied and pasted, the exchange below --
I wasn't addressing you, you're apparently afraid a lot. Let Jwy answer on his own.Victor9876 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer what? "Insult insult mock stop quoting policy la la la insult mock insult stop quoting rules insult chutzpah chutzpah demand demand, does this answer your concerns?" doesn't seem like much of a question. arimareiji (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The exchange above follows a question directed by Jwy to me. You jumped in and suggested several things that I could do. I replied as above that you were not the one involved and you retorted with...Answer what? "Insult...mock...chutzpah., etc., does that answer your concerns?". Since the last part, "does that answer your concerns?" was a direct quote from me in the ex-change, and you replied in an uncivil way, refactoring my comment to Jwy, I felt that you personally attacked me and denigrated me on the Talk page. I don't know how many rules were broken there, but personal attack, refactoring and incivility are the ones that I think are there. Tell me if I'm wrong?--Victor9876 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Wildhartlivie :You're certainly welcome to make whatever comments you like. I only object to what seems an attempt to portray yourself as a neutral uninvolved party in light of these edits: [115], [116] (I am genuinely happy for the two of you); [117] (incidentally, no - I'm not Jewish); [118] ("secret" messages give a bad impression); [119], [120] (thank you for giving the warning some mild reinforcement, but this was canvassing).
  • Victor: Making one's own comment (which restates another editor's comment) is not the same as editing their comment. arimareiji (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You are totally misconstruing what it is that was posted, and are also misconstruing a harmless back and forth that you then spun with your "I am genuinely happy for the two of you". I am perfectly able to give an opinion about this issue, and it is entirely bad faith of you to go digging through harmless banter in an attempt to discredit what I do believe was a neutral response to your entering a talk page issue under the guise of an outside or third opinion only to continue to bash anyone who speaks even slightly in opposition to your opinion. I haven't portrayed myself in anyway whatsoever, except to assert, quite firmly, that I can give a neutral opinion. You also have attributed posts that I personally did not make to me in order to what? Discredit my comments? Which one? The one where I said Victor was wrong to refactor your comments, or was it where I have said quite clearly that you began your posts in a contentious manner? For the record, I did not offer an opinion on your heritage at any time, nor did I respond to the comment that was left regarding it. There was no "secret" message, it was posted in the open and then I removed it, as the poster requested, after I read it. Also for the record, I was canvassing nothing and it is entirely improper to make it appear that way. Further, Victor asking me to give an opinion does not meet the standards for canvassing, as outlined in WP:CANVAS, which explicitly says Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive. Please point out in that exchange where anyone wrote the message in a way that conveyed an expectation that I would say something in preference to either of you. Further, since this is an informal process with no voting or consensus being requested, it wouldn't be technically considered canvassing if it were worded to skew my opinion. I would suggest that this only serves to reinforce the observation I made that your intentions do not reflect good faith and I find your post above objectionable on that basis and would suggest that you should perhaps focus your concerns here on the facts and not on what you think you are reading. What is it that you think is accomplished by attacking my ability to look at something and say that in my opinion, not only was Victor wrong, but there issues in the way you began your involvement? This is a board concerning ettiquette, and I'm fairly certain you're close to crossing that line yourself. Please contain your posts here to the issue at hand and desist in misconstruing and misattributing comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Shall I post the comments on Rachel Corrie between you and another editor suggesting getting another editor banned Ari - or shall we stop this one-up-manship. I know you're not Jewish and Middle Eastern. Whether you're Jewish, Arabic or whatever, here you're just an editor and nothing more. If you want to phish, know your bait.Victor9876 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wholly God, people! This was supposed to end with the warning for Victor9876, but now there's three-way finger-pointing, insinuating and "he said, she said" going on. Enough already!. If that's not plain enough for everyone, I'm holding my hands up, making the "time out" sign. I'm here and now figuratively grabbing everyone's earlobes, and leading y'all to your individual corners. If each of you spent as much energy researching sources and adding to articles as you've spent on this WQA, Wiki would be much better for the effort!
Put the mouse down, and back away from the keyboard. Take a deep breath, count backwards from 1 grand, saying "bubble" between each number. Whatever it takes. At any rate, start fresh, with good-faith, agenda-less edits. Don't let your personal foibles and others' peccadilloes interfere with the quality of the contribution(s). Maintain civility, and try working as a team. Like it or not, that other user is part of the team, so focus on ways that you can work together, and convey them in positives, not accompanied by recriminations. Recriminations at this point are counter-productive.
Summing this all up, this is where it ends friends. This is where the Michelin meets the mile. Either find a way to get beyond this, or move on to other articles. Edit Centric (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. For the record, though, I'd like to note that these have been my only actual comments on this topic since the warning, with the rest being unmarked quotations that were cut/pasted in by other editors: [121], [122], [123].
(These were attempts to rectify abovesaid ambiguous formatting, though I mostly gave up: [124], [125], [126]. Hopefully this doesn't also become a pattern.)
If it provides any relief, I have requested an RfC and created this section on the Talk page to try to renew the process of article editing. arimareiji (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of this page's purpose - or at least one of its purposes - is to reduce the amount of future incivility. I will therefore focus forward. Incivility is contagious. One person in a discussion sees something as incivility and responds in kind. Indulge an analogy: Incivility is like an extreme, unwanted hot pepper in the recipe that keeps the food from being edible. One cook puts in something to "spice things up a little," the next cook ups the ante to something more spicy and it eventually we get that giant uncivil jalepeno that no one can eat. It doesn't matter much at the moment who went "over the line" first. Somehow the vicious cycle got started and the cooks as a whole ended up over the line. What one cook thought a simple tasty pepper, another thought a jalepeno bomb. The best choice, when there is contention, is to keep to bland food until there is something everyone can eat. Only then maybe it can be spiced up with more entertaining/humorous/exciting language and interaction. And if you detect incivility, it is sometimes useful to ignore it and try to focus on the content - don't contribute to the vicious cycle. Throw out the sauce and concentrate on the meat. A neutral reminder that incivility is unwanted might be useful, but responding in kind is not. If incivil behavior continues, then others may have to review behavior, not us. But I hope we don't need that.
If anyone is interested in knowing where I think their rhetoric went from bland to at least a little spicy, let me know and I will discuss it on your talk page as I would like this page to be positive, forward looking - and such discussions should not impede the content discussion. I welcome such observations on my behavior (also on my talk page). My hope is that the parties involved promise to reduce the "spicier" comments and try not to react in kind when they think they detect such behavior. If the argument gets stuck, suggest (as has happened occasionally - and I see has now more formally happened on the talk page) for outside comment instead of resorting to frustrated "spicy" response. If everyone points themselves in the positive direction, I don't really care about who was uncivil or simply humor or simply "spice." I don't think its useful to fight about the past. Everyone should be able to recognize "bland" and keep with it. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
For a forward-looking comment, that seemed to have a fair amount of metaphorical review material. ^_^ Seriously, I agree for the most part - but am still troubled by the currently-continuing behavior of repeatedly quoting someone's past comments into a jalapeno bomb (without enquotation or formatting to show they were actually made elsewhere) to magnify apparent participation. It could be construed as a workaround. arimareiji (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If it matters, he's already back to the level he started at - inserting material into the middle of others' edits, this time splitting the bulk of my comment away from my signature under the cover of adding his own comment. arimareiji (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
OMG ... could you please WP:AGF just a little? It merely looks like he put the discussion heading (which, by the way, should be === instead of ==) a single line above where he should have. It truly appears he was breaking the discussion portion away from the idea itself. He even replied to your suggestion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
That was exactly my intentions Bwilkens. I read the refactoring section which states that subheaders are allowed. I felt it would be best to have an edit break, where contributors could respond to the requested input, without going above the discussion line and mistakingly change the topic of discussion, which would or could have started another edit war. Can Arima be requested to be held to the same standards he holds every one else to?Victor9876 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
BMW:
  1. I wrote the initial comment, and attributed some of my opinions, which is why I signed it. He functionally removed that signature except from the last sentence. One is certainly allowed to split subheaders if it's done in good faith, but could you point me to where it's encouraged to split other editors' comments to your liking?
  2. This is a long-established pattern of his and he's completely aware of what he's doing. He even jokes once "You're welcome, no problem!" in response to my asking him to stop refactoring my edits. And in the same edit, he proceeds to do the exact same thing. [127]
  3. It's rare that he even pretends to civility while refactoring others' comments; he much more commonly calls other editors "idiots," "morons," tells them "your opinion doesn't count... lol!", etc. See the talk page history.
  4. He has been repeatedly warned for this. See his talk page.
  5. You needn't take my word for it, ask Edit Centric who reviewed the history when he responded. arimareiji (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
BMW, Arima shows a link to what he calls refactoring. If answering an editor directly by addressing each issue by inserting within the text is refactoring, I stand ignorant, and now understand how it works. I will take this lesson, if that is what refactoring is and no longer apply it. In fact, I was just about to do the same to Arima's allegations above, until I opened his #61 link and directly saw the issue. It was my lack of understanding of style, rather than substance. If there is a style reference that I can be pointed to, I will review the reference and apply the proper responses in the future. I fail to see the harm in answering each allegation in order, but apparently it is a violation that I need some coaching on. I explained in the edit summary my reasons for dividing the discussion on the talk page, Arima, reverted it as refactoring. Also, I tried your === instead of == suggestion without any success. Perhaps you can advise and direct me to the appropriate manual of style for further references. Thank you in advance.Victor9876 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok then: this is your FINAL warning. You never insert your own text in the middle of someone else's text. You only add BELOW a signature. You will note that I am actually inserting this comment between two comments - it is well below yours, above the reply, it is indented differently, and it is signed by ME separately. Text entries/edits must remain easy to follow as to WHO posted it. Inserting text in the middle messes that up. In other words, you may never change someone else's comments on a talk page in any manner, by either changing the original text, deleting original text, or inserting your own comments in the middle. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BMW! I appreciate the distinctions and understand now very well! This has been valuable.Victor9876 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Then what were you responding to when you said "You're welcome, no problem?" And how did you miss the fact I disentangled your edit into my comment right before you repeated the action? arimareiji (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Arima - give it up now, your replies are becoming disruptive, and you're not helping SOLVE an issue. If you don't believe in AGF then Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many reasons that might make someone post in the middle of your comments: a reading disability, lack of knowledge about how edits work, a lack of policy knowledge, etc. AGF. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You might want to look at the pertinent edits before and after it before you respond. He entangles. I ask him to stop, and disentangle. He entangles again, replying "You're welcome, no problem!" I disentangle again, and tell him that his attempt at humor isn't funny. He stops doing it. But somehow, he only realized it today? Please AGF about how long I AGF'ed on this topic - AGF is not meant to cover repeatedly doing the same thing and pretending every time that you didn't know better. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, please read back to my original response to you, not to Victor's response to it. arimareiji (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
With that, you can rest assured I will leave this alone unless he continues, at which time I will take it to a more appropriate channel. WQA is only for voluntary compliance, and I put you in a bad spot by trying to get you to force anyone to listen. My apologies. arimareiji (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, you would not have liked the original reply to your response to me: good thing there was an edit conflict. And trust me, I recommend that you do not accuse me of not reading "pertinent edits". I will advise that you take something from this WQA as well: properly explaining issues (most people don't understand the word "refactor", for example) with an editor directly, and not running back for help everytime you perceive a minor issue will help your future cases on WQA, ANI, and anywhere else. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive58&oldid=1142555767"