Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive72

Repeated personal attacks by an IP

Resolved

 – Subject warned.

Just a little while ago, an IP editor, 206.170.111.187 (talk), left this personal attack on my talk page. At first, I had not clue what promoted the attack. So I looked at the IPs edit history to see what this was all about to see that this is the same IP that had previously left personal attacks on my talk page.[1][2] Apparently, this hounding stems from when I removed their chat from Talk:Anime Expo.[3][4][5] I'll note that there may also be a connection to Ucla90024 (talk · contribs) who has previous in a dispute with me at the Anime Expo article relating to the inclusion of some cosplay photographs at around the same time the first personal attacks by this IP began. —Farix (t | c) 03:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not an attack, it's a cry of frustration from somebody who has no idea how to fight back effectively. I generally just ignore things like that. Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be both wiser and kinder than I, but that is a personal attack, and I never ignore them. I added a bit at the warning for personal attack. Maybe an uninvolved voice will help, but...

Looking at the anon's edit history, very little of the recent work seems to be anything but vandalism... added nonsense, wp:BLP violations, deleted content... not a prolific vandal, just slow damage; some with warnings, some not.- sinneed (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed's characterization is accurate. I've spent 30 min. looking over the edit history: Approx 10 indisputable acts of vandalism. Multiple warnings (talk page blanked, so not all show there, currently). Some brief constructive edits, but many marginal or sloppy, at best. If that were all, I'd say a short block would be in order. But notwithstanding Looie496's opinion, I fail to see how three separate posts like "You're crazy", "You are sick", "your ideas are retarded", "S.O.B", etc., can be construed as anything other than a personal attack. When that's considered along with the overall edit history, I just can't see that it's in the best interests of Wikipedia to ignore this behavior. I think this needs to go to the administrator's notice board, and would recommend an anonblock, since the IP seems to resolve to an apparently legitimate proxy server associated with the L.A. Public Library. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a third party could say a few words?

Resolved

 – Editor cautioned and blocked for incivility. Eusebeus (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC) and blocked again. Ncmvocalist (talk)

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.

---

Linas (talk · contribs)

Seems to be having some civility issues with a friend of mine, Aboutmovies. Perhaps someone could say a couple words to Linas, if that won't just escalate the situation. Katr67 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed your template to {{User}}, which is more useful -- just letting you know. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I did. :) My computer is having trouble loading the page history, so I don't know for sure. I copied someone's tl above and quickly saw it was the wrong one. Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Katr67, it is important to notify an editor if you open a WQA about them. I have done this for you in this case, but you really should do this next time.- sinneed (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I chose not to. I have COI in the matter (longtime collaborator with "AM"), that's why I wanted third parties to intervene. Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you choose not to, then you ... should choose not to. If you choose to open an item here, you are obligated to notify the editor, as the instructions say.- sinneed (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmph, well, it's unlikely I'll be using this page very often but it seems odd since there are very few true obligations on Wikipedia. WP:IAR and all that. I acted in good faith and with what I thought was good reasoning. No need to reply here, this is going way off-topic. Katr67 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left another very stern warning. I think it's likely that an ANI thread about this would have produced a quick block, but now that this WQA has been opened, I don't believe that anything else should be done unless the abuse continues. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This and this are rather harsh personal attacks. The statement that "people like" Aboutmovies "need to be outed" is very disturbing. The "and kicked out" part I don't see a basis for. I can't really tell which article editor Linas is unhappy about, the link on Aboutmovies' warning doesn't lead me to interesting places.- sinneed (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Some quick notes: Article is Trace monoid. Note that Linas was already blocked for this about 1.5 hours ago. Aboutmovies is not blameless here, but Linas's reaction was so completely over the top that it's really hard to argue with a block, even if I would have tried a little actual conversation first myself. Finally, I'd note that the somewhat pompous comment on Linas's talk page about it being better for him to retire again if he can't control his temper, to someone who's made what appear to be 22,000+ very solid edits in over 4.5 years, are unlikely to help anything. When someone is already pissed off, that's an especially bad time to be condescending. Looie, maybe refactoring that would be helpful? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but, really, the "need to be outed" thing... pretty serious. Not sure Looie496's words are too strong.- sinneed (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if y'all need to get into "who started it". I agree AM can be curt, but I don't think he crossed the line like the other user. Thanks for all your help! Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a "y'all". :) This board is a place where interested editors can try to lend a hand, if there is any formal grouping I am not aware of it. :)- sinneed (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well of course I meant y'all--the folks talking on this thread, vs. "all y'all"--the potential shadowy group of editors who may or may not attend to this page. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think discussing why something occurred is a valid thing to do on this page; too often, we react to the tiger being poked, and not to the person holding the stick. Often, it's not even a boy with a stick vs. a tiger, but two tigers with two sticks. Now in this particular case, the response was so utterly disproportionate that the background might not really be needed, but it's still worth noting, for future use, that at least one person (me) things Aboutmovies could have handled some polite, constructive criticism from User:Pohta ce-am pohtit a little better, and perhaps avoided this whole thing, even if it wasn't his "fault". Constructive criticism about handling constructive criticism, as it were. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence that bothered Floquenbeam. I didn't intend to be condescending, I was just trying to make the level of unacceptability clear. Had I known that the editor was already blocked, I wouldn't have posted anything at all there -- rubbing salt into wounds is not my M.O. In fact, I have struck the whole message. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Looie; Agreed it would have been better if a block notice of some kind had been left. In retrospect, much of my comment about the "pompous" and "condescending" comments were, frankly... well... pompous and condescending. Sorry about that, that was poor form, especially here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note about the block notice, I already let the blocking admin know that a block template would have been helpful in this situation, so hopefully they will remember to place notices in the future. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the note, and apologies to cause effort for some of you. I always leave block notices, it was a simple omission this time. tedder (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let y'all know, he was just blocked again. Katr67 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 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:Snowded

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This is a content dispute and needs to be resolved at the article talk pages.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Snowded just swooped into two different articles that he hasn't been a regular editor of, reverted an addition I made, and left the edit summaries: "Please read and abide by WP:BRD." [6] [7] However, it's HE that didn't abide by WP:BRD. He just deleted the additions and didn't discuss WHY he deleted them. He didn't say why on the talk page, nor in the edit summary. I immediate asked him why on his talk page [8] , but he still didn't explain. If I don't know why someone is deleting something, then I don't know what argument to make in response to put the information back in. Please ask him to give a concrete reason for the reversions, otherwise to stop this kind of disruptive editing. Otherwise, ironically, I know I'll be attacked for "edit warring" for simply putting it back in won't I? Or would it not count as edit warring for me to put back in something that was deleted unexplained? Would that count toward 3RR? Thanks for your help. Introman (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that you were re-inserting material that had been removed. The material was added (BOLD) then removed by someone else (REVERT) but instead of taking it to the talk page (DISCUSS) you re-inserted the material. Once you make an addition and someone reverts it like that, it is your responsibility to discuss the change and why you think it should be included, and you do this by taking it to the talk page, not reverting the removal and explaining why in the edit summary. Continuing to replace text that someone removed is edit warring until you establish consensus for the material on the talk page. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, if you'll look at the edit history of the Liberalism in the United States article, no one had removed that edit but User:Snowded. I hadn't put it in previously. And if you look at the Liberalism article, I put that edit in with discussion on the talk page as well as the edit summary. It can't be true that a user is justified in doing a reversion of an edit without explaining what his problem is with the content of the edit. I don't know how anyone could not see that as disruptive. Introman (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I should have included this in the first post: no one should revert a good-faith edit without at least an explaination of why they are reverting it, and if material has been added, taken out, added again etc., an editor shouldn't revert again, no matter which version is live, until discussion has taken place and consensus has been reached. You are right that Snowded should definately not have simply reverted you without posting on the talk page his reasons for opposing your edit, and even if he opposed your edit, he shouldn't have reverted. Reversions are only necessary when BLP, copyright and other specific issues are involved. Again, I apologize for not including this in my first post. However, who reverted you the first time does not matter when it comes to the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Snowded definately shouldn't have reverted you, certainly not without explaining his reasoning, but you also shouldn't have reverted the removal of material until you have discussed it. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone looking at the edit history can see what has been going on Seeker --Snowded ^TALK 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you let him know that? What he's doing just creates edit wars. Thanks. Introman (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I notified Snowded of this discussion, so he will be able to comment and read my comments here. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I actually agree with your additions to the articles, as the distinction should be made and is important enough to be included in the lead. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅Thanks for letting me know Seeker. intorman, you inserting the same or similar text on several articles relating to Liberalism. You are in main ignoring discussion on those articles. You may have a case in part but you have to discuss things with other editors. Running here after two reverts on two articles when you are not discussing matters, and failing to notify me is not impressive. --Snowded ^TALK 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Either you dispute the content of edits or you don't. If you do, please explain what about the content that you dispute. Don't tell me I "have to discuss things with other editors," when you didn't discuss anything at all. Don't you see how that kind of hypocrisy is bad Wikiquette and can inflame editors? Thanks. Introman (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on each talk page is extensive and I have been monitoring it for weeks. You are not engaging in that discussion but you are asserting your position and constantly editing the ledge to support those assertions. If it will make you happy I suppose I could always go onto the talk page and say "I agree with ..." but I really don't see the point. My interest here is to try and encourage you to engage rather than throwing accusations of hypocracy at people who have the timerity ti disagree with you. Not to mention the somewhat ironic suggestion that you might be justified in being "inflamed". I suggest you close this, its not an issue of Wikiquette, your failure to engage may be --Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's untrue. Anyone can go to those talk pages and see the EXTENSIVE discussion I've been in engaged in, as well as my highly detailed edit summaries (more explanatory than any other editor I've seen). Yes, it would make me happy if you only made reversions if you disagreed with the content and explained why you disagreed with it. That's just the normal way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Introman (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You need agreement to make an edit if others disagree with you, its not enough to just keep arguing the point with no support. Its pretty basic. I'm not going to respond again here unless you raise a substantially new issue. --Snowded ^TALK 20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I support Snowded. The reasons for excluding Introman's edits are clearly pointed out in the talk pages. I would also like to point out that Introman's edits in these articles are disruptive and he has been blocked twice recently for edit-warring in Liberalism.[9] Furthermore Introman has had a history of conflict with other users as is quite apparent on the User Talk:Introman page. Also Introman is re-inserting all the edits that the banned User:RJII entered which also caused considerable disruption to these articles. I would ask Introman if he ever edited under that user name. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that The Four Deuces makes fraudulent claims of edit warring against me. Just look at my Talk Page for the latest example, where he tried to get me blocked by falsely claiming that I was engaging in reverts when I did none at all. It's easy for him to throw claims around. He's already been proven to not be reliable witness of events, but one who distorts events. And no I am not a user RJII. I don't use sockpuppets to get around 3rr. I ask you, are you Rick Norwood? I've long suspect you are the same people because you operate as too closely as a monopolizing team. Introman (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please strike out your abusive comments. As you see from Introman's talk page he was blocked for 4 days for violating 3rr. However the block was lifted when the blocking administrator decided that there was no consensus that there had been a violation. Note also that Introman reported me for 3rr when in fact I had not exceeded the 3rr limit[10] and in fact did not even notify me. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The block was lifted when I had to exhaustively prove that I did ZERO revertions, and explained my edits and engage in discussion. You claim that I edit warred was FALSE. Introman (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. However the message you should take away is to avoid edit wars, rather then be emboldened to pursue them with renewed vigour. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion. It's factual. And the message everyone should take away here is that your claims of someone else edit warring cannot be trusted. I came here to register a complaint in order to PREVENT an edit war. Introman (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The administrator who blocked you then lifted the block stated: "Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Block does not seem to have consensus."[11] Do you have any reason to question what he stated? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the reasons that there was not consensus is because of people who took the time to examine the evidence. The fact is, I was not edit warring. The people who examined the evidence saw that. The evidence is on my talk page. Your claim was false. Your claims of others edit warring cannot be trusted. Introman (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After you requested the block be lifted, the administrator stated: Introman's claim that he 'did not do even one revert' does not appear consistent with the language of WP:REVERT. Nothing prevents him from following the steps of formal dispute resolution, especially when he was previously blocked for reverting the same article. If he will agree to abide by consensus, any admin may lift this block. Are you saying the administrator was making a "fraudulent claim"? The Four Deuces (talk)

I'm saying that administrator was mistaken. They're human too, you know? On the other hand, you knew I wasn't edit warring and knew that you were the one doing reverts. And I'm not interested in bickering with you anymore. I've made my point. Your attempt to block me to keep me from putting information in failed. Your claim of edit warring was untrue. Introman (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you not say that I must have been mistaken? Your should show good faith. BTW in your first two blocks you denied edit-warring. In the second block you actually made three unsuccessful requests for the block to be lifted, still denying edit-warring. So it is a reasonable assumption that you have no understanding of the concept and therefore are in no position to comment on my judgment. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I've had extensive experience with you to prove to me that you're malicious and do not have good faith. I'm not saying that to be abusive. It's just what I believe to be true. I assumed good faith from the start, but that's gone. You've been even trying to delete templates I create, apparently just because I was the one that created them. It seems almost everything I put in Wikpedia you have a personal vendetta to eliminate, including eliminating me from Wikipedia itself. I see you as a bully. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the truth. But the issue is whether your claims of edit warring can be trusted, good faith or not. Introman (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a recent example of one of Introman's edits: OMG, you are hardly one to call someone else careless. You original research is rampant. You misinterpret sources, and say things are in sources that are not there, constantly. Introman (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) May I suggest that until Introman follows the rules of etiquette himself that he desist from complaining about other editors. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy. You only report my response to someone calling ME careless and insinuating I wasn't serious about improving Wikpedia: [12] I think my response was pretty mild considering the accusation thrown at me. Introman (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is disruptive to use abusive language no matter what the other editor says. Could you please rephrase your last edit in a civil manner. Thanks! The Four Deuces (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It sure is! But I didnt use abusive language. Thanks! Introman (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a recent Wikiquette alert where I complained about Introman.[13] The Four Deuces (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is a content dispute being fought by other means. There is no indication of a civility violation in the initial complaint brought by the poster whatsoever and this should be discussed at the talk pages of the articles in question. Moreover, I remind editors that bringing an unfounded accusation of incivility is itself a violation of WP:CIVIL. I strongly urge User:Introman to respect the process outlined at WP:BRD and WP:AGF and to bear in mind that content disputes are resolved through discussion, not berating editors through repetition. I am now closing this discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 17:33, 13 September 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.

Issue with user Bandurist.

Stale

I was just wondering what would be a proceeder in this case. User Bandurist (talk) reverts without explanation and deletes attempts of discussion from his talk page replacing them with a smiley face? Here are just examples of his unexplained reverts moving pages around etc. from today all without any eplanation: [[14]][[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]] and his edit history [[19]] Here are my attempts of communicating with him which were immediately deleted and replaced with a smiley face:[[20]][[21]] I personally think that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also very rude. What can be done about it, is there anything that is a standard proceeder in cases like this one? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I also notified user Bandurist (talk) about my request here[[22]]--Jacurek (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the first case. You changed "Lwow" to "Lwów", with an edit summary of "it was called Lwów then", but no evidence. He reverted, with an edit summary of "no it wasn't". What else did he need to say, since you hadn't provided any evidence? You then placed an angry complaint on his talk page, and he responded with a smiley face. What you should have done, and still should do, is provide some evidence that the change was correct. If Bandurist ignored your evidence, you would have a legitimate complaint. I haven't looked at all of your diffs and don't really want to -- if you handle the first one correctly, it will help to deal with the other ones. (The word is "procedure", not "proceeder", by the way.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, I think you completely misunderstood my complaint. Frankly, I do not know what Lwow has to do with it and don't just "look at the first case". I also don't know if you realize that, but you are defending this rude behaviour here. No offence, but your comment is useless and does not help. Could any of the administrators look at the recent edit history of user Bandurist and give me his/hers opinion. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA is not always watched by admins -- sometimes, but not always. If you are sure that admin action is needed, the place is WP:ANI -- but I think you'll get the same answer there that you did from me. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

L

Looie496, you did stated your opinion already, thank you. Could you please not comment on this case anymore and let administrators sort it out? Thanks again. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie469, if you have not looked at the diffs, and do not want to, why are you wasting your time here? Let it be handled by someone who wants to look at the diffs, and try to find a solution. Tymek (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette is a rather pointless page. Take the issue to AE for a professional review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any serious content dispute looking at your diffs. Main problem is miscommunication. People, you should really talk about content and compromise instead of deleting each other's comments (as Bandurist did) or bringing your complaints here or to AE (as Jacurek did). Sorry if this sounds rude.Biophys (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All Bandurist could do is to apologize. Will he do it? He does not even bother to comment on it here and he knows about it.[[23]]--Jacurek (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't post a smiley face. It was a bracket that was inadvertently left behind after I deleted the comment. As far as I understand, I can delete anything on my personal comment page that I choose.
• I have avoided making comments in order not to offend anyone. I am not interested in being drawn into specific discussions, some of which I personally believe are only there to antagonize and escalate animosity between editors.
• I am not interested in jumping to conclusions and escalating silliness. I believe there are things that are more worthy of editors time, attention and efforts. --Bandurist (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

By REPEATEDLY reverting somebody's edits (links available uppon request) without explanation and then ignoring attempts of discussion you did exactly what you say you did not want to do. You offended another user. This is very wrong. I have collected enough evidence against you that if reviewed by an administrator may get you possibly sanctioned. I do not have a desire to do that but I would like you stop repeated reverts without explanation (just like you did today on this[[24]][[25]][[26]] article for example) and start friendly dialogue to reach consensus, Are you willing do give it a try?--Jacurek (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try one more time, although I don't think you will listen to anybody who gives you an answer you don't like. The Wikipedia guideline is Bold-revert-discuss. That means (1) first editor boldly makes an edit, (2) second editor reverts it if the edit seems wrong, (3) first editor explains why the edit is correct. Steps 1 and 2 happened, but then instead of explaining why your edits were correct, you decided to accuse the other editor of being rude. It won't work. You must start the friendly dialog. No admin is going to sanction Bandurist in this situation. Looie496 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Looie496, you already said that. Unfortunately you are completely wrong I think because you did not look at the full edit history of user Bandurist and now you are simply defending your original wrong "opinion". Bold unexplained reverting and deleting somebody's comments is against polices. Please ether familiarize yourself fully with the problem or stop commenting. Thanks again and all the best to you.--Jacurek (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:78.150.7.107

Stale

The above-mentioned user has been unnecessarily forceful in his edit summaries at Garth Crooks (here) and then resorted to abusive and rude comments on the article's talk page when their unsourced edits were reverted. While the comments may seem innocuous to the untrained eye, they are clearly intended to incense User:Tmol42. – PeeJay 10:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely OTT. On the other hand, it isn't helping the situation that User:Tmol42 keeps reverting what's undoubtedly a correct edit by User:78.150.7.107. biography.jrank.org/ isn't a reliable source, and re the disputed fact, Mike Trebilcock definitely pre-dates Garth Crooks as first black player to score in a FA Cup final. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As you referred to my edits at Garth Crooks reverting the deletions saying that the deletion edits were undoubtably correct I will add a comment here. At the time when the deletions were being done there was no reason given by User:78.150.7.107 as to what his justification was for his deletions or who else if anyone he was giving this attribution to. All that was clear was his tone was uncivil. His repeated editing, uncivil edit summaries in Caps and failure to respond to requests to explain/discuss rather than blank the section, gave the strong impression on an IP intent on vandalism rather than constructive editing. I did my best to encourage him, both in the edit summaries and on the IPs Talk page, to express concerns first on the talk page and to bring his evidence there. His first postings on the article talk page were similarily uncivil and were reverted by another editor who then posted a warning on the IPs Talk Page. User:78.150.7.107 appeared to calm down then but having explained what he needed to do what followed was a series of further incivility. I decided to walk away from the discussion as it was clear he was not seeking to discuss this in a civil fasion. On the facts concerning the deletions which you believe are undoubtably correct. Not that this page is for discussing the article itself it is nevertheless pertinant to point out that despite some of the newspaper reports suggesting that Mike Trebilcock was the first black footballer to score a goal at an FA Cup Final it is far from clear that he is of Black British ethnic origin. It has been suggested by those familiar with the player in the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Garth Crooks in an attempt to resolve the confusion of claims in the two articles that Mike Trebilcock could be of British Mixed-Race origin. This may or may not turn out to be an accurate assessment but does show why the deletions cannot be defined as undoubtably correct with or without the benefit of hindsight Tmol42 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

that despite some of the newspaper reports suggesting that Mike Trebilcock was the first black footballer to score a goal at an FA Cup Final it is far from clear

Not our job to interpret sources. If reliable newspapers describe him as "a black player", we have to take it as fact. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Trebilcock may be saying "black" when they mean "mixed-race." Common sense tells me that Trebilcock was the first mixed-race goalscorer and Crooks was the first black one. GiantSnowman 18:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rain City Blues

Resolved

 – Taken to AN/I & user blocked for 2 weeks for gross incivility. Eusebeus (talk) 18:43, 13 September 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.

---

Having been blocked twice in the past two weeks for edit warring on George H. W. Bush, Rain City Blues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to harassing the admin who performed the most recent block, User:FisherQueen, accusing her of a conservative bias referring to her repeatedly as "Mary Cheny" (FisherQueen identifies as liberal and LGBTQ on her userpage). See this talkpage section. Some choice comments: "Mary, you started this, and I'm the one that's going to end it."[27] "As a concerned Wiki user, for the good of the community, I'm afraid I will have to politely remind you of your incompetence and inability to properly execute the duties associated with your position until you back off. I intend to perform my duty as long as necessary, until you resign or cease your behaviour."[28] (note the charming edit summary) Perhaps the most troubling: "More like a schoolayard bully than a teacher, and as well all know, the best way to deal with bullies is to make their lives hell until they stop."[29] Rain City Blues has been given multiple warnings about making personal attacks (check the talk page history, as they've all been blanked). This user is clearly aware that s/he is being disruptive and intends to continue. I'd block myself but I was involved in the original discussion on Talk:George H. W. Bush. -- Vary (Talk) 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is a completely unacceptable comment, and the user's editing pattern demonstrates a fractious and querulous tendency. I strongly urge the user be blocked again and suggest you solicit such a recourse at AN/I since the remedial steps required extend beyond the purview of WQA. Eusebeus (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Will do, thank you. -- Vary (Talk) 18:03, 13 September 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.

Unnecessary accusations of sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Filing party advised.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After making small edits to template:2009 Major League Soccer season table, Skotywa (talk · contribs) has accused me of being Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs), based on the fact that a year ago similar edits were made to 2008 Major League Soccer season. SkotyWA reverted these edits, and we have been in a discussion at the template talk page, per WP:BRD, all of which has been courteous, if a bit contentious. I do not have a long edit history, but the fact that I was aware of the way an article was last year, and having basic familiarity with the violations of the user I have been accused of being is being used as evidence against me. I respect that Grant.Alpaugh created a lot of problems in MLS articles before being blocked indefinitely, but the lack of WP:GOODFAITH being shown to me strikes me as rude. It is being assumed that in order for me to have used the 2008 MLS article, I must have edited it, which is ridiculous. Plenty of articles are used by millions of users without them editing them. The fact that my suggestion was similar to a blocked user does not mean that it is inherently without merit, nor is it unreasonable that, upon being accused of sockpuppetry, I would look into who I'm being accused of being. Furthermore, the suggestion I made is one that is being implimented throughout the encyclopedia in articles like 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification, amongst others. I think that SkotyWA's lack of an assumption of good faith is troubling, and would like someone to step in with fresh eyes, as I understand the underlying reasons for his concerns, but disagree with his assumption of the worst in me. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I'm confused by this complaint. I have made no such formal accusation. What I have done is calmly inform this user of their duck-like behavior without shouting "IT'S A DUCK", or so I thought. I'm perfectly willing to happily continue working with this editor in a productive manner (as we are doing and have done in the month that they've had a user account). The articles they've engaged in editing and the recent discussion did resonate a bit as behavior I've seen previously from a repeatedly blocked user. Ironically, even in this formal complaint against me the argument "the suggestion I made is one that is being implimented throughout the encyclopedia" hearkens back to a similar argument from the duck. Nevertheless, this user is working hard to clearly establish that they are not Grant.Alpaugh and I am willing to accept that if that is what's necessary. I do not think that I was out of line to voice my concerns on the user's talk page of their duck-like behavior. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not inherently a situation to be brought here, as there's no evidence of incivility by Skotywa. He has made a well presented case that's been endorsed by an additional user and a clerk, to me completely in good faith. In future, do not bring reports where nothing has happened that can be addressed here, as it detracts from those who have valid concerns that need addressed. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:44, 14 September 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.

Harrassment from user:Neutralhomer (talk · contribs)

Stuck

 – Taken to ANI.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello, I have just returned to wikipedia following an episode regarding my static IP - [30] in which I was the subject of serious abuse by several editors, all of whom but one subsequently apologized following a resolute intervention from a senior editor. I am now being maliciously harrassed by this editor who was castigated over his abusive actions during last month's episode - [31]. Please read the whole IP page to understand how the situation unfolded, here is a thread from the time about the issue [32].

Please observe his current actions and comments in chronological order - Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He just said this to me -

"No, I won't. You are disrupting a page and you think since you got some apologizes before you get a free pass to essentially vandalize a page now. Ain't happenin' Buckwheat. Stop now and I will mark the ANI post resolved. Continue and the consequences are yours to be had. Your choice" - [33].

Accoring to several websites, including the racial slur database - [34] and urban dictionary - [35], "buckwheat" is a racial slur against blacks. Izzedine (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is the only thing I will stay on this, if anyone has spent any length of time in the South (where I live), you find "Buckwheat" is a term used like "Buddy" in a conversation. It is interchangable. "Ain't happenin' Buddy" = "Ain't happenin' Buckwheat". No "racial slur" there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see a mildly unwise post. I don't see harrassment and I don't see a racial slur.
• I also see ""Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings"
• I also see that there is an ANI involving these 2 editors.- sinneed (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - It may be helpful to see User talk:94.192.38.247, which is the (self-identified) static IP belonging to Izzedine. This is a recurrence of an earlier dispute and suggests a pattern. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I found it amazingly unenlightening. I also have to question the need for this dispute to be covered here, ANI, and 3RR all at the same time.- sinneed (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Think of it as a wiki-simulcast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Where I come from in the South, "Buckwheat" is indeed a racial slur. Its usage in business, school and political settings has caused protests and lawsuits over the years. I would suggest not using it any more. Dreadstar ☥ 05:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't be using it again as I have retired. Mostly just tying up some loose ends right now. Oh, by the way, there is a festival in West Virginia about Buckwheat...the flour and the pancakes. It isn't all racist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -
  • Image search for "Buckwheat" - [36].
  • Google search for "Buckwheat racial slur" - [37].
  • Google search for "Buckwheat offensive slur" - [38].
  • News article search for "Buckwheat racial slur" - [39].
  • Encyclopedia list of racial slurs - [40].

This is in addition to his harrassment and threats, and the long history of gross incivility and harrassment evident in his block log. Izzedine (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Neutralhomer is currently blocked for edit-warring and claims to have retired, so this can probably be considered resolved. In the event that Neutralhomer returns, I'm going to request that he is subject to supervision or mentorship, based on what happened here. Take a look at the history of my talk page or that of Izzedine. Despite being asked to stop, Neutralhomer continued to edit-war on the IP's talk page and post rather aggressive comments to Izzedine and me. To make things even more bizarre, he posted several messages to my talk page accusing me of harrassing him. See User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#94.192.38.247. My only posts related to this matter were four to the existing ANI thread (none of which were directed at Neutralhomer) and one to Neutralnomer's talk page to inform him that I was reporting his violation of 3RR (as per the instructions at WP:AN3). I'm not sure what prompted this meltdown, but something needs to be done to prevent a recurrence here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• What you are doing here is very much what Neutralhomer was doing with the template restore. Yes, Neutralhomer was enforcing a rule, yes you are enforcing a rule. Yes Neutralhomer went way overboard, yes you are going way overboard. I had a very courteous editor remind me of wp:IAR just yesterday, and I now pass that reminder on. Some editors had a conflict. Letting the conflict be over would be great, and not driving a productive editor out of the community over this conflict would be even greater.- sinneed (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• What we are doing here is reporting a legitimate case of incivility, harrassment and threats - from an editor with a long history of derisible behaviour. Try and give that as much respect as you give Neutralhomer clement approval. Izzedine (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Sinneed, I appreciate that you are trying to defend Neutralhomer but, with all due respect, I think your efforts are misguided. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and having one of the collaborators throwing tantrums from time to time is disruptive for the other participants. Wikipedia can survive without Neutralhomer or you or me or any one individual editor. Please advise Neutralhomer to this discussion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer continues to edit despite his "retirement". Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Neutralhomer_-_request_supervision_or_close_mentorship. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 15 September 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.

Breach of Incivility Rule by User:Jasmeet 181

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – 7 minutes after filing this, filing party escalated to ANI.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to lodge an official complaint with regards to User:Jasmeet 181 who has breeched Section 2/Sub-section D of the Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility rule; which states "quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them". I have asked this user on a few occasions to remove any comments which quote references of my name and members of my family, as this violates the rule. However, they are refusing to abide to this rule request.. The quotes made by this user can be found via here. When you read their pints points numbered 4; 5; 7 and 8, they clearly show that a breech of this rule has been made. I would appreciate if another editor could look into this for me, and take any appropriate action deemed necessary. Kindest Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This item is now being dealt with via Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, and is currently in action. Therefore, it can be removed from here. Regards Pr3st0n (talk) 03:16, 16 September 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.

IP making personal attacks against me and another User

Resolved

 – Next time, be cool

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Earlier today I made a mistake with Huggle and 208.38.59.163 alerted me to this, by asking why I reverted and making borderline attacks against me [41], I replied on his talk page here, apologizing for my mistake and alerting him to WP:Civil [42]. He still continued to message me when User:Kingoomieiii joined the conversation. It finally ended with him insinuating that King was my boyfriend. [43]. He has already been blocked for this before and still continues to persist.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really that "borderline". He told you you needed your head checked. --King Öomie 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today SKATER called me a vandal two times then issued a non-apology apology. I called him on it, where he admitted he didn't even read what he was reverting and calling vandalism. Out of the blue this King guy jumps in, inserting himself into a conversation that was nowhere near any sort of boiling point that would require a third party. Then Skater claimed my commenting on the content was a personal attack on some editor(s) who wrote the opening paragraph of that article probably a long time ago that I don't even know about. So King again decides to be involved and continues this 2-on-1, obviously very protective of his Skater Boi...so it seemed a reasonable assumption they were in a relationship, which I commented on that seems to be the source of this complaint as it was the only thing declared a "personal attack" (one of the most overused phrases on WP) in my response before this report. I explained myself and mentioned I considered this matter closed as I assumed good faith (something Skater claims to have done to me but has little evidence indicating that) and I even complimented him several times in this "PERSONAL ATTACK" of mine where I call him such vile things as a bigger person that a lot of other on WP, a decent person, a good guy and *HORROR* someone who can learn from past mistakes! This whole thing was started by Skater and could have been ended by him with a simple, non-conditional apology. Skater is now continuing to escalate this while I was more than willing to let bygones be bygones even though he called me a vandal (twice, although according to him that's not a personal attack), unconstructive (twice), attacker of previous article editors and uncivil. Oh, and I have never been blocked from this before so there's another false accusation. Sorry for saying you should get your head examined, you've proven yourself a totally rational person. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments justified a personal attack. They were disrespectful and didn't improve the situation. Your assumptions to comment that they were engaged in a relationship was nothing more than a clever way to hide an insult. Also, Wikipedia is a free-exchanging, interactive web site; in which, allows everyone to participate or comment on a situation. Someone butting into a situation happens everyday(ex. like here). On Wikipedia, refering to someone as a vandal is not considored a personal attack but rather an informative insertion to describe someone vandalising articles on Wikipedia or causing disruption to the overall integrity of Wikispace, as long as the direct was not obviously degrogative in any way.(I get called a vandal all the time but of course, not for the reason stated per vandalism.) While it can be frusterating, staying cool when editing gets hot is the only accurate way to approach the problem. Therefor, any further issues regarding any type of problem with edit conflictions or edit warring should be discussed first so the adjacent parties can come up with a resolution. If that fails, getting the opinions of other editors is appropriate; that way a reasonable consesus can be made. --A3RO (mailbox) 23:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you don't take these proceedings seriously, 208. "My Skater Boi"? If that's not an attack on me, it certainly is towards Skater. Drop the sarcasm. For all the praise you give it, I'm fairly certain your response to his apology was classified as a "Dick Move". And it's called Talkpage Stalking, thank you very much. --King Öomie 18:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as both parties have had their chance to explain their story; and that the information provided above is adequate for the situation, a cease and desist is in order. At this time, this issue shall be marked as resolved. Please remember to use civility when writing to other users. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:44, 17 September 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:Scientia est opulentia -- his allegations of my "destructive" editing

Stale

 – 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am seeking third-party intervention in a dispute I am having with user:Scientia est opulentia, who has made allegations on a talk page here and in the edit summary here that I make a practice of "destructive edits" that warrant the action of administrators. The use of such language is a clear implication by the user that I am vandalizing Wiki articles, which is an accusation that is unwarranted, baseless and offensive. The remarks are likely to, and possibly have been intended to, prejudice other users' views of my edits.

I use a single purpose account to edit articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. I use an SPA because of concerns over the punitive approach of the religion towards dissidents and therefore the need to retain my anonymity, which is something my non-JW-focused account doesn't provide. On my user page I make it plain that I do not like the practices and attitudes of that religion, but I also go to great effort to ensure my edits to articles are soundly based, accurate, and supported by reliable and verifiable sources. I have recently made an extensive rewrite of the article on Joseph Franklin Rutherford, a former Watch Tower Society president, expanding it and adding references, and I carry out ongoing patrols of JW pages to promptly remove vandalism and poorly sourced statements, either pro- or anti- the religion. My edits do acknowledge the achievements of the religion. Those that portray it in less than a favorable light are fair and balanced and add to the factual information at Wikipedia on the religion and its history, beliefs and practices. Interestingly, a complaint was recently made that my edits to Bible Student movement were biased towards the Watch Tower Society.

Scientia est opulentia and I have disagreed on some points and have stated our respective cases on article talk pages. When, on one of those pages, he claimed my editing "tends to be destructive", I replied with some criticisms of his own edits, which invariably draw from only one source -- the publications of his religion. He subsequently made a complaint accusing me of making a personal attack on him, but later commented: [44]: "I hope that in future things will become better." Two weeks later, in opposing my proposal to add an external link to an article, he repeated his offensive remark. I have initiated an RfC over the appropriateness of the link, and am happy to argue the pros and cons of that issue there. I have been bold with my edits but also seek consensus. What I don't expect is derogatory remarks claiming a pattern of destructive behavior.

I have twice requested this user to either substantiate his allegations or to retract and apologise. His explanation here accused me of distorting facts, carrying out a vendetta and making a practice of attacking and offending, all of which I deny. After a break from editing, he has returned with this commment and a revert of my edits in response to my concerns over the accuracy of a historical claim in a Watchtower magazine. This is clearly a dismissal of my concerns without addressing the issue. I would like some intervention to extract from him and undertaking to cease such behavior. LTSally (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've not looked at this in depth yet, but right off the bat, I'm trying to reconcile your statement that you "go to great effort to ensure my edits to articles are soundly based, accurate, and supported by reliable and verifiable sources" with the edit that you link in your first paragraph where you were trying to keep the link "http://deathorobedience.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html" in the article. Given WP:SPS, could you speak to that?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to an audio recording which was hosted at a blog. There are cautions at WP:EL over providing external links to blogs, but they are not specifically included. I also noted that "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources" may also be considered as external links. I pushed for it, but have accepted the consensus view against it. It was an unusual case, but the information there was pertinent to the article and figured there was no harm in trying. This, however, is no evidence of destructive editing. I followed WP procedures and accepted the result. LTSally (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

possible libel on a user/talk page?

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Issue has moved to the final dispute resolution, arbitration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On the user Biophys' user/talk page, he writes that he received death threats from "Russian supporters of Vladimir Putin". To connect these individual's acts directly to a public figure that has nothing to do with the dispute, and to make a point of labeling them "Russians", this sounds like libel and perhaps a tinge of prejudice to me. Their nationality and who they support are of no importance, as the seriousness of a death threat remains the same regardless of these factors. It seems like an attempt to vilify Vladimir Putin and Russians as a whole. Imagine if someone said that but replaced Putin with Obama, and Russians with African Americans.

I'm not sure what the policy is on this sort of thing on user/talk pages though and I would like some input.

For a point of reference, according to the wiki page libel, "In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." LokiiT (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems this issue involved more parties and is currently under review at the arbitration page. Therefor, this section will be marked appropriately. Please forward any evidence or comments to that section's devoted request area. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:12, 18 September 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:Kale Reeves

Resolved

 – User has been blocked indefinitely

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.

---

Kale Reeves (talk · contribs) Background: I have been editing Flinders Ranges mogurnda adding inline citations and tagging material not available in the references. I placed two comments on the article talk page requesting people abide by WP:V, WP:R and WP:OR as well as making a specific comment about the spawning temp of the fish, noting that the references state 20 deg C not 24 deg C as was previously in the article. Kale Rogers changed the value back to 24 deg C and inserted a fact tag (despite the existing two cites at that point)with this edit.

The issue: The user then edited my user page page with these three edits:

• First he inserted this
• then he removed it here
• then he blanked most of my user page here

It seems to me that these actions indicate a lack of good faith and I am unsure how to proceed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick Thorne I am sorry that i over reacted by editing your page. but i do belive that i am right in the sence that the breeding temp for gudgeons is in fact 24 deg C. at my school we have a advanced aquaculture centre with many different professional for fish. Kale Reeves

I have undone Kale Reeves' latest edit. Here is an online source Kale can show his teachers. Kale, if you edit people's pages like that again, it will simply get you blocked. I also suggest changing your user page, as it doesn't exactly suggest you've a mature attitude towards working with other editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefiantly. --A3RO (mailbox) 07:00, 18 September 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.

Incivil Discussion

Resolved

 – Truce called

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi guys, I'm new to Wikipedia. I am concerned about a discussion with fellow Wikipedian, User:Kingoomieiii, who is now threatening me with being blocked on my personal talk page (for calling his stance "fascist" [I.e. intolorant, controlling, "dictatorist"]), after he taunted me, repeatedly being incivil and messing with my discussion posts on the Aspartame talk page.

I have read the Engaging in Incivility section of Wikipedia's Civility guidelines and am now thoroughly convinced that he has been incivil and trollbaiting throughout the discussion (progressively aggrovating and drawing me into being less and less civil). I wish to further discuss this to thoroughly prove him wrong and defend my own points, though I am concerned about possible punishments incurred from Wikipedia.

It seems that he is wholly to blame for the argument resulting in such incivility, and has done the worst of it- breeching numerous guidelines on "Direct Rudeness" and "Other Uncivil Behaviours." I said it myself in the discussion:

"You call what I say garbage, you call me a troll, you relate my sourced argument (based upon FDA documents, pages from the FDA website and news articles) to the "moon-landing conspiracy", and call me a "truther," refer to everything I say as "alledged" and "half-truths" and non-RS and non-NPOV (without any kind of sourced rebuttal), edit my posts and try to archive the discussion in an attempt to censor my arguments, all without sourcing one of your claims."

If you look at it he seems to be breeching: "Rudeness, insults, name-calling", "personal attacks", "ill-considered accusations of impropriety", "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts", "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves", "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information".

Please read the recent histories of the discussion pages on aspartame, my own page, and my brief "outburst" on his to confirm all of this.

I seriously don't think his contributions to the page/discussion are well-educated, and they seem to be working against Wikipedia's aims of a NPOV, and I don't think it's responsible to allow him to continue bullying and silencing Wikipedians with differering views than his own with his unpleasent, frustrating attitude and mind games.

I know I'm not completely innocent and have attacked back, but I don't want things to continue like this, and for the articles "health effects" section to remain exacly how he wants it: not portraying a fair balance of the facts. I haven't attempted an edit of the actual articles page yet, and won't until the discussion is cleared up, I intend to source peer-reviewed scientific journals and other RS as my sources, I've no intention of getting into a pathetic "undo-war" like he threatens in his most recent comment on aspartame.

Thank you. Killdec (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm seeing this here. I placed an NPA warning on your talkpage after being called a fascist, and "the problem with wikipedia" on mine. Attempting (and failing) to justify your use of a personal attack doesn't mean you didn't make a personal attack. Also, as with every other discussion page on Wikipedia, new posts go to the bottom. Please move this. --King Öomie 17:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Aspartame article currently DOES represent a balance of the facts, regardless of how fervently you believe it's a poison. Your sources are not reliable, and thus no information from them will be added to the page. You'll note that the section on 'health risks' is of a similar size to Moon_landing#Hoax_accusations, and the hoax accusations themselves are in a different article- this is not a coincidence. I'm not attempting a lockdown of the page (in fact, the page fell into its current state almost completely without my assistance)- I'm respecting the one already in place. --King Öomie 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The quoted section shouldn't be here at all- I responded to it succinctly at his talk page.

And PLEASE point out where I LIED. (Don't say it was when I called aspartame 'safe'.) --King Öomie 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"..exactly ZERO adverse effects [of aspartame] have been proven." Is a lie. Even if we don't get into my peer-reviewed scientific publication sources, why must all products containing aspartame state 'contains a source of phenylalanine'- is it because of the adverse effects of phenylalanine on the likes of sufferers of PKU, of which aspartame is the source? Yes, it is.Killdec (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That warning is in place to alert people who are ALLERGIC to an ingredient in aspartame. A similar warning is on products containing peanuts- that doesn't make peanuts a poison. Aspartame doesn't CAUSE the condition, it exacerbates it- so does dairy. --King Öomie 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

PKU is a genetic disease, not an allergy. This isn't the place for arguments, it's the place for neutral resolutions.Killdec (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU'RE taking the high ground now? Stop bringing the content dispute into it, then. I was saying that aspartame is not the CAUSE. --King Öomie 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

STOP SHOUTING. You're loud enough as it is- whether it be the cause of the condition or if "it exacerbates it" it is still a "proven adverse side effect of aspartame".Killdec (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to mince words, yes. Just like water can cause painful rashes in individuals with particular genetic diseases. --King Öomie 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so at a stretch, we've agreed to that being a lie. What was the name of that genetic disease that causes rashes when exposed to water? I've never heard of it, I've heard of allergies that cause similar symptoms...allergies can hardly be called "genetic disease" and be described as "just like" phenylketonuria. The odds of developing a water allergy are 1 in 230 million, whereas phenylketonuria affects about one in 15,000 newborns in the United States. To productively contribute to health effects of aspartame, I think one needs slightly more advanced understanding of the facts about disease. Killdec (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to take it down a few notches. Kingoomieiii, telling a user to "go troll at Asparatame controversy" is inappropriate. Killdec, in your dispute with Kingoomieiii you called him a "fascist" and a "nasty, flamebating piece of work"— both of these are personal attacks. Two wrongs don't make a right. I ask both of you to please focus on the content and arguments instead of accusing one another of being a shill or a troll or what have you. For the content dispute you have, please follow the guide at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you. Evil saltine (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We're seeing a pretty common phenomenon here: Killdec is insistent that the article tell The Truth (TM) that aspartame is a deadly killer drug, and to hell with the lack of reputable sources to back that up. It isn't going to happen. Furthermore Killdec's attacks far exceed those of Kingoomieiii in nastyness. Treating this as a symmetrical content dispute is wrong: Killdec is violating Wikipedia's policies and Kingoomieiii is trying to maintain them in spite of severe provocation. Looie496 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying Looie. I have never called aspartame a "deadly poison" or a "killer deadly drug", I have stated that numerous reliable sources confirm and cover some of the negative side-effects of aspartame (a simple search of Google News provides hundreds of news sources, and a simple search of Google Scholar provides thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journals (such as here, here, and here), at least some of which deserve a mention to provide a NPOV. I didn't start the attacks, I was provoked, trollbaited, if you will- which is clear from the histories of the discussion, and the reason why I'm not further fueling any arguments on the discussion pages (I am the one seeking a neutral resolution without any more unpleasantries). Killdec (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who started the attacks. Being provoked is not an excuse for a personal attack. Evil saltine (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, point taken- I'll play it cool from now on, whenever I encounter incivility and baiting. Sorry, I just want to get this issue sorted and for parts of the article to portray more of a NPOV — balancing both sides of the argument proportionately — without getting into an edit war, if need be I'll follow your advice here.

Killdec (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Evil saltine (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! A truce was called. Alert will be marked appropriately. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:17, 20 September 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:83.104.50.65

Resolved

 – Hopefully, as subject has been warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm having problems with a particularly obnoxious anonymous editor. We had a slight clash over an un-NPOV edit that they made which constituted vandalism. I reverted this edit, and so this user accused me of being POV by reverting the vandalism. Since then this user has been posting vandalism templates and quite frankly nonsensical messages on my talk page in response to posts I made on their talk page. I reckon by now they're probably trolling but I'm getting a bit fed up. Any advice on what can be done? Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted one of the nonsensical templates he posted on your talk page and warned him. If he continues, or you see him engaging in similar conduct with any other user, please report him to ANI so that he may be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :). Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Revrant and consensus, NPA:

Resolved

 – Understanding & responsibility met by an involved party.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is all triggered by an amazingly trivial content dispute. But. User:Revrant and wp:consensus,wp:NPA:

This editor seems to have a very different view of wp:consensus than the one I have. The editor seems to state that consensus cannot be reached (and is therefore not binding) until the editor's points have been addressed to the editor's satisfaction here, then here.

The editor also responded rudely when the results of a 3PO went against the editor's wishes here. Then further when I added a source that supported the content here.

Finally, the editor's posts seem vaguely ominous here. Lamenting what I feel is a potentially valuable editor's path to wp:disruption, wp:civil issues, wp:edit warring, and eventual blocking, the editor commented on my remark here.

The editor also seems to insist that objections to the editor's edits are personal attacks here.

I feel confident that at this point comments from me will only be counterproductive, and I wonder if someone else might review and possibly suggest a better understanding of consensus and personal attacks to either myself or Revrant or both. This kind of behaviour drives editors from WP.

I do reallize I could simply have never mentioned the problems with this minor edit, or not replied to the editor's posts on the talk pages. And clearly, mentioning these events at another editor's talk page was unwise of me: I have apologized for that. - Sinneed (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of consensus is discussion and the addressing of the contrasting views, which was not accomplished, this lead me to ask for a third opinion which also did not address the issue but instead went on about an unrelated discussion. Satisfaction has nothing to do with it, they were not addressed, both editors off-handedly threw WP:SYNTH and WP:OR claims at me which I found offensive given I had derived a basic meaning, which was later proven totally correct by a minor rewording found by Sinneed. Yet these claims were repeatedly thrown in my face and used to dismiss my edits and opinion in a fashion resembling bad faith, which I obviously did not have, and my point addressed only after the entire issue had been resolved.

Ominous? They were in support of the soon to be released 2010 edition and in agreement with your statement, I'm not appreciative of such a statement suggesting derision.

I agree clarity is needed, I feel my views were harshly dismissed as SYNTH and OR without basis and the continued dismissal of my edits in such a fashion as nearly personal attacks. The editors did not address my logic in the debate, and the 3PO didn't either, and when an article was found showing my deduction was correct the entire time I was further threatened should my behavior "continue" by another editor.

I do recognize I was not totally civil, but that was largely due to how derisively my edits and deduction were dismissed without discussion or debate as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Revrant (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that the words "I will not relent" are in practice often equivalent to "I am about to be blocked". In a one-editor-vs-three-editors dispute, the one editor can't win by force and must either convince the others or back down. You might find that if you acknowledge the possibility that you are going to lose this dispute, others will be more willing to pay attention to your views. Looie496 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You excluded the key phrase, I will not relent unless the points are addressed, you are equating asking that your points be addressed to asking for a block? I'm sorry, but I don't see the connotation. No one was arguing the basis of my inclusion until the dispute was already resolved. I do not think it is unreasonable to demand people argue the points you put forth, and I'll also add that the line was not added until the argument and my edits were disrespected and disregarded to my wit's end, it was not a preface as you imply. Revrant (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is entitled to demand anything of others in Wikipedia. You may request things and others may or may not answer you and your points. Everyone here is a volunteer and Wikpedians move about the Wiki as the spirit moves them from one thing to another and when they get involved in a discussion they may choose to concentrate on one aspect, perhaps what they consider to be the salient points. There is no guarantee that they will agree with you on what the main point is and you do not have any right whatsover to demand anything. The other thing is that you are best advised to realise that you may be wrong, that others think differently to you and when it is apparent that the concensus is going against you, a little good grace goes a long way. Acting like a petulant child is never going to win you any credit nor will it gain you any respect. Quite the reverse. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that was incredibly insulting and personal, I can't recall the last time I was called a petulant child, I'm sure such foul personal attacks will go over well. Good thing this is the board for that, I have a damned well outlined right to demand people discuss my points and not disregard them with fallacious attacks on ther credibility, it's called WP:FAITH, perhaps you've heard of it? If someone will not engage you on the points you have made, perhaps you could tell me exactly what the purpose of the discussion page is? Realizing that I may be wrong is a perfectly viable solution when I'm uncertain, when I have the evidence right in my hand as I did here and people are ignoring it and attacking me with bad faith assertions it's hard to implicitly say "I may be wrong", especially when being threatened.

Perhaps we should both refrain from "acting" like "children", because if I see another personal attack directed at me I will report it. Revrant (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I could not care less about the content dispute you are involved in, which after all is only about a game. My comments are related to the way you are conducting yourself. If you wish to "report me" go right ahead, I have nothing to hide. However, you may be better advised to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

High concern from someone lodging blatant personal attacks on a Wikiquette alerts page, I would suggest you drop the stick yourself given your personal attack. Revrant (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I made no personal attack. What I said was that acting like a petulant child is never going to win you any credit, nor will you it gain you any respect. This is a comment about behaviour, not a personal attack, and your response to which speaks volumes. You seriously need to take a good hard look at your own behaviour before you start casting aspersions against others. I'm done talking with you, have a nice life. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You seriously need to educate yourself about WP:NPA, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence., calling another user's behavior as that of a petulant child is a personal attack, have a nice life and keep your attacks to yourself, thank you. Revrant (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This part of a talkpage shows a similar high level of sensitivity. However, it is clear that disagreeing about policy or on editorial judgement should not be taken as an insult to the person. I suggest that revrant recalibrate his/her notion of a "personal attack" and not take it personally if consensus is against giving weight to his/her considerations. When several editors are saying the same thing about another's behaviour, it's always worthwhile thinking that they may be right. I have read the WoW talk page, and the point where revrant says "Oh, and WP:SYNTH, since if I see it used against me again I will file it as a baseless and continued attack on my character and bad faith" comes somewhat out of the blue and seems like an instance of bad faith in itself - as if other users are disagreeing because they want to insult revrant, not because they simply disagree. For what it's worth, revrant's content concerns did seem to be clearly addressed; an addressed concern is not the same as a shared concern.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a poor comparison, that user has admitted in the past that they did not understand policy and that they were incorrect, the issue there was them not recognizing policy and my utter frustration with trying to explain it repeatedly to the point of civility being lost between both parties. It was a recurring theme before they understood the policy, now coexistence is total and harmonic. Yes, it was out of the blue when it was thrown at me from left field while I felt the debate might progress toward consensus, and it was continually used against me as well as WP:OR in order to dismiss me without discussion. That is not in line with Wikipedia policy, and it is most assuredly bad faith accusations. I have no issue with people disagreeing, but when they dismiss me utterly and contend my evidence is baseless, made up nonsense, and will not argue it, it is understandably frustrating and counterproductive.

My concerns were not addressed period during the debate, the 3PO ignored them and discussed something else, and they were finally addressed by Atama in a hyperbolic fashion afterward, the concerns were so dismissed, so demeaned as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, that I lost my civility, and now I am being told that I should not have. I realize that, but to suggest only I am to blame is just ludicrous, you need only see the repeated "warnings" from these people with no authority, which I viewed as threats and responded in kind with, to see that the argument was not handled correctly and by spewing policy dismissal at my edits instead of honestly debating them it created a hostile editing atmosphere, and I will say it again, to dismiss someone's views utterly as fallacious policy violations and threaten them is not acceptable. Revrant (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the editors involved in the discussion and a target of the personal attacks. I was very disappointed because up until that point it was a simple disagreement and seemed to be handled properly. Two people had different views on the content (I was somewhat on the fence about it myself) and instead of edit-warring, everyone was discussing policy and debating the proper way to use the source. Almost out of left field, however, the discussion turned personal when Revrant stated that an opinion was needed from a more "learned editor" than those who had disagreed with them. I objected to that characterization and made it clear while attempting to avoid responding in kind. Their behavior just went downhill from there, lecturing and demanding with heavy use of CAPITALS, bold and italic text, and attempting to belittle other editors. At that point I just backed away and stopped commenting, I didn't want any part of that. I declared my intention to do so at Revnant's talk page and my reason for doing so and I've stayed out of it since. -- Atama頭 09:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I was a target of your personal attacks, however it had gone sour before that point, Sinneed had reverted both of my edits and not debated the reasoning, instead proposing changes that would not reflect the source and demanding we wait for the 2010 edition before the change could be made. The 3PO did not address the concerns and instead commented mostly on things they were not asked to comment on, I assumed they did not understand what a 3PO was for, hence "learned" and the RfC, that was not directed at you or Sinneed. You did the same, and threatened me repeatedly, and at no point did I belittle an editor, and you did not stop, you continued and took it to my talk page and threatened me there.

Suffice to say I think this is resolved, I behaved in a highly defensive fashion that was counterproductive, they assumed bad faith, rejected my views without discussion, and threatened action against me and I am to blame for letting it get to me and reacting in kind. Eye for an eye is not a Wikipedia policy, I should recognize that in the future. Revrant (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Revrant:

"As much as I was a target of your personal attacks"-You were not the target of any personal attacks that I have read. If you were, then wikilinking/quoting them here would be great, as the HUGE amount of discussion of this 1-word change might mean an interested editor would miss the attack.

Yes, you and I both removed one another's edits (we disagreed), then I yielded since you made it clear that you would not accept consensus (even if I were correct as to what consensus was) and that the edit was simply going to stay in. Your change stayed in the article throughout the remainder of the dispute.

I did not demand anything, except better behaviour from you, which I still do not see. It seems to me that everyone who disagrees with you is not experienced enough, not understanding, or acting in bad faith.

Disagreement about content is not assumption of bad faith.

Disagreement about policy is not assumption of bad faith either: but refusal to follow the community's view of policy can result in one being blocked, and thus the warnings. It doesn't mean the warning editor is right 100% of the time either, and I firmly state that I won't hit 100%... but I will try. Hard.

It is important to understand that the warnings I put on your talk page are not threats. I am an ordinary editor, and only community-elected community members usually called admins actually implement any actions (blocking, for example). I guess I could threaten to stomp my little feetsies, or talk mean to someone, but those are about the only threats I can make stick in WP.

You argue that there was no discussion, but among the various editors there were many kilobytes of discussion. I do understand that you did not feel your points were addressed. This is what it means to disagree: at our best, we listen to what others say and if they don't address our concerns, we still don't agree. Insisting that that means no real discussion has taken place, or that it means those who disagree are acting in bad faith or don't have enough experience is a Bad Thing.^TM

- Sinneed (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I did view the warnings as threats, those were what I was referencing, I don't feel a need to go around warning users with report-reprisal unless it is deserved, though it may have just been defensiveness.

I would have had my concern been addressed in a proper manner.

Hardly, I've had many people disagree with me only to learn they were correct and come to understand new policy, for quite a while people cited Notability as a requirement of content, I used this under an assumption as well until corrected. To suggest everyone I disagree with, to me, is automatically negated as a worthy party is a little insulting to me as a person.

Dismissal of concerns with policy is.

No, of course it's not, but if the community does not address the concerns it certainly leads to litigation such as this.

Indeed, I took it to mean this would happen, which I viewed as threatening, and after all why not, this is such a pleasant experience, I can't recall the last time I was mocked with name-calling on Wikipedia by an established editor.

I feel there was no discussion of the concern, my logic, or my deduction, that is not what it means to disagree, that is what it means to be a politician. Wikipedia is certainly full of politics, if you don't address someone's concerns, and go so far as to dismiss them as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it's certainly not beneficial to the discussion. I realize "demanding" that you debate the concerns and the points may seem silly to you, but minus the demand it's how Wikipedia works, it's what the pages are for, and if it appears a 3PO doesn't know what they're doing, suffice to say I don't feel they have enough experience.

As succinctly as possible, this could have been totally avoided by addressing my concerns, you could have said "This is how I think you're seeing this information, this is what I think you're deducing from it, this why I don't agree and how I see it differently." instead of just addressing outlying concerns and dismissing it as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In the future, realize dismissing the views of another as baseless research and made up conclusions is not beneficial to the discussion and could be inflammatory. Further insinuating that when they drop it all in spite of litigation such as this and continue in good spirit, even to agree with you, that their new posts were somehow malicious and ominous, well, it does nothing but generate suspicion and hard feelings. Revrant (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

After review of the edits themselves you were a bit overly aggressive in trying to prove your point, which is understandable when it feels like you're being shot down or ganged up upon and which is why I believe this issue got out of hand in the first place. Anywho, as you stated an eye for an eye is no where near an appropriate way to approach a issue, let alone a discussion. However, you mentioned you recognized this mistake and took responsibility for it. Lets keep it cool. :) --A3RO (mailbox) 06:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was aggressive in trying to have my point discussed, it was not, and indeed, it came to seem that way. Indeed, unfortunately I am the only even partially repentant party, and despite having a PA lodged against me in this very discussion I intend to keep it "cool". Revrant (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do. :) - On that note, before this alert turns into a book :), this discussion will marked appropriately, as long as the involved parties are aware; no further action is needed. Thank you for your patience and understanding to stay cool when things get heated, which they often do. We've all been there. Thanks for your contributions and happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 10:50, 20 September 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:Agames

Resolved

 – Article deleted, user warned for WP:PA

User:Agames created an article about Alberto Rey Games Hernandez, whom general consensus seems to agree is a non-notable person, and the user even admits to having creating the article because he is the son of the subject. Several users tried to explain on the AfD page about WP:BIO and especially WP:COI, but Agames is getting all heated and now even getting to the point of calling other users names. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Yikes! - very personal nastiness, in badly spelled all-caps. - Sinneed (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned Agames. - Sinneed (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon review of the edits, User:Agames violated WP:NPA on the article's nomination deletion entry, referenced here. The article has been deleted and a Level-4 WP:PA ONLY warning was given, per his editing history, i feel, this will be his only warning. --A3RO (mailbox) 10:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User systematically reverting my edits

Resolved

 – Issue forwarded to WP:ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, Simon Speed has systematically reverted a large number of my edits but no argumentation has been effective to change that behavior. The problem has happened mainly in the Safe sex article.--20:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. After plucking through the discussion on the talk page it seems there is a problem with sources being added where you feel they aren't reliable, correct? --A3RO (mailbox) 21:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the major problem is that he systematically reverted (deleted) all my edits (15) and re-expressed that motivation in the talk page, instead of trying to improve on top of those. His main expressed justification for those reverts was that I removed sources, but he made no effort to readd just those sources, since my edits were much representative than that and more focused on whether content was appropriate and sourced, and less about source reliability.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the etiquette problem. Maybe I am being dense.

I do see an content dispute. I do see some too-large changes, some of which are problematic, some are not, all being done at once. A single revert made MANY changes.

Maybe dispute resolution will help. No matter how good intentions are, the number of people with profoundly strong points of view is going to be very difficult. I would say that to edit such a very contentious article, you will probably need both patience in applying new proposed edits and a steady temper. Gonna be a bumpy ride. Sorry I have nothing more helpful to offer. - Sinneed (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• *I don't see the notification at User talk:Simonxag. I applied one. Please be sure to do so next time. - Sinneed (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been content disputes between 2 editors, myself and User:Zodon on one side, v. User:Nutriveg, which were leading to an edit war. Neither I nor Zodon has edited the article since 2009-09-16, but I have asked at 2 projects for other editors' input. In the discussion Nutriveg described my comments as "personal attacks" (would editors please inform me if I am doing something wrong). However, I have since come to the conclusion that Nutriveg is not acting in good faith and added an accusation (with evidence) to this effect to the talk page. I do not think this is a POV dispute: some of Nutriveg's edits are against my POV but some I'd make myself if I didn't care about NPOV. I think Nutriveg's edits look bold, even occasionally constructive, but are in fact a very subtle form of mischief. Help! --Simon Speed (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note also the following edits this user has made to their talk page:- 2009-09-19 [45] 2009-04-20 [46] 2009-03-12 [47] 2008-12-14 [48] . --Simon Speed (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It look's like a wikiquette problem for me, the user systematically revert all edits because of specific expressed concerns without proposing changes to adequate content. And says he will continue to do so "but feel I must simply revert much of it". He makes personal attacks (accusations) instead of discussing content: "Nutiriveg is deleting large quantities of sourced material", "which suggests they are not an expert editor, but they have shown no interest in concensus", "This editor is making a point of removing well sourced material from a variety of articles". And my edits are in bad faith: "is not acting in good faith", "I am dealing with an editor who is not acting in good faith", "I have come to seriously doubt this user's good faith.", "I have ceased to assume good faith". --Nutriveg (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My assessment is that Nutriveg is edit-warring against multiple other editors to assert bizarre claims, such as that rubbing of other's genitals constitutes unsafe sex. I am perfectly willing to believe that Nutriveg is acting in good faith, but it needs to be made clear that this confrontational approach if continued is going to lead pretty quickly to a block or ban. This is not the first arena in which Nutriveg has been disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing content here but to not left your assessment alone. First the actual phrase was "Rubbing each other genitalia", secondly I provide sources: ("genital ulcer diseases (such as genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid) and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection are primarily transmitted through contact with infected skin or mucosal surfaces"), "Genital herpes is transmitted from one person to another through sexual contact. Sexual contact includes (...) rubbing the genitals together without being separated by clothing.".

You're in no position to qualify events you were directly involved.--Nutriveg (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• This has been taken to ANI. Added note to the talk page. - Sinneed (talk) 15:25, 20 September 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.

Admin John Carter

Stale

An administrator John Carter has made a series of personal and rather wildly abusive attacks, because he was asked to please participate in editing and/or discussion of an article on which he has placed wthout comment a tag or tags, which I believed were placed in error.

He has repeatedly removed reasoned and brief relevant comments from his talk page, then insisted (on my talk page) that I not comment on his talk page.

His actions in this matter are somewhat disturbing; all the more because his is an administrator.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a misunderstanding that got out of hand a bit. However, if a user wishes you to stay off their talk page, the request should be respectfully carried through. Users have immediante rights over their user and talk pages. If the other afflicting party doesn't regard the request then the edits made can be removed and flagged as vandalism or even a personal attack. --A3RO (mailbox) 21:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a 'misunderstanding' in the least. Looks to me like John has been patient and crystal clear with this user. See here, for example. → ROUX ₪ 21:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the filing party is confused a bit, where the misunderstanding occured in regards to his talk page. --A3RO (mailbox) 21:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The filing party has accused John of making 'wildly abusive attacks' (hint: he didn't) without any basis for doing so other than to discredit him and try to win some sort of content dispute. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamitybrook may be confused in the broadest sense of the word, in that the editor may take disagreement, even very peripheral disagreement, with the editor's work as a personal attack. I see John Carter behaving very reasonably, and Calamitybrook behaving badly, on Calamitybrook's talk page.- Sinneed 21:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do a lot of article-rating for WikiProject Neuroscience, and if somebody asks me to justify a rating, I generally feel an obligation to give at least a brief explanation. The "rules" don't require one, though. If you are unhappy with a rating, the best approach is to post on the talk page of the WikiProject, asking politely whether somebody else would like to take a look at the article and make an assessment of whether the change in rating was justified, and what it would take to get a higher rating. I'll second the point that C is actually a pretty high rating, though -- a seriously incomplete article will be rated "Start", and for most WikiProjects the highest rating short of GA (which requires a special process) is B. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This might of been unintentional, possibly? Not sure but I don't think he ever meant to elevate it into something more. Not too sure without preceding comments from the users themselves in regards to the issue. Anywho, feel free to approach and express. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Liar"

Carter specifically accuses me of being a "liar" amid other examples on my talk page. Rember Rep. Wilson??

Since my post here, he now threatens on my talk page. Forbids and deletes tame brief material on his talk page from me. (See history there.)

A clear breach -- by an administrator no less. Calamitybrook (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So that's four people so far who believe that you have over-reacted because you have misunderstood something. I'm a fifth and will also say that you appear to be trying to ratchet things up. That's not good.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Liar" is a term not so easily misunderstood.

Language an administrator particularly, should more carefully consider.

Quite a red flag on this administrator, John Carter, who should be watched carefully for abusive tendencies and similar complaints from non-administrators.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Breach of rule:Defamation of historical leaders,personal attack on country and personal anger/outburst about established facts

Stale

 – 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In this [49] page there have been personal attacks on Historical figure (J.L.Nehru-The first Prime minister of India),general outburst and provoking comparisons in a history article (e.g. China has a seat in UN.India cant comprehend that) and several breaches by user named Xingdong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was warned once as you can see in archives but he pleaded that he uses a college internet connection.Now he has made discussion page an personal battleground.I encourage you to view archives of talk page (both his personal as well as article's talk page) given above and see yourself countless rule breaking and provoking remarks by user XINGDONG. Swift&silent (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edit- linkified name. Usernames are case-sensitive! --King Öomie 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry King Öomie.I dont know how to insert user link (I am somewhat new to wikipedia) so I am providing URL to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xingdong Swift&silent (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The template I used is {{userlinks}}. The syntax is {{userlinks|USERNAME}}, where USERNAME in this case is Xingdong. It produces Xingdong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --King Öomie 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluecanary99

Resolved

 – User has been blocked indefinitely. (see below)

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

---

After several minor breaches of wikiquette, User:Bluecanary99's actions have culminated in a lengthy personal attack against me.

After I complained [[50]] about User:Bluecanary99 misquoting me and their use of scare quotes [[51]], they suggested that I leave the discussion and wikipedia[[52]]. After complaining about that remark, they accused me of attacking them and threatened to file a complaint.

After a hiatus of several days from both parties, User:Bluecanary99 has written a lengthy post attempting to unmask me, and demanding that I identify myself. Their complaints there seem to focus on what my identity may be, and not the content of my edits. I was content to allow the breaches in wikiquette slide, but User:Bluecanary99's latest attack against me is a serious issue. -Nathalmad (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluecanary99 is engaged in uncivil discussions with another party on the WP:COI/N. --A3RO (mailbox) 19:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the trouble the admins must put themselves to process the above complaint. It is a "retribution" complaint lodged in response to a COI alert I filed regarding the above user. Please see that appropriate section for additional information. Again, my apologies that the valued administrators and moderators have been dragged into this issue. I was, myself, surprised to become a "target" of this group after attempting to make an edit to a fairly minor article that is being "patrolled" [sic] by it (thumbnail version is that user is part of a wikigang that are members of the fan club of a podcast host who has extolled his fan club to "patrol" his bio and use whatever means necessary to destroy anyone nominating it for deletion; I know that sounds too odd to believe, please see appropriate edit logs stretching back more than a year on this - it took me about 4 hours to bring myself up to speed and realize what was going on). Regardless of the outcome of this complaint, I would strongly recommend no sanction be posted against Nathalmad to prevent yourself becoming "targeted"; user is able to call on a 'noise machine' of like-minded editors to drown out and shout-down any reasoned argument. They're only sullying a small portion of wikipedia so intervention at this point is not worth the personal trauma to anyone who currently hasn't undergone the misfortune of finding themselves wrapped up in this soap opera. Most Cordially Bluecanary99 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Amendment - In response to a flurry of activity elsewhere, I have withdrawn any and all complaints I ever had against Nathalmad/Luke Burbank or any other members of the group that "patrols" the articles in question and posted this in the COI Noticeboard. I have promised I will never attempt to edit, or even so much as read, the two articles in question. I would please plead with all members of that group to stop targeting me. I can't keep up with all complaints that are now being filed against me. Like I said, I didn't know what I was getting into when I attempted to participate in those articles. It was error. I apologize profusely and surrender unconditionally. Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute closed. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

While I am glad that most of this issue could be resolved amicably, there is still the issue of User:Bluecanary99 attempts at unmasking me, by continuing to claim I am Luke Burbank, even after the COI was closed [[53]]. This is considered harassment, as part of WP:OUTING. I encourage User:Bluecanary99 to continue his involvement in the articles Too Beautiful to Live and Luke Burbank, as he has made some valuable contributions, some of which I have agreed with and supported on the talk pages for those articles. -Nathalmad (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I plead with you to stop harassing me. Also, please ask your compatriots to stop harassing me on my talk page. I completely give up. I surrender. I don't know what else I can do. You're not Luke Burbank. You're whomever you say you are. Please stop stalking me. I apologize for editing TBTL and Luke Burbank. I've promised I will never edit nor view those pages again. Please call off the attacks on me. Please leave me alone. Bluecanary99 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys, enough. Nathalmad, all disputes regarding the issue/COI were closed. Please stop referencing to it. If this continues a temporary block of editing priveledges will be considored. Please move on. Thanks and happy editing. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluecanary99 has been blocked indefiantly for sockpuppetry. --A3RO (mailbox) 09:20, 22 September 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:Otterathome

Resolved

 – nothing for an admin to do here. Spartaz ^Humbug!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(There was already an alert raised about this user earlier this month, but since it has been marked as stale...)

As has already been noted in the previous alert, this user has a history of nominating articles for deletion in bad faith simply because s/he doesn't like them. At first these noms seems to only be relegated to lonelygirl15-related articles, but now s/he has moved on to nominating any web series in general (although to be fair, Poor Paul needs a serious rewrite but is notable) while ignoring everyone practically throwing guidelines in front of him/her to show him/her why the articles should be kept. There was also a long discussion at ANI about Otter's actions without anything being done in the end, and I just have to ask...is Otter invincible or something? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be looking to change the notability guidelines or just don't understand them, as that's what I'm working off. I'm only suggesting this as you've never added anything useful to my deletion discussions to show you do. If the articles I'm nominating are notable then why don't you show it instead of complaining all the time?--Otterathome (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Move for this to be closed as forum-shopping. There was a post here, nothing was done. It was then on AN/I for several days, and likewise no need for action was seen. So you're bringing the same thing back here? No, I don't think so. Please see this page on dispute resolution and move away from here. → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure forum-shopping applies here, as "Poor Paul" is a new nomination. This would therefore be a continuation of disruptive behavior, rather than a new report of existing behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like Compfunk, ZoehDahling and a host of IPs (curious...) are hell-bent on getting Otterathome sanctioned for... something. I'm not sure what, because they tend to just post dense walls of text. Frankly, if it's so outrageous it should be taken to ArbCom. I would bet cash money nothing will come of this. → ROUX ₪ 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it's "sanctioned for overreliance on his own opinions about notability of article subjects and sources". He's never met a dissenting opinion he liked, as far as I can tell from his AfD and DRV participation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The previous threads kept being edited because of new nominations, so unless there's something different about my paul nomination, I don't see anything new worth discussing.--Otterathome (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, canvassing was not my intention (even though I didn't start the previous threads), but if that's what it looks like, I'll let it go. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as forum shopping, but I do wonder what WQA can do to address this concern. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:50, 22 September 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:Kwamikagami

Resolved

 – Both parties advised to be more tactful; dispute seems to have died.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Kwamikagami, upset at having been blocked on Wiktionary, has brought the dispute to this wiki by posting abusive messages on my talk page: [54] [55] [56]. Each message posted to me by this user ends with gratuitous abuse, and I would like this uncivil behavior to stop. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We've got enough behavioral problems on Wikipedia as it is, without importing silly disputes from other wiki's. What happens in Wiktionary stays in Wiktionary. Kwami needs to drop it here, and one would think an admin with that many edits would know better. Some of that commentary would get a non-admin templated, warned, and if it continued, blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You call him a liar, without a careful and easily followed reference.

Lacking this, I'd say you've over-stepped boundaries.

Not really necessary to call an editor a "liar, regardless.

Given this, one can surmise it is at least possible that your banning action was also unreasonable.

I confess to NOT having investigated the history of this dispute, and am therefore NOT able to fully comment.

How does one deal with abusive, arrogant and unsavory administrators?

Encountering such (they are basically incompetent) is an all-to-common experience for editors.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, a minor request: Please could you ensure that the entirety of each of your edits is at the same indent level, it makes it hard to read your posts as they are now. As a rule your posts seem to start out at one indent level and then progressively unindent as you go along. Your sig seems to be always completely unindented - which makes it look like you are signing someone else's comments from further up the page. Thank you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I brought the dispute to EP's WP page because I was blocked from editing his WT page, and indeed from making any edits on WT whatsoever, in any namespace. kwami (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Only Kwami's first posting here occurred while blocked on Wiktionary. The second and third abusive postings occurred after Kwami had begun two sets of comments in the primary discussion room on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to Kwami's actions at Wiktionary, not having reviewed them. The language Kwami used here is certainly too harsh, but I can honestly understand his frustrations having had a similar experience with EncycloPetey on Wiktionary. (I was blocked for an hour for trivial matters and then reblocked when I challenged his actions as being contrary to Wiktionary's published guidelines.) It was an insightful experience, as I learned (through extensive discussions with another admin there) that Wiktionary's standards for punitive actions are far, far stricter than here. Blocks are handed out in a manner that would certainly lead to desysopping on Wikipedia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm dismayed to see that the focus is now moving to speculation about what may or may not have happened on another wiki. I'm further dismayed to see that abuse and personal attacks now are considered acceptable etiquette here on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's calm it down. No one has said personal attacks and abuse are acceptable. As in any dispute situation, everyone needs, as soon as they realise matters are escalating, to take a step back, look at their own posts in isolation, and see if they could be interpreted as aggressive or unnecessarily stroppy (regardless of anyone else's posts). Wiktionary's blocking of namespace edits does seem problematic; I don't see the problem in principle with contacting the admin on their wikipedia page, so long as it's not block evasion to abuse. However, Kwami needed to calm down - no matter the injustice, calm language is always a good idea. That said, Encyclo, also being an admin and so understanding the wikipedia warning system, could have been rather more tactful, instead of accusing kwami of lying and being a repeat offender (there are no warnings on kwami's wiktionary talkpage). The central issue - the justness of the block - is a matter for wiktionary. But if such things spill over onto here, then please keep things just as civil as either of you were dealing with any other user.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody posting problems from another Wikiproject to another, just to prove a point is trolling the issue and should be subject to a temporary block. The edits provided were clearly a personal attack. However, since I'm unable to examine the issues beyond Wikipedia, I feel that the edits performed here are the ones that should be examined. --A3RO (mailbox) 09:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC

User:EncycloPetey is a block happy administrator on Wiktionary (over 1600 blocks!), who blocked Kwamikagami (twice) with nothing much in the way of process or warnings. Kwamikagami is a long established senior editor who has made many serious contributions to Wikipedia, and never been blocked before. Admins are given tools to deal with vandals, trolls and intransigent edit warriors, not as power devices for them to ride roughshod over any serious content editors they happen to have some difference with. Wikipedia primarily exists because of the content editors; admins are add-ons who should be in the service of the serious content editors. So it is understandable that Kwamikagami would be incensed at the behaviour of EncycloPetey, and at not being able to reply to him. Which is presumably why he came here. All the more droll, since Kwamikagami is himself a Wikipedia administrator. Anyway, Kwamikagami is not currently blocked by EncycloPetey, and has not responded here since his block expired, so I suggest this thread can be closed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:23, 23 September 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.

Misunderstandings escalating with User:Ottava Rima, from WP:RSN

Stuck

 – Escalated to ANI.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In the past I was a fairly regular contributor at WP:RSN; I have some clear-cut views about sourcing - basically I tend to defend genuine academic sources on the basis of credentials and publisher. Just back from wikibreak I responded to a query, weighing on the side of points already made, and defending use of an academic text. This seems to be turning into a big issue for one of the people involved in the page in question. I think he was incivil, not just to me but to at least one regular on the page. I posted on his talk page and the upshot is he is now suggesting I should be banned for disruption. All I can see that I have done is disagree with his evaluation of a source. It's all on WP:RSN in the heading relating to the Oscar Wilde article, and on User:Ottava Rima's talk page. I'm only posting here because I would like it established that users should be encouraged to give their viewpoints on the noticeboard, and should not, in general, get comeback from it. Or am I missing something really obvious, and I have behaved really badly here? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really policy, nor is it necessarily an optimal long-term solution, but I think it would help if more people tried it (no one ever does, though). It's generally best to completely ignore Ottava when he loses it and begins ranting about desysopping/banning/blocking/tarring and feathering/taking to arbcom. Nothing ever comes of it, and it eventually blows over. Without even looking at the page in question, I can tell you there is a 99% chance you did nothing wrong. Ottava does truly excellent article work (really, one of our best) when he's not worked up about something, so this seems better than arguing with him/warning him/reporting him to ANI/blocking him/quitting in disgust/conceding the point to him/etc. Just continue to discuss with others (if Ottava is correct in this case, others will bring up the same point), completely tune it out if at all possible; no one is going to think less of you. No, you shouldn't have to do it, no it isn't fair, no it's not the official line, yes it drives many people nuts when this is suggested, yes I'm probably encouraging more poor behavior. But maybe give it a try and see? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Given Ottava's comment below, I think history has just indicated that was perhaps not the best approach to recommend at this time. However, maybe if we all respond to floquenbeam and just keep pushing Ottava's outburst down towards the bottom of the page, it will eventually scroll out of sight. Having read the piece, I can confirm that Itsmejudith has done no wrong, and Ottava is (once again) claiming to be the only person qualified to comment on a subject. A little collegiate spirit would help here - insisting that others are "disruptive" simply because they disagree with one is really not on.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But Elen, aren't we agreeing? What you said is basically what I (tried) to say. Respond to people who are acting calmly and collegially (a useful word, thanks), ignore those who aren't. WP:SHUN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen, please show where Maynard is an expert on -Oscar Wilde-. Until you do, your comments are nothing but disruptive. You cannot claim anything when the very basis is completely incorrect. And I never said I was the only one qualified to comment. However, Itsmejudith clearly makes it seem like they don't understand the basics of logic, reason, or what reliable source means let alone what "expert means". If they do know any of these, then the only other explanation is purposeful disruption and they should be banned as a troll. Either way, their posts were completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Elen, the definition of a troll is someone who persists to claim that the color black is actually the color white. To persist in something that is absurdly wrong and causing disruption is completely inappropriate and unacceptable, especially at a noticeboard. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, Floquenbeam, that you suggested this, as from looking at the situation, Ottava Rima is being highly disruptive here. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems a non-sequitor to me, Irbisgreif. If you think Ottava is "being highly disruptive", I'm saying don't talk to him. How has my suggestion made anything worse? It's not magic pixie dust; ignoring someone being uncollegial isnt going to turn them into Gandhi overnight. It's just a suggested way to deal with someone being uncollegial. The way we typically deal with people being uncollegial is (a) threaten, try to beat them into submission, and block; or (b) get sucked into endless arguing (see, for example, below). I'm suggestion another method (WP:SHUN) that few seem to have the willpower to try. It works on good faith uncollegial types as well as trolls. It can be dropped as soon as the uncollegial behavior ends, with no dramatic announcements. It doesn't even require you to get consensus to put it into effect. If you think options (a) or (b) above work better, that's fine, but how is it "unfortunate" that I suggest an option (c)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And do tell how that is - because it is rather obvious that I am bothering to defend WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and the rest from people who are promoting an all out fabrication. You do realize that pushing a lie is a breach of civility, right? Irbisgreif, your accusation and claims are completely inappropriate and should be struck, as you have definitely breached WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Irbis, I would watch who you accuse of disrupting when that person is an expert in the field, has multiple FAs dealing -directly- with the issue, and has already proven that the source in question is written by an individual without direct expertise on the subject in question and that there are many, many other sources that do not agree with the view. For someone who wishes to become an admin, you are definitely acting far from appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Recommend 24 hour block of Itsmejudith (see note below) for outright disruption - 1. she claims that a source is an "expert" on an individual without have any publications or proof of credentials and 2. she claims that he does not claim Wilde as a pederast when the quote that was in the article makes it 100% clear that he does. By pushing both of these two things, she is pushing direct false hood on a noticeboard, which is disruptive. She seems unwilling to acknowledge the disruption or anything that has anything to do with reality, which is really problematic. I find it further telling that Floquenbeam comments while also saying that they did not bother to look at the page. Such things are very incivil and disruptive, and a block is surely warranted. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if no one realizes (which is a chance), the call for a block is sarcastic because this is just simply nonsense and should just stop when reason comes into it. But I hope it points out the seriousness of the problems. RS noticeboard is for determining things based on an objective standard. That requires taking in many considerations. As soon as it was pointed out that there are main stream works on Wilde and that this individual doesn't have any publications on Wilde, then it should have been a dead issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So all the blustering was just sarcastic from the first? I liked Floquenbeam and Elen's advice. Please everyone have some tea and a slice of clafoutis (watch out for the cherry stones, but it's worth it). Itsmejudith (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the call above for you two to be blocked was sarcastic. I don't actually think you should be blocked because I really doubt you would learn anything from it regardless. It doesn't mean that you don't -deserve- to be blocked for disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Serious discussions should not mention blocks by the involved parties. Please be aware that this is not the forum to ask for blocks or even bans. As stated above, the WQA forum can't impose/enforce blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures unless followed through by an administrator on the appropriate page. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, from my recollection, blocks and bans happen here quite often. So, where did you get such an idea, and why would you even bother mentioning it? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it's actually in the headline text of what WQA is not. Blocks and bans can not be requested here; issues are sometimes marked here mentioning blocks as the indirect result of dispute on another noticeboard. WQA is a step to avoid such restrictions for each party's better interest and find a peaceful resolution. If you came here asking to have someone blocked or baned then this dispute will be closed appropriately and should be taken to another noticeboard. Third party opinion of content disputes is suggested, but not can not be reinforced. It's the common courtesy and respect that one should have to appreciate popular opinion to base a consensus. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Per A3RO. Now are you both done yet? Misunderstandings resolved? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that since this seems to be an issue regarding personal behavior rather than the content itself. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct may be a more appropriate place for the parties to resolve this issue. Comments and recommendations posted here by an involved party are unconstructive and isn't helping the issue to find a peaceful resolution; whether or not if the comments were comical. Users are reminded to stay WP:CIVIL and atleast show a level of seriousness about the matter, no matter how elementary the issue may seem. Alert will be marked appropriately. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to all who commented. I will take it to user RfC. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:21, 23 September 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.

Personal attack by isshii

Resolved

 – Subject warned.

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 person reworded content for the MysteryQuest article, then asked for opinions about what they wrote on the discussion page[[57]] where I told them their write up appears to violate the NPOV with bias wording and other things I thought they did wrong - you can read it for yourself if you click the link. The next day he reverts my edits and states on the history page:[[58]]: "Undoing the last IDIOT's edits" and "Undid stupid revisions by the last stupid individual who made the disruptive, and intentionally malicious edits." These are clearly a personal attack against me and a clear violation of the rules. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've given the user a warning regarding their recent behaviour. Should they continue with the attacks, report to myself or at WP:ANI for a block. Should they continue to edit war, report them at WP:AN3. Though be sure not to violate WP:3RR yourself. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - if problems contine I will put it up for arbitration - he's making claims that he can't verify with legit sources and using wording that slants things as personal opinions. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider taking the sourcing and personal opinions issues to a relevant noticeboard for community insight. Generally, see WP:DR. Best of luck, and you know where to report if the attacks or edit warring continues. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can we agree that the closing admin should have the final word here? Any closing statement along the lines of "Thanks, I'll watch for more bad behavior" is guaranteed to be taken badly by the other party, even if that's not intended. --King Öomie 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that isn't really assuming good faith if your expecting the editor to have more bad behavior.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand that more often than not it's a simple acknowledgment of the closing admin's suggestions (with regard to escalation), but what may seem innocuous can really piss people off (especially if the other party had interpreted the admin's comments as being directed at them). --King Öomie 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 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:L31 G0NG L41

Stuck

 – Take it to ANI if it persists.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user is having trouble understanding how Wikipedia works [59] despite being pointed towards WP:RS and WP:V repeatedly. Their talk page posts leave a lot to be desired with respect to civility: [60], [61] and basically Talk:Guangzhou is littered with phrases like "racist pig" and "idiot foreigners" (all this over the alternate name of a city). I realize that L31 is defending with he thinks is right but he needs to dial back the rhetoric about five notches. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Clear violations of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. I see he's already been warned for it as well, as well as talk page modification of others comments (he only did it once so it may have been an accident.) and I believe a block may be in order if he keeps this up.--SKATER ^Speak. 13:48, 25 September 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:DKqwerty

This dumbhead is a big fat nerd and he been attacking me and thinks that everything he did is RIGHT, although there is something that has been quite disrespectful. How rude that is to say 'Shut up'!

Okay, let me rephrase this: This user has been attacking me and there is a place where a comment is very rude, and fortunately, made by HIM. How inconsiderate it is to say 'Shut up'!

Several other offensive terms he called me: an idiot, asshole behind a random proxy, and my games are stupid! I am not stupid, and neither are the things I do!

These bad words on the Internet NEED to stop. Wikipedia is a place to edit and collaborate, not to ATTACK. 70.245.239.197 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to know what he REALLY said, he said THIS:

"Okay, so I was right: you're just an asshole hiding behind a random proxy, posting messages on the talk pages of people you hold a grudge against. And there's no assumption of good faith when it comes to you persistently trying to make edits which have been unanimously rejected by the majority of other editors, as with your idea that Paroxetine is safe for pregnant women based on a single, small contradictory study. Get a life and stop harassing people on the Internet with your annoying stupid games. Or if you just can't help yourself, go bother Conservapedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica instead. They could use another idiot. DKqwerty (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"

70.245.239.197 (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See the whole thing right here! 70.245.239.197 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Block-quoted section. It looked like the user has posted it himself on THIS page. If you're reporting him for calling you stupid... maybe you shouldn't be calling him stupid here. I will attest, though, that Conservapedia and ED can always use more idiots. --King Öomie 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting ridiculous. As I've said before, this is nothing more than a mwalla sockpuppet/anon. trying to get even for my frequent reversal of the inaccuracies he tries to add to the Paroxetine article. This is a simple content dispute which the user has himself escalated to harassment on my talk and user pages over something that happened months ago. Sure, I was bit surly with him, but if he's going to hide behind anonymous IPs and harass me then I'm not going sit idly by and take it.

That's what I love about this place: I go away for two months, come back, and the same idiotic games are still being played by people with a prepubescent level of maturity. DKqwerty (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention I've seen him vandalize and troll your page since I began watching after giving you the alert to come here (nice to see the IP took my advice. As I stated on the talk page you did violate WP:NPA by calling him an idiot. --SKATER ^Speak. 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Determining whether or not I violated a rule is clearly not the intention of this "anonymous" user (read: Mwalla); simple harassment is the intent here. And in fact, what I actually called him was an "asshole", the "idiot" was implied.

FYI: I've submitted the IP range to WP:AIV. DKqwerty (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's Mwalla, perhaps you should file a report at WP:SPI?--SKATER ^Speak. 14:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I don't really have the time or know-how for reporting suspected sockpuppeting. If someone could report it, I would be indebted. If not, I'll do it myself when I have the time. DKqwerty (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it, would you mind compiling a list of the IP's and putting it on my talkpage for me?--SKATER ^Speak. 14:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Have I done something wrong?

I started editing a template to improve it for accuracy and presentation here with a full edit summary. It was quickly reverted with the inaccuracy back in as well. So I re-edited with full summary here. The response was a revert with the accompanying edit summary here: "Please do not make controversial edits without WP:Consensus, per guidlines you can find at WP:BRD. Some edits would be fine but your constant rvting without consensus is a waste of our time." which also was placed on my talk page. I didn't consider any of my edits "controversial" nor did I think the tone of response warranted. Back went the errors noted in my edit summaries as well as the rearrangement I'd made. I responded by giving an expanded rationale for my changes on the [talk page] and re-editing each separately, so that the other editor could choose the ones they didn't like to revert and we could then discuss them.

In this process I've received rather curt, officious and what I consider insulting responses. Have I gone about this wrongly and did I deserve the response I received? Thanks. -- spin^control 09:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Usually accuracy is a good thing, but in the case of biblical canon, are you sure that's the right word? Is it possible you changed the point of view of the template from one Christian sect to another? That would set people off. The curt messages you received are routine templates. --King Öomie 12:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration -- spin^control 21:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically you annoyed the other editor by trying to force your changes into the article rather than discussing them beforehand. Since the other editor appears to be ready to compromise, and since the two of you currently appear to be working together productively, and since no other editors are currently involved, it would be best to let bygones be bygones, as I see it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I annoyed the other editor because he considered it was his territory. It is normal that an editor comes across a page that looks like it needs editing and then, well, you know,... edits and provides as clear an edit summary as possible so that another editor can understand what has happened and pays the same courtesy when working on the same page. No forcing anything, just normal Wiki procedure as I understand it. -- spin^control 03:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with changing a nav template like that is that your change will be instantly reflected on sometimes dozens of pages. WP:BRD is really not for high-traffic templates. --King Öomie 07:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully accuracy and clarity are. -- spin^control 15:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks, Disruption, & Provocations by User:North Shoreman

North Shoreman (talk · contribs)

I'm subjected to disruptive, provocative, personal attacks by this (above) user. I wish assistance in dealing with him civilly, and avoiding any Disruptiveness on Wikipedia. The main place this is now occurring is at Revisionist historians (American).

Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Diff's please.--SKATER ^Speak. 16:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please also notify the subject in the future when you file a WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I'm the subject of a Restriction [62] precisely because of the way in which this one editor engage in a content dispute with me. An administrator has imposed a Restriction on me - which of course I must and will honor. However, North Shoreman has worked on the same subject with the restricting editor, and because I've been previously Banned for two years, I think that caused me to be Restricted now. However, because my conduct was so meticulously civil, I am only Restricted, not Banned. I am trying extremely hard to follow WP Policy in order not to be Banned again. And I do not think it is proper for me to have been subjected to personal attacks in the context of such a difficult and controversial area as historical revisionism. I am willing, and able, to work through WP:Consensus - which is probably the most important WP rule. I would appreciate it very much if User:North Shoreman came forth and helped me get out of the mess he has placed me in. Since I was un-Blocked I have had no negative encounter, or Confrontation with another editor. But I believe that only because of my Content dispute with this one editor, a WP:Administrator is now subjecting me to a Restriction - which of course I shall obey until such time as the restriction is lifted. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm in this mess only because of this one editor's conduct towards me: [63].--Ludvikus (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if Ludvikus had listened to what I early on advised him of at [64] and [65] there would probably have been no restriction. As far as his take “However, because my conduct was so meticulously civil, I am only Restricted, not Banned”, I fail to see anybody saying that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ludvikus September 2009 where the decision to maintain the restriction is unanimous. As to the statement “Since I was un-Blocked I have had no negative encounter, or Confrontation with another editor”, I think a better way of phrasing that might be “It only took me five days after being released early from a two year block to initiate a confrontation that led to me being restricted.” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Within vast universe of editors, I too, find Tom (North Shoreman) to be at times a problematic, in that he declines to support his views with evidence and rational discussion, and may simply ignore material and a minor consensus with which he disagrees. (Please see Cleveland discussion.)

This might be seen as a subtle violation of etiquette.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by PRODUCER

Resolved

 – Warned.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• [66]

Please continue spouting idiotic statements

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather... terse report. Care to flesh it out? WQA is for early moderation. --King Öomie 15:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiny report is tiny, though he was incivil and I'll warn him. --SKATER ^Speak. 16:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm in this mess only because of this one editor's conduct towards me: [67].--Ludvikus (talk) 13:54, 27 September 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:Leytonorient

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – AIV for vandals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After warning this using about vandalism to Sol Campbell, in which they replaced content with pointless swearing, the user added abusive edits to my userspace. --Jimbo^[online] 12:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Clear vandals should be reported to WP:AIV as specified in the tags at the top of this page; they are not to be reported here. Even if there was an actual dispute and civility issues that we could address ourselves, your own attempts at resolving this have been pitiful - that is, you haven't even made 1 attempt to discuss this with the user; you are expected to do so before attempting to use WQA, a genuine dispute resolution mechanism. Finally, the instructions are pretty clear that you should notify the subject of a WQA - I note that you did not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 28 September 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:Jonhan

Stuck

 – Filing party feels this remains unresolved, so he is advised to use ANI or the next step in DR if there continue to be problems. Ncmvocalist (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user has used bad language on my talk page and failed to stop bothering me after I have explicitly ask him to stop. The dispute is about him claiming a source in an article being undue, and I followed the request comment request on the WT:ANIME page by user collectonian to this page to give comments on a dispute, stating per the policy, we should not call a source undue if no other sources are present.(as general proceedings) Some arguments were made on the page and the discussion did not seem to be favouring the user in question, I suggested him to ask for help in WP:ANIME's talk page or the RS notice board if he is really having problems. Things seems to have died down for quite sometime, then the user in question came to my talk page accusing me of making up a policy. Even after I have repeatedly showed him quotes of the undue page, he kept accusing me of dodging his questions and slowly developed bad languages in his replies. I asked him to stop bothering me for a few times, and even warned him not to do so in the last occasion, with no result and kept being accused by him. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from saying that Mythsearcher pulled something out of his/her "Toosh" I can't see any bad language. In addition, Jonahan has apologized for the perception that he/she was using bad language. I don't see any issue here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that, he is still bothering me on my talk page. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The user had continued to act uncivil after Toddst1 left a note on his talk page. Confirming his personal attack used is indeed deliberate. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be a lot easier if you included the diffs. jonhan (talk · contribs): insult, reply to warning on insult(s) - I don't think Jonhan understands that this isn't acceptable behaviour, yet.

• Procedural question for knowledgeable people (sorry) - Does this need a new section or reopening or escalation? Or? I lightheartedly hope I am trainable.- Sinneed 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• If the user was warned, it should be escalated - we can't do anything else here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is quite self-explained. Toddst1 approached the user, s/he continued to insist his/her personal attacks are true. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing anything but fairly minor expressions of frustration. Mythsearcher, what Jonhan was telling you is correct. An article with no sources is unreferenced, not original research. It's OR if you come up with it yourself. If you add a source, you may be challenged to show that the source asserts what you said it asserts (you've be surprised at how many people cite references that don't actually back up what they say) and there may be a discussion about how much weight to give the source, and how much weight in the article to give the information in the source. That's what WP:UNDUE is about. Apologies if at some point in that discussion you figured this for yourself.

If you think Jonhan is still being uncivil, report it at WP:ANI making sure you provide diffs.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You might have mistaken the whole situation here. Jonhan went to this article and started an edit war about the source being untrue by his own opinion, in which the source at that particular moment is the only review source in that article(other sources are only publication date sources with no review), and thus the article is not unreferenced and not original research. However, Jonhan, as the IP in the beginning, insisted the source to be incorrect(even though the incorrect part claimed is not quoted into the article per other users) and should be removed. He started using the undue argument(surprisingly, towards the end of the discussion on my page, he insisted I am the one bring up the point of undue.) Claiming the only source must be undue and others cannot give more sources with the same view, however, he never displayed any source supporting his own claim of the source being incorrect. I understand if the article has no source supporting it, it is unreferenced and OR, the problem is that the article has a source supporting the view, and the source is deemed reliable from past discussion according to other users. So Jonhan is the one asking to change the article to a unref one, not me. I said if the article is rid of all sources, it would become not notable(really unref). BTW, I am not the one adding the ref, I was only there to comment on the edit war per request. Jonhan is questioning a source that has built up certain reputation and reliability with no actual support. What he is telling me is NOT correct, or you are reading the bold sentences he quoted me saying and thought those are his words.

If you cannot find the parts of his personal attack, here it is : [68]

And his assertion of it being true: [69] (after Toddst asked him to stop and after all comments he made on my talk page)

—Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 11:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any further personal attacks since then? If there continue to be personal attacks from now, please report it to ANI, as we've done all that we can here. Otherwise, this is resolved, and the content dispute should be resolved through mediation, article RfC or more discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the user has not done any edits after that, I don't think it is resolved until some edits are made by him to indicate he understands the situation of him using personal attack is unacceptable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:45, 29 September 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:Snowded

I have been in disscussion on the English Defence League discussion page with multiple users and User Snowded has made comments about the standard of my eduction,lack of grammar amongst other things which i take as a huge insult being Dyslexic. I also feel that the way in which he speaks to users on discussions will only have a negative affect on any new WP editors who are attempting their first Edits. I have attempted to bring this user to the discussion board instead of simply reverting edits on the EDL page and yet the user warned me not to "litter his discussion page"? The issue with which the discussion was taking place on the EDL discussion is now resolved but the manner with which he has conducted his discussions towards me is my issue. I have attempted to consult with Snowded and inform him that i do not approve the way in which he has spoken to me but this has only resulted in more inflammatory comments. Can something be done to make sure this doesn't happen in the future?

EG:(sigh) suggest you hunt down your former English Teacher, show him or her the material and ask for their opinion. --Snowded TALK 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

EG:Cool it, you are well past the stage where WP:Bite applies. You've ignored several patient efforts to explain the obvious, I thought you might like to hunt down someone whose views you might respect. Oh and please, please, please learn to follow standards on comments, I've had to adjust for you again. --Snowded TALK 12:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnsy88 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor concerned is a largely single purpose account who focuses on far right issues and with a history of edit warring (with one block) In this particular case he made a mistake which was pointed out several times by several editors and he is confusing explanation with accusation. His early response to a straight forward correction was to litter my talk page and the talk page of the article concerned with irrelevant material. No one has made any comment about the standard of his education, although several editors have suggested he but some effort into reading and understanding comments rather than over reacting. I suggest if anyone is really interested in this they look at the talk page concerned and check in with the other editors involved. All of us have been doing our best to deal patiently with Jonsy88 despite a series of POV edits--Snowded ^TALK 13:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Snowded, although personally I'd avoid phrases like "littering my talk page". In my view, as an observer in this particular discussion, both he and User:Verbal have dealt as patiently as is reasonably possible with Johnsy88, who has on several occasions seemingly failed to understand the points raised in a civil manner with him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I would add that Johnsy88 has a provocative user name which is open to potential misinterpretation, given the connotations of the number 88 - see 88 (number)#As a Neo-Nazi symbol. It seems unlikely that his political views are very close to Snowded's. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was also the one who reported him for 3RR violation that led to his block! Either way I am taking my son to a rugby match, back depressed or elated later this evening. --Snowded ^TALK 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue i have is as follows................Why can you not use civility when talking to users on the WP discussion page. This is my only issue and what i would like to see rectified. All other issues have already been resolved on the EDL discussion page so please dont try to dilute this issue to make out that my complaint is still with regards to the above mentioned EDL disscussion on who was right or wrong.

With regards to the remark about the number 88 in my user name please go to http://www.youtube.com/user/johnsy88 and look at my holocaust and Vietnam war videos and you will see that out of the 900 comments on my holocaust video not one is anti semetic and all that are posted in an anti semitic context are removed within 24 hours by myself and i have been commended for this by the holocaust awareness institute. I would also like to remind you that your comment is libelous in a court and can be classed as a defamation of character so please watch your remarks.

The reasoning for the number 88 in my user name is with regards to the legendary wide receiver for the NFL Dallas cowboys Big Mike Irvin although i really see no reason to have to justify my user name to a spurious claim. Johnsy88 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe the 88 is a coincidence, and that this is all just a good faith misunderstanding on Johnny's part. However, this is an area that is going to be controversial and heated at times, so I would ask Johnny to slow down in making accusations, and just shrugging off anything he sees as an attack (unless it is clear, then it should be reported). With the line Johnny is taking on these articles I feel some suspicion is going to be aroused, but so long as he keeps his POV in check (whatever it may be) I feel we can all continue working in this area. Suffice to say I think this alert isn't warranted, and this is a misunderstanding of several points. Just so you know: I'm 100% involved (on wikipedia, outside I'm a member of liberty but no other groups or parties). Verbal chat 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Argh, sorry - it's Johnsy, not Johnny - that's my mistake and sorry if that led to some of the ill will floating about. Apologies! Like I said, I've got a headache... I'm also going to tell Johnsy about NLT and ask him to refactor that last. Verbal chat 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Snowded has done their best to remain civil and tried to be fair on the Talk:EDL page. Offering assistance, showing willingness to listen to arguments presented and acting in a conciliatory manner. as in this comment "So you agree they are political? This is also a political statement, and the right wing & protest are on the BBC citations. Does this mean we have an agreement? --Snowded TALK 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)". I don't think this comment is particularly uncivil "(sigh) suggest you hunt down your former English Teacher, show him or her the material and ask for their opinion. " After the situation had been explained and clarified, and you continued on with the same argument. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, snowded has clearly acted in an uncivil manor when discussing with myself the issue's mentioned above and what i merely seek is for snowded to extend to me the same civility that i have showed throughout discussions. He has clearly lost his temper in an attempt to get his Opinion across and replied to me in such a way which i feel is not right when carrying out discussions on wiki. Is the Comment EG:(sigh) suggest you hunt down your former English Teacher, show him or her the material and ask for their opinion. --Snowded TALK 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC) a civil way to reply? is this to much to ask?

Johnsy88 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In context isn't he saying; it is a matter of grammar, if you don't believe me ask your teacher?--Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He has clearly said it in a derogatory manor rather than as a statement of fact. Johnsy88

(talk) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a case of "confusing explanation with accusation."--Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnsy, after several attempts by myself and other editors to explain a matter of grammar to you, I suggested that you find someone else to explain it to you. It was a tongue in cheek comment but I can assure you I didn't loose my temper. Given that you have been pretty isolated in your attempts to edit, most editors on the EDL and like pages that you frequent have been going out of their way to be as fair as possible to you. In this case you jumped to an illegitimate conclusion that other editors did not think that the Islamic group in question was not extremist, when in fact everyone agreed it was. You are now jumping to conclusions about your treatment. You might want to seek out a more experienced editor as mentor. --Snowded ^TALK 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got to ask. Are you depressed or elated? Jack forbes (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Relieved, we held on to win by 4 points, referee had no understanding of obstruction and must have relatives in Llanelli. --Snowded ^TALK 22:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack forbes and Snowded, there's a time and place for everything - Wikipedia is not a forum. If you are going to discuss this sort of thing on-wiki, please find somewhere else (perhaps your user talk pages) because this is definitely not the place for it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You can blame me for that, as I asked the question. Snowded was only being polite in answering it. Jack forbes (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But he also had the choice to answer on your talk page, didn't he? In any case, as long as it doesn't happen again, it's moot. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would have replied on my talk page. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gilisa

Resolved

 – Workin' it out. King Öomie 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In User:Gilisa's latest remark [70] - which seems to come out more or less out of the blue - he manages to accuse me of (a) following his edits, (b) "spreading [my] POV anywhere [I] can", (c) wanting very badly that a 20th-century mathematician be German, apparently, it would seem, out of German nationalism. I do not need to say that, at the very least, (a) and (c) are quite false.

(As my edits on some history pages show, some of my work here consists precisely of questioning statements made by apparent German nationalists. I am not, as it happens, even German myself, though that really isn't relevant.)

It seems that, in general, Gilisa is very quick to accuse other editors (mostly not myself) of being uncivil, "really disrespectful" [71] and "highly offensive" [72] when they say something with which he happens not to agree. At the same time, he allows himself to say plenty of things about other people's edits ("feeble", "stupid" and "very weak" are typical adjectives). In particular, he once attributed to me a position I had never enunciated, and proceeded to say that it would be "seen by many people as merely post modernic Anti Semitism" [sic] [73].

This sort of thing seems to have been going on from nearly the beginning of his edits here. It is likely that others can add their own experiences, or go through his log of edits in more detail than I care to. Feketekave (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To the responsible adminstrator, Feketekave seems to be following my edits and to aburpt into discussions I have with other users on their talk page with out being invited. I was refering to some provocative argments he made (not for the first time) as feeble in this case [74], see "The survey about antisemitism" (This is my reply to him where I used all this "adjectives" for instance when he implied that my being Israeli make me unneutral about other people Jewishness (clearly his own POV)-I called this allegation stupid and not him (same for feeble and etc), Feketekave take all out of context). He also made some provocative statments and edits (basically unsurprising reverts of mine-like this one [75], see also the talk page) that seem to be driven out of POV. As for "Your insistens on defining Jewishness as merely religion may be seen by many people as merely post modernic Anti Semitism" I was indicating a fact, after he wrote this: "..With all due respect, it seems to me that a habit of labeling people you like as a "Jewish this or that" (even when they belong to no religion or other religions) can come across as the sort of exaggerated philosemitism that uses the categories of antisemitism..", and well after all my expelantions on similar issues were ignored on other discussions (foe example here, [76] where he reply to a detailed, non personall aswer I replied him in this exact words : "I will leave it for others to analyse User:Gilisa's use of language, which is based on an entire system of interesting preconceptions."), many Jewish people see it this way and it's also reflected in modern Jewish jouranlism (it also charged issue because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and from other reason-no problem to source it)-so I was indicating a fact. I used word as " disrespectful" where I found them just and in certain connection. As for Feketekave allegation that "this sort of things happen...". Well, I began in wikipedia about 3 years ago, was active for few monthes and then, after roughly few years of ceased activity, I returned about month ago. My first experiences in wikipedia have nothing to do with my current activity, then I was a total rookie and infamiliar with what going here and thats all, it's far fetched argument against me that over all have nothing to do with my current issues with Feketekave. Please contact me and I'll provide all evidence you need that this is not random and that all issues (mentioned here and others) were taken by Feketekave out of the context. I would also ask to hfollow the log of Feketekave edits in more detaill --Gilisa (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given diffs precisely so as to provide context. His charges of my having followed his edits are both untrue and a classic example of projection; he has undone another one of my edits, giving a commentary that gives a flavour of his mode of argumentation [77]: a highly misleading summary of the other user's actions is followed by verbiage and a final sentence for emphasis - and absolutely nothing that demonstrates that he has read what other people have had to say in the talk page. At any rate, this seems to have relatively little to do with myself; others can follow his log of edits and judge how he interacts with other editors. Feketekave (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, I'm seeing a pattern of you having your sensibilities offended by users not knowing intricate details of the Jewish faith and identity. This isn't the ADL, you can't just accuse people of anti-semitism because they're not experts on the subject. Instead of finding various ways to tell people that they're wrong, provide them with the correct answer. So for example, instead of saying "That's ridiculous and offensive", perhaps you could say "Actually, more so than with other religions, many families have been exclusively Jewish for hundreds of years- it's a cultural identity".

You two have only clashed on four different talkpages ([78][79][80][81]), and 9 articles, and Feketekave continues to edit actively on related pages that Gilisa isn't involved in, so I'm not seeing any real Wikistalking here (that is, he's not editing the pages because you're there- you share an interest, there's going to be an overlap). Please remember to Assume good faith when trying to determine another editor's motivations. Feketekave- that goes for you too. While ethnicity can play a part in bias, it's unfair to assume a user can't edit neutrally because of where they're from. --King Öomie 14:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an assumption I have never made. Feketekave (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was referring to "when he implied that my being Israeli make me unneutral about other people Jewishness". The relevant diff was broken. --King Öomie 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a claim on his part that I believe to be completely untrue. As you have stated, some people can be biased and some others are not. Feketekave (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I found what he was referring to-

With all due respect, it seems to me that a habit of labeling people you like as a "Jewish this or that" (even when they belong to no religion or other religions) can come across as the sort of exaggerated philosemitism that uses the categories of antisemitism. Some Israelis may not pick up on this, since they do not think in a very different way.[82]

This is exactily what you wrote: "...I hadn't heard from Kostolany, but I see from his webpage that he is actually a Catholic. With all due respect, it seems to me that a habit of labeling people you like as a "Jewish this or that" (even when they belong to no religion or other religions) can come across as the sort of exaggerated philosemitism that uses the categories of antisemitism. Some Israelis may not pick up on this, since they do not think in a very different way. Still, it comes across as odd...". It's very easy to conclude frome this wording that you imply that being Israeli=being unnutral. As I see it, you denying the obvious.--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see where he's coming from in this case. Kind of along the same line as him saying your comments could be construed as antisemitism. You're referring to Judaism as a religion, whereas he's referring to it as an ethnicity- so what we have here is a failure to communicate. --King Öomie 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingoomieiii - this was a reply I wrote to a third user; contrary to what Gilisa assumes, I did not have him in mind. ("They", incidentally, refers to some Israelis who make their well-intentioned German friends say disturbing things, not to Israelis in general; I would not like to go into off-topic personal experiences.) Perhaps we should be sticking to procedure here, rather than to substantive issues. I do not believe, however, that what we have here is exactly a failure to communicate; rather, User:Gilisa refuses to believe that other people may have heard of his (rather rigid) categories, and yet not work fully within them. Gilisa has every right to his cultural identity, as you put it; the matter, in my view, is that we do not have the right to impose our own identities on biographical subjects, especially those born in times and places different from ours. "Ethnicity" is a word that came into common usage relatively recently.

At any rate, the point I have made a couple of times (in relation to more than one group; this is a general issue) is that we should attempt to describe rather than label. Many sterile disputes in Wikipedia (from Copernicus onwards; see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars) could be avoided entirely if we tried harder to keep this in mind.

That said, and returning to the main matter: the fact is that Gilisa is not engaging constructively with other users, and that he has happened to say of me (in the context of [83]): "Feketekave, stop following my edits and spreading your POV anywhere you can. Emmy Noether was Jewish, even if it's hard for you to accept that she was not German as much as you like her to be. BTW, Noether's brother who live in Germany after the Nazis raised to power, flee germany because he wasn't an ethnical German.--Gilisa (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)". Please explain how this is acceptable. Feketekave (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is WQA, so I'd be remiss to break into discussing the content dispute here. I'm not really concerned with who is/isn't Jewish. You two have very different viewpoints on this, so to both of your the other appears to be making provocative edits. I'm seeing equal amounts of The Truth© from both of you- take a moment to consider that perhaps your way of seeing this isn't entirely correct. If you can't do this, you're just going to keep pissing each other off until one (or both) of you is banned. Gilisa, please stop making assumptions and accusations about other editors- you accomplish nothing but making them angry. Also, I'd prefer not to close this without a response from you. --King Öomie 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I repeat: I am not remotely concerned with who is Jewish, Mormon or Tasmanian. I understand very well that User:Gilisa is assigning me to one of his standard categories of heresy, but I find it hard to recognise myself in it. My point is precisely that we should be less concerned with labelling people as Jewish, Mormon or Tasmanian, and more concerned with other matters on which it is possible to approach objectivity. Feketekave (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Standard category of heresy?" Don't bring people to WQA if you're going to insult them. The page can't withstand irony of that magnitude.

Once again, take a minute and brainstorm how he might think he's correct. It's possible he sees his edits as uncontroversial corrections. It's a cultural perspective I assume you don't have, but you did touch on it in the section I quoted above. Get him to explain his perspective in his own words, preferably on one of your talk pages (as not to disrupt any discussion on actual articles). --King Öomie 15:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

King, thanks for your bridging efforts. You are very right about that I see my edits as uncontroversial corrections (after all I never claimed without no basis that someone who wasnt/isnt Jewish is one) but I really do see Feketekave determined statements as controversial and as he was also the first to imply that I have POV on Einstein's talk page and after he left this comment on Ashkenazim talk page:

"Isn't it a bit bizarre that four of the people in the photo box were actually Christian, at least nominally? (One of them was actually a Christian by faith and upbringing who was by all accounts rather serious and sincere about his religion - namely, Felix Mendelssohn.) And aren't several of the other members "Jewish" only by fate (like Emmy Noether) or on a very nominal basis?

It is probably the case than in many "ethnicity" pages there is a tendency to grab at whoever is famous and has been claimed by somebody or the other before. Still, that doesn't make such a practice terribly encyclopaedic. Feketekave (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)"

A comment that include original research (for Noether at the least) and that was at the least the third to appear in an artical/talk page that I edit before I asked him to stop spreading his POV and following my edits . I think that his words can speak for themselves "I understand very well that User:Gilisa is assigning me to one of his standard categories of heresy". He already made similar assertions before: because as a Jew who familiare very well with Jewish history and becuase I think that some times the Jewishness of notable people is being treated in uncomparable underrate manner, and because I firmly believe that Jewishness is about ethnicity (even if people can became Jewish by religious convertion), the same way that no body doubt that being French or being Pakistani is also much related with ethnicity- than I'm a fundementalist. Typically this kind of uncivil assertions (and they are uncivil, and I found this one after a brief and still incomplete reading of his comments on this page) don't need an answer, but as they are severe I muct answer shortly. I am Jewish person who is interested and proud in the history of his people in the same way that many British people proud in their British history, or Peruvian history or whatever. I'm not a nationalist, I fully believe in the rights of any other people that are not Jewish and anyway, I never made any kind of religious assertions about non Jews, and as long as one don't hate me because I'm Jewish I realy have no problem with him/her or any prejudice or any ridiculous form or racial superiority feelings, so balming me for being religious fundementalist is realy bad idea. --Gilisa (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your edits are not uncontroversial- that should be obvious, since the issue has escalated to the point that a WQA post was required. Discuss your changes and find a compromise. Your definition of 'ethnicity' is your opinion, and is not automatically correct just because it involves something you're personally vested in. --King Öomie 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue on Einstein talk page is much more complex than that and it was heavily discussed. Actually, one editor changed the entry of ethnicity on the article from "Jewish" to "Jewish and German" ( on the authority of himself/herself). There was no agreement on such definition on the article talk page and ethnicity entry itself was added after some editors refused the include any mentioning for Einstein Jewishness on the open paragraph lead (even it played important role in his life, espcially in his social life) -this wasn't my idea and anyway Einstein already deceased. On Zamanhof article I only added to the open paragraph that he was born into a Jewish faimly, it's a very well known fact, I don't think that wikipedia stop us from indicating fact. The previous edit indicated that he was of Jewish descent, this wording as I and other users see it, imply that he was born to Jews who converted to other religion(I named two on the talk page of the article, these two replied to Feketekave on alike discussion on Einstein's talk page much before) but Feketekave choosed not only to revert my edit, but actually to delete it entierly, with no discussion, mentioning only that my claim that "of Jewish descent" may sounds as refer to one whose anscetors were Jews who converted to other religion is "odd" and after my reply he wrote ..well.. you better read it all [84]. Anyway, I do not wish to continue this kind of wikipedia wars (indeed these kind of wars are lame) and I'm willing to have cease fire with Feketekave.--Gilisa (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see [85]. Notice that User:Gilisa is referring to an edit made before his offer of a "ceasefire", and that his edit and comments came after it. Notice as well that User:Gilisa is making edits to things he has written here to which you have already replied; this is confusing and potentially misleading.

As for irony, I regret it, but it has evidently not been understood. I do believe he honestly believes himself to be in the right; behaviour resulting from conviction rather than malice can still be aggressive and disruptive. Feketekave (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Feketekave, I saw your edit after I suggested cease fire. The only explenations you gave for this edit (wouldn't be fallacious to define as aggressive and disruptivewere as well) were all or mostly ad hominem accusations and I found myself bound to reply, but you are right, I should made more efforts to end this struggling and I'm still willing.--Gilisa (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this discussion to be overly aggressive and lasting too long, I'm willing to start a new disscussion. I don't think that your last edit was right but I'm willing to discuss it from the begininng (in the meanwhile I've self revert myself as an act of good will), with clean hands and mind, just to give chance for a cease fire.--Gilisa (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the sound of that. Good luck.

Closing this as resolved. --King Öomie 19:08, 28 September 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.