Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive68

User: Mike R

User: Mike R removed some sourced content from the Young Republicans article, calling it a "s--- list". Because he gave no other explanation for this removal, and because of the profane nature of his edit summary, I reverted his edit and posted a polite warning on his talk page. He then pasted a rude, template-less uncivil warning on my talk page, using the phrase "s--- list" twice and referring to my action as "asinine". I would like this to be resolved, as I feel User: Mike R has been acting in a disruptive, uncivil fashion. This user has also referred to other Wikipedia users as "jackanapes", here: [1]. I think someone should remind him not to be rude. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I do not see where you advised the other user of this WQA filing. Second, I will politely suggest that you make use of the "Preview" button - I have noted a few situations where you have 5 or 6 edits in a row, each of which is a minor edit of the previous. Third, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.

From what I see, the genesis is a content dispute. User:Mike R removed a possibly inappropriate section of an article with a valid edit summary of remove shitlist. To be on a shitlist is to be on a list of people that you're angered at and/or may take action against. To list a number of non-notable individuals as "supporters" following a controversial situation does appear to be a shitlist. His edit summary was therefore quite clear. Because of this, no warning was needed - however, under WP:AGF I can see how you felt otherwise. It would have been less of a poke to discuss on the talkpage or even on the editor's page, rather than warn. Indeed, this is what Mike R went on to do - he created a section on the article talkpage to discuss the situation.

You will note that he referred to the edit as "asinine" and not you as "asinine" - slight difference, but he did (as per WP:NPA comment on the edit, not the editor. He fully explained his reasoning on your own talkpage. Perhaps he could have AGF'd in your direction, but I see nothing worth additional action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. I had never heard of the term "shitlist" before, and I thought he was simply being profane and disruptive by using the S-word in an edit summary; I didn't realize the term "shit list" actually had a meaning beyond simply "a list that I think is a piece of shit". Sorry about the misunderstanding. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding my db-person tag on Gillian Tett

Resolved

 – Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, but the article has been improved at least

There is a discussion about my tagging the article Gillian Tett for speedy deletion on my talkpage (User talk:A More Perfect Onion#Gillian Tett), with heated language about policies and guidelines. My offer of a cup of tea did not defuse the heated language. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left them a friendly note on their talkpage - I'd stay off of it for now until things settle. I will also let them know of this WQA entry for you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• The editor made another comment on my talk page in this section and at User talk:A More Perfect Onion#Speedy deletion contested: Patrick Mara just after 07:00 UTC today. I suspect he did not drink the tea I offered. At what point should I escalate from WQI to an admin noticeboard? Also, I have been staying away from the Gillian Tett article (except for a minor close-italics tag just a few minutes ago); I think I had the thought before you even suggested it. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: from the way s/he is going at it, s/he is in the frame for a block for edit warring shortly.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

She's hugely soapboxing. As I have now spent time trying to assist her (and been insulted for it) and even made some edits to the article, I can say no more other than this. She doesn't care to know Wikipolicy, and we're all just racist misogynists. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Already at ANI. OP notified about forum-shopping

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

Being abusive and racist on the Talk:Pakistan page [2], constantly disruptive and continous POV in numerous articles, asking politely and warned on numerous occasions, still persistant, user's talk page full of warnings and complaints. Has now become racially abusive. Khokhar (talk) 20:23, 27 July 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.

Abusive User

Resolved

 – Passed up to WP:AN/I. JJimbo3 blocked 31hrs by Virtual Steve

This user is continually using abusive language to myself and other users now here. Some excerpts of what he's saying:

"If we go by your logic via that empty little head of yours..."

"Are you frickin crazy?"

"Professionalism my ass. You cunts are the direct opposite of it."

I admit I am also being rude to him at times, but he's escalating it beyond rudeness to abuse, and it's not just me he's speaking to this way anymore. Can someone sit him down and have a chat with him please? The Clawed One (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by others does not excuse the incivility of someone else. He's new. He's been warned, I gave him one my handy-dandy personalized welcomes, just for the uncivil type of new users. I anticipate his reply in this forum - and I'll keep an eye on him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care what you all do here. I just won't stand for someone insulting me to no end, for NO reason when I simply present a relatively normal question. As for my comments, sure. Whatever. They were really rude. I acted like a prick towards one person. He acted like one towards a dozen. Now, do you see any sort of reasonable flaw with just me getting the blunt of this? I thought so. :< --JJimbo3 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This most likely isn't much of my business, but I'd like to throw my word into this; The Clawed One has been anything but professinal in his approach by attemtping to ride on some sort of non-existent authority. User JJimbo3 simply presented a specific article with a question, but was met with rudeness and harassment by user The Clawed One. At the same time, I stepped in to try and calm the situation down before the two escalted it into a content war, yet I too was met with an inexcusable attitude and rudeness by The Clawed One. I believe both sides of this fight need be analyzed. JJimbo3 has been very unpleasant in this way of dealing with this, but on the flip side none of it would have escalated to this if The Clawed One hasn't been thinking more logically and professionally. --Zeromus911 (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. You say what you want to, I'll stick by my end. --JJimbo3 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say, now that I think about this, I find it interesting you two joined within days of each other and post at almost the same time over and over...as for my conduct, I act rude, I don't curse and swear at people and call them cunts. The Clawed One (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting coincidences occur, but I already stated, I didn't "join" recently. I believe I already explained it back at the Dissidia article. I don't want there to be any tension, especially when I'm simply trying to be a mediator. From the get-go, I failed to understand your hostility towards me personally. Perhaps you should enlighten me; enlighten us, why you would lash out against someone who's just trying to be logical and calm everyone down. --Zeromus911 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Except you haven't been a mediator, you've largely taken JJimbo's side of things and just reiterated his opinions in a calmer tone. The Clawed One (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. I've sided with both of you if you actually paid attention. Both of you were right at certain parts, and wrong at certain points. All I was looking for was a middle ground. You know, now that I actually think on it, it's kind of scary how similar you two are, both aren't satisfied with coming to a logical resolution and only wanting what you want individually, hehe... Anyways, I'm really not looking to make enemies or anything, though I can't say the same for you or JJimbo3. All I want is a common ground. --Zeromus911 (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The key difference is that what I want for the article is what the Admins both here and elsewhere have agreed is what should be done. The Clawed One (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And admins tend to decide on majority decisions. I get the feeling that particular article didn't get the same amount of elbow room as a dozen others. Perhaps you should try to think more logically and reason, instead of pretending to be the Wikipedia Hero of Justice and Righteousness on behalf of the admins. In any case, I haven't made any edits or recommendations whatsoever on that article. I've said my piece on the matter, and I really do hope I don't get any more needless static for speaking my mind out. If you want to keep doing this the way you have been, I don't think I need to tell you that you'll be getting angry and frustrated all too often from eager fans. Just know that there are different, more reasonable methods to avoid the frustration. In any case, I really don't want to be involved in this any further... --Zeromus911 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jjimbo3, there's massive problem with your logic: as I mentioned earlier, incivility in others NEVER excuses your own incivility. Think of it as the "two wrongs don't make a right" theory. In Wikipedia, we have official ways of dealing with incivility - you bring it to forums such as this one for low-level incivility that may have a chance of being resolve early, or WP:RFC/U if it's a pattern of abuse, or WP:ANI when someone needs an immediate block. Your role as a Wikipedia editor, when confronted with incivility directed at you, is to take it to the right forum early, and not to respond in-kind. There is never, ever, ever any reason to call ANY editors "cunts". I was truly hoping you would have been wise enough to have struck those comments, and at least acted a little bit sorry. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Editor Jjimbo3 blocked 31 hours for gross incivility. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JJimbo3_-_escalated_from_WQA for further information.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil comments

This alert is regarding interaction between Kryolux (talk) and myself in editing Ellenville, New York. First notice of uncivil behavior was given in response to this message. Editor later edited Ellenville's article leaving an uncivil edit summary. --JBC3 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you focus on the correctness of the edits rather than the signs of annoyance the other editor is showing? I notice that the talk page of the article contains no discussion whatsoever at this point. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of the article regarding the possible copyright violation. Is that not what you are referring to? --JBC3 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I should not have to be subject to this kind of communication. --JBC3 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Looie for hitting the nail on the head! Instead of FIRST bringing his FALSE assumption to the talk page for discussion, JBC3 precipitously and arbitrarily ASSUMED a copyright violation where none existed. HAD HE "focused on the correctness of the edits" instead of just assuming and acting in a high-handed and patronizing manner, and then getting all prickly about my "signs of annoyance," this could have been avoided. His rudeness and incivility (plus hypocrisy for telling ME to use discussion pages first, but not doing likewise), from MY perspective, is just as viable, but I didn't go whining to the Wikiquette gods about it. (For more details on MY perspective, see MY talk page.)

If you tell me HOW to erase the "uncivil" part of the summary, I'd be happy to oblige. Kryolux (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to address the copyright violation concerns I have on the article's talk page. --JBC3 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kryolux, your way of writing is conveying a level of emotion that you might not intend -- if you could aim for a flat, unemotional tone, it might be helpful here. Now that the issues have been laid out on the talk page, it ought to be possible to resolve this by focusing on the facts of the matter without assuming any intention to offend on either side. Looie496 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Kryolux's civility needs some improvement please remember to stay calm, always assume good faith and stick to discussing edits not editors. --neon white talk 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Black Lists" and User: CyclePat

I removed this odd message, [3] from my talk page after CyclePat left it there; he said he was putting me on a "black list" which he personally maintains. Is this a violation of policy on his part?

He did this because I had removed from the article Proton a link to Space Colonization in that article's "See Also" section. I removed that link because no indication was given as to why it would be relevant, and at the time I removed the link there was no absolutely mention in the article's text as to why it would be relevant either, so I did the right thing, yet CyclePat ended up putting me on his "black list". What's up with this? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask the user first? That's always the first location to resolve differences is between editor. It does appear to be a bit of a violation of WP:AGF on both of your parts. Please discuss it with them - if such a written "list" exists, it will be deleted as an attack page quickly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It's not particularly civil, but I don't believe he actually has any kind of blacklist. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to AGF when the other user is using words like "blacklist"...Stonemason89 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally have a blacklist in my head of stores I won't shop at ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User Niteshift36, personal attacks

Resolved

 – Nightshift36 has been officially warned against WP:NPA whether he thinks so or not. Nothing else to see as no additional NPA activities have occurred

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

User User:Niteshift36 is continually engaging in personal attacks and incivility, openly dismissing the views of other editors for their alleged politics as they view them and appears to have a conflict of interest in the current dispute as well. I believe this person should be reminded that their actions here and overall here are not acceptable given Wikipedia policy. Revrant (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:Revrant should review his own part in the matter and see that he hasn't been as "exceedingly cordial" as he claims. Further, his allegation of a conflict of interest in this complaint is not only wrong-headed, but bordering on a personal attack. I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the movie, anyone who appeared in, produced or distributed it. I have zero connection to the movie at all. So his "conflict of interest" allegation is really just a matter of his not liking the fact that I disagree with him. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think Revrant is being a touch thin-skinned here. A review of the section and article talkpage he links shows a robust disagreement. I don't see any particular incivility on the part of Niteshift36 there. I've encountered Niteshift a few times in AfDs and always found him cordial and professional. For the record, I'm a fire-breathing left-winger. ;) Crafty (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will not reply further to the user in question on the page in question considering the multiple attacks at this point, but I will point out this is a clear violation of the rules, not a misinterpretation or being "thin skinned", there is no grey area on the matter.
• A Conflict of Interest claim cannot be a personal attack, it is defined by Wikipedia as Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
• Personal attacks in question are Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence., Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream., these are just clear violations of the rules, not misunderstandings, most of all the latter has been violated repeatedly and continues to be. Revrant (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What, so now this is about Niteshit36 holding right-wing views and saying the same on his Userpage? Crafty (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't claiming that I have a conflict of interest because of my user boxes or political beliefs "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wouldn't saying "I realize given you act on your own politics to guide your processes when editing..." be in violation of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"? Just stop playing the innocent victim dude. You're doing the exact same thing you're claiming I am doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a conflict of interest, I was merely correcting his misunderstanding of what Wikipedia defines it as, this is about I didn't say you aren't intelligent, I said you allege that you are. Since I've not seen evidence of it, I can only classify it as an allegation. attacks, now if I have any intelligence at all, I believe I was just told I'm stupid, there is no grey area, it's a blatant personal attack at this point.

I was not discrediting your views in any fashion, I was noting how they may be interfering with your stake in the matter, discrediting, a violation of the rules, would be 'it's merely a smokescreen thrown up by you and a strong indicator of your own beliefs. only to you and your ilk alleged intelligence, Only people of certain types of political persuasions can't comprehend that, simply being told I'm stupid as there is no "evidence" to suggest otherwise is simply an insult and not relevant to that part of the policy.

Considering you are proud of that and in fact expressed doubt that I was not the same way and your user history is quite plainly oriented around defending political entities you find favorable, no, it is not, and I see now that not only are you not attacking me, but what you're not doing, is what I am doing, that's rather hard to chew. Revrant (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I never called you stupid. You were the one who brought your intelligence into the conversation. And you are discrediting my views by telling (not suggesting maybe, but making a statement of fact) me that I "act on my politics" is discrediting my views. Further, not just me, but another editor attempted to tell you that "neo-conservative" and "conservative" aren't interchangeable terms. You dismissed that as simply a 'if you want to tell yourself that' kind of thing. Who would know better than me if I am a neo-con or not? You're telling me that you know better than I do what my own beliefs are. Yet you see that as "exceedingly cordial"? I have no conflict of interest, despite your repeated allegation. You've shown no evidence of one other than the fact that I disagree with you. Did you perhaps mean I have a conflict with your interest? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• My edit history? You mean a couple of hundred AfD's, saving an article here or there about an actress or a bodybuilder? Or maybe the ones about cities or military units? Or did you just scan and see a few articles I edited like Sean Hannity and not even bother to read things like me writing that I don't really even listen to the guy more than about an hour a week? Like I said, you see some user boxes and think you know everything about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • • I apologize, apparently I cannot read now and am unable to deduce any meaning from the English language, calling my intelligence as a person alleged is not calling me stupid, I simply have no response to such a claim given this is a case of looking at the sky and being told it's pink, and apparently taking offense to insults directed at my intelligence exonerates you because I brought it up. I believe most editors act on their views, in order for me to discredit them I would have to actually criticize them, which I did not. I felt they were a conflict of interest in the inclusion of this content, partially because the very same content is present on the Religulous article, indeed an identical commercial comparison, yet you do not care, therefore I discerned that there may be a conflict of interest.
    • I never used them interchangeably, I was simply told that I was wrong to use the term and it was invented to demonize, I didn't dismiss it at all, I separated my observation from your opinion via your preference, I hold the same view, but your preference was duly noted. You ask a bizarre question considering all of your attacks have been essentially telling me my own politics in defiance of my assertions, am I to understand I am not allowed to discern your openly available politics yet you are allowed to apply politics to me as an attack while I provide none? The evidence is quite plainly part of your arguments and contributions, however my interest is the betterment of articles, so the answer is yes, I believe there is a conflict of interest in both circumstances.
    • I really am not going to enter into a debate over the political edits and discussions, I have zero interest in that, I am merely noting that the supposition that you edit with politics in mind is substantiated, and you made it clear to me that you didn't believe me when I denied adhering to the same standard, and again, it is not to discredit you, but it is a path of seeking an end to the content dispute by using it as an example of why a third party may be necessary. Revrant (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to take a look at Niteshift36's discussions here at Talk:Sean_Hannity.06:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargnoc (talk • contribs)

That is not truly beneficial to this proceedings, but it is duly noted as evidence that my supposition of a conflict of interest was not a personal attack, but an observation supported by appropriate evidence. Revrant (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have viewed Niteshift36 preemptively claiming bias possibly in an effort to shield his own conflicts of interest.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for an example of Niteshift36's apparent modus operandi in editing- complete removal of information from an article that reflects negatively on an individual sharing his political views, often claiming the material as BLP or unsourced, apparently making no attempt to compromise or find a readily available source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Ingraham&diff=303878368&oldid=303878225 The end result is that relevant facts are being removed from articles.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An example of Niteshift36's confrontational tone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Dux&diff=302252137&oldid=30222012#FACTUAL_EVIDENCE I've been reviewing Niteshift36's edits and I appear to see a pattern of conflicts of interest and lack of neutrality - usually resulting in reversions or deletions of information or attempts to delete articles. Often it seems Niteshift36 reaches conclusions about deletion of an article due to personal beliefs then finds a wikipedia rule that might be warped to support such conclusions, but that's just how it appears.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be offended by insults as to my intelligence, but I can readily admit my now past ignorance as to the history of the user in question, had I been aware of these past interactions I likely would have simply kept observing the content dispute and not interacted or attempted to instigate a third party response only to be attacked. Revrant (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now this is some funny stuff: Stargnoc, an editor who only edits very specific articles has been working for months to insert specific material, the same material and has had it reverted by several editors besides myself, comes in to complain about that....on the same night that we reached a compromise on the materiasl. The Frank Dux article? A never-ending battle with multiple sockpuppets that have been blocked who actually are pushing a POV and admin intervention was required. Apparently neither of you have a grasp on what a COI is. The actual COI in that article is the editor (and his sockpuppets) that is trying to insert unsourced claims. What Stargnoc fails to include is a diff like this one: [4], where I searched out actual reliable sources and re-insert negative info with relieable sources, instead of just removing it or leaving it with an unreliable source. Both of you have have been arguing about the same material that multiple editors have removed and both of you claim "consensus" for your position where there is none and have engaged in your own aggressive editing (such as Stargnoc calling me a "liar" and a "hypocrite"). Now you team up to try to run this game. This is actually getting entertaining. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment While this more and more becomes a mere continuation of an existing argument, I will add this for Niteshift36: if you say "you allege to have intelligence, but I have yet to see any", that is indeed a personal attack, hands-down, no questions asked. There is no possible way for it to read as anything other than "I think you're unintelligent". Consider yourself warned, and I advise you to not continue such statements. Meanwhile, anyone who refers to another editor as a "liar" is also in violation of WP:NPA. Why don't you all back away from the article(s) in question for a week and calm down. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you can't read it any other way. I have explained what the comment meant as I wrote it. I guess you know my intent better than I do. It appears you only read what is here and didn't bother to read the rest of the material in question. If you had, you would have seen that I was the one who suggested to Stargnoc that we get more opinions and that he did indeed ccall me a liar and a hypoctite. I'm not sure that you can swoop in and tell me "consider yourself warned", as if you are anything besides an editor with an opinion. In the interest of disclosure, Bwilkins is a member of the Article Rescue Squad and has been on the "keep" side of articles that I !voted "delete" on, then the articles were deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In written text, inflection does not get read. So, how it reads is how it comes across. Your comment, regardless of intent reads as a PA. I didn't warn you on your talkpage, and I also warned other users about their comments. The fact that I have an ARS userbox means nothing - I'm sure I've !voted "delete" on some you've !voted "keep" on as well. Stop attacking the neutral parties here, as that won't get you far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't attack you at all. Second, I doubt you voted !delete anywhere I've voted !keep. Third, I must have missed the warnings to the others. Would you mind pointing me to them? Lastly, you read it how you read it. I can't control that part. I do have a question though, why are you so quick to point out that your user box means nothing, but fail to even address that "issue" when the original poster is raising that issue about my user boxes? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have challenged my ability to be neutral, based on a userbox. I did not address the issue of your userboxes, as it's a red-herring in the entire discussion. My warning to others was "anyone who refers to another editor as a "liar" is also in violation of WP:NPA", which is one of the major incidents of incivility against you directly. Again, neither of you are getting any talkpage warnings, however, if you would like one, I'd be happy to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't challenge anything. I disclosed any interactions we've had prior to this. Crafty above says we've had interactions before this (which he dislcosed), but I don't recall them. Of course the userbox thing is a red herring, like I've been saying, despite the fact thast much of this complaint is based on them. I guess I missed your "warning" because to told me to "consider myself warned", but kind of glossed over the other one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Outside Editor Comment: First of all, TIME OUT. This is a forum for external comment on a user's civility, not a forum for editors to continue their disagreement. Having said that

• Disclosure: I have not been involved in the editing disputes between User:Revrant and User:Niteshift36. I have been involved in editing the Frank Dux article with User:Niteshift36, where I have found him to be a neutral and reasonable editor.
• The use of attacks by single purpose, anonymous IP attacks on User:Niteshift36 in the Frank Dux forum as "examples" of his incivility is not only irrelevant but intellectually dishonest. A simple glance at the content of the talk page can illuminate that.
• Maybe User:Revrant has examples of incivility that he did not initially post, but the examples that he has provided have demonstrated, if anything, a lack of WP:AGF on his part. I would request that the user review those policies before canvassing this forum.

Djma12 ^(talk) 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no editing dispute.
• No, I suppose breaking the rules can be disqualified by selective qualifiers.
• AGF in being called stupid? I would assume you review WP:AGF and show me where it says you can insult other people, AGF has zero to do with personal attacks, and indeed is qualified in AGF as something you should not do. Revrant (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • So you post this here, ask for opinions, then respond to those who don't see it your way with sarcasm. Interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some other things mentioned in AGF: "but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith." Might want to consider those before claiming edits are motivated by user boxes. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Given the absurdity of the statement, I felt the only way to state my disapproval was with sarcasm. I already stated I was using multiple factors to suggest there might be a conflict of interest, in no way did I assert any sort of bad faith motive in regard to the article, that was his suggestion, in which being called stupid was somehow a lack of Good Faith on my part, this boggled my mind. Revrant (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Repeating something that is false never makes it true. I never said you were stupid. So repeating that I did (in bold print no less) simply shows a willingness to "interpret" events for people rather than being factual. I suspect the lack of good faith he was referring to was the one you showed leading up to my comment, the ones where you made baseless allegations about a COI and decided that my life was defined by userboxes. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • if you say "you allege to have intelligence, but I have yet to see any", that is indeed a personal attack, hands-down, no questions asked. There is no possible way for it to read as anything other than "I think you're unintelligent". Consider yourself warned, and I advise you to not continue such statements. Meanwhile, anyone who refers to another editor as a "liar" is also in violation of WP:NPA. Why don't you all back away from the article(s) in question for a week and calm down.
    • I believe you are challenging this yet again, there is no other interpretation, and I will not address it again. I assumed good faith until I was outright attacked and insulted, and after stretching said good faith even in the face of said attacks I ran out of it and gave up on attempting to help the situation, good faith is not a bottomless pit. Revrant (talk) 18:20, 31 July 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:Giovannii84 and music notability

I ran across this user (Giovannii84 (talk · contribs)) and found that they have yet to post anything in talk, and typically don't even comment on their edits. Much of what they contribute is AfD. I'm not that familiar with the best way to deal with situations like this, but it looks like this user might be nothing more than a 'puppet bot' working for some media publisher. Then again, I could be wrong. Could someone help me out and keep me from looking like a total ass? Spectre9 (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Please help us help you help Wikipedia." Making your notification a little more simple-to-understand would be a good place to start. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this user might be a link-advert-spam, and perhaps a WP:SOCK. Looking at articles edited by this user and related user reveals a pattern of adding songs and albums, no sources. See User:Sahafan for another example (no talk, lots of songs) Spectre9 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'll do my best to add citations in future. (Giovannii84 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

Please do, and please make sure you are aware of WP policies on notability. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Stale

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is reverting my edits on unrelated articles after accusing me of "axe-grinding" on an AfD. I tried to start a discussion on his user page but he reverted it with "No." I don't know what to do about it. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The reverts have stopped but his comments about me being a SPA (even though I don't have an account) and 'axe grinding' remain. He has actively refused to communicate with me in any way to explain himself so I'm marking this stale.74.237.158.41 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Renominating articles for deletion when there is a clear consensus to keep them is pretty disruptive behavior, and I think that "axe-grinding" is a pretty fair characterization of your editing at the AFD. It's pretty common, and not really a sign of bad behavior, when encountering an editor who is behaving disruptively in one forum to take a look at the contribs in order to see whether the behavior is one-of-a-kind or part of a pattern. In short, at this point I see more problems with your behavior than with HW's. Looie496 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Response: Clear consensus? The last AfD for that article was no consensus. When I nominated it the author immediately started canvasing which is why it may seem like axe grinding, but really I was just frustrated about the canvassing. I have marked this discussion as stale because this conflict seems to be over, so I would appreciate it if you would not reply to it after the fact saying I'm the problem. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Spanishboy2006

Resolved

User:Spanishboy2006 is threatening me, stalking me, insulting me:

"You are being closely watched. [...] You are being watched, every change, move or reversion you will make which most of the time is violated will be reported. [...] Nice try, Cinema C, лажљивац.(google translator says so)" diff

(лажљивац means liar or shammer in Serbian [5])

User is already blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring on Kosovo related articles and received his warning to stop breaking Wikipedia rules. He seems to have not learned anything, so I advise the administrators to consider further action. --Cinéma C 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear he is not destined for a long career on Wikipedia. If he keeps up the fire and brimstone threats, I'd report him directly at WP:AN/I rather than come back here.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has prevented Spanishboy2006 (talk · contribs) from editing his talk page for the duration of the block. [6] — madman bum and angel 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help with a user Makrand Joshi

I am not a person who posts regularly. Yet when I try and edit a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iipm, then a user called Makrand Joshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makrandjoshi) reported me for being a sock puppet after just 'one' editing of the Iipm page. The report was found to be false (for the moment). After that when I wrote on the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Blog_and_JAM), user Makrand Joshi tried to accuse me again of being a sock puppet. I need help in handling user Makrand Joshi who is not using the right words with me. Please guide me on how to proceed and help me. Wifione (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The last edit to either the talk or the article was on July 1, 2009 ... from what I saw, you weren't CALLED a sock, you were advised that it was similar behaviour to a known sockmaster - very different ideas. Simple idea: change how you work. We don't say "I'm waiting a day then doing X", because we don't all work on Wikipedia during specific timeframes, and that seems to be the type of action that is similar to a known sockmaster, and that is the type of action that has raised concern. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This was also posted to WP:ANI. Generally, we don't open multiple threads about the same person/incident in multiple forums; that can be considered forum shopping. Please do not bring up the same incident/editor in multiple forums. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the ANI one, and gave the editor my handy-dandy forum-shopping template {{subst:User:Bwilkins/forumshopping}} (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. i'll keep that in mind....Wifione (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it very curious that this user is registering a complaint against me. The user's behavior has been very similar to sockmasters in the past. Making large unilateral scale reverts without any wiki-policy-related justifications, and adding misleading tags. Re[eating the same old "I will be changing this page in X days" refrain. Then suddenly disappearing for weeks at end without responding to messages on the talk page., Reappearing weeks or months later, and carrying out edits that seem intended to whitewash the institute in question. Even today, after user wifione returned to the page after weeks, the same pattern of behavior was seen. The user a) Deleted validly cited info from the intro and added a primary source line with an obvious intention of whitewashing, 2) Posted a message on the talk page just vaguely saying "I dispute the article's neutrality" without giving any specific reasons 3) Despite wiki policy guidelines against it, unilaterally and acting alone, added a "disputed" tag to the content without providing any reasons. And on top of it, this user is saying "I" am not using the "right" words when dealing with him/her???? I guess sticking to wiki policy, asking for valid reasons for edits, reverts and tagging, all seem to be "wrong" words when the objective is whitewashing a wikipedia article with solely PR-centric aims in mind? Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you actually go and file your sockpuppet report, it is uncivil to continue to suggest that they are one. This forum does not deal with socks, it deals with civility. Until you're willing to file it, stop saying it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I did file a sockpuppet complaint. The judgment on it was "possible" and admins there who banned the sockmaster months ago are going to look for more evidence Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

hi bwilkins, i will also continue to engage makrand in proactive discussions. i clarified to him how i had logged in after almost a month of vacations and how he got his reply within an hour of my logging in. anyway, he has again called me a sock puppet and has removed two tags (one: which said there is a dispute about factuality of the article... Two: which said the dispute has been put up for third party view). but hopefully editor makrand joshi will move away from being a single purpose account that he has been till now... thanks... cheersWifione (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your useless tag from the article. It hardly matters whether you are a sock, using tags to express a point of view is disruptive. If you feel that changes need to be made, edit the article, don't try to force your point of view by tagging. Looie496 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

dear Looie496. i wish to mention that wikipedia itself mentions that if a dispute is not resolved, then one should be calm and put up a disputed tag on top of the article. i believe you might not have seen the talk pages of the article. you should realise that after repeated attempts to clarify facts on some particular links, 'all' my changes have been reverted by user makrand joshi who continues with the accusation of a sock puppet. i therefore kindly request you to not remove the disputed tag with a simple title of it being useless. the tag, i believe, was created to resolve disputes in a civil, calm and responsible manner. if you wish me to do so, i can put up your removing the tag on the administrator board and ask their comments on how can you remove the tag when there is a clear dispute that does not seem to be getting resolved. it has been a lot of time since i've been trying to get the disputed citation removed, on the basis of which a whole section has come up. it's a request to you. kindly do not remove the tag till the dispute is resolved. warm regards, and cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs)

Ottava Rima on AfD

Resolved

 – OR advised to watch his civility. Some possible issues on both sides. Eventually withdrawn following extensive discussion

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

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been insulting and haranguing editors whose points he disagree with on a deletion discussion he started and overrode an unfavorable closure result,[7] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts, after repeated warnings to stop:[8][9][10][11] Nevertheless, in the AfD this editor:

• Calls an editor "gullible" and another is promoting a "conspiracy theory"[12]
• Having a "severe misunderstanding"[13]

(I won't initially provide diffs for the below - they should be easy enough to find)

• "Your understanding of the matter right now is just as faulty" and "your generalized ignorance" and "you have already lost any respect you could possibly have from me. Now you are just digging your whole [sic] deeper as you continue to speak to what you clearly don't know. Your statements suggest a complete disconnect from reality or an utter abuse of the human language to read what is not there."
• "Did you even bother to read the page by chance?"
• "Your undestanding of civil is as faulty as your understanding of the other guidelines."
• "Are you serious?"
• "your statements about Wikipedia are far beyond absurd "
• "Where did you get that crazy idea? "
• "Your statement is disqualified because you show an ignorance of our guidelines. Your post is insulting to anyone who bothered to read the guidelines."
• you clearly do not understand the word "ignorant" nor have you read WP:CIVIL.
• "you making it obvious that you deserve to be blocked for your false accusations"
• "your "vote" is invalid."
• "Did you just make that idea up?...Did you not bother to read WP:FORK?...it is strange for you to even think it would be how Wikipedia works.
• "Have you even read WP:BLP?...Your comments are so absurd that your vote is disqualified."
• "Your vote for keep based on the above is an admittance that you didn't read this page and probably didn't even bother to read the page on AfD....you haven't a clue what you are even taking about."
• "your post is completely invalid... You either put proper arguments based on policy to delete, or you don't make a comment....your claims to such are as nonsensicle as your understanding of the AfD process or what Wikipedia is about.

Apart from the routine incivility unleasantness, this person's verbose taunting of nearly every person who has !voted to "keep" the article is a process disruption. It takes the discussion completely off track and makes it several times longer and unpleasant to participate in. I note the editor has an extensive block log for incivility and disruption, so this does not seem to be an isolated case. Can we please nip this behavior in the bud before it earns a second indefinite block? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this any different from OR's normal behavior? >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference, I guess, is that I don't often encounter this editor or this sort of behavior. Are you suggesting he has a pass for this? Wikidemon (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it's par for the course and should be ignored. I don't oppose a WQA on it, though; I just don't think it will go anywhere. But good luck. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All kidding aside, OR seems to be extraordinarily obsessive about this issue, as if he had some personal stake in it - going to almost every keep vote and lecturing them about it? (Guess he didn't see mine yet. Or else he knows better.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Something needs to be done about his behaviour. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • His block list reads like a rap sheet, although he hasn't had any blocks for over a year now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To be unfortunately honest, since Ottava Rima does not take advice from admins, he's certainly not going to respond to a WQA. If you're proving a pattern of behaviour (which it appears you are), you have only one forum, I believe: WP:RFC/U. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As a victim of his wrath, I would like to bring up User_talk:Blueboy96#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNational_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts, where he threatened to have people blocked because they disagree with him. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't completely fabricate what happened. It is clear that I threatened to take people to ANI and propose a block because they improperly closed an AfD and were participating in an edit war over said improper close. That is far different than what you claim, and your claims must be stricken immediately as they violate WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

At no point did I engage in an edit war. I didn't reopen or reclose the AFD, I simply told you that you have no right to reopen it when an admin has closed it. I am not violating WP:CIVIL by calling you out on something you did wrong, nor have I violated it at any point other than telling you to, quote "calm the fuck down" due to your obsessive and abusive behaviour over this AFD. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said you edit warred. I said that you were being disruptive in your claims about it being acceptable that it was reclosed. Snow is the only way to legitimately close something, and that is merely an essay. It also didn't apply based on what it means, and it must be accepted by the person who puts up the request. And your statement "calm the fuck down" violates both the unnecessary cussing clause and the condescension clause of WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree with Bwilkins, with all of the drama sure to ensue, any discussion about OR's behavior is way beyond the scope of WQA. This is not a comment about the necessity of such a RFC, only that a WQA has no chance at all of changing anything in this case. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• You do know that false accusations are incivil. Unless the following are corrected immediately, I will take this to ANI and demand a block for absolute falsehood in regards to accusations of policy breaking:

Claim: "*Calls an editor" The link clearly shows: "if anyone honestly believes Slrubenstein above, then you are gullible" Is there an editor mentioned? No. Thus, this is a fabrication.

The rest is equally not a breach of civility and deals with content and not individuals. However, it is clear that he does not understand what our civility guidelines even state. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use this as an occasion to attack me - it is your behavior that is under scrutiny here, and I understand civility quite well. Playing the "I didn't call you stupid, I just said you're acting stupid" game is not helpful and you know it. Further, you are insulting people directly by saying they don't know what they're doing, should be blocked, and plenty of other things. Either way it's an insult and it's not acceptable. Wikidemon (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava - an ANI filing would fall under the Plaxico effect right now, and would appear to be a tit-for-tat action due to the likely pending WP:RFC/U. Your best bet would be to review your actions now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed them. Most people have. Multiple Arbs watched the page and I talked to them. As did many of our most respected users. They knew exactly what I was saying and they knew that I didn't come close to breaching civility. Look at the things he claims are uncivil - ("you making it obvious that you deserve to be blocked for your false accusations") That is not incivil, that is what the civil guideline says! You make a false accusation and you are blocked. ("Are you serious?" ) Really? That is incivil now? I guess asking this last question is incivil too according to that standard! ("your "vote" is invalid.") Lets block everyone who had a problem with DougsTech's and PeterDamian's votes now too! Etc etc. None of those comments are incivil, and the fact that he came here is proof that he is posturing and trying to distract from an argument that he can't defend. He wants to keep a major BLP violation at AfD, and these games are just a way to do such. A disgusting abuse of process and a point violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that you have discussed this report with multiple Arbcom members, and they have opined that your behavior is okay? I find that hard to swallow - if so, please ask them to weigh in here. Otherwise, you are going to have to accept the need to stop abusing other editors yourself, or else the community is going to have to make you stop. Please don't play games with the definition of WP:CIVIL, or make ridiculous tit-for-tat counter-accusations. Your abuse of other editors here is unacceptable, and beyond the pale. In this particular case it disrupts the AfD process you yourself initiated. If you can't see the problem with your behavior and moderate it to respect the rules and norms here, you're going to have to stop editing in places where you do this. Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have talked about the page itself with multiple people in power positions and with expertise in these areas before pursuing it and during the pursuance of the AfD. Not one of them had a concern with my language. I take pains to remove any personal attack and to ensure that my language is not base or foul. The only problem with that AfD are people like you who claim that the sources are reliable when most have been proven not to be, or show a misunderstanding of our policies, including BLP, RS, Notability, etc. You need to be confronted and shown as being wrong or someone who doesn't have a clear understanding would think that your statements, though blatantly false, were correct. Not only would that destroy their understanding of our policies, it would result in a page that is a severe abuse of encyclopedic integrity to stand. The fact that you would be upset by that falls on deaf ears, as many people would rather not have people with such a bad understanding opining on important matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the above just by itself is riddled with incivility and personal attacks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not according to our definitions. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

True, Bugs. I've been glossing over the actual content of most of these posts because they hurt the eye and insult the intelligence, but that one was pretty obnoxious. Even if I can't take that kind of empty bombast seriously, it's completely unacceptable. Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"because they hurt the eye and insult the intelligence" Funny how when I say something far less abusive than this, you call me being incivil. Do you know what the term hypocrite means by chance? It would apply here. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't know when to stop, do you? I suspected you would play that silly trick sooner or later. No, the incivility - which is very much an insult to the intelligence as well as the person - is when you abuse other editors. In AfD you are supposed to comment on the article whether it meets criteria for deletion, not about other editors' behavior. This by contrast is a meta forum explicitly about behavior, in this case yours. Please just concentrate on getting along better and don't waste our time here. Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very obvious that you have stated just now far worse than anything I have said and also violated WP:NPA. You have also violated both NPA and CIVIL by misconstruing what I have stated, which was in my first response. That misconstrual is done in such a way that it is a blockable offense. I suggest you correct yourself now. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Your conduct is at issue here, and blowing smoke at other editors is not going to help your case. You are free to lodge whatever administrative complaints you wish against me or other users, but they will surely be seen as retaliatory, and your own editing is clearly the core issue here. You must be aware that every single editor here is either objecting to your behavior, or simply wants to ignore it. Not a single person so far has excused or condoned it, or accepted your claims that you are the victim here. Again, please stop wasting our time and pay some attention to what other editors have to say. Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(before intervening edits - addressed to OR 15:55 comment above) First of all, I can't take that statement at face value given all the other improbable claims. If you're being privately shielded by Wikipedia insiders, let them say so. If arbcom members are playing favorites to facilitate abuse, they'll need to answer to that in the next election, but I really doubt that. Meanwhile, here on the noticeboard where such things are heard, your so-called "pains" have not removed the incivility from your uncivil havior. If you're going to that much effort to play word games, why don't you spend a little less effort and stop lobbing ridiculous insults at other users in the first place? Reasonable discourse is simply to disagree and state your case. Calling other people idiots, as you do repeatedly (however cleverly you think you are avoiding that technical distinction), does not advance your point, wins you few allies, and does make for discussion.Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about "shielded"? You keep adding in words that don't belong and you use those words to justify novel interpretations that are far from the reality at hand. What I stated above is that I talked to many, many people, and yet the only ones complaining are those like you. Hell, you can see from Slim Virgin's talk page who all that has seen the AfD. If there were so many "concerning" statements as you listed above, someone would have said something. The simple fact is, your understanding is very far from consensus based understanding of what civility is. I have not lobbed any "insults" at all. I don't attack people. However, your accusations are a violation of WP:NPA and I suggest you stop now. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Gullible" refers to content??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, please, if you are going to respond read what I have stated. Where is the word "content"? It follows the phrase "The rest". My statement on "gullible" is that I did not call -any- editor Gullible. I put an "if then" phrase. Thus, assertions that I called someone gullible is a direct fabrication and a major (and blockable) abuse of civility, especially when they are claiming that in doing so I breach WP:CIVIL. The other comments above by said user are more proof that he doesn't understand what civility is about and his posturing here deserves a block. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, whether he understands the letter of the civility guidelines is not the issue; he clearly understands the spirit. You are making gross assumptions of bad faith; people who are of the same view of Slrubenstein, are not necessarily gullible, and I doubt many editors will not appreciate such slurs. Jointly attacking a group of editors in that way is not acceptable, even if it is not explicitly naming each and every editor who may fall under that category. I really don't mind if you are going take it to ANI and demand that everything be struck as a fabrication; no matter how you attempt to justify it, it's not the sort of expression one would hope to hear from an established editor like you. If something Slrubenstein said was false, or completely made up, or ludicrous, you should attempt to attack the content (eg; "what evidence is there to support theory x? none.") - there's no need to mention the contributor, or other contributors, or a category of contributors. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith is to say that they are trolling because they are wrong, not to say that they are wrong or that they don't understand what they are talking about. There is a clear difference. And "gullible" is now a slur? Please. "you should attempt to attack the content" If you read, all I did was attack content. And stop with all of the back to back corrections of your statements. Some people would like to respond instead of edit conflicting 3 times :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you were using the word gullible in a praiseworthy sense, my point is that some people won't appreciate being called something like that (even if other people think of it as seemly, look past it and understand what you were actually trying to say). The corrections were to hopefully make my statements less open to misinterpretation - in the sense of what I myself am trying to say. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Civil requires a direct object that is a user. Not an inanimate object or a theoretical individual. I can say "clowns are stupid" without it being a breach of civility, as there is no direct object of a user (unless, say, someone just came out as being a clown and this was a direct response). That is clear at WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me this as if I've accused you of violating CIVIL; I hope you're not confusing me with other peepz, Ottava. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where in the above how I have dealt with you in any manner but to point out that your statements weren't what CIVIL said. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement "if you believe this then you are gullible" is an uncivil comment, whether it's targeted at a specifically named user or not. I should also point out to OR that "incivility" is an English word, while "incivil" is not. It's "uncivil". The peculiarities of English. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not according to WP:CIVIL, and it would be a gross mischaracterization of civil to claim otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note the heavy use of "directed at another contributor". Also note "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." This last statement applies here. This applies to the user starting this violation, and to others who are joining in. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling people "guillible" is "constructive criticism"??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Find a direct object user that was mentioned and then the language of WP:CIVIL will apply. Without the direct object there, there is no reason to even demand "constructive" anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you therefore take back your statement "if anyone honestly believes Slrubenstein above, then you are gullible"? Because if not, then you have targeted anyone who believes Slrubenstein, and whether you specifically named them or not does not matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that, take the accusation to ArbCom. However, WP:CIVIL is very clear that it requires a direct object. It doesn't matter if people later say "oh, I was affected", as there is no direct user involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it so happens I believe Slrubenstein. Am I therefore guillible? "Yes" or "No" answer only, please. Any other answer will constitute "wikilawyering". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bah! And you know that it would be ridiculous to have "incivility after the fact". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that "bah" supposed to equate to "yes" or "no"? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bah humbug. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You just called me a fraud. That's defamation of character. You'll hear from my law firm, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you said "fraud" instead of "rubbish". :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the word "humbug" means "fraud". You called me a fraud. Now I'm feeling belittled. Take it back, or I'll sic my fellow Munchkins on you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"I should also point out to OR that" - Did you happen to see "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" at WP:CIVIL by chance? Then the other clause that applies "Use of condescending language towards other Users." You have done this twice now. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't belittle you. I said it's a peculiarity of English. I've seen a lot of others use that incorrect form also. I'm trying to help you get a step ahead of those others. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I would honestly care if you belittled me? lol I'm only pointing out the ridiculousness of making such statements about rather neutral comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You brought it up, so I just assumed you felt belittled. I myself often feel belittled, even though I stand well over four feet tall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I personally find it fascinating that when Ottava says he will seek to have someone blocked it's okay, but when I say I will seek to have him blocked I am accused of impersonating an admin. We put up with this because why? Obviously WQA will have no effect here. Nor will an RfC/U; he'll just ignore it the same way he ignores any attempt to modify his behaviour--for which he somehow gets a free pass that the rest of us do not. The only way to effect an actual change in Ottava's behaviour is an RFAR. → ROUX ₪ 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, please post this at RfAR. It would be laughed at so quickly that your head would spin. Nothing I have said is a breach of civility, and the misconstruing of statements and outright incorrect assertions of what is "incivil" or not would definitely result in blocks of people above wasting my time. So yes, please put it at RfAR. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, let's keep this from RFAR, that's the last area we need to deal with. Also, reading some of the above comments, I will question that all of them breach WP:CIVIL. Being a person who has violated that a bunch of times because of mental issues, I don't think we need to be all overly dramatic. Let's try to make this a lot less of a problem then. If we can look for a sensible solution, I would agree to that. Right now arguing over behavior and threatening RFAR, straight from WQA is not a sensible solution. Let's take this one step at a time.Mitch/HC32 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed; I initially didn't respond to this WQA because I didn't see enough to justify a sanction (which appears to be the request of the initator). Oh, and that may mean something, given I was the person who requested the most recent block that appears on Ottava Rima's block log. Obviously, there are a couple of things that can be debated on, but its not serious enough to warrant sanctions at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • At this point all I can see for punishment is a slap on the wrist for said involved parties. This isn't that dramatic, and personally, I don't understand it either.Mitch/HC32 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • So this behavior is acceptable? Or is it unacceptable but the offending party refuses to stop so we choose to allow it? OR here is utterly refusing to abide by the civility policy (as here, playing some weird syntactic game to keep his insults one step on what he believes to be a rule about sentence structure). I'm not asking that OR be blocked, I'm asking that he be told to stop it. If he won't heed the clear commands of administrators or the community on the matter, then he can be blocked. He has only himself to blame. Wikidemon (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • If I refused to abide by civil, where are my cusses? Where are my accusations that you are "stupid" or "ugly"? Where are all the other things that are defined as incivil? You have put statements of disagreement and claimed them as incivil. That is not what incivility is. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
          • They are mostly listed above, although you're repeating some here. They are as plain as day. Even in your own strange construct, where it is okay to call people misinformed or ignorant, because that is not about them, you are still accusing people of bad actions and of mental incapacities without any basis. Are you being wilfully difficult, or truly unable to understand the significance of your own language? Wikidemon (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with ROUX, RFAR is the best option.Dave (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ArbCom will find that there was no incivility, and that the accusation breaches the third paragraph of incivility against false accusations, especially with the first statement being a severe breach of it. I would like an Rfar simply so ArbCom could rule that the accusers deserve to be blocked so that people stop misconstruing the civility guideline like they did in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe. But it could be entertaining. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • OR's various empty threats tempt me to quote Glinda: "Oh, rubbish! You have no power here. Be gone, before someone drops a house on you!" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't threaten to take them to ArbCom, they threatened me. Big difference. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I made no such threat. I indicated, based on your extensive history of completely ignoring anything you have not actually been forced to do vis a vis behaving in a semi-reasonable manner, the only thing that is likely to have any effect on you. That you engaged in your usual word-twisting is unsurprising. → ROUX ₪ 17:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you can say how you are abiding by the letter of WP:CIVIL, and maybe you are, to be frank I can't be bothered to read it, because I don't need to. I know what civility is, and it is treating others with respect, not threatening them or casting accusations at them. What you are doing is clearly not civil. Maybe it's the letter of WP:CIVIL, but it's not the spirit. I would like to ask that you stop, take some time away. You have made your point very clearly, please stop hounding everyone who doesn't think you're right. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read it, why are you even here? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

It seems pretty clear that none (other than Ottava Rima) think the behavior is appropriate. There are some mixed views over whether anything is going to happen or we should just ignore it. My first preference, and hope, is that an administrator will put their foot down and lay down the law, so to speak. Or even better, of Ottava Rima will agree to stop insulting other editors and live up to that we can all go home. Any takers on that?

Otherwise the next stop seems to be an RfC. An RFAR might actually be a good idea to address the narrow question post by OR above that an editor can find loopholes in WP:CIVIL by phrasing accusations to impugn things about a person other than the person themselves (e.g. actions, ability, value as a Wikipedian, state of knowledge) or stating insults in a conditional or hypothetical context (If you were to actually believe what you just said you would be X). I really hoped not to go through too much process but this seems to be a long term issue that won't go away on its own. Does anyone know, have their been any prior RfCs, Arbcom cases, AN/I resolutions, parole restrictions, etc., that would come into play here? I have no history with this editor and don't really want to be adversarial, I just see a problem that ought to be addressed. Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC/U is a meaningless construct that has no effect whatsoever. → ROUX ₪ 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think this is ripe for RFAR? Maybe there's some history I don't know about the editors involved, and the underlying civility question is an interesting one, but the actual incident looks like garden variety tendentiousness. I'm afraid ArbCom would toss this fish back as being too trivial, needing an RFC, or maybe just something that ought to be handled by a willing admin on a notice board. Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. Ottava is exceedingly careful in making sure he stays just inside the line of things that would call for that drastic a solution. RFAR is, however, the only way any change to his behaviour can be enforceably maintained, as he simply ignores any input from other users or administrators. As was said elsewhere recently, Wikipedia is structured in such a way that people like Ottava can get away with their behaviour indefinitely, while others who behave the same way can and will get repeatedly blocked and eventually banned for doing so. Because he's been doing it for so long, there is no way to change his behaviour short of significant blocks every time he engages in it. And no admins have the balls to actually do anything. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You lot seem to want your cake and eat it. On the one hand Ottava has "an extensive block log for incivility and disruption", yet on the other no admins "have the balls" to block him. Surely even you can see that these positions are incompatible? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Interesting. As I think I said somewhere I'm unfamiliar with the history here. Do you think he actually enjoys this? The aggressiveness is completely gratuitous. I try not to use gender specific sex organ metaphors when talking about admins, but I can believe that nobody wants to wade in here. An indef block, quickly lifted, then no blocks for more than a year. Has his behavior improved from back then? Being as obnoxious as possible without getting blocked for it, if that's indeed what it is, isn't furthering any content position he may have or otherwise helping his editing career. I wouldn't mind the insults so much because grumpy people can be endearing, but as I said they were making a wreck out of the AfD, which messes up the process. I'm wondering if any community approach could work, like in the Obama articles. Comments like his that consist entirely of attacks on other editors would be summarily hatted or deleted if they appeared on the Obama talk page.Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Being as obnoxious as possible" Another personal attack. This makes your PA and Incivil count for this set of threads above 12 so far, with two egregious violations that would warrant a block. So far, you have not proven that I have acted incivil at all, but you have definitely shown your own incivility. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusers, like administrators, seem to be immune from the requirement to remain civil and avoid personal atacks. Bizarrely, even when they're complaining about the incivility of another editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(after EC and ignoring impertinent intervening comment) You're killing me here. In case you haven't figure it out, I am not accusing you of things for fun or sport. Making good faith accusations against other editors is what administrative notices are all about. For the record, my question about behavior was to address the preceding speculation by Roux that you are deliberately testing of the limits to see what you can get away with. Asking what purpose you may have in being so hostile is a sincere query aimed at figuring out what to do with you. You're welcome to answer it, if you wish to take this in a constructive direction. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'd called you "impertinent" would you have opened another one of these pointless topics against me? I think you're just proving my point. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I just think your collateral attacks on me are completely irrelevant. You are in conversation with OR elsewhere, and seem to have a grievance, that civility policy is too harshly enforced. Yet at the same time you seem to be saying (by way of trying to prove hypocrisy or something) that people who complain of incivility are in fact the uncivil ones. All of that is not my concern and I'm not going to get bogged down in that kind of stuff when dealing with a specific issue here. But nice try. Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have many grievances, only one of which is that the civility policy is not exercised against those like yourself bring childish charges against another editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Childish", huh? 無 to you too. Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Haven't you got something better you ought to be doing Wikidemon? You ought to remember as well that bringing your complaint here puts your own behaviour under the spotlight just as much as it does Ottava's. Do you really believe that you are completely blameless in this little spat? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing ridiculous about asking for WP:CIVIL to be honored. If it's not enforced why do we have a civility policy? Yes, I stand by my work here so let's stay on topic. The extent of my involvement is that I made a "keep" !vote on the AfD this editor started, and I got berated like everyone else there as a result. It's all plainly stated in my initial report. This should not be so complicated - the editor's continuing here the insults and accusations e began at the AfD is beside the point. Someone in a position of authority who knows and wants to enforce the policy ought to simply say yes, this is a problem we will fix, or no this is not a problem or it is a problem we will not fix. Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Honoring Civility would be you being blocked for about 48 hours, especially when your first claims are out and out false as proven above, and your other claims not being incivil and thus a violation of the third paragraph on Civility. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good one. 無 - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what's the feeling here? Anyone willing to agree to treat other editors kindly? Any admin willing to pronounce consensus or policy on this? Anybody else care to opine on whether in the absence of administrative help to file an RfC (or RFAR), make a community decision, or let it pass? I notice that OR has not engaged in any arguable incivility on the actual AfD page since this report was filed 15 hours ago so maybe we're okay by the time it grows stale. Certainly, passionate argument minus any actual insults would be within acceptable bounds. One can hope. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's much here to be concerned about, Wikidemon. In the trenches of content creation, things are said. As long as they are directed at the content, I don't see the problem. I've had quarrels with OR but it's never even entered my mind that I should block him or that he should be warned/sanctioned/whatever. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect that calm approach. Maybe we wait a few hours for good measure to make sure nothing blows up, then mark this one resolved / no action & go home? Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you do eventually feel that you need to further escalate, RFC/U is the next step. Although the other party may not participate, and may not abide by the "decisions" of the community, you would be provided ample proof of trying to resolve it. If you feel confident that the other party has been sufficiently warned/slapped on the wrist for his transgressions, then feel free to let this close. If not, then the next step is yours ... and in a different forum. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do feel that the editor has more than ample notice that many in the community consider the comments to be uncivil, and that some believe sanctions should eventually ensure should he refuse to moderate them. It obviously did not generate an acknowledgment or promise to change, or a firm sign from those in a position to do so that this would be enforced, so it had no obvious effect. At the same time, it's moot now that the AfD is closed, so I will ask that this be closed.

I think that you, Wikidemon, also need to take account of the fact that many "in the community" consider your own behaviour to be uncivil in making vexatious complaints about "incivility" while being uncivil yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that, no. I don't see that there's anything left to discuss, but the complaint stands even if it has been mooted by events. Wikidemon (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

From your rather unusual use of the word "mooted" I judge you to be a child who picked it up here on wikipedia who is unaware that "moot" is a transitive verb. What's left to be discussed are your vexatious complaints of "incivility" in which you are yourself uncivil. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, is there any point to those insults? You're wrong about the language but no, I won't discuss that either. Would you care to have the last word? Assuming so, good day... - Wikidemon (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting closure

Given that the AfD on which the reported edits has now closed I believe the matter is now moot. Therefore, may we please close this discussion or let it go quietly to the archive accordingly? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 4 August 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.

I need a name needs a cleaner mouth and a reign on his temper.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Not a Wikipedia issue

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

Please review the discussion at the following link: User_talk:I_need_a_name#SFS_P-w401_ion_maneuvering_jet. In summary, I attempted to move an article that was already redirected. It had been redirected before, and I had reverted it then, as well. This time, however, the move was unsuccessful - possibly because the redirect page already existed under that name. My purpose was to switch the redirect the opposite direction. Unsuccessful. Therefore, having used up all of the options I thought I had, I merely switched the texts of the articles and explained the move in the talk pages. User:I need a name then proceeded to flag the main article with speedy deletion and nominate it for such. After attempting to communicate with him he has only responded in a flaming insolent manner. The following is the exchange that can found in the "user talk" link above:

This page, SFS P-w401 ion maneuvering jet, keeps being moved without just reason. It needs to stop. Other pages that follow this precedent are: SFS-204 sublight ion engine, SFS-CR27200 hypermatter reactor, SFS S/ig-37 hyperdrive. Gethralkin 13:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I could not undo the move done on it because the other page existed. That is why I switched the texts. Gethralkin 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Are you not paying attention? Read the talk page. Read your messages. Gethralkin 13:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck which is the correct name or not. What I give a fuck about is when people manage to fail at the mind-numbingly simple task of clicking a button marked 'move' to move a page and instead copy and paste it to a new name, so we end up with bullshit like an article history's being lost in the edit history of a redirect. Already an article at the name you want to move to? Then tag it for deletion and move it when it's been deleted. Not that this was a problem to begin with anyway, because the MediaWiki software allows you to move an article over another one which redirects to it if the latter hasn't been edited since, which was the case here. Of course, that can't be done now, since someone went and edited the redirect article, hence why I've tagged it for deletion so it can be moved properly. I wonder whose fault that is? -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, learn what the word 'vandalism' means. Hint: it doesn't mean any and all edits that you disagree with. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, if he had been civil in the first place, I would have agreed with his point of view and advice. I am a rather easy-going guy and can take constructive criticism pretty well. This was anything but constructive. 98.200.10.147 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, this appears to be from the Star Wars wiki, and not Wikipedia ... ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:35, 3 August 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.

My apologies, the link for reporting uncivil conduct led me here from a starwars.wikia help page. Gethralkin (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

Aradic comments "stop the jihad" [14] over an edit about an articles name. I have explained this edit many times and a consensus was achieved with a third opinion about it but aradic as usual ignores it and simply reverts. PRODUCER (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget to report yourself as well : "stop with your pathetic attempts at changing the name"--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Witchy2006

Resolved

This user (Witchy2006) called me an "Wannabe" on his talk page as seen in this link [15] and recently this link [16]. This user keeps putting negative stuff about me on other user's pages as seen in this link [17]. Please handle this case carefully and respectivly. Thank You. GMA Fan 3 August 2009 11:03AM

GMAFan, you should have notified Witchy2006 that you reported him here; having this "secret" (to him) report open at the same time you're asking him to stop, be nice, be friends, and not fight seems a little disingenuous.

I've asked him to stop calling you a "wannabe" not because it's horribly uncivil, but because it will make everyone's lives easier if he does so. Although that kind of thing is not optimal, I think you'll probably need a thicker skin to edit here. Also, I note that you're calling him a "vandal", when it appears clear he is editing in good faith. You need to stop doing that. Your diff of him saying "bad things" about you on another editor's talk page is not uncivil, and you had no right to remove it from their talk page. Your report last night to WP:AIV was also inappropriate. This is a content dispute. Pursue content dispute resolution. WQA and AIV are not parts of that process. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Resolved

 – Durova is happy to let this lie. --Dweller (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Yesterday The Rambling Man nominated List of brain tumor patients for featured list review. He made no attempt to discuss the problems he perceived before nominating. To the best of my recollection he and I had no prior conflict. The nomination was poorly crafted so I sought details and attempted to satisfy his requests until it became clear that he was unable or unwilling to proceed cooperatively.

His manner has been quarrelsome and inappropriate. For example, when I asked for clarification about which of 279 sources he meant in one complaint, he replied six times without supplying the requested name. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter this wasn't a working relationship I wished to prolong, so I ceased making improvements and declared that I was removing the content page from my watchlist. He followed up with a sarcastic comment,[18] so I offered to speedy close the nomination in 24 hours and demote the list myself, and requested no further contact from him.[19]

He ignored the request for no further contact to make a slur upon my character. "Your seem horrified that someone would review one of your featured works as currently sub-standard, that's unfortunate."[20]

Wikiquette alerts are supposed to be worded neutrally, so will endeavor to write this neutrally. I have had featured credits delisted before; those discussions never caused conflict. What this man attributes to egotism is actually this: my father developed a brain tumor while I was in college which went undiagnosed for a decade. The day I took him to the hospital he had gotten lost three blocks from his home; it took two patrol cars and a helicopter four hours to find him. By that time the tumor inside his brain had grown to the diameter of a Coke can. The first diaper I ever changed was my father's. I don't know whether The Rambling Man is cruel or socially tone deaf, and I don't care. I want him to stay away from me, period. Please tell him to back off. Durova²⁸⁸ 17:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova, it seems like he doesn't know how close the topic is to you personally. The comments you linked don't seem abnormal in tone or content - do you think its possible that you are unusually sensitive given your relationship to the subject, and perhaps his criticism strikes you as devaluing that subject even though that is likely not his intent? Nathan ^T 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have replied to the notification of this thread on my talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF requires that people construe such low motives as egotism as the last resort, not the first. A request for no contact means precisely that: no further contact please. Durova²⁸⁸ 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is really no hurry here, I strongly suggest a 48 hour time-out, with no edits to any related page by either party. With luck, this will give time for some of the negative emotions to settle down, so that two of Wikipedia's best editors can interact in a more productive way. Looie496 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As for egotism, Durova was quick to point to all her other featured content while telling me there was virtually nothing wrong with the list. I have no axe to grind. I have made no contact on her talk page since she requested me not to. I am quite within my right to reply to discussions on any other page here. I will continue to try to improve the list as I have indicated, as I'm sure the rest of the maligned featured list community will too. Once again, this about the list, nothing else. I find it hard to fathom that suggested improvements are seen as something that I should be "ashamed of". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 August 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:Taivo

Resolved

 – Filing editor blocked for edit-warring in a separate matter.

This user is using crude and offensive language again [21]. Izzedine (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

...trying unsuccessfully to find out what was wrong with that post... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

...also trying unsuccessfully to find where you have notified the other user of this posting... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Poor choice of metaphor perhaps, given the status of Iraq as a war zone.....?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The choice of metaphor what I was thinking. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, based on the context overall, however. It's not like he said "I'm going to rape and pillage you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine has just been blocked for 48 hours for repeatedly putting a speedy tag (after it was declined) on articles. He's been involved in at least 3 edit wars in the last 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Izzedine did not notify me of this. I found it because I have his Talk page on my watch list. Considering the fact that he does not engage in constructive dialogue and makes unilateral page moves without discussion and reverts even in the face of consensus against his move, I felt that "rape and pillage" was an apt metaphor for viking behavior. If the community feels otherwise, then I will apologize. But the editors examining this complaint should also examine Izzedine's incivility as well. (Taivo (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

The term "rape and pillage" is hardly crude and offensive by any measure. The complainant is at best being overly sensitive. My advice is that both parties get over it. Crafty (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

One must be culturally sensitive to the fact that rape (of women AND men) is unfortunately often still used in many areas of the world as a) a means of control, b) a means of punishment, and c) as the "spoils" of victory. However, as I stated before "rape and pillage" in this situation was not uncivil. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, some scandinavians find that "Viking" imagery offensive, although I do believe that Taivo was using it in an analagous fashion to "like a bull in a china shop".Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My best friend is a Dane. He takes great pride in reminding me on a regular basis that my Irish blood has a great deal of Viking DNA floating around in it ;) I daresay that most Scandinavians take pride in their history, however morally tainted small parts of it might be. (Taivo (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Original poster Plaxicoed himself for 48. Ironically, the current Vikings, of the Minnesota variety, sometimes appear to have an entire team's worth of Plaxicos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ekspert9123128391

Resolved

 – Escalated to ANI where he was blocked for 24hr

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

User:Ekspert9123128391 engaged in a personal attack and incivility directed at me on my talk page here, after I removed a number of unsourced football hooligan firms from List of hooligan firms as the notice at the top of the page clearly states they need to be sourced. I hold my hands up and made a small error in removing on one of the firms (albeit spelt differently), but the others I removed were not sourced. --Jimbo^[online] 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have escalated that to WP:ANI, and he has been blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:46, 5 August 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:William M. Connolley demonstrating an unusually heavy hand

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

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

User:William M. Connolley appears to have over-reacted in punishing User talk:162.6.97.3 in an edit-war re: CNBC hostess Rebecca Quick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the circumstances, and User:William M. Connolley was more than justified in his actions. Other users have already asked this anon user to be polite and follow Wikipedia community standards, warning of the consequences of not doing so. The user has chosen not to change behavior and should not be surprised at the result. LK (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Having also reviewed the record, I would respectfully submit that the user's behavior was markedly changed from the past - following sourcing guidelines, reaching out to other users and incorporating advice received. User:William M. Connolley appears to have hastily relied on past behavior as well, picked an odd fight about civility and then over-responded to the situation. That shouldn't justify a user's indefinite suspension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're just the same old sock. You're blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• There are proper procedures for blocks to be contested, and this forum isn't it. Nor is it the place for discussion on use of admin tools. Closed. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:25, 6 August 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:75.95.245.214

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Blocked; filing party made request on blocking admin's talk page after filing this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 August 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.

---

User has been blocked before. He is now insulting other users in the summary of each edition and is reverting other users' unrelated contributions. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like user is already blocked; this report has probably been superseded elsewhere. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:14, 9 August 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:BilCat, incivility

Stuck

BilCat (talk · contribs) seems to be snubbing all of my concerns with uncivil summaries.[22] It appears that a similar incident occurred just a few days ago. I find it particularly unproductive to label others' comments as "stupidity" while carrying an "I'll revert when and why I want to" attitude, or to call another person "obnoxious". —LOL ^T/_C 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Stop hounding Bill, he has indicated to be left alone and what you're continuing doing is no different from WP:Harassing. If it was me, I would have chosen to disengage. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The intended purpose of my alert is to address Bill's uncivil summaries, not what I had previously went to his talk page for (even though I would still like to see why "the guidelines contradict themselves"). I haven't made any threats, I haven't attempted to intimidate anyone, and this is just a courtesy notice so I don't believe I'm harassing or hounding him. —LOL ^T/_C 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much for the cops-and-robbers approach, here, but I've left a note on BilCat's talk page and hope we can all resolve this like adults. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And that note was removed. Charming. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm "whining on Wikiquette", so I don't get the feeling that he sees anything wrong with his recent behaviour...or perhaps my judgment is wrong? Is it actually civil to call someone's comment "stupidity" and call someone "obnoxious", then ignore the admin who attempts to resolve the situation? —LOL ^T/_C 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, if there continue to be problems, then it either will require admin action or going up the next step in DR - which would probably be a user conduct RfC. It's clear we cannot do anything further here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Niteshift36 ... personal attacks

Stale

 – 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The user Niteshift36 posts consistently and repeatedly in an aggressive and accusatory tone. One specific incident of a personal attack is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Hannity&diff=305377264&oldid=305376863 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggmc (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see a violation of WP:NPA in Niteshift36's post immediately above the diff you posted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BWilkins for commenting quickly. I'll just call out basically the first thing stated in WP:NPA ... which is "This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor." I don't see any other way to interpret his responses to me .. which are: "You're incredible" and "That (i.e., my opinion) is ridiculous." --Douggmc (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I asked you what part of that was a personal attack and you've failed to reply. The only part I can see is that some how you find "you're incredible" to be some sort of attack or calling your position ridiculous. You've been on the page and commented since then, so you've had time to answer my question. If I made a personal attack, point it out and if I was wrong, I'll apologize. But I don't see where an attack was made, so I can't apologize for one until you show it to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Example: Calling me "incredible", my position "ridiculous". In general, most of the dialog between us carry the same either accusatory or defensive tone by Niteshift36, none of which is conducive to debate or building consensus in my opinion. Beyond my request for Niteshift36 to not attack me personally, I so no further point in debating him or directly addressing him on this topic (which is why didn't respond in the discussion page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggmc (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling those comments were meant to be taken personally. Editors are bound to disagree from time to time. If someone points out their impression that you haven't researched a topic in depth, this sort of reaction tends to lend some credence to the idea -- I'm sure that wasn't your intention, of course. Niteshift might do well to address your points a little more directly, and specifically in a way that isn't personally bothersome to you, but I don't see anything that seems to be egregiously outside community norms in those comments. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Luna, I made it clear that I called his position ridiculous and not him. I even put the word in italics when I responded about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't feel that way either (that they were personal) from just that posting. But it appears to be a pattern. My decision to post this here was based on this incident above along with a) the general tone of the discussion page as a whole and b) previous warnings to Nightshift36 on personal attacks. I would ask others to read in entirety the "Alma Mater" discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity#Education_errors..._Alma_Mater and the previous Wikiquette Alert on Nightshift36: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_Niteshift36.2C_personal_attacks --Douggmc (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I do appreciate the distinction, but at the same time Douggmc obviously feels slighted by the sentiment; though I do agree your comment was within the bounds generally accepted by those familiar with Wikipedia norms, my suggestion was simply that you bear in mind the sensitivity of your debate counterpart when speaking with them in the future. I hope that's not a major concession to ask for. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I'm also not sure you've see the specific post I made above. Just in case, I'll paste it here again: ... basically the first thing stated in WP:NPA ... is "This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor." I don't see any other way to interpret his responses to me .. which are: "You're incredible" and "That (i.e., my opinion) is ridiculous." Is there grey area there ... that is "within the norms" ... that I'm not aware of? --Douggmc (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to argue semantics, but on the internet, how can you tell that "you're incredible" is being said in a negative manner? By the same regard, how do you know that "that is ridiculous" does not apply to the content of the post - you're the one adding "(my opinion)". I'm playing devil's advocate here for a sec, so don't bite me ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

:) No bites, valid to others who may not be familiar with sitiation. With that said, of course, no wording or phrase can fairly be taken out of context. That would certainly be unfair to everybody involved (niteshift36, me, those taking the time to review this, etc.). I guess I would say that I assumed one would: a) Read more than that specific posting (i.e., the thread in particular ... but other interactions with other editors) on the wiki page to which I linked. b) Consider other actions/reports against said editor. After which, I would hope one would have sufficient context. --Douggmc (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just one thing I forget to answer from your post regarding whether the phrase "That is ridiculous" applies to the content of the post or my opinion/position. Isn't the content of the post my opinion / position? I fail to see the difference. I understand the concept and difference between critiquing someone's position vs. them personally, but the "ridiculous" phrasing is ... dare I say ... ridiculous in terms of being objective and neutral? AT A MINIMUM it is inappropriate and subjective, and considering the editor's history ... I feel it is obvious in its display of passive aggressiveness and attempt to personally discredit me and my opinion. --Douggmc (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• You mean the alma mater discussion where I haven't made any personal attacks? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 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:Ward3001 making ongoing insults after being warned

Stale

 – 13:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

A few uncivil remarks / personal threats: [23][24] [25][26] [27]

Warning by Slim [28]

Warning by Chillium [29] Continued incivility [30] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no incivility or personal threats in asking questions or asking someone to remain on topic on a talk page. As for the warning by Chillum, in that very same warning, Chillum falsely accused me of telling another editor that their edits are "laughable", when in fact I was responding to that editor's telling me my comments are laughable here. As for SlimVirgin's warnings, I ask that anyone look at an entire exchange between SV and me in the last two days on both our talk pages. It reveals much more than the very first comment made to me by SV. As for "Continued incivility" [31], I thought James would see the :) emoticon as an indication that it was said in good humor, but apparently not, so I apologzie. Ward3001 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone should try to move on and shake hands to avoid further drama. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[32] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone tell me how asking James whether he wants psychologists to violate ethics, after he said "Create a new user name pretend you are not a psychologist", is an uncivil remark or a personal threat? Or maybe it was the term "faulty thinking", which I said I "think" he slipped into because I wanted to be sure he wasn't misstating something that didn't come across very well. Would someone tell me whether this kind of picky parsing of every word in a sentence is helpful, or is it just this a witch hunt? Ward3001 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that other editors consider some of James' talk page comments and behaviors inappropriate and done in bad faith: [33].

I have agreed with Nja247 to move on and end this witch hunt. Ward3001 (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on earlier bits, I don't see how the most recent diff linked is any sort of etiquette problem -- if there's something I'm missing, a little more explanation would be very helpful. Reporting everything Ward says here is hardly going to help calm things down. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna, for a voice of reason and calm. Ward3001 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay if this is considered appropriate I will leave it at that. We are after all just having a little fun.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask that any admin who happens to be looking at this post consider observing the actions of all parties involved in this dispute. We have a serious shortage of administrators who are not directly involved with the content dispute and frankly need someone to enforce civility in general there. I am not suggesting that you focus on Ward, but rather take an objective and neutral stance on what is appropriate during a debate. Thank you. Chillum 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Chillum on this. I think the talk page, if not the article, could benefit from neutral administrative focus on issues of incivility, false accusations, misrepresentation of others' opinions, and attitudes that are disparaging toward or unwelcoming of any editor or group of editors. Ward3001 (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is way out of line. Comparing a Wikipedian to Josef Mingele a nazi who tortured and murdered hundreds of children is beyond the pale. Chillum 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we are back to the witch hunt. I DID NOT compare anyone to Josef Mingele. I said that I thought Josef Mingele would have agreed with the statement that the reporting of human knowledge cannot be compromised. The point here, for anyone who doesn't understand, is that some people think there should be an ethical limit in some cases of reporting knowledge. This line of thought was also commented on by another editor immediately below my comment: "in order to move forward towards a greater goal of actually recording the breadth and depth of that knowledge in a way that is both accurate and not socially harmful". Nowhere, nowhere did I say anyone's behavior is like Josef Mingele's; I said that the opinion, when taken to it's extreme, is something that Mingele would agree with.

This is a good example of the very long pattern of Chillum's mispresentation of my comments, reading things into my comments that are not there, and overreaction to any expression of opinion about content, not editors, that I might have. It's the witch hunt continuing. Ward3001 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering plain and simple, you compared him to a horrible nazi. You need to stop being so disruptive. Chillum 02:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, where were you when the other side was making comparisons to Mao's brutal comunists?Faustian (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I compared the concept to those endorsed by Mingele. My words: "Dr. Josef Mingele no doubt would have strongly agreed with that statement." Not "User X you sound like a Nazi". It's quite obvious to me that this is a veiled attempt to push me into a position where I can't even comment on the ideas that James or Chillum discuss on the talk page. This is a prime example of why we need some administrative supervision on the talk page. This pattern of false accusations and reading things into words that simply are not there needs to stop, and I am asking you to please stop it now. Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that by denying you the right to reference nazis that you are put in a position where you can't even comment on the ideas that James or I? Surely you can dispute our points without referring to an unrelated butcher. Chillum 04:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I hope we've settled this on our talk pages. But I think it's important to understand that comments about ideas are almost always acceptable if they aren't directed at accusing an editor of anything, and my comments were about an idea, not an editor. I feel that James and I now have come to an understanding and can communicate about other, much more important matters. I hope you'll join us. Ward3001 (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you really don't see how that comment was offensive do you? Chillum 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean James' comment "Hey Ward No harm done", I don't see anything offensive in his comment. Please assume good faith on his part. Ward3001 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is turning into round 2 or 3 or 4 (unsure) of the dispute. From a brief look it doesn't seem that Ward is the only concern, thus I think this report should be closed and parties urged towards a likely more appropriate forum (see below). However it must be said that no one should be comparing anyone to another. When in dispute, you are to comment on the edits, not the editor (see WP:FOC). Don't waste time trying to rationalise it, or say you meant something else please. Accept what you've done and learn from it and don't do it again or risk a block. Overall, perhaps it's time to work up to the next step of dispute resolution, ie open a request for comment. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, I am wondering what you were looking for from WQA? You noted in your opening post that the user in question was already warned. If you were therefore looking for blocks, then you know from the beginning of this page that we cannot issue blocks here. If you felt that you required immediate assistance, WP:ANI was the correct forum. If you are trying to establish a pattern of incivility and ask for community input/decisions, then WP:RFC/U is the correct forum. Please clarify how you think we can help at this juncture in the "dispute" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 7 August 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.

Spartan9199

Resolved

 – Parties advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Almost every edit by Spartan9199 (talk · contribs) today has had undertones of incivility and personal attacks. I have asked him several times to refrain and even attempted to work with him on the issue he raised, but he continues to resort to attacks. I would like a neutral third party to investigate both this user's behavior and mine.

I would go into detail on the relevant edits, but a quick glance at Spartan9199's contributions should point you in the right direction faster than I can. --Chris (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that asking for a reliable source is considered a personal attack. I'll keep that in mind.Spartan9199 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Chris, you should provide diffs, such as these -

[34] this one is rude, but not a personal attack, just a comment about the editor's perception of other editors. [35] not uncivil [36] asking for a reliable source, perfectly reasonable [37] Spartan9199 can't see the citation (which is odd because it had been added about 10 minutes previous [38]) [39] Ah, he means he doesn't approve of the reference as a reliable source [40] still asking for a reliable source [41] "How can a college graduate (you) not understand proper citation?" Seems a fair question to me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad someone cleared this thing up. I still suggest for the section of the article to be deleted.

-Spartan9199 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You;ll have to take that to another venue I'm afraid. Is this article part of a project. Perhaps a few more experts might help.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:09, 9 August 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.

Kemal and Rob Data

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Page protected and advice given. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

This page was deleted following an AfD last week. An anonymous user then reverted the closure to the AfD and replaced it with a protest against deletion. Since the page clearly said "Please do not modify it", I reverted it back to how it was. (I didn't have time to do anything more elegant as I'm currently accessing this through a tiny netbook with limited internet.) Anyway, now another message has been posted (which I'm going to revert again), which comes across to me as a threat. I am not the least bit worried about these threats, but I thought I should report it anyway. Do what you want. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected the page. Not sure if there's anything else that can/should be done. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is often a useful tool, in this sort of situation (see {{subst:courtesy}}). Protection locks down the problem, but ideally we can produce a win-win situation where everyone goes home happy. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:00, 9 August 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:Milomedes making unfounded accusations of "personal attack" and "ethically questionable behavior"

Stuck

Milomedes (talk · contribs) has accused me of "ethically questionable behavior" and "biased motivation" after I raised sockpuppet investigations at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel.

This user has previously accused me of a personal attack against another user during a RFC on talk:Andy Murray, see diff, and has not withdrawn the accusation despite no complaint from the person that the "attack" was supposedly against and the Wikipedia policies, that it was claimed that I was in breach of, not actually existing.

I have tried to avoid feeding his/her apparent need for drama by staying polite and slowing down any responses but I am at the stage where repeated serious accusations require intervention. This user's history at ANI (none of which involves me) makes me doubt an easy resolution for these matters.

Please note, my edits on these pages were under my account User:Teahot. The relationship between these accounts and my recent migration to a new user name is explained on that user page.—Ash (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems worth noting this looks to have seen about a week without comment from either of you; if you don't mind my asking, why did you bring this here now, after so much time had passed? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Never mind, missed the SPI page. More useful comment in a bit, hopefully. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the sniping going back and forth, it looks to me like both of you could benefit from a break from that argument. Increasing tension isn't going to accomplish anything, but it will stress everybody out. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note Ash's use of the noticeboards search. Taking Luna Santin's point as reasonable, yet noticeboard postings like this one must always be responded to lest they be believed later for lack of a response.

Teahot/Ash wants a hearing, and that's ok with me. The facts against him seem well-founded.

My timeline of events:

1. Teahot's !vote in the WT:Andy_Murray#RfC: Should this article contain.... is "Maybe and No" (17:59, 21 July 2009).
2. Scls1984 !voted "Yes to both" (18:34, 21 July 2009, manually signed IP 84.67.36.164). Scls1984 had previously posted for inclusion while logged in (23:09, 7 July 2009), well before Chidel was blocked on 14 July.
3. Gogsynetcord !voted "yes to both" in the RfC (19:02, 23 July 2009). Gogsynetcord's previous unused and lost-password account Netcord was created 3 June 2006.
4. Teahot opened a Sockpuppet investigation (SPI) against Single purpose account (SPA) editor Gogsynetcord (19:33, 23 July 2009 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel/Archive). Informed that an SPA is "not necessarily socking", Teahot wrote, "...my suspect as puppeteer is Chidel." (20:19, 23 July 2009). Despite his protest of innocence with an inaccessible first account opened substantially in the past, Gogsynetcord was initially blocked and his case moved to Chidel's archive page.
5. Teahot announced at WT:Andy Murray: "Comment The above vote has now been confirmed as sockpuppet block evasion and should be ignored, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel/Archive for details." (04:13, 25 July 2009). Five posts later another editor used this same link to indicate a request for the Gogsynetcord case to be reinvestigated – which post Teahot then calls "disrupting this RFC further."
6. Three editors questioned the logic of a Gogsynetcord sock voting against his Chidel master, at WT:Andy Murray RfC and/or the Gogsynetcord SPI at Chidel's archive page. Gogsynetcord was then unblocked due to conflicting evidence.
7. During the questioning of the Gogsynetcord block at WT:Andy Murray RfC, occurred the incident of which Ash (21:52) wrote above: " ...accused me of a personal attack against another user..." Teahot said "rather than disrupting this RFC further" meant "staying on-topic" rather than "disruptive editing" – yet, he refused to re-edit his statement to read "off-topic". I assume that he wants to reserve his right to use the intimidating term "disrupting" in casual ways. Whether his statement was unintended, yet a PA in context, was never decided.
8. Teahot opened an SPI against SPA editor Scls1984 (09:32, 25 July 2009). Teahot wrote, "The single edit anon IP signed a comment on a RFC (on Talk:Andy_Murray) using the Scls1984 account, the user name is also a single edit account. The Chidel account is a known sock puppet and has previously made attempts to avoid a block on the same RFC. (09:32, 25 July 2009)" The "previously made attempts to avoid a block" statement refers to Teahot's identically evidence-lacking SPI case against Gogsynetcord. Just to make sure his implication of a connection between Scls1984 and Chidel wasn't missed, six minutes later Teahot wrote, "This case may need to be moved to the existing case folder for Chidel." (09:38, 25 July 2009). Using Teahot's implication, the clerk moved the Scls1984 case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chidel. Teahot later claimed, "The clerk acts independently of suggestions I make for how this investigation is conducted." (11:54, 5 August 2009). See Dictionary.com "railroading" def. 9.
9. At WP:SPI/Chidel(Scls1984) I objected at length to this unfair rerun of the unfair Gogsynetcord SPI. Like Gogsynetcord, Scls1984 had !voted against Chidel. Scls1984 !voted "Yes to both" (18:34, 21 July 2009), oppositely to Chidel's vote on this same issue in a previous section: "Opposed: me" (21:26, 9 July 2009).

My summary statement of these justice issues relating to Teahot's behavior at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel reads:

"allegations" "Twice you didn't state critical exculpatory facts in bringing two sockpuppet investigations. When those exculpatory facts were revealed in the previous investigation, the block was rescinded. You appear to have a biased motivation for not stating those exculpatory facts, lack of which unfairly put two new editors through investigations, a scarring block, and guilt-by-association filing with Chidel. If that's an allegation, it's one that's backed by the facts of your ethically questionable behavior." (Milo 21:32, 5 August 2009)

The Silver rule is a pretty good guide to what's proper in this situation. If any editor had done to Teahot/Ash what Teahot/Ash did to those two SPA editors, Teahot/Ash would be here at WQA crying foul. Milo 05:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I want to say that since the basic rule is "if you think they're a sock, file your damned SPI or stop accusing", then at least they did file it. Ethically, by submitting the SPI if they had pretty good excellent suspicions (and not just a fishing trip) they have done the right thing.

They may not refactor or remove any comments/!votes until an SPI check has led to blocks for socks. SPA tags are fine, if they actually apply. Belittling or downplaying a !vote because you think they're a sock is inappropriate as it really could be WP:BITEy.

What does come across as a concern is the assumption that anyone with a specific type of !vote is automatically a sock - this is, of couse, not always the case.

Teahot has perhaps been a little agressive in claiming sockism, but Milo, you have been a little aggressive in retaliation. Both of you need to learn from this event and move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If false witness reporting by material omission from the whole truth is tolerated, none of us are safe.

Simply filing the sock reports was not a problem. But when an admin in the first case stopped the fishing by asking for a named puppetmaster, the logical, ethical answer was either 'I don't know', or 'there was a master previously found on the page – but !voting on the opposite side from this SPA' – so I'm not sure'. Pushing the clerk hard in the second case to file it under Chidel without cause, was premeditated behavior over the line into wrongdoing. Milo 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I felt that this was closed as both sides had a little slap on the wrist, I suppose I need to continue. Someone else's actions do not excuse your own behaviour. First of all, you escalated the situation by saying that "disruption" was a personal attack, and have indeed fail to at least state that you may have read WP:NPA wrong. You put the other editor on the defensive, and that led to further action. Yes, Teahot went about things the wrong way, and Wikipedia has places where we deal with that kind of behavour. That does not give you the right to take the path that you did or indeed take matters into your own hands in the way you did. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You have the facts wrong.

Luna Santin was initially puzzled because the two events to which Ash/Teahot refers occurred independently and had only an originating venue relationship. Both of us had apparently moved on from the first event, which was not again mentioned until now. It looks a lot like a smokescreen issue to cover the more serious second event.

Policy is silent on this issue so I couldn't have read WP:NPA wrong. To Teahot I suggested resolving the issue by getting an editors' consensus about it, he got one, I accepted a consensus that "disrupting" does not always mean "disruptive editing", and I contemporaneously struck my remark to the contrary. However, that same consensus concluded that whether Teahot actually PA'ed another editor would have to be decided based on the particular context, which was never done.

It's not credible to propose that my asking Teahot to strike a PA, somehow "escalated the situation" in a different venue, causing Teahot to withhold material evidence to get an SPA blocked. He apparently did what he did because he benefited from doing it. That bad block was helpful to his position in the RfC, until I and another editor worked to get it rescinded. Then Teahot tried to do the same thing again, and if it wasn't for me, he might have succeeded in railroading a second SPA. MeatballWiki:DefendEachOther: "if someone else is attacked, defend them."

WQA is difficult work to do correctly, which I know from having worked some on structuring of this venue in 2007. On-the-job learning of judging is scattered with pitfalls, as most participants lack the benefit of professional arbitration study.

Having incorrectly determined that both parties were wrong based on your misunderstanding of the timing and the facts, you are now emotionally invested in proving your prematurely closed theory. Thank you for being willing to help, but if you are serious that the WQA noticeboard not be seen as biased, please recuse yourself and step aside from this case. Milo 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hold off on your arrogant dismissal above. I have significant training and work as a mediator/arbitrator, and attacks like that on the volunteers in WQA will not be tolerated. My advice, as previously given stands: let it drop already. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that writing "...you're insulting me..." in the edit summary where you can't strike it, shows significant lack of mediation/arbitration accomplishment despite significant training and work. Where none is intended, insult can be taken subjectively as an invalid response to valid criticism, and that is what you did. I invite others to read your April 2009 failed RfA where "...doesn't handle criticism well" and "...edit summary condescending" were among the issues described.

If you sincerely want to learn how you could have handled this case better, I'll be glad to help find the most professionally skilled mediator available at WP to instruct you. Everyone at WQA including you would benefit. Milo 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

( Note - I don't think this WQA is much to do with me any more... I feel much better for applying the WQA process and I think I have learned something about dealing with these situations too, hopefully making me a better editor in future. Thanks for your help.—Teahot/Ash (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC) )

Incivility by User:Blaxthos

Stale

 – 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

"Niteshift36, smartassed comments are unwelcome and unproductive." [42]. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind him, that's just his editing style: [43]. My suggestion: just deal with it. Soxwon (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, I'm sick of his "style". He comes to my talk page and writes a rambling accusation of "ownership" where he whines about my "right wing agenda", then repeats it again in the diff. Litters my talk page with accusations about my "contemptuous" attitude. Get a mirror. If I can get "officially warned" over calling someones intelligence "alleged", then I shouldn't have to put up with this from him. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, all your going to get out of this is an indignant "how dare you challenge an experienced editor?" and ignored. Despite gems like this one floating around (Comment on content, not the contributer; next post: It doesn't surprise me that when you run out of substance you switch to personal attacks, namecalling, and insults), Blaxthos has shown consistently that he's not going to change how he edits. Like I said, just ignore him and move on. Soxwon (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Niteshift36, the quote you posted is a comment on an "edit" and not an "editor", so it does not qualify as a personal attack. Accusations of ownership are different, and of course this invites a larger review of both parties actions. You could suggest to Blaxthos to keep any discussion-related messages on the article talkpage for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why does that response not surprise me? Did I say anything about personal attacks? Or did I say incivility? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're not going to provide specific diff's related to being accused of ownership, then your sole complaint is surrounding the phrase "Niteshift36, smartassed comments are unwelcome and unproductive.". You indeed made a sarcastic comment about "why even write articles at all". Indeed, sarcasm has no place in a positive discussion about a subject, especially when trying to resolve an issue. Based on the diff's you have provided, nobody has been uncivil, nobody has created a hostile editing environment, and nobody - possibly save yourself - have created a situation where difficult communications exist. It honestly appears that because your ideas are not getting consensus that you're trying to discredit others - not a good idea, if this is in fact the case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• If I wanted the ownership accusation to be part of it, I'd have posted the diff. I give people a lot of leeway on talk pages, so my complaint has nothing to do with that. I mentioned it only in response to Soxwon, who appears to be correct....that Blaxthos can do whatever he wants and nobody will say anything to him about it. Perhaps you should read more carefully. My idea, which was to change the template from "alma mater" to "schools attended" got plenty of support both at the Village Pump and at the article talk page. And, I guess you also missed that others at the Village Pump think that my position that it is being used correctly is right. But noooooo, you ignore the actual discussion, put the blame on me and excuse his behavior. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So accusations of WP:BATTLE, accusations of a right-wing agenda, and statements like I think any reasonable editor can conclude that your interest is more towards serving a particular point of view than it is in improving Wikipedia within our accepted policies, guidelines, and norms. are considered civil and productive edits? The latter two were a part of the diff that Niteshift provided: [44]. Soxwon (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may throw in my experience with Blax, I'll let you know that he's made partisan attacks at me on talk pages before too. He also likes to remove things that make FNC look good on either its main page or controversy page, like the Center for Media and Public Affairs report on the 2008 presidential election. Also, why keep him as an admin if you'd had problems with his editing style that he refuses to change? Isn't that called insubordination?PokeHomsar (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos isn't an admin... Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nor will he be warned about intentionally baiting me by repeating it two more times (in the edit and the edit summary). [45] Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, if Blax isn't an admin, and y'all have had problems with him in the past, why hasn't he been banned if at least temporarily? He sure as hell bullied me like an admin. He made threats against me and "pushed his weight around" that gave him a somewhat arrogant air of authority. I just assumed he was an admin.PokeHomsar (talk) 09:49, 9 August 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.

Justin A Kuntz

Stale

 – 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm currently semi-engaged in a discussion at Talk:Gibraltar. There is an editor there who is being, in my view, rather unpleasant to a new editor who has appeared there [46] and to me [47] (that was in response to me merely posting my views on the topic, my words "strongly feel" seem to have offended him for some reason). I feel a few words on his talk page from a neutral party to not get so stressed about things may potentially a help a little. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I see an editor frustrated over a content dispute (that appears to have been also had a loooong time ago) who even says "not trying to make a personal attack here". He's fighting hard not to be uncivil in the face of circular and apparantly frustrating arguments ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see someone bullying other editors. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see everyone on that talk page getting frustrated and starting to throw around mild incivilities, accusations and getting worked up, no one person in particular stands out. It looks like everyone just needs to step away from the article for a while and cool down. Jeni ^(talk) 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

TMC1982

Resolved

 – Parties advised.

I brought up the issue of plagiarism on TMC1982's talk page. (Please do take a look at the diff I provided on that user's talk page.) TMC1982 responded by claiming to be unsure of what I was talking about and denying that it took place. I pointed out the diff I supplied in my first message. TMC1982 then responded with disregard for civility and the integrity of copyright for Wikipedia's content. Again please check the diff I provided and read the whole conversation between TMC1982 and me; they are four very brief messages, and I've threaded them for easy reading. Here's a persistent version of the dialogue that has occured, in case the user blanks or archives that section. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A few things...

• The kick off is a bit late. The copyvio you cited - [48] - is over a year old and, at some point, was removed.
• While the web site TMC1982 used in 2008 as a reference - [49] - repeats verbatim the first 3 paragraphs of the edit, at this point it is unclear which came first.
• Yes, TMC1982's comments to your talk page - [50] & [51] - amount to an irritated brush off and a variation of "I didn't do it. No one saw me do it. You can't prove I did it." But it doesn't seem to breach WP:CIVILITY as of yet, even though it does show a certain disregard for other guidelines and policies.

- J Greb (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There can be no question whether the cited source copied from Wikipedia after that material was added, as this can be shown to be untrue in less than a minute using the Wayback Machine. The offending passage is present in the earliest archive of that page. (Additionally, even the latest archive of the page predates this user's edit.)

The lateness of my note is immaterial. If this is habitual behavior for this user, it needs to stop, and other edits incorporating unauthorized material—and damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia's promise that content is available for reuse under a free license—need to be removed, something which I prodded the user to do for himself or herself. 129.15.131.185 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is habitual behavior for this user

From a moderately thorough skim, as far as I can tell it isn't. TMC1982's response is a trifle snarky, but equally it looks to me like overkill to get so heavy over a year-old edit with no sign of repetition. Chill pills all round, I think. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with personal attack

Resolved

 – Escalated to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• Thegryseone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In this edit another editor seems to have rolled off the civility edge. I don't see anything constructive with me engaging them including posting a NPA warning. Could an uninvolved editor intervene a bit here? -- Banjeboi 08:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a fairly strong warning given that the account was blocked back in March for similar attacks. Shell ^babelfish 08:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it for the first time, I would think another cooling off period is in order. The March block was lifted with a claim of account hijacking. These recent attacks would seem to contradict that defense argument - there were other recent (July) events that Prodego commented on here. Just my 2c.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   08:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! Creative yes, civil no. -- Banjeboi 08:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...that does seem to throw the "It wasn't me" defense out the window. I wouldn't object to something stronger than a warning here. Shell ^babelfish 09:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(another 2c worth) To make an argument, even in an edit comment, that a Wikipedia edit must be biased if the editor is homosexual appears to be more than a civility issue and appears to me to be an issue of general defamation. The wording of the edit comment is clear as the statement was that this was the "only reason" for a claimed biased edit.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have left the WQA-notice template on the other user's page - I understand why Benjiboy would not have advised them in this specific situation. I would recommend escalation to ANI this time, as per Ash's comment above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI note here. -- Banjeboi 23:36, 10 August 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.

SlamDiego

Stale

 – 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User SlamDiego has accused me of misconduct on the AfD page for Biflation, accusing me of unfairly making it seem that an anon IP had attempted to vote twice. I responded that that my edits in total (all within minutes of each other) merely wikified the page, and although one of my edits had added 'keep' in front of two comments from the same IP, I had quickly realised my mistake and consolidated the comments into one vote. (Final version of the page as I left it here.)

Instead of leaving it at that, he has continued to further accuse me of misconduct, thus taking over the AfD page (sorry state of AfD page after our argument [52]). This continued even after I pointed out that it would be better confined to the parallel argument we were having carrying out on his talk page. I have asked him to retract his false accusation, and he has refused. [53]

As background, the last time I had a a conversation with Slamdiego, he also ended with an insult. I asked him politely if he could use simpler English, as I found it hard to understand what he was saying [54]. He essentially responded by saying if I can't understand him I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia [55].

Initially, I merely noted that he had made a mistake. When he continued to further accuse me of wrongdoing, I asked that he retract his false accusation, pointing him at the page history. He seems to be constitutionally unable to admit that he has made a mistake. I do not seek any redress on this issue, as I am satisfied that it is clear from the edit history that he was wrong in making the original accusation. I merely file this alert so that it is noted that this user makes unreliable accusations, and will not admit he is wrong even when pointed that he has made a mistake.

--LK (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor from IP number 209.107.217.23 made two comments to AfD/Biflation ([56][57]). During a series of subsequent edits, Lawrencekhoo placed a bold “Keep -” in front of each, as if each were a separate vote. When he recognized that the two comments were from the same IP number, he reordered comments to place one right after the other, but left the “Keep” that he had placed in front of each. After I discovered these edits, I objected “An edit by the Lawrencekhoo has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice.”

Lawrencekhoo has subsequently struggled for what to claim about how many times the editor voted ([58] [59] [60][61]) but has insisted that he in fact consolidated the comments into one vote, notwithstanding that he left the two “Keeps” in front of the two comments, and that they stood there until I removed one, more than a day after he left them there.

I did not claim that Lawrencekhoo acted with an intention to cheat or to game the system, but Lawrencekhoo has repeatedly claimed that I did ([62][63]), and has repeatedly demanded that I retract, apologize, &c ([64][65][66][67][68]), in spite of it repeatedly being noted that I had offered no such theory for his actions ([69][70][71][72]). Lawrencekhoo has denounced this straight-forward point as “unreasonably obtuse” and “obscurantist” ([73][74]).

The original party to whom an apology was owed was the anonymous editor (who merely expressed his view, and then made a follow-up comment), and that only false charges here are those from Lawrencekhoo. —SlamDiego_←T 10:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the version [75] where Slamdiego claims that I left two bold 'Keep's in front of both comments, you will see that there is only one 'Keep', only in front of the first comment. LK (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

With that evidence, I discovered that the second “Keep” had been re-added by another editor (my error was in not allowing for the possibility that there had been two insertions of this second “Keep”), and I posted a retraction of what I had actually claimed. I note that I am not now claiming that the second editor was attempting to cheat or to game the system, just as I never claimed that Lawrencekhoo was attempting to cheat or to game the system. —SlamDiego_←T 10:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Three lessons to be learned here:

• Do not refactor comments
• IP !votes on AfD are not always held to the same "standard/strength"
• If the evidence WAS available, then you should have collected it BEFORE making accusations (see WP:AGF).

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am gratified that I have been exonerated of wrong doing, but the main reason that I filed this alert is to note that this user made a false accusation, and when pointed out that he had made a mistake, would rather engage in further accusations rather than look at the page history. I'm sorry if I do not exhibit a generosity of spirit, but his non-apology apology leaves me still rattled. LK (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My apology was exactly for what I did wrong — claiming that you'd left in-place the second “Keep” when it was in fact restored by a different editor. Our extended argument did not result from my being unwilling to look at the page history, but from your insistence that I had accused you of seeking to cheat or to game the system (something that no one can find in the page history). Since I did not make such accusations it would be best if you withdrew and apologized for that claim. Doing so would be no more “generous” than was my withdrawal and apology. —SlamDiego_←T 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I will merely point out the obvious that when someone says that another person has unfairly made it seem that a third person attempted to vote twice, that is a strong accusation of misconduct. If shown wrong, the withdrawal of the statement, especially if it comes after further acrimonious accusations because the accuser did not bother to look carefully at the page history, does not constitute an apology. LK (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No. As a simple matter of logic, there is a distinction between results being unfair and the actions which brought them about being misconduct, cheating, or an attempt to game the system. I said that the appearance that the anon had voted twice was unfair; it was. It doesn't matter an awful lot to me whether you apologize; but it does matter somewhat to me that third parties see for what your unjustified accusation and your insistence that I plead guilty to a spurious charge for what they are, and that most of the acrimony here has been in your pressing of this unsupported and unsupportable charge. I have apologized for my actual error (as should you); I will not apologize for invented sins. —SlamDiego_←T 08:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect that this discussion, and that in which Lawrencekhoo levelled his spurious accusations will be archived without retraction or apology from Lawrencekhoo, but on his own talk page Lawrencekhoo has conceded to a third party that perhaps he was mistaken. Lawrencekhoo earlier declared that his intention in complaining here was to alert others in the future to my behavior, so perhaps it is only fair if this be rchived alerting others to his behavior. —SlamDiego_←T 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an inaccurate summary of my comment. Only a humor impaired reading can read this as an admission of fault:[76]

Hmm, ok, I will take this into consideration. However, when I read it, it appeared to be a serious accusation of misconduct. Similar to breaking into a polling booth and stuffing the ballot boxes with obviously fake votes for you opponent so as to discredit him. Perhaps I'm too old fashioned, but I saw it as an insult to my honesty, my reputation was impinged. I do believe, if I was living in the 19th century, I would have dueled over this. It was a matter of 'face'. <Laughs> I am too old fashioned. Or perhaps, just too Chinese. Excuse me, I think I'll go brew some tea now. Perhaps some dim sum afterwards.

If anything, it is an admission that Slamdiego's accusation has hurt me deeply. However, as Slamdiego suggests, let us archive this discussion, taking note of Slamdiego's pursuing of this matter long after I had allowed him to have the last word. BTW, I only came back here to see what had happened in the complaint against User:William M. Connolley below, which I had commented on. Frankly, I'm a bit shocked to see this comment from Slamdiego, who I guess still harbors a grudge against me. LK (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that you had admitted fault; I said that you had conceded the possibility of fault. (Again, you ignore an important logical distinction.) And my comment here wasn't an expression of a grudge. You held — and I agree — that there can be a service in reporting here an unwillingness to retract a false accusation; I am applying that principle upon which we agree in your case. As part of that application, I predicted that, while the attempt of an independent party to reason with you got you to admit the possibility of error — why else would there be a need to take his remarks into consideration? — they would not get you to retract. (Partly, that expectation was formed in the context of your having had time to mull-over the remarks of the independent editor, and yet not then acting to remedy the situtation.) My prediction is now borne out. —SlamDiego_←T 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it surprising that you think it noteworthy when someone admits the possibility of fault. I freely admit that I may be wrong about everything, I don't think I'd trust anyone who was sure of anything (without allowing for possibility of fault), except perhaps, 'I am, I exist.' LK (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a poor line of argument. Declaring that you would take the remarks of the third editor into consideration wasn't merely acknowledging some preëxisting, metaphysical uncertainty, it was acknowledging heightened uncertainty. And his point was actually one already made, but apparently you were more willing to give it consideration when made by a third party.

What's noteworthy is that, even with that point being one of logic, and even with it being made by an uninvolved editor, and even with resultant heightened uncertainty on your part, you would still not retract and apologize for the accusation. —SlamDiego_←T 01:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

One merely has to reference the original statement to see the falsity of the above argument. I was being polite, something I strive to be always.

I think this whole interaction stands as a testament to the typical response of Slamdiego to editors who have crossed him in some way – hair-splitting and obscurantist language meant to intimidate rather than illuminate. Much as I would like more evidence of this behavior, I would suggest to the administrative clerk that this page has seen enough, and that archiving is appropriate. LK (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith rather than “polite” deception in your response to the third editor, and I note that you are only availing yourself of this interpretation of your remarks after previously accepting that they implied uncertainty. If you weren't being truthful in response to that third editor (to be “polite”), why not have said so in your previous remarks here, instead of trying to put a metaphysical spin on things? Further, your claim that I am “hair-splitting” and “obscurantist” in what amounts to plain-spoken logical spot-lighting is simply another aspect of your accusations that doesn't withstand scrutiny. (And I note that the third editor made the same point that, when I made it, provoked your initial charges of obtuseness and obscurantism. Do you want the reader to believe that he too is an obscurantist?) —SlamDiego_←T 08:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Renewal of complaint The above comment is unacceptable. Slamdiego has just accused me of lying (imagining that one cannot be polite by noting one's metaphysical uncertainty). Although dressed up in obscure language, his response violates WP:CIVIL. If any admin is watching, I would like appropriate action to be taken. LK (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, you certainly cannot make that stretch. First you tried to represent your remark to the editor as merely expressing a preëxisting, metaphysical uncertainty. Then, when it was pointed out that the remarks implied a heightened uncertainty, you contradicted that with a claim that you had made them simply to be “polite”. The third editor's explanation wasn't metaphysical in nature, and the only way that your response to it wasn't a deception (“polite” or otherwise) was if your uncertainty were heightened. And you still haven't answered my question: Do you believe that the other editor, in making the same argument that I had made and that you had called obscurantist, was being obscurantist? —SlamDiego_←T 13:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No blocks are issued at this venue; if you would like to escalate your complaints, please use ANI for blocks, or try the next step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution system to try to resolve it through other means. Probably the latter in this case. I don't believe we can do much else here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary abuse

Resolved

 – Escalated to ANI; blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 12 August 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.

---

IP address 75.146.126.129/User:Seb0910 (not sure if they are the same) had a rather offensive edit summary: [77]. Is this worth going to AN/I? Soxwon (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:36, 11 August 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.

MBK004

Resolved

 – Taken to ANI by subject; filing party blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 12 August 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.

---

MBK004 is harrassing me and accusing me of vandalism. Sahlomee (talk) 03:06, 12 August 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.

Recurring PA

Stale

 – 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I left this request on the talk page of User:Will Beback, and he has continued the behavior (diff.) A word from an uninvolved party would be helpful. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not usefully a WQA issue. Editing behavior concerning LaRouche-related articles is under the jurisdiction of Arbcom [78]. I suggest taking this to Arbitration Enforcement. Milo 01:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the ArbCom decisions, and they are not as broad as you suggest. They basically boil down to 3 points: no use of Wikipedia to promote LaRouche, no use of LaRouche sources for articles outside the "LaRouche series," and an affirmation that BLP applies to LaRouche. Several individual editors are warned by the Arbs against incivility, but the ArbCom does not assume any special role in the more general matter of civility or personal attacks on "LaRouche" talk pages. That is the proper sphere of this board. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 63 hits on a search for "LaRouche" at ANI. I've read enough of them for years now to believe that WQA volunteers efforts are not useful to the project or themselves in that ongoing serial drama. So, I'll apply the "not a suicide pact" consensus to the proper sphere of this board. Editors here can and will do as they please, but I strongly recommend that they avoid any non-trivial discussion involving LaRouche. Milo 06:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "not a suicide pact" link is broken. Could you clarify what you mean? --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's correctly a search link, but I've narrowed the previous 200-some general hits to currently 31 more-specific hits in Wikipedia talk space. If you want generalized consensus consensually clarified, please post at the Village pump. Milo 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens accusations and threats

Stale

 – 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has accused me of Wikilawyering and Disruptive Editing, see diff. I suggested using Dispute Resolution if he/she genuinely thought I was Wikilawyering. After I stated that I would take the page in question off my watchlist as I found his/her hectoring too much to deal with, Jclemens stated that Dispute Resolution was not needed as if I continued editing in the same way he/she would provide evidence to Admins who would be likely to block or ban me.

I used the term hectoring as I found Jclemens previous edits aggressive and mildly threatening. My edits have been bold but I do not think my edits have been out of order (no other editors on the article have said anything to that effect yet). To me, a threat of using admins without using Dispute Resolution seems to be bullying, possibly to ensure I will stop editing the article. The page in question has a religious topic, and I recognize this could be an emotive issue for some people.

I would welcome a third party view as I recognize this may be my problem rather than Jclements; I may be taking this too seriously, be over sensitive or Jclemens may be right and I may have misunderstood what the terms Wikilawyering and Disruptive Editing mean.—Ash (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A full review of the facts will demonstrate that Ash has indeed been warned by me for his disruptive and tenditious behavior, to include various things such as removing deadlinks contra WP:DEADLINK, challenging sourced references simply because they are pay sites, inserting material from a source and then complaining that it made the article too gossipy, and then flagrantly failing to read the talk page when pointed to a previous discussion on the talk page. Furthermore, the combination of questioning all the reliable sources in an article without any policy basis to do so, subsequent to proposing a merger one of his first two edits to the article (and absent any previous discussion) demonstrates that Ash is simply not interested in working with others, but rather using whatever means seem expedient, including filing a basisless WQA, in order to achieve the elimination of this article. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Note) This BLP/N refers to the same issues (originally not raised by me with intent to cover the accusations above but was raised in an attempt to deal neutrally with issues raised by Jclemens on the same article) but now points to this WQA as a more appropriate process.—Ash (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ownership issues at Ashkenazi intelligence

Stale

 – 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past several editors independently of eachother (among them 72.82.52.106, User:yellowfiver, 70.23.225.197, User:Slrubenstein and myself) have expressed neutrality concerns about how this fringe theory about the Ashkenazi Jews Superior intelligence is being presented in its article. Each time concerns have been brushed off by USer:A Sniper. Today I tagged the article with an NPOV concern tag that he immediately removed without discussion [79]. I reinserted the tag[80] explaining[81] that NPOV tags are not supposed to be removed untill there is a consensus that the article is no longer biased. He removed it again [82] with a less than polite comment and commented agitatedly at the talk page[83]. I did not reinsert the tag to avoid an editwar - but instead requested that he reinsert it himself. He has not responded to this request. But instead defended[84] the removal of the npov tag by stating that "while the article needs inclusion of more critical surces this is not an issue of neutrality" which to me is self contradictory. I think the article generally suffers from ownership problems caused by User:A Sniper's defensive attitude whenever concerns about the neutrality or quality of this particular article is brought up. I would very much like someone to take a look at the situation and hopefully explain to A Sniper how POV disputes are solved here through consensus. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to the user, who has brought up this issue at the page in the past, it has been frustrating demonstrating that the article is about a theory, no matter how kooky, not about an issue. The user's page shows a degree of knowledge in the general area so I find it curious why the issue of ownership against me has been instituted, whereas I have tried (observing WP:CIVIL as best I can) detailing why this isn't a case of POV but simply a misunderstanding of the article itself: it is not about the issue of intelligence among Ashkenazic Jews but instead about a theory proposed by some academics in papers. One can try to use the article as a means of sporting POV to challenge the theory, but it is the incorrect forum. Instead, what I've suggested is that we merely add more bona fide citations to articles or books where there has been challenge to the theory - so far, no editors have done so. But is this actually a manifestation of POV in the article itself? And where is the discussion the user has mentioned? I have never had an issue with this article in several years other than with this particular user, to the best of my knowledge. Lastly, I found it curious that the user used the term "Ashkenazi Jews Superior intelligence" - was this a clue that the user really has a concern over the issue rather than the substance of the article? In closing, I would ask editors to note the difference between a general article about intelligence among Ashkenazim (which this article is not) and whether it is instead an article about a theory...once we get passed this, the user's criticism of my comments at the talk page (and removal of the NPOV tag) may make more sense. I would finally note that I believe the user's suggestion of adding the word theory to the article name is a fantastic one and could end all of this in minutes. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to request that A Sniper's speculations about my possible ultiertior motivation for tagging the article be disregarded as irrelevant. The article is about a theory defended by a very small minority within anthropology however the article hardly mentions that other viewpoints exist, or much less suggest that they might be the majority viewpoint. This is a direct violation of WP:FRINGE, and in consequence of WP:NPOV which makes an NPOV-tag completely necessary as long as the article is not changed. The fact that the article is about a theory not the larger topic does not mean that the article is ecempt from providing a balanced view of viewpoints both for and against the theory while observing WP:UNDUE. A sniper is suggesting that i am unaware that the article is about the theory, however as he has noted I have suggested that it be renamed "Ashkenazi intelligence theory" which should show that I am aware that that is the topic of the article - renaming it however does not solve the neutrality concerns about the content. Lastly I will request that the closing admin/editor does not brush this off as a content dispute - the issue I brought here was A Sniper's ownershiplike behavior at the article, especially whether it is ok to unilaterally remove a NPOV tag when several editors have expressed pov concerns before any discussion is undertaken and a consensus is formed to either remove it or leave it in place. And possibly the larger ownership issue of A Sniper brushing off concerns expressed by multiple editors over a long period instead of considering that they might have a point (this behavior can be observed at the talk page). ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, what I am concerned about is that you have taken a few scattered comments about content and turned it into a discussion about NPOV that you've been having with yourself. You have not offered any evidence whatsoever that POV even exists in the article - merely that there needs to be additional references from sources that challenge the theory - this I agree with. But instead of it being POV in the article, the proper tag would be that the article needs additional referencing (in this case references of bona fide sources critical to the theory). An NPOV tag would be if the article was biased, contained WP:OR or was slanted in favor of the position of the theory - it does not (and I would hope other editors would agree that it lacks references to criticism but is not actually written in a biased or POV manner). Let's change the name by adding theory - yes. Let's dig up some sources that criticized the theory - yes. But stating the article is itself is written in a POV manner is simply spurious, as is your contention that I am exhibiting "ownership"; I am not an anthropologist bent out of shape about content...I am a Wikipedia editor concerned about incorrect use of a tag. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

At present we are two editors contradicitng eachother about whether the tag is appropriate or not. Why dn't you reinsert it and wait for the discussion to unfold between multiple editors about whether or not there are genuine POV problems with the article or not?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

...because the article lacks references (critical of the theory) - it doesn't exhibit bias, WP:OR or NPOV. Why not change the name of the article and add a tag asking for additional references? NPOV denotes a flaw in the writing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is not the references, it is the content. It doesnt have any content about the opposing viewpoint that makes it a POV issue AND a flaw in the writing. NPOV denotes that the issue is presented one-sidedly and that is certainly the case here - you have enev admitted so yourself.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)