Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive78

Repeated allegations of sockpuppetry against myself by User:Legolas2186

Not too long after I began editing on Wikipedia, User:Legolas2186 referred to me as User:Pokerdance (an inactive editor who seems to have had issues with socking, judging from the history of his/her talk page). I thought this was simply him getting confused, and when I asked who this editor was, he did not tell me. I ignored this incident and moved on. However, it came up again, but after the aforementioned first incident, he was flat-out accusing me of being a sock of Pokerdance.

• Here, when one of Legolas' friends is warned for a 3RR incident, he says many derogatory and/or false things about me, including again stating that I am a sock of Pokerdance and some other editor User:D.C. Blake (I presume this is one of Pokerdance's socks).

• I then confronted Legolas about the aforementioned incident, where he says he's "more than 100% convinced" that I am Pokerdance and telling me I will be a "banned sock" if I continue with 3RR (which I didn't have a problem with to start with; more false accusations against me).

• After User:Bradcro (one of Legolas' friends) refers to me as Pokerdance at this AFD, I am offended and confront him (not as civil as I could have, but oh well) yet again. He replies only with, "I don't even bother with you untill (sic) you 3RR on the Gaga articles." (Hadn't had an issue with 3RR again and at this time, I was barely editing at Lady Gaga articles.) I tell him to leave me alone about the sock thing, but he doesn't respond (and again continues.)

• When Legolas misuses rollback on an article, I warn him not to do so. He responds in a completely incivil and disrespectful manner: "Please don't lecture me on how to use Rollback sock."

• Here, when an editor disagreed with me opening a GAR on Hilary Duff, Legolas went to this editor's talk page to again state that I am a sock.

This is beyond ridiculous and immature. If he is this convinced I am a sock, he needs to take it up at SPI where checkuser would show I am clearly not a sock. Instead, he is being a bully/troll about it and slandering me anytime he sees my name brought up. It's discouraging me from editing further at Wikipedia, and I think he's actually trying to bully me out of here for whatever reason (I never ran across him until he first "accidentally" called me Pokerdance). I want to know what his problem is, why he feels the need to constantly harass me, and why he can't go to SPI if he thinks I am a sock. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I still stand my ground that this user is a sock of User:Pokerdance, User:D.C. Blake becasue of the same editing patterns, genre warrioring and aggressive nature in editing articles. If the user's ways had changed I wouldn't have accused of sockpuppetry, but since it hasnot, I will report it to SPI. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, pending resolution of the SPI, will you avoid referring to Chase wc as a sock? Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Note - No SPI has yet been filed by Legolas2186. Exxolon (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Chase, have there been further sockpuppet accusations? Gerardw (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about Madchester and AnemoneProjectors

I updated the Leona Lewis section of the Run (Snow Patrol song) page to note that it was no longer the fastest downloaded single in the UK. This was reverted by AnemoneProjectors and rewritten in a way which would mislead the reader into thinking that the song was still the fastest downloaded song. I sent AnemoneProjectors a message asking him not to do this and was suprised to recieve a message from Madchester asking me not to threaten other Wikipedia editors. I would like both these admins to be warned about ganging up and bullying other editors as this is not right. Riksweeney (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The user offered a compromise and updated the page to reflect that it is no longer the fastest selling UK downloads. Furthermore, this is unacceptable. You accused AnemoneProjectors of "vandalising", which shows a failure to assume good faith. Further, I highly suspect this edit to have been made by you, rejecting the user's compromise. Your edit removed sourced material without providing a rationale. You have not tried to discuss the issue in a civil manner. So far, it seems as if you are the one violating Wikiquette. Intelligentsium 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Intelligentsium. Furthermore, it would seem that you did not even bother to read the instructions at the top of this page, since you did not notify either of the editors you are complaining about. Additionally, you did not provide diffs, which means that anyone seeking to help has to hunt out the information to get to the heart of the matter. There is no indication that you have tried to resolve this issue yourself before coming here, rather you would seem to be the one who has acted in an uncivil manner with your post on AnemoneProjectors' talk page. In future, you should at least try to resolve differences about articles on the article talk page and at all times remember to assume good faith. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversions by MisterWiki for no reason

The user MisterWiki has been reverting my edits for no good reason, tagging my edits as vandalism including here. Just yesterday I uploaded the same image that you can see at Last Exit to Brooklyn (song), I, however, provided a lower resolution and I also cropped it so the side bar-code which still up to this moment is visible on the image that still stands at Last Exit to Brooklyn (song) wouldn't be there. MisterWiki, reverted my uploaded version calling it vandalism. After I explained him at his talk-page that there is no reason to keep his uploaded version which has the bar-code uncropped, he reverted my edits again and posted it for Speedy deletion claiming that it clearly violated WP:NFCC#3, I'm not sure how mine was different from his. Please note that he has just recently cropped and uploaded the same image (you can see it here) providing a lower resolution; however, has failed to change the image-address at the page of the article where you can see his original uploaded version still standing.

Please also note that he's been edit-warring with me as well, and one of the examples can be seen at You Can Win If You Want. MisterWiki moved three times the title "You Can Win If You Want" to "You Can Win if You Want" (1st time, 2nd time, 3rd time), finally I was able to talk some sense into him at the talk page and he left it alone.

I am not sure what can be done in a situation like this, but after he was able to get the image deleted, he's been leaving messages at my talk page (see this here) threating me that if I don't stop vandalizing the pages he will request a block. I'd appreciate if someone could look at this.--Harout72 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:MisterWiki of this discussion. [1] — æk^Talk 23:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer

I note that you continue to use the revert feature to revert content edits: [2], [3]; as well as the revert feature of Twinkle: [4], [5]. The latter two diffs could also be interpreted as personal attacks, given that the edit summaries assert that certain edits are vandalism. I suggest you closely study WP:NPA, WP:EW, and WP:REVERT unless you want to find yourself losing access to tools. — ækTalk 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC) External links available in my talk page

• Answer: There were never any personal attacks, some Harout72 edits were real vandalism and I know perfectly how to use these tools, thank you.

Does this look like a functioning source to you here? Because that's the source the position No. 9 was supported by, see it here. Just because you were able to search and locate the source, doesn't not mean that it was there before. Be competent about it and do not call editors vandals.

• Answer: You just had to click the link I gave and replace with the real link. Sorry I didn't made that.

The user MisterWiki has been reverting my edits for no good reason, tagging my edits as vandalism

• Answer: Ok, that was not vandalism, but the image failed to WP:NFCC#3, you just had to upload the cropped and lower resolution version on the same name, not another, that's why your file fails to NFCC#3.

...finally I was able to talk some sense into him at the talk page and he left it alone.

• Answer: I asked some guys in the IRC channel about it. MuZemike and many others helped me doing the right decision, and finally you were right ;)

Also note that your alleged misuse of the rollback feature is (at least partially) orthogonal to the issue being discussed here

• Answer: I know I misused the rollback feature but, are you sure the editions I reverted were right?

--MisterWiki talk contribs 23:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversions by MisterWiki for no reason

• Answer: I gave you a reason on your talk page.

Comments

Please don't move my comments from your talk page to this page, stripping the internal links in the process. Also note that your alleged misuse of the rollback feature is (at least partially) orthogonal to the issue being discussed here. — æk^Talk 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything was alright until Harout72 started to remove redundant categories. Category:Number-one singles in Switzerland, by example, is not a redundant category. Maybe he should need a coaching or something else. He don't rule the Modern Talking-related articles, he is just one more. --MisterWiki talk contribs 00:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course determining from a very limited and flawed English language skills that MisterWiki possesses, suggesting that someone other than him needs a coaching is equally hard to comprehend.--Harout72 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, but I try to do the best I can. Do I show your errors sarcastically offending?, I don't want to be a perfect English speaker. Dieter Bohlen wasn't good writing lyrics for his songs, many of them were ununderstandeable. I said: you need a coaching with the politics, something you never heard about, you fly in the space, but there are rules, rules that you are not respecting. And stop your sarcasms. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Offending me? Didn't you call me blind a while ago in this edit of yours?--Harout72 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it, I was very angry with you, in a act of good faith. I removed my statements, and I wrote it all again without offenses. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that you also called my edits vandalism because you got angry with me, when you saw that your uploaded version of the image is not being used in the article. By the way, English is not my mother tongue either, but I don't go around calling other editors vandals. Perhaps, you should learn how to control your anger before you continue using the rollback-features and tagging people with false labels in edit-summaries as well as on their talk-pages.--Harout72 (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not tongue, but language :) --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies Harout72, but the image failed the policies, look at this image I uploaded Image:Office 2010.png, it was nominated for deletion because there existed another picture with the same purpose. Then I learned that they were not against me, there were rules. Sorry about calling you vandal (I never called you vandal, just used the wrong button, I just had to use [rollback], not [rollback vandal], sorry). I was not angry until I saw this post. Sorry, really. :-) But don't treat the others so bad, I felt offended. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Listen, just take my advice and don't edit-war with editors. If you disagree, try and resolve the problem at the talk-pages, if you see an edit that makes you angry, do not try and edit immediately, just walk away from your computer for a while and get back to it with a clear mind, that's just my advice. One more thing, it is "Mother tongue", you can refer to the same folks when you did while seeking for advice on "You Can Win If You Want". Take care.--Harout72 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir, it is Mother tongue, the IRC users also corrected me :) . Sometimes I just think I do the things right, I don't get angry. Sorry pal. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain this?. Look at other examples, let's say, em, Tom's_Diner#The_DNA_remix by example. The cover says dna featuring suzanne vega: tom's diner, I don't see where says The DNA remix too. It's just a technical thing. That's why I reverted your edit. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See my reply at the discussion-page of Brother Louie '98.--Harout72 (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz's use of minor edit flag

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Refered to WP:ANI --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz continues to add tags to the White privilege entry (history), including tags for speedy deletion, while using the minor edits flag. He's been warned twice about this on his user talk page, but he has done it twice since then. (Click here for the most recent example.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is outside the scope of Wikiquette. Consider WP:ANI. Intelligentsium 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson's personal attacks

see here. and here. There are also earlier examples, but this one is over the edge. He has no respect for his fellow editors. His repeated personal attacks and trolling on FAC's and AFD's shows that is an issue that needs to be dealt with.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page request you post notification on the user's talk page. These Teeninvestor edits [[2]], [[3]] are themselves more uncivil than Pmanderon's replies. I'd suggest first ensuring your own contributions remain civil and then repost if Pmanderson's remain uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noting the direct provocations. If adolescent is an unjustified inference from Teeninvestor's username, I will strike it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to be as civil as possible, I'd strike all of see here and the might improve your cocksureness and I will be pleasantly surprised by either. of and here. Gerardw (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

honestly, I just think all sides in this debacle need a short period to unwind. Teeninvestor has been aggressively trying to salvage the article in question, and that has produced a lot more interpersonal friction than your average AfD debate. I think if TI would agree to stay off the AfD page for the remainder of the discussion (heaven knows he's made every point he has to make at least three times over) and let it run its course, the whole situation will resolve itself quickly and civilly. --Ludwigs2 00:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Brown Hair

Stuck

 – unable to resolve dispute Gerardw (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I would like to report the behaviour of User:BrownHairedGirl. After a differing opinion about Category: Celtic sports clubs this editor/administrator has begun “watching” my edits and has been picking arguments with me over trivial issues. You can read the comments she has left at the above discussion and on my own talk page. These include threatening me with blocking which I think is an abuse of her power as an administrator. Her main gripe is that I have depopulated some categories. While I admit to doing this, all the articles have been placed in more appropriate categories. I have received one negative comment about this, but I believe they just over reacted and had not looked at what I had done properly. There was no onging dispute. I have also received several positive comments about my categorising. Am I been paranoid ? I do not believe I have done anything to warrant such action and I am extremely upset at the way I have been treated. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are overreacting. Asking someone to take something to a discussion page to achieve consensus is very good Wikiquette. Your comments calling her petty and get a life are not good Wikiquette. Gerardw (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.

I found numerous blanked categories when working my way through Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories and cleaning them up (see the relevant contribs in the related changes list). I checked the histories of blanked categories before deleting them and found the editor who had blanked them out-of-process, and raised it with him on his talk page. It turned out to be the same editor who I (and most other editors) disagreed with in a a CFD debate on Category:Celtic sports clubs, but I hadn't made the connection until Djln raised it later in the following discussion, and Djln's assumption of bad faith is both discourteous and misplaced.

However, now that we are here to discuss wikiquette, may I note that:

• Djln's first contribution to that CFD was one of the rudest I have seen in a long time
• Djln's contribs list shows zero use of edit summaries other than those automatically created by tools
• Two editors posted to Djln's talk page last month to reproach him for incivility[4], [5]

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Of the over 400 categories listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, I am only responsible for a small number. Obviously depopulating poor categories is common practise. Why am I being targeted for trying improve Wiki categories ? For BEG to say she “hadn't made the connection” between this list and our disagreement over the Celtic sports club issue is frankly unbelievable. I find BEGs behaviour to be patronising, threatening, uncalled for and not the behaviour I‘d expect from a Wiki admin. BEGs point about edit summaries just proves she is petty and should get a life. The two editors who cited me for incivility had both wrecked/vandalised articles I had contributed to and if BEG had checked your facts she would have noticed that in a subsequent AFD the majority sided with my opinion. I can also cite comments left my talk page. Try these for starters.
  • For your work expanding the article on Vinnie Roslin, I would like to award you this cookie. User:Firestorm 23:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, just wanted to say hello, and say "thanks" and "well done" for all the work you're doing on US soccer team categorizations. There's not enough respect given to people like you who do the unsung dirty work and keep everything running smoothly - so consider this an official note that your work is appreciated! --JonBroxton (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hello David Thanks for upgrading this page (Newmarket SFC) with the football categories. I am intrigued as to why an Irishman living in Liverpool has an interest in Brisbane football??? Regards Peter Peter Eedy (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Djln —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.56.143 (talk)

We comment on the content, not the contributor. Whether an editor has made zero edits or a million the expectation is that Wikipedians are civil to each other. I've already offered my opinion, I'm tagged WQA in progress to encourage other neutral editors to comment. Gerardw (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Djln, I'm not seeing any evidence of incivility or 'stalking' by BrownHairedGirl in this case. If you have the diffs, please provide them. However, I am concerned that your conduct in this edit; [6], where you tell her "you really need to get a life", was inappropriate. Process is important; especially with categories. Article moves are very easy to track and reverse, the manner in which you moved categories is equal to a cut and paste move of an article- the process and the bots ensure nothing gets "lost" in the technical aspects of the move over. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• If following me around and watching my page and edits is not evidence of stalking, what is ? If unprovoked threats to block is not incivil what is ? Asking someone to to "get a life" is not my definition of inappropriate Djln--Djln (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• PS If anybody has a particular issue with a category that I have changed or edited then let me know and lets discuss it or have it nominated to be changed back. Djln--Djln (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read all relevant comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_18#Category:Celtic_sports_clubs and User talk:BrownHairedGirl, but I am afraid I fail to see any threats to block, or any evidence of stalking. Maybe you can provide diffs to support your claims Djln, but I highly doubt it, therefore I am going to strongly suggest to you that you desist from making such accusations against BrownHairedGirl, accusations of admin abuse or stalking are taken very seriously, provided there is sufficient evidence supporting the accusation. If there is no such evidence however, then the accusation itself becomes a personal attack (per WP:NPA), you seem to have found it easy enough to accuse BrownHairedGirl, but have failed to follow the accusation up with diffs or quotes. As I said before, please cease from making these unfounded accusations, or provide evidence.
On the note of your own conduct. Calling other users petty, or telling them that they need to get a life, is insulting. Above you say that: "Asking someone to to "get a life" is not my definition of inappropriate", however, it really doesn't matter whether you consider the comment to be inappropriate or not, if others say that they find it insulting, then simply don't do it. There is no reason why calling others names or making rude assertions about them is necessary to your interaction with them upon Wikipedia, so simply; do not do it.
To sum up;

• A) BrownHairedGirl is doing none of the things that you have alleged as far as I can see.
• B) Your allegations appear to be unfounded, and therefore appear to be attacking BrownHairedGirl
• C) Your own conduct needs attention.

Kind regards, (PS: why do you keep calling her BEG? It should be BHG) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Hi Spitfire, I hope your not a police officer in real life. I would not like to be relying on your investigation skills for real. Obviously you missed “'you may be blocked”' left by BHG at my talk page at 15:58, 23 December 2009 and this “you will eventually find an admin who will block you. It might be me if you push me hard enough” and “I will keep on watching” and “your talk page is on watchlist” all left at 18:26, 23 December 2009. How is this not evidence of issuing threats and stalking ? So let me get this right. It’s an horrendous Wiki crime to be mildly rude and empty a poor standard category, but it’s ok to threaten and stalk other editors. Have I got that right. Djln--Djln (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• PS Above you say “it really doesn't matter whether you consider the comment to be inappropriate or not, if others say that they find it insulting, then simply don't do it.” Fair enough. Apologies for paraphrasing but would “it really doesn't matter whether you consider your actions as stalking or not, if others say that they find it threatening, then simply don't do it.” also apply Djln--Djln (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting on WQA is asking for third party perspective on an issue. Three of us have given our opinion there is not evidence of incivility by BrownHairGirl. Replying uncivilly, e.g. I hope your not a police officer in real life, Obviously you missed isn't helpful. Personally I primarily look at direct evidence from history logs and have found most commenting editors behave similarly. If you are unsatisfied with the results here you could post on WP:AN/I; I don't think you would find support for your position but I'd estimate I'm wrong about such things about 15% of the time. Gerardw (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It’s no wonder Wiki editors are dropping off like flies, if this is the treatment that well intentioned contributors and established editors have to put up with. It's an absolute disgrace that I have been stalked, have presented you with evidence and that the three of you deem it fit to put your head in the sand and have a go at me. If I was a newbie I would have walked away by now. I suggest that some Wiki editors grow a thicker skin. The above opening line was sarcasm. Maybe you have heard of it ? I am not going to bother with this procedure anymore, as I actually have a life and spending time hear is just a waste of mine. I will carry on editing as before. I will no longer interact with BEG and will not respond to her threats again. Maybe that is the solution. Djln --Djln (talk) 15:50, 27 December 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.

Continuing problem with Chhe (talk)

Resolved

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

Hello, I'm having problems with Chhe (talk) . He is continuing to make uncivil comments about me, continuing to refer to a block I had last summer despite my asking him to stop. He brings up the block every time I make an edit. This behavior is excessive and does not contribute to the improvement of the article. Chhe does not make contributions to the article, he just criticizes and insults with statements he puts on the talk page and in the edit summaries. Please help resolve this. Thank you. [7] [8]

The only reason why I mentioned his/her past block at the Karl Rove talk page was because his recent removal of content namely diff->[9] was precisely the same removal he had been blocked for making previously. I wasn't mentioning it to be vindictive, but rather to simply inform people who aren't well read in those talk page archives that this user is again removing the exact same content for which he was previously blocked for repeatedly removing without consensus several months ago.Chhe (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not blocked for that. I was editing the page, he came in, again, and reverted everything I had done. I, being a new user, didn't understand the implications, and reverted all his reverts. I got blocked for that. Not for a specific section that resulted in edit warring. Even now, he is continuing to say it over and over again, that I was blocked. This is evidence in itself of his continuing uncivil behavior. This is harassment and a desire on his part to discredit my legitimate editing on this page.Malke2010 22:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He's also done this: [10] It is an attempt to intimidate me in order to keep me from editing. He's threatening to claim that I have reverted edits when I have done no such thing.Malke2010 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The diff above is a 4 revision diff of Malke's own edit. Not clear to me what inference we are supposed to be making. Gerardw (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I thought I made things very plain. Chhe does not make any contributions to the Karl Rove page. He simply reverts edits. I believe the diff is there. I'm reporting him on this page for his incivility. I thought the above entries made that clear. I don't know how else to explain it.Malke2010 03:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The diff should be of a single edit, so there should not be a intermediate revisions not shown in the middle. The edit should be by the user being reported, Chhe, in this case. So the right hand side should say Chhe. He is an example of what the diff should look like [[11]], (although not an example of uncivil behavior.)Gerardw (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Malk that's a standard warning for edit warring which you appear to be doing. It's hard to operate on good faith when you constantly do the same things, are asked to stop by a majority, then do them again. Soxwon (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Soxwon is talking about. This does not concern him. I am here to protest the continuing incivility of Chhe. I think I've supplied adequate evidence of same. I ask an admin for help with this.Malke2010 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A request on this page is a request for third party advice. Soxwon has acted entirely appropriately in providing such advice. WQA is not the correct place to ask for admin assistance, for that you should try WP:AN/I. However, before you do so, I would advise you to consider that your own behaviour would then be likely to come under the spotlight and based upon what I have seen by a perusal both your talk page history and that of the Karl Rove article, you may not be very happy with the results of that scrutiny. It seems to me that you are quick to jump to a bad faith assumption (your edit summaries here and here are relevant) especially given that the posts you removed from your talk page were about your own behaviour and which can easily be traced through the article history. In the Karl Rove article you removed a substntial amount of sourced material without previously discussing it on the talk page. Given that you admit to having been involved in a dispute about the same content previously during which your actions resulted in a block, it is disengenuous of you to pretend to not know that unilaterally deleting that content would be controversial. Such action strains the bounds of credibility of an assumption of good faith. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My behavior is absolutely correct in this case. I have used the talk page extensively and explained edits in the edit summaries. Any material I have removed has been removed appropriately within the bounds of the wikipedia rules. Whatever behavior I had in the past is in the past. I have no fear of my behavior being under scrutiny. I have not unilaterally deleted content. Chhe and Soxwon and any others choose not to participate in discussions. I can't make somebody come to the page. I waited a very long time after posting on the talk page before I started making edits. You seem to be the one who is failing to assume good faith. And it is right and correct for me to complain about being harassed about having been blocked in the past as a means to discredit me. I think your comments here are rude and heavy handed. You should rethink your behavior and learn to assume good faith.Malke2010 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of unilateral behavior, did it ever occur to you that Chhe's behavior was deliberately provocative? He could have easily gone to the talk page and asked why I had removed material. He could have initiated a reasoned discussion. But instead, he choose to blast a huge headline "Massive removal of material by Malke." And if you are so adroit at looking up edits, etc. then you could easily go back to the Karl Rove talk page and see the excellent job I did resolving another dispute involving yet again more NPOV material.Malke2010 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A post on WQA is a request to have a situation scrutinized by third party editors. It is therefore inappropriate to criticize a contributor editor for not assuming good faith.Gerardw (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the diffs. [12].Malke2010 12:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, how is removing half a cite correct?[[13]]Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, not sure what you mean by 'half a cite.' What does that mean?Malke2010 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As in you left, "<ref>{{cite news|url=" in the article after you deleted a paragraph. Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 18:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The link does not come up, but I see it in the edit section here. I'll go check the page, but I would say I didn't leave it intentionally. Thank you for asking. Malke2010 18:56, 29 December 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.

BilCat is making a WP:POINT

Resolved

 – complainant blocked for disruptive editing Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BillCat is making a point twice, reverting some white space-only edits I made before. In both cases, the result leaves the article in an inconsistent state, so I doubt that his edits are done in good faith.

We struggled before about white space edits, the last time he used personal attacks against me. His behaviour has more cases of gross incivility against me and others.

Please let us know what you think about this. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited an article edited by this user before yesterday, as they have no edits before yesterday. The civility accusations by an editor with a similar IP were dismissed, and I've not been uncivil in regard to thes edits. However, this use has made accusations of bad faith, IP hatred, and misrepresetation of my edit summaries in both diffs. I did admit I reverted a verticle space that should not have been reverted, which was not accepted by this user. The issue that was at the core of the previous row involved edits such as this one Per the result of the discussion on that issue, I did not revert it this time, though User:Denniss has reverte it since then.

Finally, this user appears to be hounding me now, and has take issue here with my removal of an unneeded gallery fro a page which has heretofore not been edited by this user or anyone from his IP range for at least a year. Note that all the articles in which I have interacted with IPs from this user's range have been ones on my watchlist, with the exection of a film article where I thought that user's edit was vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any rebuttal, only history. So you admit that your edits are disruptive?

It's not important if I am this other user or not, important is your consistent incivility towards other users. Since I do see repeated attacks against IPs out of the blue, I don't think it is far-fetched to assume a certain animosity, whether or not you'd call it hate.

"[WP:AGF] does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." You have proven more than once that you are not interested in a constructive dialog with IPs.

My accusations were not dismissed, the discussion was closed because a barely related discussion was going on elsewhere. (Yup, that's the reason given. Nope, makes no sense, but that's the way complaints against "established editors" are dealt with.)

I think your consistent incivility warrants a closer look. Notice the difference between your actions and mine though: You reverted my change with a personal attack, without having an inkling of knowledge about the topic; I started a discussion. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no incivility by BilCat that I can see. Please do not raise wikiquette complaints against other editors without good grounds, doing that repeatedly is considered harassment. Dmcq (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be no real points raised above the previous complaint which the complainant raised also at WP:AN/I and then complained about their treatment by people there and argued with admins. Reraising it at WP:WQA without anything extra doesn't seem very constructive. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. I simply don't believe you that you looked closely but couldn't find PAs, unless you are talking about this very alert. In that case, the incivility is in making a WP:POINT by making disruptive reverts just because the edits were made by me: Note that his edits make no sense otherwise as they leave the articles in an inconsistent state.

I won't make a WP:POINT, but you and I both know that an IP would never get away with the stuff BilCat pulls. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I never raised anything about BilCat on WP:AN/I. Please keep to the facts. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're different from 91.55.204.136? Sorry it seemed rather a coincidence such a similar IP. In that case you seem to have no case on your own at all, you're trying to complain on behalf of other people. You can raise a WP:request for comment on a user if you believe a number of other editors agree with you. Dmcq (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My case (if you want to call it that) is BilCat's consistent incivility. I was 91.55.204.136. If you continue to claim I made a case about BilCat on AN/I, provide diffs. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just blocked this editor for disruptive behaviour. Based on the IP address and editing pattern it's clear that they're the same person who raised the complaint at ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Bogus PA warning from User:MBK004) and was told to drop the matter and move on. Based on their history of edit warring and claiming to be a victim I have no doubt that they'll be back under a new IP address to complain about me shortly... Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:IMatthew

Resolved

 – agreed to move on

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

IMatthew (talk · contribs) is a great content creator and overall editor but his interactions with others is why I have posted this WQA. You see, IMatthew has had a history of being rather rude in his attempts to correct other editor's use of wikipeda as myspace, (including myself) [14] .He has even accused other editors of this action when they themselves are totally innocent, [15] (Thejadefalcon). He has also violently deffended [16] his actions of spamming [17] the ANI about the Wikicup by stateing in an ES fuck off, you guys are completely ridiculous. I Used this outburst to show that he needs to be nicer when warning people about maturity when he himself can act immature at times. This, was his response. While my reply was nice, [18] his was rude and outright insuting. [19]. This prompted User:Thejadefalcon to join in to defend me and point out to IMatthew that he was being bitey [20]. IMatthew's response was to delete the comment and call Thejadefalcon a "troll" [21]. This resulted in several more comments between the two that proves IMatthew's incivility and his belife that he can do no wrong. [22], [23], [24]. The last diff really made me mad. IMatthew has on multiple times, belittled me and others. (I can post more diffs if they are requested) All that I want is for IMatthew to say that he is sorry and for him to treat me with respect.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything more recent than 26th December? Nev1 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have given him two offers to sit down and fix our disputes. (At his talk page) He has ignored both.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Perhaps he merely wishes not to interact with you. Wikipedia is easily big enough for two people not to interact if they don't want. I don't think there's an issue any more; it's an indication that he's moved on, and perhaps you shuold too. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. I have tried to ignore him but he keeps on comming to my talk page and harrassing annoying me. Enough is enough.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful man. The term harassing can be taken the wrong way fast. I would recuse that comment.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, but iMatthew has made two edits to your talk page, the latest was on the 10th. I don't see how there's still a conflict. Are you two crossing paths elsewhere? Nev1 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not just my talk page. Also, there has been a history. Im not just gona wait for the next outburst to take this to the WQA.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide sources?Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This seems unnecessary. You left messages on iMatthew's talk page asking for reconciliation between you and have had no interaction since. That's not to say he's turned you down. I suggest you step away from this. I think there's a dramaout planned, have you considered signing up? Nev1 (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. This isnt about me but about the SPAMMING incedent [25]. And yes I have signed up.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't try to take people on as an enemy and threaten to do something as a personal rant. I suggest backing off. Also, that has nothing to do with you, why are you making it such a big deal?Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Look. This isnt a personal rant. I just want him to treat me with respect and kindness. So what am I to do? Go back to begging for him to leave me alone and keep sending useless peace templates to his talk page?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people think respect should be earned. Never mind the templates. If he's staying out of your way there's no problem. Plenty of people on Wikipedia disagree with each other without crossing paths again. If that changes, then you can come back here but this is getting silly. Nev1 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The way you portrayed the issue – mentioning your attempts at reconciliation – certainly made it seem like this was about you. This page is for dispute resolution. The dispute is three days old, so effectively resolved; there's no need to go about stirring stuff. The "spamming" issue is also old, Pedro and iMatthew discussed it. And you've provided a diff of him suggesting someone to go away; exactly what is wrong about that? Please consider leaving this alone. Nev1 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as he leaves me alone, ill return the favor. I guess that your right Nev1.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:54, 30 December 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's uncivil behauvoir

I am experiencing some problems with user BilCat. some days ago i did an edit in Bell 222; Bil reverted this edit one hour later. I asked to him the reason about this revert [26]; i told to him to take care to not delete stuff potentially relevant (and i am sure it was)[27]; he, instead to answer me, simply deleted my post, with this nice words Took out the trash - my, it's sure funny to by lectured to by people who can barley speak English!. Note 'barley'.

Well, trial n.2: i re-tried to talk to him asking when and what he answered to my questions. Instead, he deleted again my post in his talk without any answer: [28].

I am not saying i'm right to edit and he is not; but he, first reverted my edit, and after that, refused to answer to my questions. I only want to discuss that, and avoid edit-wars; but, refusing any discussion with other editors, he displayed how he rates the wikinette. Is it a civil manner to act here? Regardless of the rights and the edit counts (that, let's say cleary, 'sometimes matters'), i don't think it's the right way to act.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to post something on his talk page about this discussion. Plus have you looked at the talk page of the article for a reply? Dmcq (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your post on Bill's talk page ([29]) wasn't very polite - accusing someone of edit warring, article ownership, arrogance and bias because they removed some material you'd added to the article is uncalled for (particularly as you didn't provide a citation for most of the material you added and Bill very clearly explained his rationale in his edit summary in the article). While Bill was justified in removing your rude post from his talk page (editors can do more or less what they wish with their talk pages) and ignoring your subsequent messages, his edit summary could have been politer - though given the rudeness of your behaviour it's fully understandable. I see that Bill has now responded on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes i wasn't that polite. But this is xxxx time that i see such editing style, and this is the primary reason that led me (and many others) to quit more and more the project. Once it was atleast requested the 'Citation needed' if some info were debated, today it's not: just came, delete and run. So understand me, i wouldn't miss an hour of work just to see it destroyed from the first that cames; it's not that my edits are untouchables, no, but atleast ask me for sources, that i hold (but if someone don't ask for them, i do not necessarly give them, there are many wikipedia articles without sources at all). In the interest of wikipedia, it's better to discuss than fire. And finally, my first mex wasn't that polite, but still, the second was; why understand BilCat when he is frustrated, while my frustration is not considered? I don't enjoy such manners. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point: Stefanomencarelli's behaviour can never be the reason for BilCat's (or anyone else's) incivility. BilCat has quite the history of incivility (as you very well know - this is not the first time you defend him) so don't act suprised if someone stops assuming good faith on his part. He also consistently refuses to discuss things with persons he does not like very much; reverting one's own talk page is not a breach of policy, but in his case often is perceived as a breach of civility. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Now in the Bell 222's talk page was answered to me that 'comparations are not needed in an encyclopedia'. Well, this is a typical praxis about wikipedia, it's not written in any xxxxx policy, but is imposed without discussion (as thumb-size images, absolutely awful as well..). Let's say this, as i wrote in that discussion page: 1- if comparation are not 'needed' in wikipedia, then explain me why there are comparations between Bell 222 and Bell 230; it's not allowed to compare Bell 222 and A.109, when the same page explains that they are 'comparable aircrafts'? What, it's impossible to compare models 'comparable', while it's possible compare Bell 222 with its successors? Frankly speaking, it's laugable. 2- I have, and many million have, a very slow connection. The answer is: 'open the next link', so you'll find your datas. Let's say i need to find datas for: Bell 222, A.109, S-76 Helicopters, then compare them and guess why A.109 had the upper hand in the market. Well, inspite of 'user's friendly', wikipedia obliges me to open tree pages instead of one, to find the datas. Why i must loose two minuts to open other webpages? Why other users should lost billions minutes to open what it would be reasonable to add in a data-table? I could open one of these pages, and find out what i need. Instead, 'comparation tables' are not needed. Unrationale and non-userfriendly argument, since tables are used but only to compare versions of the same project, that, teorically should not be admitted as well. And in this aspects, what you meet is, usually, a sort of Holy Bible defenders, that absoletely delete all what they thinks is 'unnecessary', regardless the rationality of their ideas, that usually they are not ready to discuss (just fire). This is, for myself, not the best way to run a young project like wikipedia is, and thus with a very long phase of debugging. It's a bit too early to have not only zillions wikipolicies, but also 'praxis' that blocks the change in the layout of the encliclopedia. And if you insist, instead to have a bit of 'discussions', you would be banned as 'uncivil'. That's why i, and many more, am less and less interested to contribute, and not because i am a troll or a vandal..--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. Please see WP:Dispute resolution. If there is just one other person in the dispute you can ask for a third opinion, otherwise you can request a comment and there there's various dispute paths if there is no agreeement after other people have looked at the problem. Dmcq (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus I do agree that edit comment by BilCat on their user talk page was disrespectful. There's no need to give offence and cause hassle when writing an edit comment. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette request against User:WeisheitSuchen (OLD VERSION)

User:WeisheitSuchen has continued to accuse me of forum shopping over a span of a few months now. The legacy refers to a mistake I had

committed at the very start of my usage of complaint forums when I had posted on multiple forums. On being pointed out by another user, I had corrected that and apologised.

However, the accusations against me have continued by WeisheitSuchen.

• Here: [30] WeisheitSuchen says

• "Makrandjoshi's view isn't disruptive; you are the one who has done the forum shopping and is attempting to undo the previous decision on Careers360 because it didn't go your way"

(For information, Makrandjoshi is another user who repeatedly harassed me and got warned here,[31] and here[32] by the administrators.)

• "I said it was the end of the discussion because you've been making the same arguments and forum shopping for months."

• "I'm sorry that you don't realize that the time difference between August and November constitutes "months." Forum shopping (here + RSN twice + Wikiquette etc.) isn't discussion; neither is continuing to argue for something long after productive alternative solutions have been suggested, repeatedly, by several different people."

• Here [[33] WeisheitSuchen says:

• "I'm referring to your penchant for forum shopping and bringing arguments up repeatedly."

• Here [34] Weisheitsuchen says

• "Forum shopping is the name of the specific behavior, as it is known in Wikipedia. How is referring to a behavioral guideline uncivil? If I called you stupid, that would clearly be uncivil (and untrue--I often disagree with you, but I don't think you're stupid). If you really think that referring to a specific behavioral guideline is uncivil, by all means take me to the Wikiquette board. I'm confident about what others would say about it, so I don't mind you getting an outside opinion."

In all the above links, I have tried hard to tell Weisheitsuchen to stop making the accusations.

My request is that WeisheitSuchen should stop making such accusations and stop using words like "forum shopping" again against me. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as to who (Wikione? Thejadefalcon?) is posting what here. Gerardw (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems there was an edit conflict at some point which caused oddities... I must admit looking at the page history I am confused as to who posted what here too. It looks like one of them filed, an edit conflict occured, and the other restored the lost information. Could we get some clarification? Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Wifione is the filing party, however I am unsure as to where the initial statement ends, and Thejadefalcon's comment begins. A signiture needs adding in somewhere to clarify. --Taelus (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK to just strike this duplicate version? It appears that Wifione did get his complete complaint against me above. I'm not sure what Thejadefalcon's contribution should have been though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• There does seem to be an edit conflict. I have struck out the complaint from here as it is listed above here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wikiquette_request_on_User:WeisheitSuchen. Kindly leave your comments above. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

MisterWiki editing on an uninformed basis, reverting unwontedly, not replying

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – content dispute, continue on article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this person is a repeat appearer here but I am having trouble with a newly created page on a musical instrument, the Guitaret. He began by declaring it to be spam (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guitaret&diff=334913746&oldid=334856302) then a hoax ({{db-hoax}}, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guitaret&diff=334913746&oldid=334856389 ) then a removal of what he considered unnecessary paragraphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guitaret&diff=334913746&oldid=334856460) then a whole lot (adverts, notability, npov http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guitaret&diff=334913746&oldid=334856556). My attempts to discuss this have not been replied to. I realise that he is a Spanish speaking 15 year old for whom English is a second language, so I took this under consideration when I went to discuss this with him, but he is simply not engaging in discussion in either his talk page or on the discussion page on the article. Bearing in mind the advice given on these pages about dispute resolution I replaced the pages with shorter sections, which he then again removed with the briefest of comments. This is in the very least completely contrary to the spirit of tolerance and support towards first article writers, and doesn't encourage me to create more articles. DiarmuidPigott (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue dialog on article talk page. If unable to come to consensus can use WP:THIRD or article WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument going on about my review.

Resolved

 – Users have apologized; no further action needed. Intelligentsium 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, there is this incident that has been going on today about my reviews, well it all started when i was on WP:HUGGLE. When i reverted one of User:MiRroar edits by accident. Then User:MiRroar overreacted and starting writing rude things about me on my review page. Note i told the person sorry. Then i decided to undo those rude things. However one of the rollbackers User:Favonian, rollbacked the page, when i told the rollbackers in the summary not to rollback the page, because i will not tolerate any rude comments on my review page. Then, i undid Favonian's revert. Then Favonian decided to post a vandalism warning on my talk page when i did not even vandalize, then IShadowed came in and said that we should stop arguing. Then i contacted IShadowed in the IRC Chatroom and he said to come leave a case here and see what you guys can do for me.--GeneralCheese 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While I see MiRroar may have been a bit forward in calling you "inexperienced", they have a point in that you might benefit by taking more care in reverts, even if you miss some to more experienced patrollers who can distinguish vandalism faster. However, you probably should not have edit-warred over the comment or threatened to report Favonian. I see that you seem to have resolved the dispute betwixt yourselves, so I hope you won't mind if I mark this resolved? Intelligentsium 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasnt a threat i seriously reported him.--GeneralCheese 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DocKino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States#Miscellaneous

Work in progress; comments welcome

Situation speaks for itself, I'm not involved in the thread, have no opinion on it, just read the last post to the thread and reporting it here. Lycurgus (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Brewcrewer

Brewcrewer recently reverted Tiamut's edits to the Muhammad al-Durrah incident article. Discussions on this page have often gotten heated, so I was surprised to see the comment in Brewcrewer's revert summary that "Jews aren't that bad". This struck me as a failure to assume good faith, since Tiamut's previous edit and edit summary didn't indicate that Jews were bad in any way, and I'm worried that such comments can fan the flames of edit wars in articles on controversial topics. I haven't notified the user, and I'm not seeking any punitive actions against them. I'm just looking for a neutral outside opinion on whether such a comment can be considered a failure to assume good faith, to see if I myself am failing to assume the assumption of good faith. ← George ^talk 13:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen WP:AGF invoked about a thousand times, and I don't think I have ever seen it produce a positive result -- as the policy itself states, asking somebody to AGF is itself a failure to AGF. The comment is unnecessarily provocative, and it would be reasonable to say so, in my opinion. Bringing WP:AGF into the picture is not necessary or helpful.Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary does strike me as odd but I don't know what to make of it. So it seems appropriate to ask Brewcrewer what he meant by that. Per WQA policy I've notified him of this discussion. Gerardw (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at Tiamut's diff [35] to which Brewcrewer was responding. It included the edit summary: "(copy edit and remove reference to Jewish New Year - its irrlevant to the calling of the general strike, which was related to the Second Intifada, not the New Year)" I would imagine Brewcrewer's reference to Jews had more to do with Tiamut's removing the reference to the Jewish New Year as "irrelevant". Maybe a bit of a non-sequitor, but hardly an issue of good or bad faith on Brewcrewer's part, in my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, though Tiamut didn't label the Jewish New Year as irrelevant, he said it was irrelevant relative too the general strike, which, as far as I can tell, it was. Per Gerardw's suggestion, I've asked Brewcrewer to explain what he meant by his edit summary. ← George ^talk 22:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" (AGF) Discussion

A general comment regarding "AGF": I agree with Looie496 above that invoking it as a rule is pretty much never a good idea. (That is, I don't think it tends to produce positive results.) If someone "seems to be failing to AGF", the best response is to explain one's motivations, and make one's good faith clear. In this case, Tiamut might wish to explain that he's got nothing against Jews, or he might decide that's clear enough without explanation. Geogre, not being the party whose faith is (or is not) called into question, might very reasonably ask Brewcrewer, "What did you mean by that?" without ever mentioning a behavior policy.

I find that a good rule of thumb is to consider AGF a standard by which to guide my own actions, not to evaluate others'. Otherwise, people think they're being accused of breaking a rule, and that very naturally tends to provoke defensiveness regarding that "rule", which is a step removed from the actual content being discussed. Just my passing thoughts; feel free to ignore... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly agree with the above. I'm ridiculously careful in how I word things as I never, ever want to sound downright accusatory, since that's not really in Wikipedia's philosophy to ever do, and I'd be very hurt if anyone came screaming at me about an honest mistake or misunderstanding. If I ever accidentally slip on warning type in Huggle to hit the wrong "restore" type from Twinkle I will fly to the user's talk page to explain the mistake. Accidental or questionable marks as vandalism = bad. Stay calm and more often than not you'll get reasonable replies. Hell, some ANIs even die on the spot if someone comes up with a detailed, neutral, summary and suggestions on a controversial matter. Some I've posted at simply ended after I took a page from a few other editor's playbooks of writing up an extremely informal agreement on user-enforced minor restrictions on a minor squabble gone out of hand, really simple stuff people forget likely defuse content disputes in a majority of areas ... like a voluntary 3 day 'vacation' from the topic, not posting on the opposing editor's talkpage, or directly addressing the other party at all unless a matter of critical policy such as BLP, NLT, etc. Even a reminder that one ANI listing makes any possibly AGF breaches/Civility issues fair game to blocks or other "real" sanctions from an admin with no further notice gets people to shape up. All about tone and a huge majority of even somewhat "troubling" editors seem glad to sit an talk it over. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While AGF can be used inappropriately "pretty much never" is a bit overstating it. It is quite appropriate to gently remind someone AGF, especially when done by a third party, and especially here at WQA when someone is responding to a poorly phrased comment. Gerardw (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess I like for my gentle reminders to include the essential content of the guideline, without ever actually name-checking it. Sometimes, people reply with, "Yeah, I guess I should AGF," coming up with the reference entirely on their own! I might be over-careful in this matter, but I don't think that it hurts me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF has always confused me a bit. The wording of the guideline itself seems to indicate that failing to assume good faith is more reprehensible than actually editing in bad faith. It's also confusing because it's a behavioral guideline, but it seems to be much more closely tied to content disputes than editor behavior. Can someone edit in bad faith without a content dispute? For instance (unrelated to my query), can someone pushing a particular point of view in talk page discussions be considered to be editing in bad faith? Or how does one define bad faith editing? ← George ^talk 09:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't define it, unless in application to myself. If I were to get mad and start editing the Wiki in ways just to piss people off, that would be bad faith, but I would never accuse another editor of it. Ever. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong in itself, as an action, and not because of how they might or might not feel about doing it. We can neither dictate, accurately read, nor punish motivations, and that's what "good faith" is about. There's no situation I've ever seen where drawing a conclusion about someone else's intentions is either helpful, nor really possible without presumptuous speculation. Just comment on the content; never on the contributor.

As for the wording of the guideline, I think that the best advice out there regarding our policies and guidelines is DON'T READ THEM! If you have to read a page called WP:AGF to know what it means to assume good faith, then you've already missed the point. That's doubly true for our civility policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GTBacchus, I think that helps. If I understand correctly, AGF isn't a law to applies to other editors, it's just a rule of thumb to help keep your own edits inline with the spirit and goals of Wikipedia. That makes sense. ← George ^talk 22:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about it. Yeah... the more I think about it, it's strange, the way we've codified this idea. The concrete advice boils down to: (A) If you're concerned about someone's motivations, at least give them a chance to explain themselves, and take their word for it. (B) If your own motivations are called into question, politely explain them.

Using the phrase "assume good faith" as code for those two ideas is a little abstract. Hmm. Maybe we should rename it WP:HANLON ;). -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf should be told to stop his rudeness and Wikihounding

Resolved

 – user blocked

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

When I first came to Wikipedia in 2004, I was attracted to the fact that this wonderful site can serve as an educational forum. I was right and enjoyed making contributions with the goal of using this forum with the intention of educating others as to the contributions made by Hispanics to society. Some of the pleasures which I received was having a version of an article which I wrote used as the background for a Bill signed into law by President Bush. I have also received recognition's from the Pentagon and Government of Puerto Rico for my work here.

Recently, I feel that I have become a victim of Wikihounding by User:Damiens.rf. Damiens, mass nominated several images which I uploaded, which is his right, however some of the discussions turned personal with his rudeness, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 7, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 8 and 1and among other things his behavior was discussed here:[36]. In what became an obvious pattern of Wikihounding, he suddenly showed up here. As soon as I created the article Maria Luisa Arcelay and he shows up again Damiens and nominates the image for deletion. He began a discussion of an article of which he had never participated in here: [37] and also nominated one of my articles for deletion as a result. He has continued in his Mass deletion nominations of images which I have uploaded once more Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 29. As you can see he has targeted me [38]. Let me remind everyone that this complaint is not about his mass deletions of images, Damiens is good at what he does. It is about his rudeness, in Wikipedia we are to be "polite" and "civil" with other editors. It is about his "hounding", we are not to target anyone as to be disruptive and lessen the enjoyment of contributing to this project. I myself am not perfect and have made mistakes, I know that, however his behavior should be condemned and he must be told that his actions will only discourage others from participating in this project. I, for one, have decided to no longer contribute to the project and will take a leave of absence as a consequence. I wish you all a Happy New Year. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf has a pattern of this and it needs to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Second. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the user is being rude. Ill try to talk to him on his talk page, if things work out fine then i will mark this case as resolved, if not i will have to get an sysops involved in this case. Anyways ill add a work in progress template for now.--GeneralCheese 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GeneralCheese, we generally keep the discussion here. The goal is to get both parties to amicably resolve their differences without involving admins. So let's let Damiens respond before taking any further steps. Gerardw (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed!--GeneralCheese 05:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He responded as if he dosent care about this situation at all look here [39]--GeneralCheese 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, "highly sarcastic" or "egocentric" just doesn't begin to describe the manner that he responds ([40] [41], etc.) to virtually every action/reply related to him. His personality is just outright acid, clearly not the one needed to deal with anything controversial, never mind deletion nominations. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There also appears to be a problem with his activities regarding this image, which he persists in tagging for deletion as being inadequately sourced, despite policy (WP:NFCC 10a, reflecting the outcome of this policy discussion) saying the opposite; and the fact that the image has been upheld on nomination at WP:FFD, which is looking likely to be upheld in a discussion at DRV which is still currently open. Against that background, putting a speedy tag on the image, and resisting all attempts to remove it, looks horribly like disruptive editing. Jheald (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those trying to help. Hopefully Damiens.rf will reform very quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Damiens.rf’s attitude & conduct does not represent a good example of how authors should conduct themselves on Wikipedia. FieldMarine (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I agree, as I noted here. I didn't check back to reply before the discussion closed, but the diff he posted is where Tony is quoting myself (Unfortunately, I think my message did more harm to Tony than good). It almost seems as if he has some kind of vendetta, or he seems to think that he has to "fix" everything Tony does. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Damiens decided that the best course of action was to ignore this discussion and continue his rudeness by edit warring in Tony's talk page: 1, 2. --Jmundo (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf is blocked one week — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 31 December 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:Blackmetalbaz

This user has repeatedly made attempts to enforce his own control/POV over the article list of nu metal bands, repeatedly adding content that is not backed up by the sources he cites. Whenever this is pointed out to him, he threatens other users by claiming that they will be banned, even though he has no authority to do so. Attempts to discuss this issue have failed, as this user will not listen to reason or logic, and continues to edit-war despite being warned not to do so. He does not comprehend the neutrality issue in regards to the article, nor does he observe the fact that his approach to editing and responses to other articles have been rude and unproductive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Have you notified User:Blackmetalbaz on his talk page? (There are instructions on how to do this at the top of this page.) Also, please provide some diffs. Thank you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Response on talk page for list of nu metal bands. Regards, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:Carthage44

User:Carthage44 has been repeatedly undoing other people's legitimate edits without explanation, such as on the 2009 Maaco Bowl Las Vegas, 2009 Meineke Car Care Bowl, 2009 Emerald Bowl, 2009 Chick-fil-A Bowl, and most aggressively, 2010 Rose Bowl. Stealthninja545 wrote, "Can I help you edit the 2010 Rose Bowl? I know how to edit correctly.Stealthninja545 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)" on Carthage44's talk page but was ignored. I wrote, "Please stop reverting everyone else's 2010 Rose Bowl edits. Reversion should be used sparingly for cases of vandalism. OCNative (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)" on Carthage44's talk page and got a response of "SHUT YOUR FACE!!!" on my talk page. I am hoping to get third party commentary on the situation. OCNative (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a note regarding this. I hope I managed to take the right tone. We certainly don't need to be telling each other "SHUT YOUR FACE!!!", in any circumstance, really. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

From: Michael Hardy

Resolved

 – Kinetsubuffalo is entitled to not respond but should not have put in uncivil comment when deleting message. Silence from complainant taken as consent - message will be posted to them. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I just received this unwanted, unwarranted nastygram e-mail from Michael Hardy, bashing me for declining to respond

"Kinetsubuffalo", your gratuitous disrespect is noted. You are a boor and a coward.: Obviously I am a far more experienced Wikipedian than you, having done more than 130,000 edits, editing daily for more than seven years. I inquired about the reasons for one of your edits to an article to whose content my professional expertise is relevant.: I have been consistently polite and respectful to you.: You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me. -- This e-mail was sent by user "Michael Hardy" on the English Wikipedia to user "Kintetsubuffalo".

I just noticed now that it was claimed that the above was in an email. It was not an email. It was a posting to Kintetsubuffalo's talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Liar. I have the e-mail and am happy to provide it to anyone interested. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo: This sort of behaviour is not necessary, as it only escalates the matter after insults have already been delivered (by both parties). Calling Michael a "liar" has no value unless you have proof that you possess the email (which is, of course, very difficult to prove). Thus, a more polite "I have the e-mail and am happy to provide it to anyone interested." would be appropriate (and in it, your other remark is implicitly asserted). You accuse Michael of calling you names, but are you not doing the same here? "Liar" is just as "bad" as "boor" or "coward", and if a polite request is a better alternative than "boor" and "coward", so is avoiding the word "liar" altogether. --PST 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It also seems unlikely that a : would be put into the email to separate the lines as in a wikipedia entry. This looks like a copy of the entry on the talk page after the putz business. Dmcq (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not disrespectful, I simply removed from my own talkpage information I felt not germane to me, and then did not respond to the immediate followup from the above user. The above user seems to think it is the only busy user and only its issues matter. Conceit here I can deal with, when rudeness and conceit follow me home and turn into personal attacks (boor and a coward), it's time to bring in the admins. Whatever you admins do would be appreciated. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo&diff=prev&oldid=335064680 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs)

The word "putz" is indeed disrespectful; it does not express declining to talk about a subject that one has nothing to say about. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So are your provocative threats, which are unacceptable as an admin. ZooFari 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record "boor and a coward" is name calling, so not WP:CIVIL, but not threats. And "putz" isn't any different. Now, I urge both of you gentlemen to rise above this level of discourse and resolve the actual contents dispute on the article's talk page. Pcap ping 08:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think someone with Michael's credentials should be respected as a Wikipedian; thus frivolous complaints should not be made against him. In the highly unlikely case that there is general consensus that he is behaving inappropriately (that is, if multiple complaints by multiple users are made), then there is reason for consideration. But taking into account that he has interacted with all sorts of characters on Wikipedia, and that most of this interaction has been extremely productive (as I have noticed, being a frequent contributor to WikiProject Mathematics), it is statistically unlikely that he is responsible in the slightest for any incident in the small percentage of non-peaceful interactions. Sure, Michael could have avoided his "insults". But considering how much time and effort he spends for this encyclopedia, it is natural that being confronted with frivolous issues can be tiring. We can make his (and everyone else's) life a lot easier, and the encyclopedia more productive, if such complaints are avoided. In any case, complaints of this nature should be reserved for the many inconsistent administrators we already have; not Michael. --PST 10:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly, being a respected and/or respected user does not give one a right to ignore policy nor to insult others. The concept of Vested Contributors/Divas is actually harmful to wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I believe that nobody is perfect. In particular, Michael Hardy is already doing a tremendous amount of work on the encyclopedia. Although it would be nice if he was cool in disputes, just skimming through his contribution history shows that he encounters such frivolous issues time and time again. It is not in the least abnormal for him to agressively respond at least once. That said, he can (and should) improve his actions, but hopefully not at the cost of the productivity of his contributions to Wikipedia (thus I would not be in favor of de-sysoping, for instance). --PST 13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Providing Michael realises what he did was wrong (It is silly to get all pretentious because one has edited wikipedia, after all), then I don't see the need for anything further. Experienced users lose their head sometimes, providing they acknowledge their error any 'remedy' serves to do more harm than whatever small bits of good it might do. If it becomes a pattern, then do something about it. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning my getting "pretentious" because I have edited Wikipedia, I was in fact reacting to the numerous statements on Kintetsubuffalo's user page and user talk page, that those who complain about him are inexperienced users who should be bowing down to him because he's so experienced. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pattern: [42] & [43] & [44] & [45] & [46] & [47] Gerardw (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I could already see Michael leave with a free pass just for having "experience" and "so many edits" so I might as well not waste my breath. I didn't see any apology from any user so I disagree with Narson. ZooFari 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You are insulting people here as a group. It would have been better if you had actually not written anything. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, was this in reply to ZooFari, Dmcq? I can see where he/she has insulted anyone, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think this is utterly unacceptable behaviour from Michael, insulting a fellow contributor is always detestable, but doing it via E-mail is particularly atrocious. There is no doubt that calling another user cowardly, or a boor is an insult, and therefore in violation of WP:CIVIL, that it was done via E-mail also makes it a violation of Wikipedia:HARASSMENT, which states that a serious case of harassment is when; "off-wiki aspects are an issue (eg, where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar)."
The idea that Micheal should be excused because of his "experience" or because he has lots of edits is ridiculous, if I revert five vandalism edits I am not entitled to vandalise four other articles. Civility is a policy that applies to everyone, it is in place to maintain a polite and courtesy community, in many ways, an experienced user should be held to policies like WP:civil more tightly than new users, because they know that those policies are in place, and that they are expected to keep to it.
" I respectfully suggest that Hardy apologizes, and that he does not correspond via E-mail in future unless he is confident that he can do so in a polite manner.
Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

PS; for the record, I'm not condoning any of Kintetsubuffalo's actions or words, indeed, in many ways Kintetsubuffalo is at much at fault as Micheal. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Spitfile, please tell me what evidence you have for your suggestion that I insulted someone by email. I deny that I ever did such a thing. I sent "Kintetsubuffalo" an email that said the following:

Wikipedia is supposed to have a certain collegiality; Wikipedians are supposed to cooperate with each other.

I am puzzled by your seeming unwillingness to answer my question on your talk page. I also encountered a similar reaction from another user to whom I addressed a similar query: it was also about tagging mathematics articles as "personal reflections". That user acted as if I was being unreasonable by asking the question and that my inquiry amounted to making myself a pest. It seemslike gratuitous disrespect for me and for collegiality. I am by any standards among the most experienced of Wikipedians, having done more than 130,000 edits in seven years, none of them assisted by bots or the like. I've taught math at five universities ranging from MIT to a place that could be taken to represent the opposite extreme as far as quality of students goes. If I address such a question as I did to a fellow Wikipedian, does that qualify me as some sort of crackpot to be ignored? Where is collegiality?

--- Mike Hardy

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Michael Hardy" on the English Wikipedia touser "Kintetsubuffalo".

Michael Hardy (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the section below Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Spitfire: The point I was trying to make in my post was not that "being respected" implies "one can break the rules" (in fact, I agree with you in regards to this point). Rather, I noted that Michael does a tremendous amount of work on this encyclopedia each day, and at times, it can be tiring. In turn, this sometimes leads to impetuous actions. I have no say as to whether Michael's "insults" were appropriate (no insult is ever appropriate though), but I think my point is equally important when taken into consideration. --PST 01:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I did communicate by email and by posting on the users talk page, in a consistently polite manner. My politeness was answered with rudeness. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a good editor does not respond back in that manner. Let's just all get over this. ZooFari 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote from the top of User talk:Kintetsubuffalo: "Take notes-I've been here four years, if I wanted that I would already be one. In the words of Jimbo Wales, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do.". I agree with that to a small extent but not to the extent of sticking tags on a bunch of pages and calling the person who asks about it in a perfectly reasonable way a putz. And to Spitfire and ZooFari a person saying they might as well not waste their breath on us is I consider an insult. As to Michael Hardy I think one should just try complaining civilly about insults once and then either ignore if reasonably easy or else raise a complaint at a place like this. Emailing people who rile one is just getting far too het up and the sort of thing one should count to ten before doing and then dismiss. 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs)

Accusations of rudeness in E-mails

Hi Micheal,
I must admit, in light of your E-mail sent to me (which was by the way, very polite ), I may have jumped the gun, and have struck my comments above. My accusation was based upon the fact that Kintetsubuffalo had quoted from an E-mail in the WQA and that you had not disputed his the quote despite having commented in the thread. Now that you are disputing the quote however, the situation becomes more complicated. I believe that all E-mail's on Wikipedia are private and are not logged (?) and therefore it is impossible to verify who is correct in this circumstance. Personally, I'd be happy to give Micheal the benefit of the doubt (unless the alleged E-mail can somehow be tracked down), not because I think that Kintetsubuffalo is lying, but because I'd prefer not to have Micheal penalized based upon sketchy evidence.
Unless Kintetsubuffalo or anyone else can provide evidence that Micheal did send the E-mail (in which case all my previous comments would stand), then I suggest that the matter is dropped.
Micheal, you have my sincere apologies for my own accusation against you (although I would hope it would be looked at more as perceptive and advice, than accusation), I admit that I should have followed you up about whether you had sent the E-mail before launching into the discussion on WQA. Sorry.
Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this complaint from User:Kintetsubuffalo has very little merit, they were uncivil to start with. Users are entitled to not reply but should be careful with edit comments when removing things they disagree with. In the next complaint from Michael Hardy I've advised him to just not get het up by people responding like this and to avoid email where there might be a problem. I think a note on User:Kintetsubuffalo page about this is warranted as I have not seen anything from them for a while here. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about #wikipedia-en-help channel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wikipedia has no jurisdiction what happens over the freenode IRC channels. Please direct your complaints to the ops channel. If they have turned you down, I am afraid that there is no other recourse. NW (Talk) 03:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello, i am having a hard time helping others. I am often discriminated against because i have not yet been (Auto-voiced). I have been helping out a week for 2 hours each day now, i think thats enough to be auto-voiced. However the channel operator PeterSymonds dosent think so because he listens to other opinions. And he told me that he was told by the people in the channel not to auto-voice me. This is because some of them have something against me (i think), im not sure. But it will be proved sooner or later. People have been telling me not to help because i have not yet been autovoiced especially User:Fetchcomms. It is proved that me and fetchcomms have something against each other, because i made up a name so he wouldn't know it was me entering the chatroom. And when i exited and went on my normal nickname, he left fast! This has happend more than once, so i know. Also, PeterSymonds should go from what he see's not what others think. PeterSymonds has the right to autovoice me not them. So its his decision!. I feel left out alot whener fetchcomms is there anyways. I also went to channel #wikimedia-ops about this but they did not want to help. So im reporting it here. PeterSymonds fails to reply to me because he think this is non-sense but i dont.

Here Are a List of Nicknames i have no problems with and they've always helped me:

• jdelanoy
• NotAPuff
• Shirik
• Keegan
• IShadowed
• Fleetflame
• Natalie
• OlEnglish

A list of users i think have something against me:

• Fetchcomms (proved)
• PeterSymonds (monitoring)

If a users name is not on any of these list, that means they have never been in any conflicts with me.--GeneralCheese 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we have enough on our plate trying to get people here on Wikipedia to treat each other like grownups; I don't think WP:WQA (or any other forum on Wikipedia) has the scope, ability, or desire to get involved in IRC problems too. Please try to deal with this on IRC; if it can't be solved on IRC, then give up. I really don't think we can help you here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What im saying is that PeterSymonds is not being a fair operator, he gave someone else auto-voice, and i dont recall seeing them at all in the channel.--GeneralCheese 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what you're saying, keep IRC issues on IRC. GrooveDog FOREVER 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok but ill warn you guys, this may be ugly. Im telling you help me here and the situation is gonna be closed.--GeneralCheese 02:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with PeterSymonds, I suggest you talk it over with him maturely. The mind set that things "may get ugly" is childish and not constructive. Wikipedia has no way direct power over what happens on IRC, so keep your dispute there as GrooveDog suggests. Nev1 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

PM me. IRC is not something to discuss here.  fetchcomms☛ 02:53, 3 January 2010 (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.

Wikiquette request on User:WeisheitSuchen

Resolved

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

User:WeisheitSuchen has continued to accuse me of forum shopping over a span of a few months now. The legacy refers to a mistake I had committed at the very start of my usage of complaint forums when I had posted on multiple forums. On being pointed out by another user, I had corrected that and apologised. However, the accusations against me have continued by WeisheitSuchen.

• Here: [48] WeisheitSuchen says

• "Makrandjoshi's view isn't disruptive; you are the one who has done the forum shopping and is attempting to undo the previous decision on Careers360 because it didn't go your way" (For information, Makrandjoshi is another user who repeatedly harassed me and got warned here,[49] and here[50] by the administrators.)
• "I said it was the end of the discussion because you've been making the same arguments and forum shopping for months."
• "I'm sorry that you don't realize that the time difference between August and November constitutes "months." Forum shopping (here + RSN twice + Wikiquette etc.) isn't discussion; neither is continuing to argue for something long after productive alternative solutions have been suggested, repeatedly, by several different people."

• Here [[51]WeisheitSuchen says:

• "I'm referring to your penchant for forum shopping and bringing arguments up repeatedly."

• Here [52] Weisheitsuchen says

• "Forum shopping is the name of the specific behavior, as it is known in Wikipedia. How is referring to a behavioral guideline uncivil? If I called you stupid, that would clearly be uncivil (and untrue--I often disagree with you, but I don't think you're stupid). If you really think that referring to a specific behavioral guideline is uncivil, by all means take me to the Wikiquette board. I'm confident about what others would say about it, so I don't mind you getting an outside opinion."

In all the above links, I have told Weisheitsuchen politely yet firmly to stop making the accusations. He has not. My request is that WeisheitSuchen should stop making such accusations and stop using words like "forum shopping" again against me.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My question for others is this: is Wifione correct in stating that "The term 'forum shopping' is uncivil"? To me, it seems that doesn't meet the requirements of a personal attack. I'd like to hear some other opinions though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As another editor involved in the articles in question, I have seen that few things such reliability of news articles, have been brought up again and again by User:Wifione, despite several RSN discussions, inputs from other editors. Even though I am reluctant to use WP:FORUMSHOP, these repeated discussions over and over again can be best described by WP:FORUMSHOP. --TheMandarin (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it's true, I have a good faith belief that this behavior constitutes forum shopping (whether Wifione's behavior actually is forum shopping is a topic for another board, not this one). Assuming that I have that good faith belief, is it uncivil of me to discuss Wifione's behavior with him? I prefer in situations like this to talk through behavior expectations with the editor, as I have in this case. I could go to WP:ANI for every little infraction, but that would waste the time of many people. I do agree with calling a spade a spade: "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks." Does my use of the phrase "forum shopping" constitute name-calling or personal attacks? If so, what is the alternative process for dealing with inappropriate behavior? I'd like to hear from Wifione what he would like me to do instead of referring to a specific behavior guideline. Does he want me to take him to ANI immediately, without prior discussion, for any behavior I feel is outside the guidelines? I can do that if that's what he wants; it's not my preferred method of dispute resolution, but I'm willing to do so for this editor if that's requested of me. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think this matter needs discussing here in the first place For ex, see another unrelated RSN discussion, where repeated questions on the same topic is characterized as WP:FORUMSHOP. Pointing out Forum shopping does not constitute personal attacks. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the forum shopping stopped months ago, then bringing it up now would seem irrelevant and probably (depending on the context) uncivil. If it is still occurring, then mentioning it appropriately isn't uncivil, but the tricky bit there is 'appropriately'. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. (I asked Dougweller to take a look at this as an uninvolved admin.)

"Months ago" is November, plus he currently has two parallel discussions on two articles (as pointed out by another editor). When I cautioned Wifione against going to RSN with the intention of going elsewhere until he found people to agree with him, he replied that "Dispute resolution is a standard process on wikipedia. Slowly staking up the dispute on higher and higher boards is a standard process of wikipedia. You would be incorrect in requesting a fellow editor to not approach a higher board - I would be referring to the Mediation/Arbitration viewpoints, in case the situation demands so." If he has apologized for forum shopping, I don't recall seeing it; he doesn't seem to show any remorse for doing so, which is why I brought it up.

Generally, Wifione seems to believe that if you ask someone nicely to stop making an accusation that you should have no consequences for the behavior that prompted the warning in the first place. Wifione has done the same with others in response to COI questions and other issues. Wifione, what outcome would you like to see here? Asking editors to simply stop making accusations when they feel your behavior is inappropriate isn't a good solution. Do you want issues to always go to the appropriate noticeboard, as has now been done for the COI questions? Is that what you would consider a "civil" response, rather than talking things out with you as I and others have attempted? What do you envision as the appropriate way to bring up concerns, whether they are about forum shopping, COI, or other issues? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is often possible to approach a dispute in a way that the other party feels less attacked. In general, I try not to tell people that they're guilty of this or that offense, because that very naturally provokes defensiveness, and ultimately, the question isn't whether or not he's guilty of forum-shopping. Eventually, the question goes back to an actual edit, which is either a good one or a bad one.

If it seemed to me that someone was forum-shopping, I'd probably never use that phrase. It's not about honesty; it's about effectiveness. "Calling a spade a spade" is actually a counter-productive strategy, nine times out of ten. It very seldom leads to a speedy resolution, which is much more important than calling a spade anything.

In a forum-shopping situation, I'd probably just point out: "You asked this question in forum X on date Y, and this is what happened. You asked again in forum P on date Q, and the same thing happened. I don't see why things will be different now in forum J. Are you advancing any new arguments this time?" Something like that. It's much less likely to put the person on the defensive, and altogether less likely to result in a thread here at WQA.

Just my two bits... Please note that I'm not saying that you, WeisheitSuchen, have been uncivil or broken any rules. I just think that a slightly different approach to such situations can result in less static. It's something to think about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WeisheitSuchen, a good faith request again from me. In the future, if you really feel I've done something wrong, raise that up with me once - and beyond that do go to the appropriate boards/forums as I do believe that keeping on mentioning statements like "forum shopping" disrupt the talk page environment for a fellow editor. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will agree to mentioning things to you once per incident and then taking it to the appropriate notice board. However, the forum shopping you engaged in last November does not exclude you from warnings for that in the future if you engage in this behavior again. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blech! Why would you respond to a request that you stop making claims about "forum shopping" by making another accusation of forum shopping? Are you hoping to offend, because I can't think of any positive consequence of talking to someone that way. Blech!

WeisheitSuchen, find a way to talk about the behavior of others without pushing buttons and provoking them. Wifione, please let me know if this provocation continues. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Comment struck as intemperate and unhelpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (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:Wildhartlivie

I need some help with convincing Wildhartlivie that she needs to stop lobbing insults, unfounded claims that I have mental/emotional illness, and personal attacks in my general direction. I have brought this to her attention a few weeks ago - but nothing helped. I was personally convinced that she was using a sock to leave anti-gay and other comments on my talk page, so I filed a sock report. The sock investigator concluded that she was not the sock-user, but that another user was. During the sock investigation, Wildhartlivie kept badgering me and demanding that I answer "questions" she asked of me (that were also laced with insults and personal attacks). As it is suggested by the sock-puppet investigation filing instructions, I ignored her as much as possible to try and keep tempers cool. Wildhartlivie kept coming at me in a very aggressive manner. Since the sock investigation, her comments on the Ted Bundy talk page have been uncivil and somewhat aggressive toward me. That brings us to today and her comments on the same talk page here [53] and on another talk page here [54]. I've tried my best to just ignore her mean-spirited comments directed at me, but after the above from today, I felt that enough was enough and responded on her talk page with this [55]. Her response on my talk page was this [56]. IMO, her comments have now become harassing. I've had enough and would like someone to intervene. Thank you. -SkagitRiverQueen 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To start, I posted an objection to the use of a YouTube video as a reference because it is a copyright violation. SkagitRiverQueen stated clearly she didn't trust my judgment on the copyright issue [57] and then further cast doubt on it when User:Moonriddengirl stated she felt it was a link violation. This progressed to reverting changes I made on the page, wherein I filed a WP:3RR notice about it, which action was confirmed here by Equazcion (who was speciously added as a "possible" sock of mine to the sock case). Her comments became increasingly accusative and agressive in nature [58] and rude and condescending to an editor who has stated she has serious health problems and was apologetic about her question with the rude comment starting with "I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or what...IMO, this thing has become more about some people being right and proving me wrong than responsible editing (and I already know that those of you who have been working against me on this issue will deny that's the case, but...whatever)." As I commented on her talk page, if she doesn't expect a response, don't open the door. She's baiting commentary in order to elicit a response so that she can file cases against people. First of all, SkagitRiverQueen made unfounded assumptions about something I would say or do in the specious sock puppet case she filed against me on Christmas day, by the way, in which she clearly stated she would apologize if she were proven wrong [59] which she has failed to do. In that case, she accused me of posting aspersions about her sexuality and her religion, something I never do. Since that time, she does not fail to drop allusions to how people feel about her when she makes talk page postings. I have characterized such statements as paranoid in nature because she claims that people are working against her, it was not a psychological evaluation, but an observation that such statements appear paranoid and delusional. I even mentioned that people don't actually care that much about her to persecute her in the way she has represented in those posts. Examples include making accusations that an editor is hounding her, trying to get my opinion and that of User:Crohnie on her talk archive page WP:MfD disregarded in which she characterized her opinion of our comments with "Terrific. Another vote from the "Vendetta Crew". (I can't get that to properly display.) In that post, she alleged that our opinions should not count because we've had disagreements. The question therein that I kept asking was why, if she was retaining the posts for a future dispute resolution, was she retaining a copy and pasted version of the WP:3RR report I filed. It had nothing to do with her long-term on-going dispute with the user whose posts she was keeping. That she refused to answer the pertinent question was purposeful, and germane to what she purported her page was kept for. This report is like the sock case in following up her threats, retaliatory in nature after she's baited reponses. My last post to her was quite clear that when a person baits others to respond by dropping aggressive comments that invite response, she's the one who is starting an issue. It is not civil nor appropriate to call other editors "obtuse" and talk down to them and expect the incivility to be passed by without comment. No one "hates" her, although some are growing very tired of the aggressive stance she takes against them in her posts. Crohnie told her clearly on the WP:MfD that "I really don't appreciate the personal attacks. I think this should stop already. You keep attacking editors than accuse them of some kind of conspiracy theory." Take for instance the assaultive way her comment she dropped to User:Killiondude is worded after he deleted the talk page archive she kept (which others felt were inappropriately cherry picked statements: [60]. While I don't tend to make comments regarding the religion of others, there's precious little that can be found that is "Christian" in nature in her comments - especially for someone whose userboxes say she is a Christian minister. It's regrettable that she feels this harassment, but like I said, don't open a can of worms and complain if they squirm. Personally, I'm tired of her filing reports about me and still continuing her condescenion and rudeness to others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is much glossing-over, mischaracterization, and personal attack in the above. I'm going to leave it to those who do the deciding at this board to make their own decisions about what is in and comprimises a good portion of Wildhartlivie's statements above. If anyone has any questions regarding what Wildhartlivie wrote regarding me that (I could answer), feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the many diffs I provided. So observers could read what was said and make a decision. There are no personal attacks in what I wrote, however there are facts that can be checked. The diffs speak for themselves. Your filings and comments speak for themselves. However, in fact, she incorrectly claimed that I kept pressing her for an answer on the WP:SSI she filed, when it was on the WP:MfD. The protests by others regarding her comments speak for themselves. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the two of you disengage. I can see that you're each frustrated by the other's behavior, so I suggest walking away from it. SkagitRiverQueen, you're best off not interacting at all with Wildhartlivie if you can do that. Wildhartlivie, if you think someone is baiting you, or opening a door to commentary, the correct response is to refrain. Nobody's behavior can justify your insulting them, ever. That's just not how we interact here. If SkagitRiverQueen has insulted you for any reason, that's wrong, and if you insult her, that's just as wrong, no matter what the reason, nor how provoked you feel. Respond to rudeness with courtesy, and lead by example.

I strongly suggest that both of you refrain from making any further ad hominem remarks about the other. Stick to "comment on the content, not the contributor", and everything should be fine. If that's not possible, then please explain why. Is there an article or set of articles on which you work together, where you can't restrict your comments to content issues?

These remarks do not constitute a judgment against either of you. These are simply my recommendations if you want this conflict to end. Seeking some kind of satisfaction against the other is unlikely to be productive. It seldom is 'round here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All good advice ^^^^^^ As far as "disengaging", I already have. Last week. The comments I made, however, regarding my belief that the content dispute at the Ted Bundy article talk page has become more about others being right and me being wrong stands (if you wish, see the discussion here [61], in the section titled "Judge's words"). What's more, those comments I made were not directed at anyone in particular - IOW, there was no personal attack made, just a general observation given. I most certainly want this conflict to end - exactly why I brought it here. The only satisfaction I am looking for is being satisfied that Wildhartlivie's aspersions on my mental/emotional health and the personal attacks, digs, and aggressiveness stop. --SkagitRiverQueen 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. Wildhartlivie, are you comfortable with this solution, that both of you simply cease from making personally directed remarks about each other? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Butting in where I'm not wanted for a moment, I see that Skag's comment about this being "more about some people being right and proving me wrong than responsible editing" was personal enough, even if her comment didn't explicitly name a party. It was fairly clear that she was implicating her two adversaries in the exchange, and with that comment, she was the first to "engage". Wild just responded in kind; not that two wrongs make a right, and the suggestion for both to disengage is still sound. I only point that out because I have a feeling that won't be the end of this, as someone here has a hair trigger for "engaging" thusly. This is just the latest mini-dispute in a larger chain of events, some involving Wildhartlivie, and many not. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:33, 3 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Equazcion and thanks. I just want her to leave me alone, issue the sock puppet case apology she so clearly promised and to stop making demeaning and belittling comments such as the "purposely obtuse" comment to Cronhie, and to stop making baited comments about how people are against her. And in case it was missed, I want to reiterate that I am not making comments or psychological statements about her mental health, but observations about how the comments she makes carry a paranoid air. It is nearly impossible to have a discussion with her without such statements being dropped right and left. It's no wonder she has conflicts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, if you want this to end, stop making any kind of ad hominem remarks. That means that what you just said: "the comments she makes carry a paranoid air", should stop. Don't use the word "paranoid", because it clearly upsets the other person. Just actually drop it. All of it. If she doesn't drop it, just let me know, but you have to drop it too. Fully drop it, forever. No remarks about her. Can you do that? If you can, I will help ensure that SRQ does as well. If you make further remarks about your perception of the character of her statements, then you're asking for more. Get it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading my comment above, I just want to clarify why I felt the need to drudge up the "who did what" argument. The problem is that SRQ claims to have already "disengaged" a while ago, and sees nothing wrong with her comment that IMO started this particular dispute. That makes this agreement for both parties to "disengage" rather pointless. If SRQ's version of disengagement is comments like this, then this is just going to happen again. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:17, 3 Jan 2010 (UTC)

No. If they simply actually disengage, nothing more will happen. There are no "versions" of disengaging. I'm talking about actually never saying a word about the other. If both parties just do this, then it's over. If they're unable to do that, then perhaps we'll have to enforce their not talking about each other more firmly. There remains to excuse for "taking the bait", ever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"I just want her to leave me alone". I haven't said anything or addressed anything to you directly since before I filed the sock-puppet case - how much more "leaving [you] alone" can I do than that? "issue the sock puppet case apology" Please accept my apologies for accusing you of sock-puppetry. At the time, I felt I had good reason to do so - if I didn't, I wouldn't have accused you. No matter what you believed then or believe now, I did it because I thought it to be the case - not out of retaliation. And now that I think about it...I think you owe me an apology for insisting that my filing of the sock-puppet case was based on vengeance or spite. It had nothing to do with that whatsoever. I don't play games like that. "stop making demeaning and belittling comments such as the "purposely obtuse" comment to Cronhie" I didn't make demeaning comments to Chronie - I was trying to get her to tell me if she was being intentionally obtuse (people do that in online forums, you know) or was unintentionally obtuse. She still insists on bringing up the YouTube video as a source - which hasn't been the issue for a couple of weeks now - after I have explained to her time and again it's no longer the issue. Continuing to bring up the video made me wonder why she was doing so. My question was honestly asked of her because I didn't (and still don't) understand why she's beating a dead horse. But let's consider this: why can't Chronie speak for herself if what I said was such a problem for her and why does what I say to her bother you so much? Are we not all adults here? Unless you're the official spokesperson for Chronie, I don't see why she can't address an issue she has with me (if she does, indeed, have an issue with me) all by herself. "stop making baited comments about how people are against her." First of all, I don't make "baited comments" - I say what I think right out in the open. As I have explained to Equazcion last week, with me, what you see is what you get. You don't have to decode my words - they're plainly put and reading between the lines and making assumptions is not necessary. Secondly, in the Ted Bundy article, please be honest and admit that you, Chronie, and now Vidor, have been doing what you can to stick it to me since the thing with the documentary reference started. Also, please admit that you and Chronie (or at the very least) Chronie have been following me around Wikipedia since this thing with the reference began. for that matter, Equazcion is now doing the same. Everywhere I go when it comes to making reports or comments or any contributions, you all are watching. Why are you dogging me? "I want to reiterate that I am not making comments or psychological statements about her mental health, but observations about how the comments she makes carry a paranoid air". Sorry, but I have to say "baloney". When you continually comment on someone's alleged "paranoia" and "delusions", that's commenting on someone's mental and emotional health and you know it. You can go ahead and try to weasel your way out of what you've said all you like, but I'm not buying your excuses on this one. And no matter how you try to paint or excuse these types of comments, they are personal attacks, plain and simple. There's no call for them - and they need to stop.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that you are now all about me leaving you alone, however, I *have* done that - and you're still not satisfied. You're still making negative comments about me to others, you're still obsessing over the sock-puppet case, you're still calling my mental health into question, you're leaving uncivil comments on my talk page and making excuses for why your incivility is justified, and you and your personal friend Chronie are dogging me in Wikipedia. When is *all that* going to stop? --SkagitRiverQueen 17:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, just stop typing about this issue. Say nothing about Wildhartlivie, and if she talks about you in any way, just let me know, in 50 words or less. Don't say anything about Wildhartlivie except to let someone know - in 50 words or less - if she talks about you. You both need to find a way to walk away, for real. If this continues, it will become reasonable to block either or both of you for continuing disruption. Walk away. Bite your tongues, and walk away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no good reason to attack someone for defending an editor who has been demeaned or call them into question for it. Calling someone "purposely obtuse" is indefensible, no matter how you try to gussy it up after the fact. It would behoove everyone to remember that such comments are rarely made in good faith, but in shortness of patience and antipathy. I saw her asking if there was a video online besides the YouTube video, she didn't deserve the "obtuse" statement. And now you drag another name into this because Vidor disagrees with you. It's time someone accepts that others don't agree with her and stop asserting that there is a conspiracy and bad faith efforts against her. You have no basis to make such a claim, nor stating that people are stalking you. A copyright expert, Moonriddengirl, was brought in, who disagreed with you, perhaps she is part of the conspiracy too? If so, prove it. And for the record, I see paranoia in the statements that people are ganging up on you. If you see that as a personal attack, perhaps you should stop claiming that over and over. I agree, it is a characterization of the comments you make, not a personal asssessment of your mental health. If you can't see the difference, that, in essence, is your problem. The purpose for the miscellany for discussion was to delete a page you kept containing comments from persons you deem as enemies. It's time to grow up and stop seeing enemies behind every post that crosses your path. That's what led to the sock puppet case, the WP:MfD and that's what led to this. Try not creating enemies for a change. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, saying "for the record, I see paranoia in the statements that people are ganging up on you", and "it's time to grow up" is completely unhelpful, and likely to inflame rather than end a dispute. Do you not realize this? Do you wish to inflame a dispute? Please refrain from saying things like that "for the record". Let the record reflect good de-escalation skills instead, and that you led by example. Practice constant courtesy.

SkagitRiverQueen, for the sake of peace, please refrain from responding to the above remarks by LaVidaLoca. Our goal is to stop fighting, and work together. Let's say there's been enough nastiness, and just stop. Does that work? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The above from LaVida is rife with biased mischaracterization and out-and-out untruth. The abuse one is subjected to when bringing problems and complaints to a Wikipedia notification board has brought this to the point of ridiculous. Why should the person with the problem be allowed to be subjected to abuse from those posting their comments? Why is it that a notification board in Wikipedia is not about helping out those who have been wronged but about allowing those being reported (and their friends) to bully and intimidate the complaintant? A notification board should be a safe place to go - but in Wikipedia, it is not. This is wrong and it needs to be changed. IMO, bullies are now controlling Wikipedia - administrators included - and the above is a perfect example (not including you, GT - but I've seen administrators behave worse than non-admins in these types of compaints toward to complaintant). It really doesn't matter anymore how this turns out - because it won't make a bit of differance in how bullying editors like Livie, Vidor, and LaVida operate in Wikipedia. They'll just continue with the same behavior. And then, when some other dope like me comes along and says, "hey, wait a minute...", they will once again join forces and point the finger of blame back on the victim of their abuse and bad behavior - not once taking a good look at how they have contributed to the breakdown of communication and not once caring that they, and a host of editors just like them are part of the problem - not the solution to the problem - in Wikipedia. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blaming anyone for anything is a waste of time. What is not a waste of time is dropping this now. If you feel bullied, we can talk about that, but in this case, I see that you haven't tried step 1, which is to completely refrain from talking about those people in any way. Even when you feel bullied, simply describe the behavior to me. don't call anyone a bully. It's a poor, ineffective strategy; it doesn't make them stop.

You are not being "blamed" for anything; you simply have the opportunity to end this by rising above it. I will support you in that 100%. Would you like to take this opportunity? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I was posting the above before I read your request for me to not respond to LaVidaLoca. I didn't intentionally ignore your suggestion. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Now we've all joined the "conspiracy of bullies" being put forth here, including administrators. When someone files a complaint against someone else, expect the filer's conduct to be examined as well. It seems to me that GTBacchus is saying the filer here is as culpable in this as anyone else. And I object to being characterized as a bully. You have nothing except my support for User:LaVidaLoca, User:Crohnie and User:Vidor as evidence against me. You seem to have left out Equazcion, who also posted against you. Should he be notified as well? Also, since you posted that you want others entire username used in posts, show other editors the "courtesy" you demand. If it seems the entire Wikipedia world is against you, then perhaps self-examinination is in order. I have notified User:Vidor and User:Crohnie of this accusation that we are all bullies. As I said, prove it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone is "culpable". I don't find that designation interesting. I am saying that you, Wildhartlivie, have the opportunity to make this end now by dropping it. You don't seem to be taking that suggestion. Why? Is proving a case against this other person important to you? It certainly has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Drop it, really. Unless you're trying to start some kind of fight, drop it. Stop trying to prove anything. This is a very strong suggestion. If this escalates, you will not be pleased with the outcome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is this comes from and is mucking up discussion at Talk:Ted Bundy with similar accusations that we are working against her in some unnamed conspiracy. How does one build an encyclopedia article in the face of this? All the named "co-conspirators" included are from that page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now we're talking about a concrete article. Shall I watchlist that page? I agree that there is no need to introduce talk about conspiracies to any discussion here; we comment on edits, not on editors. What's the underlying edit in dispute there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The point under discussion is how a quote from the judge who sentenced Bundy (while praising his abilities legally) should be sourced. It has variously been sourced to a YouTube posting of a documentary, which was objectionable because the YouTube post is a copyright violation, then the video was combined with the statement written in a book by Ann Rule, which was objectionable as synthesis of two sources. Editors have posted their support for 1) using the Rule book only; 2) finding a legally obtained copy of the actual court transcript, and 3) Using the IMDB listing of the airing of the documentary (not on YouTube). Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we're talking content, so perhaps a change of venue is in order? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, don't panic I am not here to fight and too tired for much of anything but maybe some suggestions. How about this, GTBacchus, if you don't mind watching the Ted Bundy article and it's talk page that may help a lot. I have been trying to understand some things being said and maybe I am slow but I am not being obtuse or rude or hounding or anything else above. I am recovering slowly from neck surgery and lots of meds seem to slow my thinking down. Wildhartlivie is aware of my medical and helps me out esp. if I lose focus plus I don't do battles very well. I don't like arguing in RL and I come here for fun and to try to help where I can in writing articles. There is no reason for any of this. I've never even been to your talk page so I don't know how I am hounding but I will promise to not bother you or your talk page. I am sure I can get Wildhartlivie to promise the same. Which means ScagitRiverQueen you have to abide by this also. Maybe with a little time angers will calm down and we can all hopefully get past this but not right now. We are going to meet up though at the article. This appears to be of interest to all above so I guess a moderator for a brief period until we get past this damn judge's words which is ridiculous already would be nice. How aboout everyone? Peace now, everyone got it off their chests? Now let's write some articles or patrol or have a good laugh but sheesh not this serious so close to my bedtime! :) I just happened to pop in to check my mail and found I forgot to sign off. So, I'm done for today. If there is anything of importance please pop a note to me on my talk page. If no note in the morning I am going to assume that my suggestions above are agreeable to everyone. I think I covered everything in a fair and neutral way. Good night everyone and thanks Wildhartivie for helping me out. I still appreciate it from you and the others. Be well all,--CrohnieGal^Talk 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

Resolved

 – Kintetsubuffalo was warned that edit comments need to be civil Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have edited Wikiepedia articles daily for more than seven years, accumulating nearly 140,000 edits, none of them involving bot-assistence, and I have a Ph.D. in statistics and have taught mathematics and statistics at five universities, one of those being MIT. User:Kintetsubuffalo is a far less experienced Wikipedian than I am. Therefore I think its fair to say that if I ask User:Kintetsubuffalo to explain the rationale behind his tagging of an statistics-related article as looking like a "personal reflection or essay", my inquiry is not simply that of a crackpot who came along to pick fights. His response was this, and so I continued to inquire, posting this and later this.

I have been consistently respectful to User:Kintetsubuffalo.

His response was this.

Putz means (according to one prominent online dictionary) an idiot or fool.

User:Kintetsubuffalo is very boastful, as will be seen by looking at both his user page and his talk page. In particular, he says "I work well with those actually working". Few can match my voluminous contributions to Wikipedia, yet he is unwilling to work with me. Doubtless it makes him feel good to say "I work well with those actually working", as opposed to actually getting along with those actually working.

User:Kintetsubuffalo has a problem with being engaged in respectful discussion by more experienced Wikipedians, and he deals with it by means of gratuitous disrespect. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've posted an AVI here regarding Michael Hardy's inappropriate behavior when reacting to an incident like this. ZooFari 07:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is inappropriate forum shopping. Pcap ping 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The AN/I has been closed as inappropriate and the matter is being left to this discussion here on WQA. Did Kintetsubuffalo do more of this marking as essays after being asked about it? Some people have problems answering questions about what they do if they originally thought it was okay but will at least stop doing it if people complain. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Putz" is a Yiddish term that is considered highly offensive. As per The Joys of Yiddish, it can mean fool, ass, jerk, simpleton, yokel, easy mark. The best English equivalent I can think of would be "dickhead". No admin should be using terms like that, especially against a regular contributor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you got that the wrong way round somewhere. Michael Hardy is an admin, Kintetsubuffalo is a regular user and used the term. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Pcap ping 11:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's me that's the putz, then. In any case, it's a highly insulting term, even though it kind of sounds cute in English. According to The Joys of Yiddish, it's considered worse than its somewhat-synonym, schmuck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Who volunteers for "boor and a coward" then? :P (See related thread above) Pcap ping 11:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And all of those insults were in the edit summaries. Nice touch. I especially like Michael's "You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me." I should add that to my list of quotes. Neither of those guys is particularly taking the high road here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, Lex Luthor to his henchmen in Superman (1978 film): "Doesn't it give you a shudder of electricity just to be in the same room with me?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reminded of a joke about tenured faculty, but it would be inappropriate here for several reasons. Pcap ping 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

K's not innocent in this but Michael's starting off by bragging about his time and edits on wiki and claiming we should be grateful to work with him is merely pompous arrogance. See my post in the above thread, which this thread is obviously related to. BB's stmt that neither of these two users is taking the high road is spot on. Both users need to learn from this experience and move on. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again: I did not start by "bragging" about my experience. I started by responding to Kintetsubuffalo's statements that all who complain about him are inexperienced users who should bow down to him because of his vast experience. Kintetsubuffalo starts his user page and his user talk page with such boasts. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into who started this. Drive-by tagging without engaging in discussion is seriously frowned upon by some editors here, in particular by some experienced math editors. There have been recent complaints at WT:WPM about mathematics articles getting tagged as essays (archived discussion). Pcap ping 13:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about who started the incident, rather just how MH started his opening post here. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How I started the opening post was a response to Kintetsubuffalo's user page and user talk page notices explaining that everyone who complains about his behavior is an inexperienced Wikipedian who refuses to bow to Kintetsubuffalo's superior record of Wikipedia edits. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't both of you just make up and go on about your business? If you need to just avoid each other, wiki is a big place. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points:

• Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page begins with boasts about his vast experience and an advance statement that if you ever complain about his behavior, it's because you're an inexperienced user who should be deferential to him. That is uncivil.
• If I had phrased my comment on his talk page in boilerplate wiki-lawyer language, complaining of his incivility in the edit summary, using that particular phrase rather than the word boor, which implies just the same thing, would some of the people above have responded differently? It seems quite respectable in this forum to state that a user is "uncivil", but calling a user a "boor" instead is considered offensive, even though it says the same thing. Kintetsu was uncivil; that's why this discussion is happening.

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't see any relevant discussion regarding Kinetsu's page headers. Please provide a diff that would tell me otherwise. Secondly, boor and coward are insults whereas "uncivil" is used to state an action during a specific period of time. You were uncivil when... - You are a coward... - which is more professional and which is an immature insult? ZooFari 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In this edit I have translated my comments on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page into the kind of language apparently considered legally acceptable.

Kintetsubuffalo's page headers

• say how vastly experienced he is at editing Wikipedia articles (far less than I am),
• say that we should therefore cut him some slack (but that doesn't apply to those more experienced than he is; those, he assures us, are "putzes"),
• denigrate in advance people who complain about his behavior.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There was uncalled for, and Kintetsubuffalo is of course entitled to just remove the whole lot and ignore it. Anyway for ZooFari here's the old version of the talk page with a message pointing to the maths project talk page. Here's a pointer to the archived talk on the maths project page. And here is an example edit Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if you would have used your translation, we wouldn't be wasting our breaths having this problem. @ Dmcq: I don't find those links related to my point, but if it contributes to the problem then that would be between Michael and Kintetsubuffalo. ZooFari 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for you to do that either, please desist. Could you explain what your point was please? I though you were asking for the discussion about the edits. Dmcq (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what? My concern here was that Michael as an admin responded back rudely to a non-admin. Admins should know better. I'm not here to argue about Michael's complaint about Kin's header; that's not my business. It's a new year, this dust pile is now my past. I'm unwatching this page so don't bother replying. --ZooFari 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You would make your point better if you tried to be less confrontational. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never before seen a Wikipedia user's talk page beginning by being disrespectful to people who at some future time will be angry at him. It's as if their being angry at him is the future is what he intends.

One point of his that I agree with: "Jerks need to be called out", and I'm glad I made as issue of this. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing reminds me once again that within Wikipedia, a rape victim who states that the rapist is a rapist is only violating Wikipedia's policy requiring civility. Maybe one is permitted to say that what happened was a rape, but one must not call the person who did it a rapist. Maybe figuring out that that's what the rule is, is exactly what it takes to stay out of trouble.

This also leaves me still mystified. My inquiry to Kintetsubuffalo was this: In what way, specifically, did a certain article appear to him to look like a "personal reflection or essay"? I would never have guessed that that question would be considered offensive, but it was what provoked the edit summary that said he was "clearing out the Putz edits". In the case of Kintetsubuffalo, it is perhaps not surprising that his behavior is weird, given the conspicuous notices on his user page and his user talk page saying that those who will be angry with him in the future are worthless and should cut him some slack because of his vast experience. But I am still mystified because I addressed the same question to another user (whom let us call "j") who, unlike Kintetsubuffalo, gave no conspicuous reasons to think he or she was not a perfectly respectable user, and that other user also responded by saying that particular question is offensive. I don't understand that and "j" is unwilling to explain it. So I will ask this page's public if they can think of any reason for that reaction. I asked "j" what it was in two particular articles that appeared to warrant the "personal reflection or essay" tag. "j" responded that the tag was warranted because the article looked like a personal reflection or essay. Of course that's only what the tag already said, and I couldn't see any resemblance to a personal reflection or essay, so I asked for some specificity. No reply was forthcoming for a few days, so I posed the question by email and said I couldn't see any resemblance to a personal reflection or essay and wondered specifically what looked that way. The response I got was very angry but said that one of the two articles used the word "we" several times, and that justified the tag. I don't understand the reason for the anger. I pointed out that the particular use of the pronoun was a standard figure of speech not meant literally, and the other article did not have that offensive pronoun, so I was still completely puzzled by that one. And I still am now.

As communications among Wikipedians go, I would say my inquiry about this could best be described as routine. Wikipedians don't respond with anger to my routine questions or comments about editing articles when my questions or comments are on other topics than the "personal reflection or essay" tag. Something about that topic offends some people. Should it? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read the stuff from that 'j' and where they dismissed complaints as 'ramblings'. You'll just get a heart attack if you worry about people like that. They think they're right if they quote some guideline without recognizing what 'guideline' means. All that matters is if they continue their actions. Dmcq (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway do you accept that advice as okay? I have posted advice on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page that they are entitled to ignore communications but they should not put in uncivil comments when doing so. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Withdrawn - moved to ANI

Need some help here. Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) and I have been in a long-standing disagreement about the content of this page. For background, the article was at one point in time a discussion of the vacuity of dignity in political discourse. it had been tagged as an essay and nominated for deletion; the decision was to merge it with the then-extant article Human Dignity. I made that merge and did some revisions to get the (until recently) current form seen here. Pyrrhon8 was the major contributer to the previous version, and has periodically attempted to resurrect all or part of that version. this would not be a problem, normally, except that Pyrrhon refuses to communicate on the talk page, is abusive, and won't edit cooperatively at all. see this comment - his only recent talk page entry - and the edit summaries here and here. I even asked for a 3O, got a response back, but Pyrrhon simply ignored the procedure and went about trying to reinstate his preferred version.

I'm usually forgiving of tendentious editors since I can be a bit bull-headed myself, but there's not much to do with an editor who's trying to juggernaut the article. Can someone please get him to be a bit more communicative and cooperative so that we can resolve this? --Ludwigs2 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is a disruptive editor. He does not make constructive edits. He plays rhetorical games. He rearranges sentences. He moves paragraphs. He substitutes one synonym for another. Ludwigs2 has been blocked 5 times. Countless editors and administrators have told him at great length to behave himself, but he is unable to do so. He disrupts. He bickers and cavils until he is blocked.

I would like to have him blocked without all the drama. There is no point in talking to him. He does not learn. He wants his way, and that is the end of the story. There is no point in going down the path that he has been down 5 times already. He has no use for logic. He has nothing but contempt for the rules of Wikipedia. I would be pleased if an administrator would immediately do what needs to be done. Wikipedia will be a better place without Ludwigs2. PYRRHON  talk   21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon, would you mind substantiating any of these claims of disruptive editing with diffs that show what you mean? --Ludwigs2 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pyrrhon8, I'm not really interested in Ludwigs' past behaviour, unless that is in someway effecting the project now and you can provide diffs to show what you mean, and nor should you be interested in it, blocks are a mesure reserved for preventing disruption, not as a punitive force to punish users for past offences. When I complaint crops up against you the solution to the matter is to deal with the issues brought up in concern to you, not to try and justify your own actions based upon the behaviour of others. Although yes, you are perfectly within your right to bring up a complaint against Ludwigs, that does not excuse you of any wrongdoing.
So, regarding your own actions, I have this to say; It seems to me that you believe that Ludwigs should be blocked, and are expressing this in your interaction with them. This is the wrong thing to do. Calling another user an "asset" or telling them to go and "play on Conservapedia" are both nonconstructive whatever the surrounding circumstances are. Even is Ludwigs was being a liability to the development of an article (which I highly doubt), making judgemental comments directed at them is not helpful to the situation. What is helpful is to explain your difference of opinion in a polite and civil manner, focusing on content, and then discuss how to improve the article for the benefit of the project. Under no circumstances are the comments that you have been making acceptable.
Secondly, regarding your accusations against ludwigs; you may make a complaint against another user if you believe that their behaviour is disrupting or damaging Wikipedia in the present moment or that it will in the near future, and if you can prove this using diffs that user may get blocked.
What you may not do is to persistently call another user an asset or make similar comments about them, this is nonconstructive, and if you can't provide proof that they are being an "asset", then the accusation also becomes a personal attack.
I will be signing out until Monday morning now (it's sunday evening for me at the moment), but if you have any questions, I'll try and answer them then.
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

note: Pyrrhon has (once again) reverted to his preferred version without talk page discussion and with a rude edit summary. I'm hoping someone here can talk some sense in to him, because if this cycle goes through one more round I'll be forced to report him to ANI and ask for administrative help, and I'd really prefer not to do that. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIV by User:Saturday

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

See example edit and edit summaries, going back over the past 3 years (there are probably others): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=333487108&oldid=328907235, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=155661591&oldid=155587766, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=155490491&oldid=155481369, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ver%C3%B3nica_Castro&diff=115119280&oldid=115110786, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=140370155 . 82.152.195.64 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Not logged in because, well I don't fancy being on the receiving end of more personal attacks).

• I see no response to this so far - is the above out of remit? 91.85.140.162 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. Personally to see such long term abuse, with no apparent retribution sickens me. I advise that this is outside of the scope of WQA, I suggest that you take it to AN/I, or give Saturday a strictly worded warning, and then take the matter to AN/I if his behaviour continues. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Spyro02

Hi, User:Spyro02 wrote this in Germany. I reverted it and put a uw-vandalism3 template on his talk page as the user has been warned before (see [62] or [63]). He responded with this: [64]. Quote: "Correction: oh, yes, you are a Nazi if your first language is German...". To me this is a clear violation of WP:PA. I don't think that a discussion with this user makes any sense at all if such abuse is his way of talking to me. So can please anyone remind him to be civil? --Jaellee (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaellee - his contribution is unsourced and a bit odd, but it probably wasn't a good idea to jump straight to the 'level 4' and 'last warning' templates. it's almost always better to work your way up through the numbers - that way, if and when it reaches ANI, you will have covered all your bases and the admins will have a clear pattern of problematic behavior to look at.

Spyro. please don't call people offensive names - it goes against wp:civility policy and generally makes people feel bad. The opinion on Germany that you are trying to enter into the article is actually an oldish (if minor) line of thought that started back at the end of WWI - it's one of the reasons why Germany was broken up into separate states after WWII - so I know that there are at least a few reliable sources that discuss the issue. If you want to add this to the article, please find those sources to substantiate your additions and cooperate with other editors. simply trying to force the text into the article will make people angry, get your efforts reverted, and ultimately get you blocked from editing for a while. --Ludwigs2 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, if you look at his talk page history, you will see that he has been given multiple escalating warnings in the past, all of which he has blanked. For example, he was already given a final warning in July, for a previous nonsense edit to Germany. It appears that, with the exception of 5 edits related to a particular Gynasium in Germany, all of his edits have been disruption, vandalism, edit warring, POV pushing, or ethnic insults. Were it up to me, I'd block for a week for this latest completely unacceptable behavior, to be followed by an indef block if the behavior continues. I don't think we should be coddling people who say, outright, that all Germans are Nazis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, did you read Spyro02's contribution until the end? For example: "... and current politics by Angela Merkel are similiar to those of Adolf Hitler in his first years of chancelorship." If you have sources for this, I would be really interested. From my point of view Spyro02 was vandalising the article. I did also not jump straight to level 4, it was level 3 (as I said above) which was justified after a look at his talk page history (I also provided diff links for above). A more than superficial inspection of this case would have been nice. --Jaellee (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The warning levels aren't "per lifetime". While editors should use their best judgment, it's often a good idea for each new problem to start at the beginning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really amazed that except for Floquenbeam nobody seems to raise an eyebrow about Spyro02. Unprovoked name-calling obviously seems to be an acceptable behavior, despite WP:PA. Thanks for making that clear to me. --Jaellee (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable, and I've got an eye on this editor now. Calling people nazis is not on; there's no reason for us to call each other anything other than "fellow-editor". I never use those warning templates with registered accounts, because their effectiveness is very low. However, there's no excuse for spouting racist trash, and I thank you for bringing this issue to the community's attention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like everyone is in agreement that this editor shouldn't have said what he said. Jaellee response, that he should have used this template or that template seems like a minor and small side issue.

It is indisputable User:Spyro02 made some really fantastic unsourced, biased claims, was reverted, then he called another editor a Nazi. Ikip 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing it that way, this gives me the feeling that my opinion about this incident is not exclusive my own. --Jaellee (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Alainr345 personal attack

[65]. Enjoy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please could you kindly clarify, had you had any previous interaction with Alainr before he made this comment? I have also notified Alainr of this discussion. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, I've had no prior interactions with him. I believe what prompted the personal attack was my removal of File:Java logo.svg from Java (software platform) (incompliance with WP:NFCC #10c, routine work), an article he would have an interest in (though has not edited before) as a member of Wikiproject Java. Just an unprovoked attack. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alainr; this kind of attack is uncalled for, if you disagree with something that some one has done, the solution is not to call them names, but to politely discuss your concerns in a constructive and civil way. Name calling is non-constructive, and it breeds disjunction between editors and the community as a whole.

I respectfully suggest, but do not demand, that you apologize to Hammersoft, and then resolve any issues that you have with their work in a mannerly and affable way, should you wish to.

Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at User:Hammersoft, you'll see that the guy calls himself exactly that, so I have no glory in calling him the same thing... As for the issue itself, I don't understand at all why a bit of content that is LEGAL in a Wikipedia article should not be LEGAL on a portal, as a portal is just that: Wikipedia content, content, content. You won't convince me otherwise and Jimbo should have the courage to stand for it instead of doing 'accomodations' with lawyers. For me there's the law, and then the interpretation of the law, and then things you do or not, with subtlety. Bye now,
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you have issues with our non-free content policy, you can take it up at WT:NFC. This isn't the place for it, as any discussion here would not result in change there. As to calling me a certified idiot, I have a dizzying array of insults on my userpage. Calling me those insults doesn't make them any less of an insult just because I have them on my userpage, just as me saying "Ya, Canadian that's what you are indeed" is highly inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Simply because Hammersoft calls (him/her)self an idiot does not make it acceptable for you to call them such. As for your concerns about the copyright, I suggest you look up the copyright laws concerning this, Jimbo Wales has no power to change these laws. However, the real concern is not the issue its self, but the way in which addressed it, which was by insulting Hammersoft, that kind of behaviour is non-constructive. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I thought this was getting better, as User:Alainr345 modified his comment on my talk page [66] to direct his insult at the policy, rather than me personally. Then he uploaded File:Dukesource125.gif, which was missing evidence of permission. I tagged it with {{npd}} and notified him [67]. The result was an insult to the effect that I apparently can not read see edit summary. I've thoroughly checked the Sun website and can find no verbiage to the effect that the image has been released under CC 3.0. I have found verbiage directly in contradiction to that free license, specifically "This license is revocable at any time at Sun's sole discretion" [68]. I've notified Alainr345 but would appreciate someone stepping in on the continued personal insults. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Alainr345's allowed the image to be re-tagged without further insult. I hope it stays that way. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing as an IP resulting in bullying

See User_talk:JohnBlackburne#Accusations_of_vandalism. There is very little I can do or say in relation to this discussion that doesn't provoke comments suggesting that my actions are vandalism, or less important because they come from an IP address. Trying to join in with a conversation about the quality of material on Wikipedia feels like a lost cause when made by a casual Wikipedia reader like myself. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You being

• 90.217.104.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

and clearly also having used

• 90.215.124.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.215.124.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

to make a specific point on Centrifugal force, can you elaborate on the rationale behind the edit summary of this edit? DVdm (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging by timing, this IP may also be User:WeDon'tWantAny, the originator of this RFC. These IP addresses started editing when User:WeDon'tWantAny stopped, and their language looks similar. I'm not sure, and I don't know if a checkuser request is needed or not. Plvekamp (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As quickly noted in this I was wrong to call it vandalism in the edit summary, and have said so, but I still think I was right to revert, once, an inappropriate removal. I cannot see how that or anyone else's contribution on that page is bullying.--John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I had another puppetmaster in mind, one who is currently experiencing a year long ban on physics related articles, and who has been a disrupting contributor to Centrifugal force in the past. The link "they" are trying to remove is sort of orthogonal to this person's long time pov. DVdm (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He sounds great! 90.217.104.238 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example of vandalism from

• 94.2.152.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Care to comment? DVdm (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very much so! This demonstrates the problem I'm talking about. Am I supposed to be that IP also? Why? Because it is user a Sky Broadband user? I imagine that there are quite a few of those! Also, that IP address originates from the ISP's Hounslow-area pool, whereas mine is from the Ipswich area (over 100 miles away by road). And how did I hop back to this IP address again? You can check that Sky Broadband doesn't give you an allocation of IP addresses that you can choose from. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Am I supposed to be that IP also? Why?" ==> behaviour, context, improbable coincidence. You woudn't stand a chance in a formal checkuser investigation. Having been there before, you should know that. To your next question the answer is, maybe later. DVdm (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would happily undergo the checkuser process, as long as it doesn't involve me giving out personal information.

Even if it proved that I was that IP editor you have accused me of being (it won't), would that justify your additional sniping? I simply don't understand the reasoning behind you feeling the need to jump in here and make these accusations. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also ask you to consider very carefully what you are doing at this point. IP users are easily identifiable to their ISPs, with consequences that reflect on their real lives. They shouldn't have to feel like the accusations made by a vengeful editor will result in an abuse complaint being filed, despite their innocence. If IP editors have to suffer this sort of treatment because of disagreements over content then it is simply not safe for them to contribute to Wikipedia. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that, the solution is simple - register and use an account. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An offensive edit summary such as this is considered vandalism, however. Plvekamp (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you at least pretended not to be working as a team! Have you considered that different people in the same household might be involved in editing the same article, particularly when they may have discussed the articles offline? "Involved" is an optimistic way to describe it, as any edit I make is met with extreme passive-aggressive policy quoting and instant dismissal, even when the edits echo the sentiments of established users. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really have a legitimate complaint here, please provide some diffs so that we can see what you are talking about. Hyperbolic statements of how others have done you wrong do not help you case, especially when a cursory examination of your edit history raises questions about your own behaviour. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs so that we can see my apparently questionable edits? I posted direct links to the issues I was experiencing. This edit summary and the hunt-like behaviour of editors in this thread are further examples. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one making a complaint here, you are, it is up to you to provide diffs to support your claims. The issue that you linked to in the above comment has already been dealt with, you have already received an apology from the editor who made the vandalism comment in his edit summary. One inappropriate edit summary does not make a concerted campaign of action against you, which seems to be what you are complaining about. Once again I ask you provide diffs to support your complaint, so we can what it is you are complaining about. Oh, and BTW, accusing editors here of "working as a team" is not a good idea. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm complaining about their reactions. There are very few edits I have made that haven't resulted in accusations of vandalism, or an excessive number of people lining up to take a policy-quoting pot-shot at me, or accuse me of being every IP editor under the sun. IP users shouldn't be made to feel like criminals for every action they take. Their opinions shouldn't be dismissed and labelled as vandalism. I can't even complain about injustices, because yet more accusations are added on as a result of those complaints! See JohnBlackburne's talk page, Plvekamp's talk page and this thread where I am being accused of other IP edits with very little evidence.

"There are very few edits I have made that haven't resulted in accusations of vandalism, or an excessive number of people lining up to take a policy-quoting pot-shot at me, or accuse me of being every IP editor under the sun." Then it should be a simple matter for you to provide diffs to back up you claims. Your continued refusal to do this is not a good look. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will respond to each item below in turn. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[69] - (JohnBlackburne apologised for this one)

• Apology offered, I assume you accepted it, nothing more needs to be said here, then does it? - Nick Thorne ^talk

[70] Not vandalism but "very close to it"? What chance does an editor have? How can an editor contribute when he is being followed around by people like this making jibes towards him?

• This was not a jibe, it was a response to you accusing another editor of edit warring and a comment on your own questionable behaviour in deleting against consensus and after being reverted. The usual process is edit-revert-discuss, not edit-revert-revert-no discussion. Nick Thorne ^talk

[71] Why is WP:CIVIL quoted at me? I can see that he might be upset by my interpretation of his reasoning, but that's not incivility! At this point it feels very much that my unpopular viewpoint about xkcd links is being met with policy-quoting retaliation.

• This was a perfectly civil and reasonable request to take the dispute to an appropriate forum, in this case the talk page of the editor you were in dispute with. For your information your edit - to which this post was referring - was not civil, the entire tone was petulant and rude. Nick Thorne ^talk

[72] Perhaps I am wrong here, but I can't interpret this in any way other than somebody painting a negative picture of a troublesome IP editor to justify a double standard. There's no concession made here; I'm the only one going against consensus, and I'm apparently even quarreling alone!

• No double standard, you chose to continue the argument in the wrong place - the talk page of someone no longer involved in your dispute - ignoring the request to move the discussion to the appropruiate persons talk page, so he move the conversation there himself. I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to concession or quarreling alone, however you are right that you have been acting against consensus. Nick Thorne ^talk

[73] I'm a bad person for not continuing an argument on his talk page? I simply didn't want to continue with it at all! I made a note about my perceived misuse of WP:CIVIL and left it alone. Even that was used as ammunition against me!

• But you did continue the discussion, didn't you. That is what was uncivil, gioven that at that time it was clearly inappropriate to be having the discussion on that user's talk page, especially since you had been requested to move the discussion to the talk page of the person you were in dispute with. If you can't understand why that was uncivil, then I doubt that discussion here is ever going to help you. Nick Thorne ^talk

[74] Immediately I am smeared for having a dynamic IP address. I didn't claim not to be these IP addresses, it's not fair to immediately jump on me for that! What *is* fair about that message however is showing the negative edits made from this connection, which I will have to take responsibility for (although I will restate that some edits are a result of a less respectful housemate who I shouldn't have mentioned any of this to!). [75] is also just.

• So you admit that these IPs are yours? Also the editing style, subject matter and in many cases edit summaries are identical, and you expect us to believe that it was just co-incidence, and your evil house mate did it? BTW what does "[76] is also just." mean? Regardless of that, the edit summary "(Undid revision 335305538 by Plvekamp (talk) Fancruft. See talk page, grow a pair of balls, get cancer in them.)" is regarded as vandalism and is highly uncivil as stated in the linked post. Nick Thorne ^talk

[77] This is where it just starts turning into a sport. I am not responsible for all physics-related vandalism on Wikipedia. Why would this be brought up in this discussion other than to discredit me?

• So, are you denying that this person is you? Do you really want us to perform a checkuser? Also, no one accused you of all physics related vandalism on Wikipedia, just disrupting the Centrifugal Force article, evidence of which is manifest. Nick Thorne ^talk

[78] Utterly baseless and vengeful.

• Given that you admit to using these IPs and that their editing style, subject matter etc are identical, it is reasonable to lump them together and when that is done, the combined actions of those edits amount to vandalism. You may not be aware, but we do know that many ISPs assign new IP addresses when the user modem is re-booted. You may have been trying to fool us into thinking that there were several different users by this means, but you maintained an dentical editing pattern, not very smart. So the change was entirely well based and well found. If you don;t want to be identified as a vandal, dont edit like one. Nick Thorne ^talk

For the record, the purpose of my replacing the {{userlinks}} templates with {{ipvandal}} templates was to provide, for those who might want to make a quick check, easier access to WHOIS etc. DVdm (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[79] See above. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• The comment is completely appropriate. Nick Thorne ^talk

• So, what do we have? You have been called for your oown behaviour and you don't like it. You throw accusations of bullying and uncivility around and when we look into it we find that in fact others have been more than reasonable with you and it is really your own actions that are questionable. Please do not treat us as fools, we are quie able to look behind matters ourselves and we do not just rely on your version of the truth, we check it out. You have been given plenty of opportunity to withdraw from this gracefull but you chose instead to continue down this path. You need to be carefull, lest a passing admin looks in and takes into his or her head to check you out. If it turns out that you really are a sockpuppet for a blocked user then you can expect sever consequences. I hope that this will not prove necessary. What you should do now is appologise to those you have accused of uncivility and bullying and promise in future to follow policy when editing the Wikipedia. You might still have time. Nick Thorne ^talk 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really need to: I'm not a sockpuppet for a blocked user!

Here is the edit where I explicitly link myself to those IP addresses. The ridiculous thing is that your accusation of me pretending I wasn't those IPs is *a reply to that very post*. Do you know what *is* missing? A link to me claiming not to be those IP addresses! Let's just make it clear what you've done here: accused me of pretending not be those IPs when you've got no basis for that at all, even after I've linked myself to them directly in the very message you're supposed to have read, due to having replied to it and passed judgment. Does that seem like fair or acceptable behaviour? Sadly I feel that writing this at all is entirely futile; if the pattern repeats itself I'll suffer another baseless accusation and admonishment.

The only IP I've denied being is the one that I am clearly not (the only link is that it's the same MAJOR ISP; any geolocation service will show the locations being 100+ miles apart, rendering the "same ISP" connection completely invalid). You can recap on that here. With those edits clearly being made from another connection, can you see how it might be a little rich to state as fact-completely without being prompted-that I made those edits? Can you please try to connect that sort of prejudice with my original complaint? Anybody? 94.0.65.156 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Here we have Anon90 editing from 94.0.x.x, claiming there's no way he could edit from 94.2.x.x, which just happens to be in the same IP block he is (unknowingly, I presume) currently editing from. THAT's rich. Whether he is or isn't the 94.2.x.x vandal, the irony made me chuckle. Plvekamp (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have stated at least twice that we are both using the same ISP, and so it is very likely indeed that we are going to be allocated an IP address from the same block. I'm glad you're all having a lot of fun pointing fingers at the IP editor though. No need to hide that anymore, eh? You're amongst good company. Unbelievable. 90.213.61.219 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you stated (twice) that it's impossible you could be allocated an IP address from that block, since they're "100+ miles" from each other. Interesting change in memory, though. Plvekamp (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I said that it would be impossible (or perhaps just extremely unlikely) for me to have edited as 90.217.104.238, vandalised as 94.2.152.167 and then gone back to editing as 90.217.104.238 again, due to these IP addresses being allocated outside of my control (this can be verified). You are confusing IP blocks with full, complete addresses. The only way I could have been that editor is by getting somebody from another household to make edits on my behalf; by that token I can be accused of being any IP vandal on Wikipedia.

The location element is relevant because any geolocation service will tell you that 94.2.152.167 is allocated from a range of addresses Sky uses in Hounslow, whereas my claimed addresses are all reported as being in the Ipswich/South Suffolk/North Essex area. It has nothing to do with being in the 94.2 block. It is plain, undeniable fact the IP address that I am unfairly accused of being is over 100 miles away from the ones I have been editing with over the past few days.

I feel that you owe an explanation as to why you are continually harrassing me at this point, particularly after I specified that I have no interest in extending these communications with you at all. You aren't discussing pertinent issues, instead you are piling on more scorn. This isn't constructive at all; nobody needs you to pop up and tell us what you think is ironic in a thinly-veiled attack. The only reason I will post at all is to defend against harmful accusations focused on my IP addresses, I have no interest in further debate with you. 90.213.61.219 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just informational (i.e. no judgment attached to the name of the templates):

• 90.217.104.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.215.124.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.215.124.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.2.152.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

(The ip who happened to subtly tease Speed of light)

• 94.0.65.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

So, are you now sort of confirming that these 5 IP's belong to you? DVdm (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Time and again I have told you that I am not 94.0.65.156. But hey, why not tag them all those addresses as ipvandal anyway, right?

Could you all leave me alone now? I get it, you can do what you like. Just lay off with the silly accusations and you don't need to hear from me again. 90.213.61.219 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But I did not address my question to

  90.213.61.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

and neither did Plvekamp address his comment above to this IP. We both addressed them to 94.0.65.156. Do you understand the root of our (yours included) confusion?

Furthermore, please note that this is not a debate. I think we are just trying to clear things up, the main question being "Who is who?". It would really help if you would create a username and stick with it. That would effectively hide your ISP-data for almost everyone. Don't you agree? DVdm (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One-sided and ridiculous. You clearly made your mind up as soon as you saw any of this (your tone pre-diff-posting makes this fairly obvious). It was a mistake for me to post diffs for you to actively interpret in the most negative way you could, or expect an impartial editor to read this. You made no attempt whatsoever to recognise any ill deeds of the registered editors. Particularly ridiculous are the accusations of me being a sock for a blocked user, or that IP editor who just happens to be on the same ISP when you have very little evidence. Also, the interpretation that I started/continued an argument on JohnBlackburne's talk page is incredible; you're either biased beyond shame or didn't follow the timeline correctly. I give up. It is utterly foolish to try and be involved with anything when faced with this sort of pack-mentality. Just re-read what you've written; you sound positively gleeful in presenting your negative description of my actions and perfectly comfortable knowing that you've got a number of editors to back you up. You can just act any way you like can't you? 90.217.104.238 (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, please bear in mind that a third opinion is not an opinion which is indifferent, but one from a person (in this case a user) who has entered the argument with a neutral opinion upon the dispute, and after reading through the entire dispute with an unbiased eye, they then present their opinion upon the matter, this opinion does not have to be equally in support of both sides, it should reflect the user's opinion upon the matter after reading it in an unbiased way.

You accuse users of pack-mentality, although you may have a point, you should also consider that when nearly every user in a situation disagrees with you they may have a point.

Finally, I know from my own experience with Nick that he is not the kind of user who gangs up on people simply because its the path of least resistance, nor will he or does he take "Glee" in criticising users, he does so because he's trying to help you to understand your own actions, you need to accept that help though, or else it becomes pointless. Remember that everyone at WQA is volunteering their own time in an attempt to help and provide third-party opinions. Responding to them in the way that you have responded to Nick shows a lack of regard for the service that they provide.

Kindest Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• It gives me no pleasure to list those actions of yours that have been questionable, in fact I had to put in a considerable amount of time and effort that I may well have used actually building the Encyclopedia. However, I feel that as a member of the community who is interested in its ongoing well being, it is a worthwhile exercise to participate in these discussions and offer what insights I may. It would not be reasonable of me to fail to show where your problems really lie if you are to become a more constructive member of the community, which is what we all try to achieve here. Only by understanding our mistakes can we hope to overcome them. The reason I asked you for diffs was that on my own I had only found the issues you raised in your list. Since it seemed that these were not cases where for the most part others were being uncivil towards you, I assuming good faith felt that there must have been something other than these going on that I had not found. Unfortunately you disappointed me by simply producing the list things I already knew about. Therefore it was obvious that you did not realise that you were the author of your own problems so, rather than simply giving an overall summary that you may have felt glossed over things, I reluctantly chose to itemise the issues with each example you raised so that you may gain some insight into how your actions appear to others. Please understand it is not my intention to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. Far from it, I would like nothing better than to learn that through the efforts of myself and other third party contributors here you learn some lessons about how to work collaboratively with others on the project and so go on to have a long and fruitful carreer as a Wikipedia editor. Please take some time to reflect on what I and the others here have been saying to you. In the end we can only offer our own perspectives and advice, we have no way of forcing you to accept any of it - that is entirely up to you - but you would be wise to consider that when everyone else is saying somethng different to what you think is the case, it might just be that everyone else ir right. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon90, people "working in the same household" working on the same mission are treated like one single set of single purpose sockpuppets, and de-facto as one person. As an experienced editor (judged from your editing style here), you probably know this already. Consider being careful. DVdm (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 90.213.61.219 wrote:

"Time and again I have told you that I am not 94.0.65.156. ..."

I presume this is a misprint for 94.2.152.167. This edit to this thread from IP 94.0.65.156 clearly purports to have been made by you, and appears to have been acknowledged as such by your subsequent posts made from IP 90.213.61.219.

In response to an objection from the IP 90.217.104.238 to this comment Nick Thorne wrote:

"The comment is completely appropriate."

This is one point in Nick Thorne's otherwise excellent response which I would take issue with. Only one edit—a blatant act of vandalism—has so far been made from the IP 94.2.152.167. The evidence connecting the person responsible for that edit with the complainant in this thread seems to me to be extraordinarily flimsy. Insinuating that these two persons might be the same is an unnecessary distraction which has done nothing but create an opening for the complainant to indulge in playing the victim and divert attention from the complete lack of substance in his original complaint.
The same goes for any supposed connection with either of the editors banned from editing physics-based articles in this arbitration case, one of whom I presume is the editor being referred to above as a possible "puppetmaster". Having followed that arbitration case and the behavlour of the two banned editors quite closely, I would lay long odds against either of them having anything to do with the complainant in this thread.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David for raising these points, upon reflection I see you are correct and I have struck the relevant comments. It makes little difference in the scheme of things, however. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

David, yes, my comments were based on no more than a (very) strong gut feeling, based on previous experience and, in this case, highly improbable coincidence. Clearly our takes on the odds wildly differ. I had decided to put it forward here, since it seemed the only way to somehow get in contact with an IP-shifting contributor. I agree that I should have either taken this directly to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, or just let it pass for the time being. This was most probably not the place for this. My apologies. DVdm (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)