Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive84

Rafablu88 and consensus on Remain in Light

Rafablu88 (talk · contribs)

Please advise Rafablu88 has been working on the page Remain in Light for awhile and part of his edits included deleting a section on the album's release history and inserting information about areas where the album did not chart, citing his understanding of featured article criteria. I reverted these edits based on my understanding of the guidelines at WP:ALBUM and I found his appeal to FAC lacking. After reverting one another, I created a space on talk to discuss these two matters and requested assistance from a relevant WikiProject. Two other editors added their perspective and it seems like a consensus was reached a month ago, so I reverted based on that understanding. Rafablu88 has reverted again claiming that there was absolutely no consensus (twice) and posting an uncivil message on talk. I asked him to be more civil and respect the consensus, but he responded with another uncivil message. He has also called my efforts trolling.

I am afraid that this user is not going to engage me or the other editors who have expressed their opinion in a civil manner, so I am posting here to see if someone else can intervene and possibly correct me if I am misconstruing what consensus is and whether or not it has been reached on that talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Note that editor also edits as RB88public (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look for yourself people. I am fairly busy to engage Koavf's fancies again. All my rationales are explained in detail here after each and every contention. PRB88 (T) 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all, since you're so concerned with "Wikiquette", perhaps you'd like to explain why you chose "Vandal" as opposed to "Userlinks" in providing User:Rafablu88's talk, contribs., etc.

Secondly, you were edit warring at the article in question. What sort of "Wikiquette" is that?

Thirdly, you are once again claiming incivility on the part of yet another editor whose patience you have exhausted with your petulant insistence that your edits are correct because such and such template says so.

Have you received the opinion you were seeking, or is it just one more example of a wikihound being incivil towards you? Radiopathy •talk• 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Third party opinion. I don't see a clear consensus one way or the other on the article's talk page. To the extent that other editors have commented, there appears to 3:2 division in favor of what Justin wants, but it hardly seems settled, despite the tendency of both Justin and Rafablu88 to declare that they have consensus for their preferred edits. So both parties should stop with the revert war until consensus is better sorted. Justin has a legitimate gripe about the attitude being thrown his way. Comments such as "it seems you can't read" and "stop trolling" by Rafablu88 are inappropriate. But filing a WQA over the incivility it seems less productive than taking content-oriented dispute resolution steps towards getting a firm consensus on the substance of the article edits, because that is the source of the problem. --RL0919 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Third party input (more): I echo RL0919, who has summed up my thoughts very nicely (that is, reread his view before reading further). Only notes I have to add to is that I don't think Rafablu88 was justified in putting an editor's name as a section header of the article talk page (look at WP:TALK). However, Koavf should not have used words like "slander", even if he linked it to civility policy. Also, the way Koavf used the section header of this page was inappropriate - don't use the vandal template in a header. Content dispute resolution, like article RfC or mediation is what is needed - no WQA issue to address at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment:using the vandal template does not necessarily mean that the editor in question is being called a vandal. the {{User}} template and {{Vandal}} template produce a different set of results. In some cases the fuller results from the vandal template are desirable to allow easier investigation of a editor's actions. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Except, that the word vandal and the user's name appeared side-by-side in the edit summaries on this page, which is not OK. That's the sort of thing talk page guidelines say not to do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:TechnoFaye

Stuck

 – Taken to ANI.

Where? They're telling lies and it's provable.TechnoFaye Kane 17:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

• TechnoFaye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is in relation to a previous thread that was posted at ANI

TechnoFaye has on at least two occasions, [1], [2] made statements, involving words such as "stupid" that are quite inflammatory. The user acknowledges that she has previously been banned from another online forum, so she is aware of the consequences of incivility [3]. The user states that she is autistic, and this is the reason for her impoliteness. I don't know about that, but all I can say is that wikipedia is better off without such inflammatory statements. Is there anything that can or should be done about this. I have already mentioned to the user that her tone isn't helpful [4]. Seems to have ignored it. But realistically, saying stuff like "Blacks are so stupid", in my opinion, is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy on civility. Neither is Wikipedia a forum nor a soapbox to express ones views in ways that will never make it into an article. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC) These are the specific quotes

This unfounded, ugly charge of racism is not only untrue (see below), but is an attempt by an outrageously POV editor to intimidate another editor (me) so he can push his politically-motivated POV without being questioned.

This personal attack is about my objection to Muntuwandi suppressing information published by the the American Psychological Association, the University of California, and dozens of peer-reviewed journals. In the WP Race and Intelligence article, Muntuwandi wants to replace serious academic research with a bizarre "theory" that the IQ test-score gap can't be real because there's no such thing as "race":

You can not have [a wikipedia article about] Race and Intelligence, as race does not exist, and intelligence is undefined, and hence their exists no data on it.

This contradicts accepted science and was rejected by Dr. Pesta, an associate professor specializing in intelligence who graciously serves as our expert consultant. So I objected. Now Muntuwandi is telling blatant, obvious lies in an attempt to get me thrown out of the discussion.

He quotes me as saying "blacks are stupid". As a former Head Start volunteer and a very left-wing Liberal, I take particular exception to this.

Here's the statement he's referring to. When Muntuwandi attempted to rename the article to conform to his peculiar beliefs, I explained:

It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like renaming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid". I would hope that editors on BOTH sides of this issue would agree that this kind of subtle propaganda is EXACTLY what we need to scrupulously avoid, lest we confirm all of Fox News' dismissive badmouthing of our beloved Wikipedia.

See?

I also used the word "stupid" here:

Unbiased, duplicated IQ tests show that whites are, on average, stupider than Asians. SO WHAT?? I'm a white woman, but that doesn't make most white people as smart as Asians."

Is that uncivil? Muntuwandi himself said that he has to "read between the lines" to find anything wrong with it. I imagine he'd have to, since I offered to let him include his strange theory on race:

Including this fringe idea in Wikipedia at all is improper, but I'm willing to compromise and let it be one short section if it includes a statement that most experts DO believe that there are three races of humans... However I'm willing to forgo including that disclaimer in the name of consensus.

Does that sound "inflammatory"? He has already been banned for a month for making unjustified personal attacks in the same discussion page. He was also banned for using multiple Wikipedia identities which agreed with each other. This also let him vote on things more than once. He is currently on probation, and when he made more personal attacks (like the one I am responding to now), the moderator of the mediation page warned him, then later had him banned again for continuing to wildly attack editors he disagrees with.

But Integrity demands me to tell you that Muntuwandi DOES make one true assertion about me:

The user acknowledges that she has previously been banned from another online forum.

That's correct. But he said that it was due to incivil argumentation. He made that up. In fact, I was banned for including in my profile [this picture] of myself. TechnoFaye Kane 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Diffs provided do not show incivility. Marking NWQA. Gerardw (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, do you think the average person could go into a crowded place and shout "blacks are so stupid". It's not civil discourse at all. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to mark this as NWQA as (1) this was a concern about civility and (2) the filing party was not referred to any other place, so it's been removed. However, like Gerardw, I also reject your claim that there is incivility by the subject; you're just taking words out of context and misrepresenting their position - if anything, that is the incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed that you suggest that I am being uncivil. Are you telling me that it is perfectly acceptable and civil to call any individual, group or ethnic group "stupid". I take offense when someone says "blacks are so stupid". I have previously ignored these statements and tried to put them in context, but because she keeps on repeating them I have come to WQA for an independent opinions. I don't enjoy reading such statements, and I don't enjoy discussing this subject at WQA either. But as these statements are a distraction I felt it necessary that they be addressed. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

These are the quotes,

• So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?. [5]
• My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied 'even if it is true.'[6]
• "It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid".[7]
• What do you think of the theory that the IQ difference is due to everyone else believing that blacks are stupid[8]
• No, it means it's extremely unlikely that one exists, because it would have to be something powerful enough to make a whole race of people stupid, yet hidden and secret enough that no one ever thought of it[9]

Wapondaponda (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I have taken this to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_by_User:TechnoFaye. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

comment by third party

By the way, for those who are confused by all of the references to content-dispute at a mediation page, you may ant to know:

• the proposal Muntuwandi was favoring (in pretty measured tones) was to change the title of the article from "race and intelligence" to "race and i.q." which in my view hardly calls for the histrionics
• I don't think Muntuwandi ever said races do not exist. He made two points: one that when people take IQ tests they identify their race or ethnicity. This is known as "self identified race" (which is different from, for example, taking a blood test) and M. has repeatedly asked that this be made clear in any revised article
• Muntuwandi has also pointed out that sociologists and anthropologists are the real experts on "race" and he has refered to their research.

There is a conflict dispute ate the heart of this: a considerable number of university researchers question the value of defining races genetically. Technofaye says these people are not real scientists; I think Muntuwandi disagrees. But this is not the place to address a content dispute. The question is, is Technofaye's responses to Muntuwandi, and her characterization of his views, appropriate? I think you can get a little bit of a sense just from what you read in this section Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is to improve articles; in this case, it is to help mediate a dispute. I would think the litmus test for etiquette is, does someone's demeanor sooth conflicts or inflame them? I certainly have seen no evidence that Muntuwandi has written anything inflammatory or that deserved an inflammatory response. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 23 March 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.

Offensive materials on Userpage

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Agreeing with the below that this isn't necessary. His userpage is, after all, intended as a conglomerate of random vandalism from various users, and this is the wrong venue for discussion on whether or not that should be allowed. Besides, the material has been removed, so it's all over now. Let's all go and write an article; I hear Bogoljub Karić needs copyediting! — The Earwig ^(talk) 15:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this userpage allowed in wikipedia? It's highly offensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mr._Wheely_Guy&oldid=350321728. Should I remove/blank all such offensive userpages? Thank you. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I openly invite all Willypedians to vandalize my user page. The end result: a user page that represents the total creativity of everyone who has contributed to it. Mr. Wheely Guy (on wheels!) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is already removed; not sure why a diff was posted above instead of the current talk page state. At any rate, it seems that if Mr. Wheely allows anyone to edit his talk page, it stands to reason that anyone is allowed to removed anything they want, also. This certainly didn't need to be a WQA; the original poster should review the purpose of this page. Tan | 39 13:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tyw7, if you find it offensive then don't look at it. Anyway why are you wasting your time looking at user pages? Work on articles instead. Caden ^cool 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One man's "offensive" is another man's "funny". Who are you to decide? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalising a user page is against WP:Talk whether the user wants vandalism or not. Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. If the user wants it, it's by definition not vandalism. WP:Common Sense. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A user page is not the user's property, and even in real life a person would face trouble for allowing their property to be vandalised in public. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with having users allow graffiti on their user pages. All such graffiti though would have to conform to Wikipedia's policies and not cause offence to other users for instance, and personally I'd think the user that said the graffiti was allowed would be responsible for checking for vandalism on a regular basis as one can't depend on everyone doing graffiti knowing what is or is not reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Geekiep and Chris Edgecombe article

Resolved

 – Deleted

Geekiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The article Chris Edgecombe is currently nominated for deletion, and while I would normally wait until the conclusion of an AfD before bringing the situation here, User:Geekiep (whom I suspect is an SPA) has been causing some trouble. S/he disagrees with the deletion, which is fine, but now s/he's going as far as to leaving uncivil comments on the talk pages of everyone that agrees with the deletion, including Karljoos, Phil Bridger and myself. Furthermore, s/he created articles for HTF-15 and Biofuel 5, two coolants Chris Edgecombe supposedly created, and the articles appear to be hoaxes because I can't find any information about either of their existence at all. After my AfD nomination of the latter two articles, Geekiep threw around uncivil comments again, more or less stating that I have never heard of the products simply because I'm ignorant (s/he even posted such a comment on the article page at one point. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • He did a lovely stop by my talk page. Wikipedia doesn't need editors like him/her.--Karljoos (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • And here s/he goes again. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
      • As one of the "victims" of this editor's behaviour I would have preferred that it should just have been ignored rather than brought up here. I'm sure that once the AfD discussions have been completed we won't hear any more, so why create any unnecessary drama? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I normally do just let bygones be bygones, but s/he just wouldn't stop. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I see Biofuel 5 and HTF-15 are coolants are they ? Pity you don't read the information and attempt to understand it rather than try to delete information you are not qualified to comment on. You wont find any info on any of them if you don't even understand what you are looking for or at !! In my opinion it is me and Edgecombe who is being vilified by the above mentioned posters by accusing us of being liars and hoaxers. None of you are prepared to ask about the products and person, you obviously have no concern for the environment or how this can be preserved. Poor little "Erpert" who only wanted to let bygones be bygones - perhaps you should read your postings again and explain to me why you think you are qualified to take the action you are insisting on. Geekiep (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
            • This is exactly what I'm talking about. Where are your sources for any of your claims? Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
              • I haven't read most of this discussion, but I can tell you that this isn't the place to rehash debates over sourcing or anything else; that needs to happen on the article's talk pages. I will make one observation, though, that the comment Geekiep left above had a fairly mocking tone and would suggest that he try to be a little more polite; this kind of tone rarely fosters an environment where reasonable people can compromise. — e. ripley\^talk 16:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
                • Yeah, I understand that. I just brought up the source issue once because that's one of the many problems in the situation. But the whole alert is because of Geekiep's conduct in general, not just necessarily the articles. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• You're probably going to have to take this -- the incivility and the COI/SPA editing to ANI. Gerardw (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, as Phil mentioned above, it'll go away after the AFD has run its course. For what it's worth I've watchlisted the involved articles. — e. ripley\^talk 21:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi (talk · contribs)

I have a problem with User:Rokarudi. It is inappropriate due to WP:CIV to constantly make unsubstantiated accusations. Here are some links here is the diff and [10]. If it is needed i can provide with more examples. I just want for the accusations to stop so we can talk about the problem on the various articles we have. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm editing this slightly: I directed Iadrian here, and didn't fully explain procedures about diffs. give me a moment to help him get the request into shape. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the request now. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with this problem please? Since this user is not stopping and by this he avoids the real discusson. Diff is here . iadrian (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is currently active at WP:ANI. See diff. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From the fact, that the admin has approved your position on one issue (deletion of bolded minority names) on other issues (infobox, single occurence minority names) your actions were not approved. This, however, does not change the fact that you are sending me messages with your critics more often than not and report me at sevaral forums more often than not. And the fact is not changed, that you had edited dozens of articles according to your views before the ruling. User: Rokarudi

User:JHB and incivility

Please look at this diff and the editor's talk page. I think a simple shot across the bows is in order. The editor seems to feel disparaged because his intimate knowledge of a project (Jubilee River) is not considered to be an encyclopaedic source. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle is correct. At WP:VERIFY there is a policy statement that The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. All who contribute to Wikipedia must understand this. The language used by User:JHB, as quoted above in the diff, is unnecessary and uncivil. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You will see that I separated the behaviour exhibited from the discussion about article itself, and that I attempted to handle this with decorum on JHB's talk page prior to his lack of civility. You might also wish to see Talk:Jubilee River for a brief reference to policies, etc.

This is absolutely not a full blown sanctions thing, but such things need to be nipped in the bud with a strong suggestion from an uninvolved editor that the behaviour is unacceptable. I know there is a risk of that escalating, but that will be a separate issue if it happens. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

One Of You Better Give Me A Darn Good Explanation For How A User In Hennepin County, Minnesota Was Able To Be Identified From A Public Computer

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – ip filing complain reported on WP:AN for legal threat and blocked Gerardw (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

These computers have a strict privacy protection. Basically, the only way a person could been identified on this website, from this public computer, was from illegal spyware I am not a cop, but I am a civilian. Yes, I am also that user who was identified. I made an argument on the Bill Clinton talk page, and then used a username. With that, I discovered an administrator, JPGordon, had identified me. I basically kept the sockpuppet comment there because I wanted to lure him into a trap. And when I told him it was a shared IP address, he goated that Wikipedia had good ways of being able to tell when it is the same user. Nobody better erase that that JPGordon typed on his talk page either, because I have already printed a copy of them. I am not blackmailing or wishing to commit entrapment. However, I am informing you that is impossible to cover tracks.70.13.18.78 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're probably not in exactly the right place. I'm unsure as to where to direct you as I'm not exactly what you are seeking. It's my understanding that the same editor editing under different identities are determined based on informal analysis of the writing style; in addition, a select group of folks -- those with the checkuser privilege -- have access to the electronic logs which can associate an IP address with a named account. Gerardw (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC) No Sir, this is comment he typed:

We're fully aware it's a public computer; we're also real good at recognizing people pretending to be multiple users when they're actually the same person. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC

And This Is the comment I typed that he was able to recognize me with: The page states that Paula Jones was able to sucessfully prevail when she filed for an appeal, and she did not. She was still in the process of presenting her appeal when the settlement was reached; hence she had not prevailed, meaning she predominated and won, in her lawsuit, because a court settlement has no victor and is a compromise. The settlement also mainly went to her attorneys and not her The page also points out that Susan Webber Wright was one of Clinton's students at the university of Arkansas after it points out that she dismissed the case. Nobody has investigated Susan Webber Wright in a public fashion to suggest that she dismissed the case because she was a student of Clinton's and favored him. In fact, she is also a Republican. The article is misleading, unneutral and needs to be rightfully changed.204.169.161.1 (talk) 21:03, —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC). I agreeDr real (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Having an account on Wikipedia: cool. Using it to agree with your own previous comment: not quite so cool. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC

All I said, as dr real, was I agree. Not much writing style to identify a person with70.13.18.78 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

When you were blocked from Wikipedia as User:Dr real, you- the person- were blocked. You aren't allowed to avoid your block by changing ips. I don't think that Wikipedia is the right web site for what you want to do; your goals will be met more effectively on your own blog. I didn't use any illegal spyware- or any legal spyware- to identify you, but if you're worried about being identified, it's probably best if you respect your block and stop using Wikipedia. You can then install any security software you like on your own blog. You've requested advice on the etiquette board- the polite thing to do in this situation is to honor your block and stop editing Wikipedia entirely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For information regarding legal matters, see WP:LEGAL; for concerns about privacy, please see WP:OUTING Gerardw (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Name-calling at Talk:HSL and HSV#Meta-conversation about editing and communication style

User jacobolus has begun resorting to name-calling to resolve a dispute at Talk:HSL and HSV#Meta-conversation about editing and communication style. SharkD  Talk  02:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Work towards agreement. Argue facts, not personalities. Do not ignore questions. –jacobolus (t) 02:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both need to calm down and focus on content disputes instead of each other. I've left some thoughts on the article talk page. — e. ripley\^talk 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. –jacobolus (t) 03:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Greg D. Barnes

Resolved

 – WP:TROUT for Both

Over at Talk:Kid Rock, this user called me a "fucking moron" for telling him not to edit-war. I also strongly suspect this user to be a sockpuppet of User:Rockgenre. Sugar Bear (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, LEARN TO READ. It was for YOU calling me "Rock Genre" not edit-warring.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're still not supposed to say those kinds of things though. You might want to read WP:NPA. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In Greg's defense I don't believe he was aware of WP:CIVIL. The comment was out of line, but "Sugar Bear" himself has had a long history of aggression. His unbecoming states where addressed earlier and can be found in the archives here. RG (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's no defense. Your accusation of me being uncivil is untrue, being that I have never called anyone a "fucking moron", as you did under yoru Greg D. Barnes account. If you still feel that there is no problem with calling another a "fucking moron" for not adhering to your POV, give it a try and see how the administrators respond to that. I'm not adding to this childish foolishness. You "both" (?) know the rules, and that breaking them is not a good idea. The basic idea is, play nice, or find another sandbox. I've never stooped this low. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Oh, yeah, telling people to "learn to read" and calling them "fucking moron" is real civil. (Sugar Bear (talk))

• I believe that this is insult #2, in which "Greg" tells me to "continue with the ignorant comments!" Goodness, aren't you a friendly one? (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Well you accuse me of being "Rock Genre" OVER AND OVER again, when you have no proof, and I've denied it each time. You are being ignorant by IGNORING my sentence.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg, is not an account of mine, wait and see the checkuser results for yourself. "Your accusation of me being uncivil is untrue", sure you saying "I'm not adding to this childish foolishness" is a real good way to prove you weren't. Calling people fools, children, d***ks, is no better than calling someone what Greg called you. I do not support his comment in any way and I do believe it was offensive, but someone like you, someone who has been along long enough to know WP:CIVIL, broke it on numerous occasions and you should have known better. RG (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no proof that Greg is RG, and it is a Personal attack to keep implying that he is, if you want to prove it take it too WP:SPI. However, Greg's attack was a personal attack and I'd advise against further.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a SPI case open, and I will keep my comments on that case over there, although I strongly believe that these two accounts are operated by the same person, on the basis that these two accounts heavily interact with each other more than any other editor, and much of their edits are based around the same content, such as edit-warring over genres. And both accounts have accused other editors who have questioned their POV of "edit warring" to distract from their own actions. Repeated incivilities from both accounts, including calling others "ignorant" and "fucking moron" do not help the two accounts from countering my suspicions. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

I guess Mr. Sugar Bear here needs another summary: I'm NOT RG, and I've only been RECENTLY interacting with him because I originally came to his rescue concerning sources, but that's not the case. I've been dragged into this foolish argument concerning myself, you, and RG. That's all the proof you have of me being RG? "These two accounts heavily interact with each other?" That's pretty weak. If you actually took a LOOK at my editing history I made DIFFERENT edits than RG (AKA Freddie Mercury, Patrick Swayze, Steve Perry, etc), so the more false comments you write, the weaker your case gets. I NEVER questioned anyone's actions but YOURS, so please learn to get ALL the facts right. Finally, RG never called you "Ignorant" or "Fucking Moron," that was ME, and yes, it's a personal attack, but after concerning YOUR behavior recently, you damn well deserve it. Go ahead, report these comments again--be the school boy from elementary school whining and tattling to his teacher because someone "attacked me." I may get blocked for this comment, but I've made MY case perfectly clear. This argument never should have gone this far--we've could've handled this with CIVILITY and MATURITY on talk pages--but no: You had to accuse me of being another user, because you couldn't handle US telling you how to EDIT pages. I rest my case.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So please clarify what your case is. Are you saying that unless you're blocked you intend to continue posting comments contrary to the community standards of WP? Gerardw (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that, I'm willing to do what it takes to get my points across (AKA me being innocent). If Sugar Bear would've dropped the ignorant attitude, this never would've happened, and I would keep quiet. Sugar Bear is more guilty of violating guidelines than myself! LMFAO! Look at HIS edits!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Skater in that saying someone uses socks without any valid evidence is an offensive remark. Greg and "Bear" here I would say are even. "Repeated incivilities" I suppose that why I'm the one who has called people fools and d**ks, right? Once your claims have been proven incorrect I do believe it isn't far out of line for me to ask for that little apology you still haven't given me for that harassment. Regardless, it's never going to happen. RG (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't play nice, at least try not to get out of each others ways, Both are encouraged to read WP:NPA I'm marking this as resolved as there is very little left to do.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This never should have happened in the first place!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, It did and your argument saying that he is more guilty of violating policy is invalid. You BOTH violated NPA and could of each been blocked.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

RG, there is valid evidence. The fact that these two accounts are making suspiciously similar evidence and only correspond with each other is valid evidence. This is not a personal attack. If you are not guilty of sockpuppetry, you have nothing to worry about and should not take the accusation as a personal offense. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Meaning depends on context. Saying you are concerned about a possible sockpuppet at WP:SSP is fine. Making accusations elsewhere on WP is not. And saying there is nothing to worry about is equivalent to saying if you're not a fucking moron you shouldn't be offended, which is obviously not the case. Gerardw (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the same thing. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

You see Gerardw, this is what I'm talking about: Sugar Bear has NOTHING to back up his statements! He's just typing away!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I know exactly what I'm talking about. And multiple people have pointed out to the fact that your behavior is unruly, but you've refused to listen. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

On a side note, RG has been cleared of all Sockpuppet charges.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. One editor refused to hear the case because he didn't pay attention to the evidence I posted. That's not the same as running a checkuser that cleared him of sockpuppetry charges, which, of course, never happened. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Words fail me.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie

Could someone remind User:Wildhartlivie that comments such as this [11] are inappropriate for article talk pages and that if the user feels that violations are being committed that s/he should bring his/her allegations to the appropriate notice board? It also wouldnt hurt to give a reminder that current policies still allow anonymous participation. MM 4.158.222.20 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notify Wilhartlivie of the WQA. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. [12] MM4.158.222.20 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

IP's have the same privilege to edit (non semi-protected) articles as everyone else. See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing Gerardw (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That really isn't the issue here. This editor seems to have an IP that jumps all over and it is impossible to tell if the poster is the same person or not. Between Talk:Andrew Koenig and this page, he's posted from 15 separate IP numbers. I questioned this, simply because of the confusion factor and commented that it could easily be construed as a sock puppet issue. At that point, the IP became both defensive and started a separate thread called allegations of sock puppetry, which was not at all what was said. However, another editor also noted how confusing the various IP numbers were. That the IP had such a vehement reaction made me ask why he wasn't interested in registering an account, which he steadfastly refused to answer, including asking if were because he is already blocked from an account. Seriously, 15 different IP addresses, stark refusal to answer a direct question regarding other accounts and insistence that I file a sock case? Obviously it is not possible to file such a case when the IPs jump around like they do. Editing from an IP itself isn't a problem, using 15 different numbers is confusing, misleading and make it impossible to know if this is one person or 15 different ones. It isn't incivil, it is attempting to discern who is talking here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, questioning whether or not they are avoiding a block and calling them suspicious isn't really appropriate when it comes to assuming good faith. Sure, IP hopping would be confusing, but they appear to sign all their comments "MM", so there should really be no confusion as to who you're talking to in this case. The fact that they're changing IPs isn't enough evidence to assume bad faith. If there is such a level confusion that disruption results, politely speak to them to see if you can solve the problem rather than saying something that could be construed as an accusation of bad faith. Swarm^(Talk) 03:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sugar Bear, again

Resolved

 – Hopefully; all parties advised as to how to deal with their issues.

In addition to calling me a fool, d**k, sockmaster, etc. in the past now he continues to mock my comments in a rather snotly fashion as seen here. He isn't even making the smallest attempt to be civil. Demeaning people just frankly isn't construtive. RG (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• None of this is true. I never called you a fool or a dick, nor was my intention to mock your post or demean you, but, quite frankly, you were mocking me, and Wikipedia in general, by refusing to behave in a constructive or civil manner, and not adhering to the sources, guidelines and consensus of articles you worked on. Also, I provided a valid rationale for my belief that you are a sockmaster. It's not as if the accusation was not without merit. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

"None of this is true", you directly have insulted me by calling me these titles. If you can't even believe yourself than that isn't my problem. Also, I don't find this funny at all. "the honor of presenting you the Wet Trout Award for repeatedly bothering Wikipedia's administrators for petty reasons." "Also, I provided a valid rationale for my belief that you are a sockmaster", again you call me a sockmaster with absolutely no proof. If you want to be rude to people fine, but don't take your attitude here. RG (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sugarbear has always had an attitude problem and was blocked for personal attacks in the past. He was being monitored by admin Sheffield Steel under his old username, but I can't remember it now. Best thing to do RG is to ignore him. Caden ^cool 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not blocked for personal attacks. That is slander. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

He also seems to be in love with me and Rock Genre! LOL! Look at this: [13] he STILL thinks me and Rock Genre are sockpuppets! After all the evidence shown, he still thinks we are breaking rules! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? LOL!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You have broken rules. You called users "fucking moron", reverted articles against consensus and sources, pushed POV....need a mirror? (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Okay that's bad that he's still making personal attacks and accusing two editors of being socks of eachother. For the record Sugarbear used to be User:Ibaranoff24. Caden ^cool 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A change of username is not relevant. And I have never made any personal attack towards anyone, much less RG or "Greg". (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

I mean give me a break! I log in, and the first thing I see are "new messages." Then I see Sugar Bear posting more false accusations on my page!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Rockgenre, Greg D. Barnes, and Sugar Bear - when you have a dispute over content, please try to have a common goal of resolving your disputes rather than escalating them. In cases where despite numerous attempts, you cannot do resolve your content issues, you need to use content dispute resolution. If you have concerns about the reliability of a source, go to the reliable sources noticeboard for further input. If you still have content issues, you can either attempt informal, or formal mediation, or try article RfC to request more input on an issue.
  • Rockgenre, regardless of what's happened in the past, I don't see anything demeaning about this, which was the main basis for filing this.
  • Greg D. Barnes, the use of "ignorant" here was inflammatory and added no value.
  • Sugar Bear, I don't think the concerns about sockpuppetry seem justified, but if you still believe there are concerns, you need to file a sockpuppet investigations report, otherwise you need to stop making such accusations as they are also inflammatory and add no value.
• I think all 3 of you have played your part in needlessly escalating this on this occasion; I can't tell if you all need to temporarily disengage, but it may help. But in any case, I hope that all 3 of you will play your part in de-escalating, by working constructively towards resolving your content issues in an appropriate manner. Focus on the content issues; not each other. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried my best to avoid any aggravation of this issue, even going as far as to nicely explain the regulations and guidelines to these editors, but these editors do not seem to want to listen. I attempted to file another SPI, but the page was reverted by the editor who denied the previous SPI. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

So they are not the same user. Treat them as such, stop the accusations and half the problem is solved. Gerardw (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that they actually are different users, just that the editor who denied the SPI did not want to listen to the evidence I provided, that their behavior and edits are suspiciously similar. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

That means the consensus of the WP community is they are not the same user and you should act accordingly. Gerardw (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not Greg, how many more times do I have to state this? Personally I wanted the checkuser to be run, so I could be proven not guiltly. Regardless, it didn't happen. And did I get one little apology for being called a sockmaster? Not a single one. As Caden so professionally stated, you do have an attitude problem which you need to cleanup. All I request is that I receive a little respect, nothing more and nothing less. RG (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero. You're not required to respond to unfounded accusations. I'd suggest not responding or simply reply The SPI you filed found no basis for your accusations. Or put together an RFC/U if the behavior continues. Gerardw (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm stepping up here, to attempt to end this. [14]--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

RG and Greg D. Barnes are completely different users. I was clearly incorrect about the two accounts being operated by the same person. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

User:Duke53 inflammatory comments

While in the past Duke53 has made legitimate contributions to Wikipedia, for the past few months he has taken to simply providing inflammatory comments that disregard WP:AGF and that disrupt potentially productive discussions (see Duke53's contribs). He has a particular agenda against User:Routerone and has recently "exposed" Routerone as "a liar".

I originally took the problem to the CCN noticeboard, but as can be seen, this has only become a forum for further incivility. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I supposed to simply allow Routerone to tell lies about me ? The facts speak for themselves ... Routerone did lie on that page. It's just a little bit of that old 'reap what you sow' coming around again; I take his lies about me as inflammatory comments, BTW, and I don't have to accept that type behavior from any editor here. Telling lies is just about as 'incivil' as it gets.

Again I have to take note of the fact that you haven't self-identified as a mormon; are you sure that this isn't simply some more of that lds swarming in action (again) ? But what do you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Insistence that Routerone is "lying" shows a lack of assuming good faith and is a misinterpretation of Routerone's statement. See CCN page for details. I don't see how my self-identification as anything is necessary, so long as my arguments are valid. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How can anybody possibly misinterpret what he said: "It was not your userpage your accused me vandalizing." He said that, on that page ... it is now a fact: he lied ! Am I to assume that he was lying in good faith ? But what do you think ? Duke53 | ^Talk 07:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Calling or "exposing" another editor a liar is simply incivil. The actions of another editor don't change the desired WP standards of civility. Gerardw (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Kurdo777 and User talk:Skywriter and less-than-civil comments connected to 1953 Iranian coup d'état article

There has been an editor argument over the 1953 Iranian coup d'état (basically whether the US was motivate to organize the coup in order to control Iran's oil or because of fear of communist expansion) since last summer and its gotten pretty intense sometimes. User talk:Kurdo777 and User talk:Skywriter have been very aggressive in editing, not waiting for consensus, deleting relevent WP:RS information (and I want to emphasise I think their charges against me (being rightwing, biased, etc) are totally untrue!) However I know you evaluate civility here not truthfulness, so here are some examples of the civility problem IMHO. A first I tired to ignore it but it's starting to get to me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Complaints_and_comments_on_Mosaddeq.27s_behavior_by_foriegners "your cherry picking skills are still ...trivial character assassinations ... I must say that this is a new low for you Booga ..."

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#Are_you_OK.3F "Are you OK? ... You allow for no nuance, Booga, no shades of differences"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Deletion_of_important_language "your addiction to micromanagement would be admirable to anyone who thinks that's a good quality ... If you have a low tolerance for change, try something else. In any case, Get A Grip. For Your Own Sake."

• cute version of my name: BoogaLuise

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#BoogaLouie.27s_whitewash BoogaLouie's whitewash

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Violation_of_WP:NPOV "... your cherry-picked quotes are so one-sided, so cloddish, your WP:POV is transparent. ..."

Other editors who think it may be a problem

• Work permit
• Binksternet

--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• There are ceratinly several examples of incivility in the discussions you've linked. Kurdo777 and Skywriter seem to use personal attacks and other more subtle incivilities towards you as a way of discrediting your arguments and promoting their own, which is absolutely inappropriate. That being said, BoogaLouie, please consider the possible legitimacy to their concerns against you regarding article ownership and a one-sided view painted by cherry-picked quotes and whitewashing. Support every controversial statement with a solid, reliable-source quote and avoid synthesis. Make sure that all significant viewpoints receive fair coverage, even if you disagree with them. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well as I say, "I think their charges against me (being rightwing, biased, etc) are totally untrue!" Reading their charges against me you might think, "there must be some truth to them or why would they go to all this trouble?" But it takes time to follow edits in a history or arguments and charges on a talk page to see what the merits are and these histories and pages are loooong. From a distance it just looks like a mud fight between some anti-imperialists and a right-winger. If you do look at the edits though, you'll see that rather than deleted anything that might put Mossadeq in a positive light, virtually anything I've added has been deleted. They control the article. I'm all in favor of pointing out Mosaddeq's heroic character and US iniquity in the article, just not only that. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're unlikely to get help regarding the editing from this forum. You could file an article RFC and hopefully get more editors involved. Gerardw (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand. There's already been at least one RfC. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Communication breakdown

Stale
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the course of a discussion I felt that User:Sandstein mischaracterized my motivations and desires. Specifically he intimated that I sought another user blocked. I made him aware that I never sought the user blocked. Rather than respond he closed the thread. I later asked him to refactor or to substantiate his insinuation. Sandsteins response sidesteps my requests for substantiation and states that I will be met with sanctions if I continue the same unsubstantiated behavior. I would like for Sandstein to substantiate or strike his allegation. Unomi (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Unomi, it's good that you have sought dispute resolution rather than continuing an unproductive interaction. I appreciate the neutral wording of the section title and good faith approach to resolving the conflict. I've reviewed Sandstein's talk page. While it is appropriate to ask a single question and maybe a follow up or two of an admin -- they kind of volunteered for that when they accepted the sysop bit -- once your question is answered there's a time to move one. You don't have to agree with the answer but you should accept it, and if you still there is an ongoing issue that needs resolution it's best to seek alternative avenues rather than continue to address the issue on the admin's talk page. After a certain point what began as a good faith effort to resolve something becomes itself, incivil. I'm not seeing any behavior on Sandstein's part that I would classify as incivil. Gerardw (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Gerardw, I am confused, where do you see an answer to my request? Unomi (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC) [[15]] Gerardw (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Gerardw, that does not explain anything, it merely claims that he had previously explained it. And it still doesn't cover the issue that I came to wqa for, the insinuation that I sought him blocked. Unomi (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Convenience link to mentioned ae. Unomi (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC) should be in a separate thread The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Statement by Mbz1 From all the administrators I have communicated so far Sandstein is the most responsive. There was no single question of mine, even some intrusive, that were not responded by the administrator. On the other hand the communications with user Unomi are really hard, and IMO the user has difficulties in assuming good faith. Here's only one example: In response to my message: ...I would like to remind you, please, that Israel has left Gaza few years ago, and what they got in return? Rockets, and more rockets, and with that I withdraw myself from the discussion. Unomi wroute that:Resorting to the common refrain of Rockets and more rockets is morally vacant and I am close to considering it a personal attack .... IMO user Unomi should stop filing frivolous reports.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I think it best we consider Unomi's report here a good faith effort to resolve an issue rather than frivolous. I do agree that Sandstein is communicative and helpful as a rule. Gerardw (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I am talking not only about that report. Unomi filed the request for AE, and even after not just one, but two administrators explained to the user there was no merit for any sanctions taken on the user report, the user never stopped perusing different venues including, but not limited to Wikiquette alerts. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Please substantiate or strike out your allegation. It was never explained to me why there were no merit for sanctions, there was a mistaken appreciation that it was a content dispute, but this was never substantiated. The content was not in any serious dispute at any point. Which venues did I pursue? Unomi (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I will not. You filed AE request. You contacted Stifle here, and few more time. You contacted Sandstein countless times. It is a very bad practice. You should not be going after users on their talk pages. You contacted user Jaakobou on the same matter with the edit summary "WP:CIVIL" only because the user did not respond your prior question. All the questions you had, should have been addressed on AE request itself. not at the user talk pages.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC) It is not a different venue to seek clarification from editors involved in the process. AE is particularly poorly suited to maintaining any kind of conversational thread. It is not a bad practice to seek clarification it is in fact recommended practice. The reason I asked for clarification was precisely because my understanding was that they had either misunderstood the situation or failed to substantiate their finding. I did in fact ask for clarification at the AE, but none was forthcoming. The matter of Jaakobou is completely separate and I would really appreciate it if you would start a new thread rather than commenting on one which had absolutely nothing to do with you, I will be happy to respond to you there. Thank you, Unomi (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Vacuum permeability

Could the duty firefighter take a look at this section and see if anything can be done with a hose or a bucket of water? Physchim62 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Biting the newcomer and uncivil comments

Comments were made by User:Fred the Oyster on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrolsoft Corporation that were inappropriate.

Comment 1 toward User:Mathteacher69: [16]

Comment 2 toward User:DragonHawk: [17]

I would appreciate it if this matter could be addressed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Both Fred and DragonHawk could have been more tactful in their instruction, and user talk pages would have been a better location for such. Fred's reply to DragonHawk was relevant, but the final sentence, "So I'd be very grateful if you found a dark place for your patronising, and erroneous, lecture", was both uncivil and unnecessary. Furthermore, DragonHawk's "lecture" was, to the best of my knowledge, not "erroneous", though misplaced. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the two diffs attributed to Fred the Oyster are not uncivil because they don’t breach the Wikipedia Code of Conduct.

Fred addressed the following to DragonHawk: So I'd be very grateful if you found a dark place for your patronising, and erroneous, lecture. Combative and gratuitous remarks like this are unproductive and have no place on Wikipedia. The fourth of Wikipedia’s five pillars says Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. … Be open and welcoming. Fred can defend himself by saying he was not uncivil, but I would say he is guilty of practising a little oneupmanship that is neither respectful nor welcoming.

Fred may also defend himself by saying he has no patience for patronising language. If that is so, he should be aware that he wrote the following to newbie Mathteacher69: Oh and BTW Mathteacher69, I realise that maths may be a source of interest to you …

Fred is very welcome at Wikipedia, but it would be good if he, like everyone else, occasionally reminded himself that the price of participating at Wikipedia is respect for the five pillars of Wikipedia. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that applies to you as well Dolphin, before you start making judgements on others. Malleus Fatuorum 05:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi MF. Yes, I enthusiastically agree that this applies to me too. (That is why I used the expression like everyone else.) There is no objection to people making judgements at WP:WQA in relation to the behaviour of other Users. That is what WP:WQA is all about! Dolphin51 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, please read up on WP:MYOB, and thank you for the additional & unwanted fanning and dramatisation. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Can I just say that I find WQA to be the funniest place on Wikipedia. Thanks for the invite. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone agrees WP should be civil but there's no universal agreement on what that means in practice. While some of us may find Fred the Oyster's comment on the brusque side, it's well within the WP:Gray Area of tolerated behavior.

In my opinion, Stillwaterising actions escalated the situation -- I'm seeing posts here, ANI, Jimbo's page, AFD -- by getting Mathteacher69 into what appears to me to be an inclusionist agenda mindset. It would have been much better to simply explain to Mathteacher69 how to move the article into user space and find the necessary references. (i.e. as explained at WP:CREATE]) Gerardw (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yah, so, I got notified 'bout this on my talk page. I guess I should comment. • This problem was compounded in that Mr. Oyster wrote his original comments based on Mathteacher69's repeated use of "Keep" in bold for every comment; that was later changed to "Comment". Mr. Oyster's comment then had the appearance of being rather harsher than it was. I didn't realize this until after I posted my own remarks. • Personally, I found Mr. Oyster's remarks about "patronizing"/"lecturing" to be rather hypocritical, given that he was lecturing both me and some other guy. I don't see how the "dark place" thing could be considered productive in any way. But I also didn't feel a need to make an issue of it. • Unrelated to My. Oyster: I'm somewhat amused at the discussion above, where uninvolved people butt in to tell uninvolved people not to butt in. My irony meter just exploded.  :) • So, anyway, can we all go back to improving the encyclopedia now? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Misleading "You have new messages" bar

Resolved

 – User unblocked for the second time, hopefully he has learned his lesson this time.

I'd like third-party opinions on the misleading "You have new messages" bar at the top of User talk:TheClerksWell (and User:TheClerksWell), which when clicked logs you out. To me this seems to be an unnecessary and disruptive trick. I have removed it twice, but each time TheClerksWell has put it back; I have asked him to remove it himself, but he has refused. What are other editors' thoughts on this? —Bkell (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a joke, editors with good senses of humor would laugh, log back in, and be on their merry way.TheClerksWell (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time fake "you have new messages" notices been discussed (see [18]). As you can clearly see, a lot of people find these kinds of "jokes" inappropriate. What might be a joke to one person may not be funny or anywhere close to amusing to others. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, I've seen where they display a message or send you to a humorous page, but never log you out of Wikipedia. Not nice. Postoak (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This joke causes no permanent harm.

TheClerksWell (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For your information, TheClerksWell, I did laugh and just went on my way, the first three or four times I saw a fake messages bar, back in 2005 or thereabouts. But this joke is old, old, old. It's not funny any more, it's just annoying. Now whenever I see a "You have new messages" bar I have to stop and hover over the link to see whether I really have messages or not. It's about as annoying as if I had to check to see whether the "edit this page" tab really went to the editing window every time I wanted to edit a page. —Bkell (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not funny, just rude. Gerardw (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• When it happened to me I chuckled, and logged back in. Guys, lighten up.

TheClerksWell (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh well, its been discussed before but some people are just so uptight, really no sense of humour, at all. Jeesh! (P.S: Unless you're an Administrator, please do not remove anything from other users' page, it's bleeding rude and obnoxious. Potentially, it could result in the remover being taken by the removee to ANI for disruptive behaviour.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wait, can I go onto someones page and say their userbox annoys me and that they need to remove it or I will start a big discussion about it? If not, then stop complaining about my prank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Of course not, read my message above. Relax... let's ignore them, shall we? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to something a little less likely to cause harm. Please don't make jokes which could lead to a registered editor exposing their IP address. Express the running gag in more creative ways. Franamax (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let him decide, its his talk page, mind you. Another thing, the term "messed-up sense of priorities" suddenly comes to mind. Please stop doing this unproductive tweaking of other users' talk page, go see the 3.2 million other articles if you don't like this. Don't like David Letterman? Why not watch Conan or Leno instead? Let it rest already, shall we? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU DAVE!

TheClerksWell (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Logging a user out poses a specific risk of harm, that they may unwittingly reveal their IP address. Many editors operate using multiple windows. Find a different joke. Please. Franamax (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• TBH, I agree with you the IP part. However, per WP:BEANS, if you hadn't follow the link to his page, would it have crossed your mind to go there and click it? And there you have it... Really not a big issue if nobody doesn't raises it here in the first place, eh? Close this and go back to what we as Wikipedians do best - EDIT~! Thanks and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It could have directed you to Goatse, would you like that instead? --TheClerksWell (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't anonymous users edit under their ips all the time?

TheClerksWell (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but by choice. One reason some people register is so that they don't reveal their IP address. —Bkell (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if they were smart enough to hover over the link and check they would know.

TheClerksWell (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of trying to coerce me into removing the prank, why don't you catch some real vandals or fix asome articles?

TheClerksWell (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am doing that, too. Why don't you check my contributions to see what I've been up to? The fact that vandals exist doesn't mean that your disruptive prank should be allowed to stay. While you're at it, please also see WP:ITSFUNNY and WP:NOHARM, neither of which is a good argument for keeping things around. —Bkell (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are for articles. I never said it should be kept because it is funny. (Though it is)

I could put a funny, harmless picture of a cat in a funny pose and someone could remove it. If I argued that it was harmless, would that argument be void, and the user who removed the image be in the right?

TheClerksWell (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

TheClerksWell, will you please change the link to do something other than logging out the user? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough!!!!!!!!!!!! This is ridiculous. TheClerksWell has been blocked ( by another admin), his "joke" has been removed and i have protected his userpage for 3 months to stop him replacing it. Now lets all stop this ridiculous argument and go and write an encylopedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am very angered and dismayed at the fact that I have not had proper representation in this unfair trial. A retrial should be in order.

TheClerksWell (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Given your sense of humor, I'm assuming the above comment is just your way of being funny. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been seemingly arguing your side on ANI, because editors should realize when they've been logged out. But logging people out without their consent is really not a good thing to be doing. Also, it's no longer April 1. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed the link. Pranks are funny all year. TheClerksWell (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious. ClerksWell is now blocked again for disruption, this time indefinitely. I think we're done here. Dayewalker (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that he claims to be 14, maybe he could come back in 4 years or so and ask for reinstatement. Assuming the 2012 bug hasn't done us all in. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Erpert and Karljoos

Stuck

 – Take it to ANI or the next step in DR if you feel problems are continuing.

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

Having followed the proceedure for posting an alert about the unacceptable behaviour of Erpert is it really permissable for him/her to just delete it before the matter is discussed ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekiep (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume the alert you're referring to is this. It wasn't removed by Erpert but by Gerardw, on the grounds that it constituted a personal attack, an assessment with which I fully concur.

From what I can see of Erpert's recent activity, the last time he has mentioned you or had any interaction with you was this message on your talk page, posted more than a week ago. I couldn't find anything in his preceding comments which seems to me to amount even to incivility towards you, let alone personal attacks against you, but in any case he doesn't appear to have said anything whatever either about you or to you for more than a week. So, in my opinion it would be in your own best interests to let the matter drop.

Please note that if you do wish to pursue the matter, the instructions for posting an alert require you to notify Erpert about it.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that every time I post an answer to the above about the disgraceful conduct of Erpert and latterly Karljoos, it is immediately deleted - please explainGeekiep (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit history shows that you have made only three posts ([19], [20] and [21]) to this noticeboard since I posted my comment above. None of those posts has been removed by anyone; they are all still visible while I am writing this. The only post of yours which has been removed from this noticeboard is this one, which, as I have already pointed out above, was removed by Gerardw because it constituted a personal attack.

If you tried to post other comments which you cannot now see, the most likely explanation is that you navigated away from the edit window in which you composed them without first clicking on the Save page button. This will normally result in their being irretrievably lost.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: While I was composing the above comment the last of the abovementioned posts of Geekiep has in fact been removed by Theresa Knott as a mere duplicate of the first two.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that perhaps he didn't notice this section because of new sections underneath it. Prhaps he expected it to appear exactly where he left it and so assumed that it was deleted. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've referred the Geekeip account to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_disruptive.2C_baiting Gerardw (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to bring this sorry saga to a conclusion. I’m sure that if Jimmy Wales could see how contributors are treated by this minority of so called “editors” he would be saddened indeed.

Chris Edgecombe and I grew up together and our early work was in the field of pharmaceutical chemistry, a subject in which he excelled. In the 1970s he was headhunted in industrial chemistry while I stayed in my original field. In the 1980 he turned his attention to research without the use of animal testing and later to the production of renewable liquid fuels to replace the polluting mineral hydrocarbon fuels currently in use.

As you are obviously not interested I wont go into the various blends and products, but suffice to say these have a significant contribution to the United Kingdom meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, The Montreal Protocol and more recently the Copenhagen agreement.

These fuels are now in widespread use throughout the UK and are supplied in bulk ocean tanker loads, reducing emissions from our coal-fired power stations by a significant amount.

Chris was taken seriously ill in April 2009 and not expected to survive, however against all odds he final came out of hospital at the end of 2009 and is back working on yet more novel renewable fuels.

At the point he was taken ill I decided to ensure that if he died his contribution to world science and mankind was recognised and that people should be aware of his unique skills.

Much of the work he did was subject to industrial and commercial secrecy agreements and still is. In addition he never sought personal acclaim by appearing on web sites and thus on the only criteria you seem to understand – Google.

Chris (and Dr John Cosgrove) have asked me to stop any further reference to either of them on Wikipedia as it is a continued embarrassment with these “editors” accusing them of being liars and hoaxers.

I have to repeat that the aggression and arrogance of the “editors” involved is breathtaking and under the circumstances denigrates the whole of Jimmy Wales concept.Geekiep (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I am glad that you are keen to see this brought to a conclusion. Can I mark this as resolved? Theresa Knott | token threats 23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No you cannot. I will no longer involve Chris Edgecombe and Dr John Cosgrove but the conduct of Erpert and Karljoos is far from resolved. You must live in a very strange world to think their actions are acceptable in any form of democratic society.

I will continue to monitor the actions of Erpert and Karljoos in their dealings with anyone else unfortunate enough to post anything the two of them either don't understand or obviously can't comprehend.Geekiep (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's too bad; this complaint is being marked as stuck because I'm sorry to say that none of us can help you achieve what you want at this venue. Please cease being uncivil; each person is entitled to their view - even if it disagrees with you. If you believe problems are continuing, you will need to escalate to ANI or the next step in dispute resolution which is likely to be WP:RFC/U - not here. Good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 6 April 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.

Talk page changes

Work in progress; comments welcome

An editor has repeatedly removed some of my input from talk pages. In one case, the editor moved my input. Please see here for a list. Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maurreen has already complained about this in various places, including on AN/I, and here was the response from Cenarium and Black Kite. Today she complained on my talk page about an edit I made in 2006. [22] If I say anything else, or even explain the background, it will trigger more of the same posts so I'd prefer to leave it there. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Refactor, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Refactoring includes, "Relocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate." SlimVirgin just got into an edit war with me over putting my post somewhere I didn't put it. She may have a pattern and a practice of such disruption.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] -- Rico 05:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

when I looked at your user page I had a very strong urge to wash my hands

Could someone please tell me if this is an appropriate use of another editors talk page? Unomi (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop it here. RolandR have told her to avoid from commenting on his talk page and she probably will. There is much drama on the I-P topic, RolandR reported on Mbz violating the topic ban and she was immediately and harshly (Both sides seem to agree that it was at max a very little breach from the TB, even though I've no intention to doubt the judgment of the blocking admin who is a very reasonable one) blocked for 48 hours. We should leave it where it is and to let her cool down, you demand her to apologize immediately after it was done, and it's not very helpful. So again, let's avoid the drama, we have enough of it already. P.s. Just understand that she was also offended by the poster and its captions by Carlos Latuff RolandR have on his user page. I'm not implying anything on RolandR or exclude his right to have it on his user page, just trying to explain her. Again, please, lets' start being constructive and avoid drama-it seem like there is no one day without few boards and admins involved.--Gilisa (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

'Over Drama' ???? I came here to report Mbz1 for her disgusting message at RolandR's talk page. I didn't come here for any drama, just to report a very offensive behaviour which I see Unomi has already done. I wasn't aware of the poster on RolandR's front page, I have just seen it. If you read the caption under it you will see it's acutalyl neutral in the I-P conflict. I'm not offended by it. It speaks up about racism, of which there is much in Palestine. Anything that speaks up against racism is good in my book. How can someone be offended by a poster that speaks up against racism? Anyway that is not the point here. The point is the offensive message Mbz1 has left towards RolandR on his talk page. I would say this is self destructive behaviour by Mbz1 especially given her highly disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia over the last few weeks and subsequent Topic ban and Yesterday's block for violating that topic ban. Vexorg (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also highly disagree with Gilisa saying that reporting of such offensiveness is 'not very helpful' - On the contrary if people are simply allowed to make such offensive remarks with impunity then that is damaging to Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only that but also: "because even seeing your signature at my talk page makes me sick" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[ec]::Agree with Gilisa above. I will say that I agree that the Latuff cartoon is sickening. It also serves as propaganda as Latuff has said "I will not allow nazis [sic] to use dignified Palestinian cause as a platform to launch racial hatred. I beg you all to reproduce this cartoon all over the Internet. Let's say louder that we are fighting against those racist Jews...". and while he goes on to say that he is against racism against Jews as well, his racism (Latuff's) is clearly directed at Israelis and Jews. While RolandR believes that since he says he is Jewish it is acceptable for him to say such things, I respectfully disagree. RolandR edits in the Israel-Palestine conflict area (dare I say almost exclusively? I haven't thoroughly checked) and such a cartoon demonstrates a battlefield mentality, and is bound to offend "the opposition" and does not seem civil to me, although I assume he is in his rights to write what he wants on his talk page. Stellarkid (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is more sad, that you just said what you said or that you thought that people would take it seriously. The whole line goes Let's say louder that we are fighting against those racist Jews who deny human rights to Palestinians, AS WELL AS racists who deny human rights to Jews" I don't know what it is that you are trying to proclaim ignorance of, that some Jews can be racist? It is a cartoon against Nazis, openly stating that Jews shouldn't be racially discriminated against. Who is the opposition? Nazis? The alacrity with which you misrepresent the poster, to the point of selectively quoting it betrays your battlefield mentality and casts severe doubts over your ability to contribute meaningfully to our project. Unomi (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Further it appears the same editors continue to WP:HOUND Mbz1 at every opportunity. Please pick on me instead for awhile. Give her a rest. Stellarkid (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please redact the BLP violation in your comments about Latuff. nableezy - 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It now appears that making legitimate complaints about offensive messages on people's talk pages is now called WP:HOUND. Vexorg (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the next person that expresses their personal opinion here about things in the real world be blocked for 48 hours to prevent them from doing so again. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If we want blocking frenzy -sure ;)--Gilisa (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we were told that Godzilla was warming up at an AE recently and I've always seen Godzilla as a force for good, perhaps one of the first and certainly one of the most gigantic Japanese environmental activists/supporters of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ever. Damn it...a personal opinion about a thing in the real world. It's harder to avoid than I thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"because even seeing your signature at my talk page makes me sick"

Another disgusting and offensive message Vexorg (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not complained, and do not intend to complain, about Mbz's offensive remarks. I left a warning on her talk page, she responded, and that is really enough drama. RolandR (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg, and I'm honest here, you divided one complaint to two. And by that you are overdoing it (and kind of a mix between forum shopping and drama). I suggest you merge this one with the above.--Gilisa (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No this is a separate complaint. RolandR has said he is not complaining above and that is fine. However I am complaining because I find this offensive behaviour unacceptable on Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Never heared about it. Even if one made several PA, stalked and vandlized articles it ended with one complaint that sum it all as you probably know. Supreme Deliciousness already mentioned this complaint above. I found this separate complaint, on actually the same incident, improper.--Gilisa (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Mbz was referring to the use of the Papyrus font in these messages, though I could be wrong. See http://xkcd.com/590 to lighten the drama. :) ...comments? ~BFizz 18:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to take action in this matter on my talk page. For the reasons given there, I won't do so myself, but note that I agree that these edits are absolutely inappropriate. (I do not believe that Mbz1's objections relate to typography, even though Papyrus is an overused cliché font.)  Sandstein  20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is incredibly silly. Mbz1, kindly keep your personal opinions to yourself; everybody else, kindly leave her alone. nableezy - 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest less-than-civil comment by User talk:Skywriter connected to 1953 Iranian coup d'état article

I posted a complaint earlier about comments directed to me by User talk:Kurdo777 and User talk:Skywriter concerning 1953 Iranian coup d'état. examples below.

---

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Complaints_and_comments_on_Mosaddeq.27s_behavior_by_foriegners "your cherry picking skills are still ...trivial character assassinations ... I must say that this is a new low for you Booga ..."

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#Are_you_OK.3F "Are you OK? ... You allow for no nuance, Booga, no shades of differences"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Deletion_of_important_language "your addiction to micromanagement would be admirable to anyone who thinks that's a good quality ... If you have a low tolerance for change, try something else. In any case, Get A Grip. For Your Own Sake."

• cute version of my name: BoogaLuise

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#BoogaLouie.27s_whitewash BoogaLouie's whitewash

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Violation_of_WP:NPOV "... your cherry-picked quotes are so one-sided, so cloddish, your WP:POV is transparent. ..."

Other editors who think it may be a problem

• Work permit
• Binksternet

---

My post on one of the complainees talk pages earned what seemed to me to be a sort of taunting reply

The Wikiquette alerts post got some comments to "please consider the possible legitimacy to their concerns against you regarding article ownership" and be aware that I was "unlikely to get help regarding the editing from this forum," .... but no one said anything like "this isn't really a case of incivility" or "don't be so touchy".

So my question is WERE these cases of incivility? If so does this page do anything about it? If not, who does? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your three questions: Yes they were. To the best of my knowledge, no it does not. And finally, try WP:ANI. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's explained at the top of the page. It's not an enforcement mechanism, it's designed to help editors who have misunderstandings/miscommunications get beyond them. There are a few editors who will sporadically try to help based on their own criteria. Personally, when an editor in the midst of an edit war comes here, the incivility isn't blatant and the posting editor's behavior isn't optimum -- e.g. calling another editor's contribution's misleading at best I choose not to try to help. That's not to say you shouldn't post your concerns here as I speak for myself and no one else. Gerardw (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to AGF but I couldn't think of any other way to put it than misleading at best. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give Skywriter a warning to avoid getting emotional and personal on talk page discussions. However, most of these comments are rather old and therefore do not warrant further action. Booga, your own behavior appears to have been, and remains, problematic in more respects than simply civility on the article in question. You should also not copy/paste a complaint that has already been addressed more than once. Doing so is considered forum shopping. Khoikhoi 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya, they were old because I was trying to ignore them and trying to hold my tongue in reply. But over time I felt I should do something. If you think my edits are "problematic in more respects than simply civility" tell me what the problem is as I think I've been playing by the rules. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Biala Gwiazda

Resolved

 – Both editors blocked for edit-warring (and unblocked); both editors need to discuss their issues civilly.

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

---

User:Biala Gwiazda has left a massively uncivil message for me on his talk page. I made good faith edits to UEFA Euro 2012, but this user obviously has trouble with WP:AGF. In my opinion, he deserves a block for incivility. – PeeJay 11:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The user apologised and you called him a child first. You both seem to be engaging in an edit war on the article's page and you should both stop immediately and move your discussion to the talk page so that other editors can weigh in on the situation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can compare me calling him a child to the tirade of abuse I received in that last message, especially when his conduct was indeed childish. – PeeJay 22:17, 7 April 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:Squash Racket

We are having a discussion on the talk page and there is no progress with a user who do not respect the basic wikipedia rules (WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL). Here are the examples: 1 , 2, 3, 4. I just want for the unnecessary hostility to stop. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Iadrian yu forgot to link to his own comments: for example [30], [31]. I just want the unnecessary hostility to stop. Squash Racket (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, you are repeating everything i say... the first evidence you presented is a fair answer, there is no insult there, it is clear that you have some feelings about this discussion, the second evidence you presented , i am sorry, but that is just silly, you attacked me personally and i said it, that isn`t an atack. You are again repeating everything i do and ignoring my appeals for good faith and neutrality.iadrian (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you consider the first link a "fair answer", then you are right: there's clearly no progress with you regarding WP:CIVIL. Squash Racket (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the first link? You already started with insults and i responded with a fair answer.iadrian (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case why exactly did you post here anything? Squash Racket (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, first of all you break all the rules regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH and now you are accusing me. Again, you are repeating everything a do/say. Not to mention that even here, you are still showing your uncivil attitude. Please present with a valid evidence with me insulting you, don`t throw false example`s to try to turn the story around.iadrian (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You broke the rules regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH and YOU started accusing me here. (Who started this false thread?) Squash Racket (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, i don`t want to talk like this, this isn`t going anywhere, you have a cycle that you repeat and that`s it, it is clear that you are not stopping with your uncivil attitude even here.., if you have some valid accusations about me, please fell free to make an accusation against me don`t try to make some kind of confusion with these false example`s.iadrian (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible to have a cycle with one editor. From the talk page it appears Squash Racket crossed the line first and Iadrian's behavior is escalating the situation. Best to:

• stop the jibes and name calling
• stop responding to jibes and name calling
• seek WP:THIRD, article RFC or other dispute resolution

Quibbling over who's behavior has been more out of line is unlikely to be productive. Gerardw (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In a cycle i meant with the "everything i say he repeats it". I really don`t see where did i cross the line. As we can verify, the unnecessary hostility started from the User:Squash Racket and with the feeling that he owns the articleWP:OWNER. Anyway, it is ok, if i really crossed the line, I apologize. Thank you for your answer. Greetings. PS: I hope that this attitude ends here.iadrian (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Michael Glass & Metrication on Falkland Islands Topics

User:Michael Glass seems to have a mission goal of converting wikipedian articles to the metric system. He has contributed extensively on WP:UNITS to that end but has failed to have his suggestion adopted. Unfortunately his chosen means of campaigning is to repeatedly and tendentiously return to Falkland Islands related topics or the talk pages of the units task suggesting at regular intervals that this be a standard approach repeatedly failing to achieve a consensus to have his suggestion adopted. This tendentious pattern of editing is disruptive and other editors are starting to express irritation at this behaviour see [32] for example. His style of talk page postings are combative and accusatory in nature. I feel Michael needs some external feedback that his behaviour is inappropriate and ultimately counter productive. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 09:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing incivility. The manual of style diff links a stale conversation. Do you have diffs of recent incivil contributions? Gerardw (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[33], [34] and [35]. The purpose of linking to the stale conversation is that the same conversation gets repeated. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 10:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not so much incivility but repetitiousness. We've averaged a long discussion on the subject of units of measure every two months or so on Falklands articles for over a year now. And it's the same editor making the same demands. Over and over again. He has a long record of Wikilawyering - trying to use the letter of the rule to overcome the spirit of the rule - to try and force his preferences through: notably, he has insisted that consensus had to be unanimous based on the wording of WP:CONSENSUS (though it later transpired that this only applied to imperial measures: metrication could be carried by majority vote), he has tried to use an exception listed in WP:UNITS - applied to every unit on every article covered by the workgroup - to overcome the general rule in WP:MOSNUM that we use the most appropriate unit to the place at hand, and he has tried to argue that a lack of consensus for any particular proposal does not mean that we maintain the existing consensus - that latter for long periods of time. He's hardly a newcomer and this has, over the course of the last year, become distinctly tiresome. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The two editors above appear to have been using every means at their disposal to ensure that Falkland Islands articles remain Imperial first in their measurements, or failing that, to make the absolute minimum of concessions to those who feel differently. When I first tried to change information according to the sources quoted, they replied that it was policy to have Imperial measurements first. When I pointed out that this position was at variance with many of the articles, they changed East Falkland and West Falkland to Imperial first. I argued that this was at variance with the sources but this also fell on deaf ears. When I found some information on the minor islands and included it, I was accused of making a mess of these articles because I followed the sources and put the metric measures first.

They persistently claimed that there was a consensus for using Imperial measures, so I challenged them to put it to a vote. Initially this showed a bare majority favoured the older system. However, as my arguments had raised more heat than light I said I would let it rest.

Soon afterwards, other editors began to express their opinions, especially about the weather data. I asked people to express their opinions, and this time it was clear that a majority of those who gave their opinions favoured the metric system and a strong majority favoured changing the weather data. In response, Pfainuk proposed a compromise that would involve Imperial distances for all land distances and square miles for land areas, but metres for the heights of hills and metric for the weather details. I said I would not contest this minimally metric position even though I believed it was unsatisfactory. On the strength of this, Pfainuk changed the articles according to his proposed compromised.

However, other people expressed their concern, and Pfainuk's response was to return the articles to the previous position of Imperial first. I protested at this reversal, because it meant that Pfainuk went back on his agreement, that it was at variance with the majority of the people who had expressed an opinion and that it was at variance with the great majority of the people who had expressed their opinions about the weather details. This once again met a blank wall. The more I argued, the more Pfainuk dug his heels in, arguing that as his proposed compromise didn't work, the previous "consensus" prevailed. But how can a consensus prevail when a majority of people have voiced their opposition to it? Despite this position being nonsensical, Pfainuk maintained it against all my arguments, stating that my real agenda was to metricate the Falklands articles, even though I had said that I would not contest his proposed compromise.

Now it appear that they have tired of arguing with me they want to silence me by other means. They haven't accused me of edit warring. They haven't accused me of being any less civil than they have been. So the chosen method is to accuse me of a lack of good manners in pushing my opinion so vigorously. Interesting tactics. Michael Glass (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a conflict in my total support of Michael's efforts to bring the Falklands into the 21st century, along with modern British practice. What I want to say here is that it is a bit rich to have an accusation of rudeness from someone who has an appalling record of rudeness himself. Tony (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a series of strange allegations there. Yes, I changed units in line with what I believed to be consensus. I made a proposal. Justin agreed, and Michael said he "wouldn't contest" the units. After five days, no-one had objected, so I implemented what I believed to be a new consensus. Then two other editors announced that I really should have known that they opposed and that we had no consensus. Given their involvement, I reassessed: it was now clear that there was no consensus for my proposal. In response, I reverted my implementation of that position.

Michael, incidentally, describes that proposal as "minimally metric". It isn't minimally metric. It accepts metric units in all circumstances not explicitly mentioned by WP:UNITS. On the other hand, the alternative proposed by pro-metric editors remains 100% metrication in practice, something that I and others are unwilling to accept as it is not in line with British usage.

It is not unfair to suggest that imperial-first would not, based on what current editors are saying, have consensus if newly proposed. But it is the standing consensus position, a consensus originally reached in March 2009, the first time that Michael demanded full metrication of Falklands articles.

Michael's position seems to be that if there is no consensus for any specific position, we should be implementing majority rule. Counting all those who have expressed an opinion, there is probably a bare majority in favour of metric units. But no consensus for it. And we should be clear about this: majority rule only applies when the majority agrees with him. As you see, he previously argued (and apparently still maintains) that a consensus for a position he disagrees with has to be unanimous. The standard practice on Wikipedia - as all of us including Michael know - is that where there is no consensus, the last position to reach consensus is maintained.

I do consider it bad manners to repeatedly demand the same thing over and over again for a period of months. I do consider it inappropriate to demand that the letter of the rule be implemented over the spirit of the rule. And I do consider in inappropriate to continually demand that we implement a consensus that has not been reached.

But by the looks of things, outside editors aren't actually interested in this. Ho hum... Pfainuk talk 06:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I read with interest Pfainuk's comments above. It is obvious that we have radically different ideas of consensus. His "standing consensus" is based on the assumption that even when opinions have changed, that the consensus remains unchanged until people reach a new consensus. This line of thinking leads to defending a supposed consensus even when it is obvious that this position has only minority support. And this is exactly the position we have here. Pfainuk admits that "there is probably a bare majority in favour of metric units." Despite this admission he still holds to the position that there is a "standing consensus" for Imperial!

Surely it must be obvious that the Imperial-first consensus no longer stands.

What then should be done? Pfainuk's response, to go back to the all-Imperial position, defies logic. If people were not satisfied with his revised proposal, it should have been crystal-clear that an Imperial first position would be even less palatable! That makes as much sense as abandoning the Reform Bill of 1832 because the Chartists wanted more. The very least that could be done would be to hold to their new position, pending further discussion. After all, they have argued forcefully that this new position has the virtue of being in line with British usage. Why retreat to something that isn't even in line with modern British usage? It defies logic.

I have said repeatedly that I will not contest their revised position, even though I do not believe it to be satisfactory. I cannot speak for others, who may contest this position. If this is not satisfactory, then all I can say is that we follow the letter of the policy, which is to go metric first. I believe that Pfainuk and Justin have only two options: follow British usage, or declare that there is no consensus, and apply the rules that state that metric measures must have precedence. An Imperial-first policy is no longer a viable option. Michael Glass (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As Pfainuk tries to explain, the existing consensus remains until a new consensus is formed. Yes he, I and others will accept a compromise but that was rejected and so we're back to square one. What it doesn't mean is that by frustrating the consensus you get to impose what you want. What is also unacceptable is the presumption of bad faith for simply following established guidelines for consensus building and making personal attacks on other editors for not agreeing with you. That is entirely why I raised a WQA. This is not a forum for continuing a debate about your crusade. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If no consensus is achieved, the last position to get consensus remains. You know this. I know that you know this. And you know that I know that you know this. So your trying continually to insist that the consensus process regarding units on Falklands articles is somehow different from the consensus process in every other situation and on every other article on Wikipedia is disruptive.

This is not the place for discussing the content dispute. This is a place for discussing user conduct. I believe your conduct here, and in the diffs I provided, demonstrates your continued insistence in trying to game the system to get your way in this matter. This is disruptive. Pfainuk talk 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again! How can Pfainuk and Justin argue that there is a consensus when people no longer agree with it? How is it being disruptive or trying to game the system to quote Wikipedia policy? How is it trying to get my way in this matter when I have explicitly said I would not contest a position that I believe is unsatisfactory?

MOSNUM says: "UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts...."

MOSNUM says: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses."

I have stated repeatedly that a consensus that no longer exists is non-existent. They state the contrary, that that it's rude to state that a consensus that no longer exists is non-existent.

Nonsense is proof against reason or logic. I rest my case. Michael Glass (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that no-one's actually reading this, so there doesn't seem a lot of point in continuing. But I note that nothing has changed. You're still demanding that the letter of the rule be used against the spirit of the rule. You're still demanding that Falklands articles be a glaring exception to the standard consensus process on Wikipedia. The standard consensus process has been explained to you so many times - despite the fact that you are a long-standing editor who is perfectly aware of it already - that you insistence on continuing to deny its existence is in and of itself disruptive. Pfainuk talk 06:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand Micheal' and Pfainuk' position. Personally, I don't agree with the treatment of consensus on Wiki in border circunstances. Consensus can change, then when is it valid to defy the consensus again? Should we let pass X time before discussing a new consensus? When does that turns repetitive? When I saw Pfainuk proposal converted into a project guideline, with only one support (and his), when previously several voices has not completely agreed with that, that doesn't seems any consensus to me; silence is a weak form of consensus. In this situation, I understand that previous consensus remains, I have no complaints with that logic, but I don't agree with that consensus, and it seems that it doesn't have consensus anymore.

What should we do? May we reach a consensus to remove previous consensus? It's an option. It actually conflicts with MoS, as a project policy can't be above WP policies, so we could reject previous consensus and appeal to MoS, where it says to apply British usage (which includes certain metrics and imperial in some context), and when editors can't agree (this case) appeal to source units, or if usage is arbitrary (also this case, if we choose to maintain consistency), MoS says to use SI. Other option, is to go by parts; for example actually there is a consistent support for metric first on weather units, we wouldn't have any problems splitting the issue and discussing use per use, and start updating the previous consensus. Divide and conquer, we will get some progress. pmt7ar ^(talk) 19:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is it was raised, a consensus reached. Michael doesn't like it, so he raises it again a few weeks later. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. As the diff I added shows, he has done the same at WP:MOSNUM Repeatedly raising the same point is disruptive. In addition, he is abrasive and pedantic in the extreme and it creates conflict over the most ridiculously small points. Thats why I raised the WQA. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The link that follows was written by Justin Kuntz. [36]. After he was rebuked for this posting he changed his Wiki name from Justin Kuntz to Justin the Evil Scotsman. This is the one who raised this WQA. Michael Glass (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No I changed to the Evil Scotsman after being accused of demonic possession. For those with a sense of humour see The Evil Scotsman Warning:Explicit Language. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 10:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually would someone mind pointing out to Michael, why it is inappropriate to raise stale issues - and one which was already sorted. Some diffs to put the isolated diff presented by Michael [37], [38] and [39] (which Michael conveniently forgot to tell me about). Whats also interesting is his resort to abusive posting but complains when he receives a humorous response. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) (and Imperial Storm Trooper)

Justin might think his comment was humorous, but he had to withdraw it because of its offensive nature. "I was only joking," is no excuse for abuse. If he still feels that his comment was only a joke then it appears that he has not learnt better. Michael Glass (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hostilities of anonymous user 71.0.146.150

I made a critical remark on Talk:Omega_Point_(Tipler)#Skolem_Löwenheim about mr. Tipler. Anonymous user 71.0.146.150 responded with personal attacks. I reminded this user on talk page User_talk:71.0.146.150 to behave. He responded with more hostilities. I request support from volunteers to urge this user to refrain from hostilities to other editors.

See the conversation at User_talk:71.0.146.150. Otto (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're here speaking a falsehood, Otto. I was perfectly polite, as the below-quoted exchange that you here refer to shows. Apparently you are confused and are thinking of your own behavior, which as the below exchange shows, was indeed rude and abusive.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

[Quote:]

The article cites Tipler saying: "I pointed out in an earlier section that the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem suggests there is no real difference between a theory with a countable number of axioms and a theory with a finite number of axioms". The Skolem Löwenheim theorem says that every infinite model is equivalent to a countable model (in model theory). A model with a finite number of axioms (or just one: the conjunction of these) is a different thing. This Tipler (I heard today for the first time about him on a forum about the Rybka chess engine :-)) seems to me indeed a lunatic. Otto (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the professional physicists at the Institute of Physics (Britain's main professional body for physicists) entrusted with refereeing this paper are also "lunatics". Rather than charging professional mathematicians and physicists with lunacy due to your lack of understanding, it might help you if you were to read all of the Reports on Progress in Physics paper that you're quoting from. For example:

A major theoretical reason for thinking there is no fundamental difference between a finite number of postulates and a (countable) infinite number of postulates is the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem: Let M be a model for a collection T of constant and relation symbols. Then there exists an elementary sub-model of M whose cardinality does not exceed that of T if T is infinite and is at most countable if T is finite (Cohen 1966, p 18). The proof of this theorem uses a weak version of the Axiom of Choice (hereafter AC); see Boolos and Jeffrey (1974, pp 133 and 158). Skolem regarded this theorem as an argument that ZFC cannot form a 'reasonable' foundation for mathematics because it implies there is a countable sub-model for the uncountable set of real numbers (Yandell 2002, p 64). If we want an axiom system for the real numbers that yields only the uncountable real numbers as a unique model, we will have to have an uncountable number of axioms. If we regard the continuum as the fundamental entity in reality, and if we want the postulates giving the real numbers to yield only the real numbers, then the continuum must be governed by an uncountable number of postulates. A finite axiom system will yield a countable number of consequences, but so will a countable number of postulates. Our preference for a finite number of axioms may just reflect our human finiteness. I shall argue below that a countable infinity of axioms in the form of having a countable infinity of terms in the Lagrangian (all the invariants that can be formed from the Riemann tensor and all of its covariant derivatives) allow unitarity to force the finiteness of quantum gravity coupled to the SM of particle physics. It has been known for decades that even if you start the Hilbert action for gravity, the path integral will give you the entire countable infinity of terms, and these additional terms, if artificially suppressed, will yield a quantum theory of gravity that is either non-renomalizable, or not unitary. Conversely, if we accept quantum field theory, the fact that gravity is curvature (and recall that Cartan showed even Newtonian gravity is curvature—see Misner et al 1973), and locally special relativistic, then we have to accept the countable infinity of terms in the fundamental Lagrangian. Physicists have always hoped that when the equations of the Theory of Everything were found, it could be shown that there was only one model for this system of equations, namely the actual universe. What the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem demonstrates is that this hope cannot be fulfilled with a finite set of equations, or a finite set of constants, if the actual universe is actually infinite. If we regard the boundary conditions on the universal wave function as an 'axiom', then the boundary conditions on a continuous function will be in effect a set of axioms whose cardinality is that of the continuum. A system with a countable number of terms in the gravitational Lagrangian and an uncountable number of 'axioms' in the boundary conditions may, by the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem, have a unique (uncountable) model.

From pp. 909-910 of F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, Bibcode:2005RPPh...68..897T. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[Unquote.]

Generally, you should provide links to diffs, and then highlight the parts you feel were uncivil. I skimmed the conversation and it seems that there is a disagreement, but both are handling it quite civilly. It's perfectly normal to say "I think you are wrong and this is why" or "I don't think you understand topic X", though there are more tactful ways to express such ideas. Both of you, try proving your point less and instead try proposing more specific changes. See also WP:NOTFORUM ...comments? ~BFizz 21:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [40].

1. 71.0.146.150 (N.N.)) is ridiculing my comment by claiming that I call "physicists at the Institute of Physics" lunatics. I did only comment on Tipler.
2. N.N. is putting words in my mouth I didn't say. That is manipulative and abusive.
3. N.N. didn't write "I don't think you understand" as you state it politely, but bluntly claims I have "lack of understanding". That is a personal attack.
4. The recommendation of N.N. that "it might help you if you were to read ..." is sarcastic.

When I reminded N.N. on his talk page to behave he reacted again aggressive in [41] by accusing me of "a falsehood", rudeness and abuse without substantiating. He bluntly denied my complaint which is rude as such. Otto (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've welcomed the IP and invited him use a username. I reiterate that the IP could certainly be more careful with his words, but dealings with him seem to be in an early stage. It would be better to make him a friend rather than an enemy. ...comments? ~BFizz 09:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz, thank you for your mediation. For my part this case can be closed and archived.Otto (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was perfectly polite to you, Otto. Hence, your claim that I was "rude an abusive" (sic) and engaged in "personal attacks" against you is a falsehood in the sense that it's false.

Apparently you are confused, Otto, and are thinking of your own behavior, which indeed was "rude an abusive" (sic) and did involve "personal attacks". You are the one who used the invective of "lunatic" to describe physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, and by extension the professional physicists at the Institute of Physics (Britain's main professional body for physicists) entrusted with refereeing Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper, a quote from which you mistakenly disagreed with, whereupon you issued your vituperation.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Jaroslaw Kaczynski

This [42] is an example of verifiable material from a legitimate source being aggressively removed at the battleground Jaroslaw Kaczynski page. I'm posting here in order to try not to be drawn into an edit war. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to report something about a user without informing him?

I already informed an administrator about it [43] but apparently User:Supreme Deliciousness created reported an incident about a photograph (that I took with my camera) and that was on my user page, and he didn't like. He never informed me of this. I would have gladly removed the image if it bothered him and it wouldn't even have been the minor issue it was. I think a short ban to User:Supreme Deliciousness is appropriate here because this is sleazy. Amoruso (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was inappropriate but there was no support for their position -- had there been, someone would have notified you. Bans are preventative, not punitive. Gerardw (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, WQA does not have the power to impose bans. Bans can only be imposed by ArbCom, the community at large (usually at WP:ANI) or Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps you are confusing bans with blocks? Intelligentsium 18:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I was. I meant block, thanks. I think that it's sometimes punitive - even when people promise not to edit war for example after 3RR they will automatically be blocked, more often that not I believe. He's an experienced user and at least a warning by an adminstrator on his webpage should be approriate I think.. Thank-you for your response. Amoruso (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"I think that it's sometimes punitive - even when people promise not to edit war for example after 3RR" - blocks are never punitive. 3RR blocks are automatic so that we don't all spend every minute of our time on WP arguing about whether to block person x. 3RR is a tripwire: to break it it is to be blocked, right away, if the issue is raised. One may be unblocked right away, if the unblocking admin accepts the promise not to do it any more.- Sinneed 11:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can Amoruso indicate where he informed Supreme Deliciousness of this report? Zero^talk 05:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, on Supreme Deliciousness' talk page... as is customary... Breein1007 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "I'm reporting you for incivility" without a link is obviously insufficient. Zero^talk 05:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done[44] --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So in summary Amoruso is asking for Supreme Deliciousness to be blocked for something that Amoruso immediately did himself. Zero^talk 06:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Amoruso notified SD he was reporting him but failed to give him a diff link, whereas SD failed to notify him in the first place. The same, but different. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are times when it is better for the filing editor not to be the one to notify. For example, if it will be seen as taunting, or if the editor has admonished the filing editor not to post to the editor talk page. It is better, when doing so, I think, to say "I have not informed editor-whatever because whatever reason."- Sinneed 10:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I don't think an administrator is needed here. I look forward to a response from SD, but on the face of it: SD should have simply objected to the image, if SD felt the image should be removed, on the editor talk page. Failing that effort, SD should have informed the editor of the complaint at ANI... which was the wrong venue anyway. I don't see a need for anything like a warning.- Sinneed 11:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see any need for "punative" action here. Rather, it should be taken as a "lesson learned" with the understanding that if you have an issue with content on an editor's userpage, you should try to address it with that editor first, instead of running to an admin to get unilateral action taken. Obviously, if an editor makes a habit of the behavior in question, it changes the circumstances, but I don't see that being the issue in this specific instance. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 11:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason this shouldn't be marked "resolved"? - Sinneed 19:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI[45], this might be of interest as the editor in question filed this ANI complaint today (4/12) and again failed to notify parties, even after the discussion here about similar behavior.--nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the first sentence of that thread.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not of interest to me. It as a procedural violation, not incivility, and has already been addressed at ANI. Posting it here smacks of forum shopping. Gerardw (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie 2

Is this the appropriate place to come when User:Wildhartlivie appears to have completely ignored Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Wildhartlivie and continues to make the same accusations "You never did respond to the question of whether you are blocked or banned under a registered account. " [46] MM 207.69.139.159 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. It is tedious they continue the same behavior. You should notify them about the WQA. Gerardw (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Notified. [47] MM207.69.137.26 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And the user is aware [48] and aparently I will need to ask someone else to notify the user in the future. MM 207.69.137.26 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you can still notify themselves. I'm unaware of any case in which a "don't post on my talk page" was found to be binding, especially in regards to a required notification. (Not saying I would make an unnecessary posting.) Of course, an editor it's legit to revert any message posted on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement at Alfred Proksch

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – discuss at Talk:Alfred_Proksch Gerardw (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I caught myself getting into an edit war with User:121.116.230.19 regarding the Alfred Proksch page. The user refuses to discuss the changes that they are making to the article, most of which strike me as just plainly unhelpful. As I wrote on their talk page, their additions include adding stub and expand templates (the article is not a stub and does not need to be expanded based on uncited material from another Wikipedia; I already took the cited stuff), an uncited placed of birth, formatting that is not consistent with the manual of style, and a "see also" link that only links to another list full of people with the same last name. I attempted to bring this up on the user's talk page, but they have not responded, so perhaps someone can help explain to them the problem (or correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks. Canadian Paul 02:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revet - those are usefull, meaningless, helpless editing. And I want to change "rule" (bold parents' names). --121.116.230.19 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the right forum for this, but I agree with Canadian Paul about this. The changes made by the IP are not improvements. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this was the correct forum, but I figured that WP:ANI wouldn't be appropriate at this point. Canadian Paul 02:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Discuss at article talk -- request WP:THIRD or WP:RFC if desired. Gerardw (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pope article and talk

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – raised on ANI Gerardw (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Two users are acting in an innappropriate manner, making unsupported accusations, threats and insinuations ('my friend' among others). Jeannedeba deleted another users comment on the talk page claiming it was a personal attack then threatened me with a block when I supported what they said. Jeannedeba had previously titled a section "British Nutjob" while still claiming neutrality. When I attempted to get editor assistance Jeannedeba stalked me to that page and made further unsupoprted accusations. Both editors appear extremely biased on the issue being discussed and it is greatly effecting the ability of other users to contribute or probably even want to participate in the article or discussion. This appears to have been made worse by what seems to be an admin supporting their bias and their failure to block Jeannedeba for edit warring and disruptive conduct. I could have walked away like every other user but letting biased editors rule an article through thuggery is unacceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Balloonman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeannedeba

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RutgerH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Uncivil_and_strongly_biased_editor

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

RutgerH (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, Rutger, perhaps somebody should tell you about WP:CANVASS. First, you try to get a case going at Editor assistance wherein the person who responds says, "that a one-sided complaint is, in my opinion, not justified." Then you decide to goto Wikiquette and now to Ani. As Rutger has decided to take this to ANI, I'm going to close this wikiquette case.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:20, 13 April 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.

Talk:Conservapedia

We are having quite the problem over on talk:conservapedia, editor User:Nobs01 started out claiming a content dispute, refused to tell us what specifically the dispute was, and is now spamming what amounts to, from my perspective, as personal attacks and unfounded accusations. He has also been threatening and arb com case against editors, all while completely ignoring the usual steps in dispute resolution. Suggestions? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my statement here. Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet amazingly, after weeks you have failed to live up to even the most basic issue of defining something on the CP article that you object to. Give me one thing, just one. And we can talk about that, rather than you attacking me and other RationalWiki editors. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My Mediation request [49] per WP:DR. nobs (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse them with details, it will get them all flustered and they'll write memos till they're blue in the face. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that I put "rag" in the search box and it took me straight to Conservapedia. Coincidence? I think not! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, can you provide any diffs and point out the specific "personal attacks and unfounded accusations" you've mentioned? Nobs, it would indeed be wise to be specific about proposed changes. But if you're hoping for a conservapedia-esque article here, you're out of luck. The way that a "neutral point of view" is typically achieved at Wikipedia is by illustrating all significant points of view, including both praise and criticism. Your best bet for change is if you can identify an issue with the article describing Conservapedia that is not also an issue with the article describing Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Today he has been thumping a conspiracy, that in 2007 I hung a template on the talk page of CP to specifically orchestrate a mass vandal attack of antisemitics at CP [50][51][52]. He has also claimed repeatedly that I am running some sort of cabal on the article and that I control its content when I haven't edited it in years. All of this against the back drop of refusing to even bring up a specific content issue is getting old. He is also threatening an Arb Com case [53], again without even following standard dispute procedures, even given me a chance to address the content concerns. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are at least three issues here:

1. The privacy concerns of both RationalWiki editors and Conservapedia editors.
2. The factual accuracy of a WP:RS which cites by name several editors from both wikis.
3. The inordinate amount of control RationalWiki editors have had of Conservapedia related articles in Wikipedia, and evidence RationalWiki editors have used Wikipedia to engage in cyber-vandalism against Conservapedia.

Please note, user:Tmtlouse and myself have had a history of respectful civility for the past three years which I would like to continue. It should be unproblematic for an editor who feels an organization he is associatd with is under attack to ask for assisstance. This is a helpful first step. Thank you. nobs (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The main concern in regards to wikiquette is your claim in point 3, which is completely unsubstantiated, insulting and a personal attack on a whole group of editors. I suggest you drop that point as it goes nowhere and will produce a hostil editing environment. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's begin with the privacy concerns, the other issues can follow. nobs (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So spell it out, in specifics, exactly what you are talking about. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I post this here because you've refused off-wiki discussions to resolve these disputes (this morning I was blocked for 96 hours at RationalWiki for posting a link to an off-wiki discussion forum that could be used if you don't like forming a private googlegroup with you, me & Sid, perhaps a volunteer medeiator as well). nobs (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Why are you posting a link to the donation page of RW? What does any of this have to do with anything? I told you I am not interested in talking about this off of WP, why do you insist on forming a "private" group off of WP? This is about content on WP, why can't we discuss it hear? Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing Nobs' supposed acts of incivility. Discussions regarding the three points Nobs brings up belong on corresponding talk pages and/or noticeboards. Tmtoulouse, the diffs you provide are at best in the gray area of WP:AGF. Nobs seems to be generally civil, though at times rather vague. If either of you would like a third opinion regarding disputes over content, sources, or privacy, feel free to contact me on my talk page. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. nobs (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I am not going to take being accused of orchestrating an antisemtic attack lightly, and merely chalk it up to to some AGF issue. I will give Nobs one last chance to talk specifics (you said "at times vague"? show me one time he wasn't) and then I will just ignore him completely I suppose. Or if he refuses to drop the attacks we can move ahead with an RFC. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for diffs, how about some unfounded personal attacks and insinuations of bad faith, and false accusations of bullying. Rob has a long history of being uncivil on RW (who doesn't?) and there are plenty more diffs of him being nasty here on WP. He also continues to bring up mediation as if TMT and Sid are responsible for it not happening, the simple fact of the matter is that Nobs hasn't done what he needs to to make mediation a viable option, so every single time he brings it up it amounts to nothing more than a distraction from the conversation. Once he identifies something specific then his repeted calls for mediation can be constructive, but not until that point. --EmersonWhite (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

EmersonWhite, are you an Administrator on Rationalwiki? --TK-CP (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this issue going to get any more attention? --EmersonWhite (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For those who may be unaware of the fact, any person who registers a username on RationalWiki and makes a non-vandalism edit is made an administrator (this is jokingly referred to as "demotion" in RationalWiki parlance). I'm no friend of the RationalWiki people [54] but I'm an admin there on account of a few edits I made there last year.[55] --TS 02:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Tony, as far as it goes. Anyone who they think disagrees with them, isn't given that status. The reason being to hide edits/comments from purported "enemies", only viewable by Sysops, and of course to block them. --TK-CP (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for legal threats and harassment, while RobS (aka User:Nobs01) was blocked for harassment and threats of action against various people's WP accounts. Rob was also given Sysop status in November 2009 and only lost it when he was blocked. But don't let the truth get in the way of your lovely narrative. --69.165.155.235 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a pure lie. I was purportedly blocked by RatWiki because someone posted an off-wiki instant message, heavily edited, wherein it was claimed I said I was suing for defamation against the site owner. No one at RW ever contacted me, least of all the site owner, to confirm that, or asking if it was true. I was blocked on that single trumped-up charge, a pretext really, and unable to respond to those so-called charges, or edit my own talk page. I was not blocked for "harassment", but I believe Nobs was, only for trying to get some consensus on mediation of issues being brought to Wikipedia. Your "two-cents" only threw out more Red Herrings, and didn't address the factual nature of my comments, which were true in all respects. From your cowardly anonymous perch, 69.165.155.235, please don't bring fictitious narratives here. --TK-CP (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rationalwiki blocked me for two years just days ago because I supposedly made legal threats about them posting my real identity at RW and all over the Internet with the intent to cause me harm. Now, today, User: Sid 3050, with no relevancy to what was being discussed on the Conservapedia-Talk page, posted that personal information, and then re-posted it to another talk page. Can I get some response or quick action from the Administrators here? I emailed Oversight, which is supposedly monitored 24/7, and hours later not even a response. --TK-CP (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It was quoting the LA Times, it was germane to the conversation at hand. No connection was ever made to the identity "TK". Chill out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I am finished discussing this, to quote you on another page, Tmtoulouse. FYI, Tasha is not now, never was an Administrator at CP. I will leave it up to the Bureaucrats here to decide what the intent was, after looking at the diffs on RW about the matter that have been submitted to them. Is there anything you need to add, that might not have been saved in this most recent post, like telling me to kill myself? Odd that "truncated post" mirrors your own comments to me on your own wiki, but I am certainly willing to assume good faith here, as one must of young people not always able to control their emotions. However I would be remiss in not publicly posting that the connection to a full name for me was fist made on your own wiki, the one you house in your apartment, with your blessing, contrary to your wiki rules in place at that time, based solely on the Los Angeles Times article, in spite of three or four attempts by different Admins to remove all those links, after dozens of pleas by me to do so. So forgive me, please, if I sounded too suspicious of anyone's motivations, if I was wrong. Like I said I will leave it up to the Bureaucrats here to decide what is just, what is right. They also might want to look at the instantly archived page of yours where some unknown user accuses you of COI. Gosh you never allowed me to archive my own page on RW that quickly...maybe you have had a change of heart. Or perhaps what is good for you isn't good for anyone else? --TK-CP (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh....Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, this is getting silly. No WP/CP user name was mentioned in the post you complained about on Papa November's talk page. There just wasn't any outing. But hey, since Jimbo Wales(!) and Oversight have been informed, I'll just wait for their input. --Sid 3050 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you're indeed worried about outing issues, you wouldn't have dragged it to an admin's talk page and to the Wikiquette Alerts. All that does is making everybody look at what I posted. Oversight would have handled this discreetly (if your concern had any merit) - there's a reason requests to them are handled through a non-public mailing list. --Sid 3050 (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As the RW admin who had the IM conversation mentioned and ultimately blocked TK for 2 years, I was hoping to avoid saying anything more on the subject than was contained in the logs and my brief comments on RW. RW easily gained consensus and quickly moved on from the block, though it was disruptive for a short time. TK had been doing a good job of avoiding any more unsavory conduct regarding RW. But here we go with him now calling me a liar. On the wikiquette page no less. This is as good a place as any to repeat that not one single word was edited out of that log and TK wasn't "purportedly" or "supposedly" blocked for making legal threats against the owner. He was actually blocked for making an express statement that he would be suing Trent Toulouse for defamation. Triflingly easy decision to make even given RW's extremely high threshold for blocking editors for more than seconds or minutes. 98.226.15.58 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly indeed. I was complained about for having a COI here, and have yet to receive a talk page message asking me to defend myself against this unwarranted claim. I only know about it from following the ridiculous Nobs01/TK-CP drama over 17 or so pages. Poor wikiquette, if you ask me. But no big deal, more noobieness than anything. Huw Powell (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. I guess there was a reason you pasted over the entire quote with names to that Admins page then, rather than just give a link as I did, right? Well planned, well executed bullying, gentlemen.....which is apparent from the comments Tmtoulouse left for the user who thought he had a COI (User talk:Boutros Boutros Boutros) and telling me to hang myself, those of a bully-boy. And again, sorry for not knowing all the procedures here as you expect, evidently, everyone to know or not even show up here, Sid. I also note and invite everyone else to notice how Tmtoulouse avoided a public answer to my questions and how you did so, but instead slyly poked fun of who I notified of your outing and bullying. I guess you think bullying and outing new users are beneath the concerns of the Founder, eh? --TK-CP (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you just said has nothing to do with what I just said. Also, what on Earth are you talking about? Huw Powell (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Huw, my response was to Sid. Read my talk page if you want. Evidently we were both editing at the same time, I clicked to edit the section after seeing your post in my watch list, didn't see it here, clicked to edit. When I was done, your post which I never saw in preview or regular view wasn't there. --TK-CP (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For fuck's sake everyone, don't feed the goddamn troll. -R. fiend (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

While I may appreciate your sentiments, I suspect the tone and language of that comment are not appropriate for wikipedia. Huw Powell (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for showing up and adding to this already too drawn out feud. I seem to recall a comment about what Wikipedia is the place for - "[this] isn't the place to pursue vendettas"[56]. This has been reemphasized on other pages[57] and it seems inappropriate to bring up off Wikipedia disputes on a page for Wikiquette. If an individual has been blocked on another wiki then it is best to bring up that dispute at that wiki. To suggest otherwise could be a bit of an overload on the admins of the respective wikis that are represented here and take away from developing articles. I suggest that all of the discussion and accusations of what has happened elsewiki be discounted/hidden as was done on the Talk:Conservapedia page. --Shagie (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the interest transparency, are you yet another Rationalwiki administrator who also edits on WP, Shagie? --TK-CP (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

TK-CP, most Wikipedians don't care where you were blocked or why. This is not germane to this project, and it is clear that you are bringing a vendetta from outside Wikipedia to harass Wikipedia members. In general, the allegations of legal threats are concerning and have no business related to anything on Wikipedia, with the exception of BLP issues. Additionally, don't you find it the least bit ironic that you are complaining about being blocked for two years AFTER you blocked all iPhones off of your site? I don't have any intention of making your off-Wiki behavior an issue, but it seems pretty apparent that you are throwing rocks from a glass house. Lulaq (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, and I've not taken a look at the Conservapedia article in quite some time, but while I actually do sympathize with many of the concerns on the Conservapedia website on Wikipedia, the mainspace article for Conservapedia is ONLY supposed to describe Conservapedia encyclopedically and not be a soapbox. Lulaq (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

First you state most Wikipedians don't care why I was blocked elsewhere, then you drag in yet another topic, about why others are blocked at still another website, Lulaq. Which way do you want it? I didn't rise the issues from RW, others did, and I merely responded. Transparency, simple fairness, dictates that readers know if a Wikipedia editor has a potential conflict of interest due to their being an Administrator at a site pertinent to this discussion. I have been a sparse participant in the entire Conservapedia article discussions, as the record clearly shows, and have only responded to insinuations and statements tossed my way. --TK-CP (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting assistance for User:Azure12

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – moved to ANI Gerardw (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Over the last year the editor has made a large number of edits to articles, mainly focussing on Disney/Pixar movies and other fictional works. These edits fall into two groups -- additions of sentences such as "This was the third appearance of [minor cast member X] in a Pixar film, playing role Y", and longer paragraphs of original research and synthesised material.

The editor's talk page contains many notices of content and article deletion, and warnings not to introduce WP:OR to articles. So far he/she has not responded once, on his/her talk page or on any article talk page. One article, which I proposed for deletion through AFD, [WP:Articles_for_deletion/Disney/DreamWorks_feud|appears to be building consensus to delete] under WP:OR, yet the editor has not responded on the AFD page, and is even continuing to add material to the page.

I have left a personal message on Azure12's talk page, but no response has been forthcoming, even as he/she continues to add WP:OR and have it removed (by other editors). Please advise of the best course of action. Regards, Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps reporting the behavior to WP:ANI is a better option. I might suggest a short-term block to get their attention better as warnings haven't worked, but that's just me.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, ArcAngel. I started here because the guidelines suggested it was a good place to start, being "early in the dispute resolution process" and all that. It's not like he's vandalising per se, just that he doesn't seem to understand the policy regarding original research, and won't respond to messages. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You hit the crux of the problem "won't respond to messages", hence why I suggested ANI. Perhaps an admin can get a response from them.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll take to to the ANI. Thanks for your advice! Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:56, 15 April 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.

Miraculous births

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Duplicate of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_topic_-_parthenogenesis.3F.3F Gerardw (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This article was entitled Virgin birth (mythology). An editor, user:Ari moved it to Miraculous births without consensus. He wll not address comments about that fact, or about his reorganization of the article. The discussion is quite long and he consistently resorts to warning me that I might be blocked. He is consistently rude, yet peppers his discussion with accusations that I am rude. I think everything is clear on the discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User Ari doesn't appear to have edited Wikipedia [[58]]Gerardw (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Should be Ari89 (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Hammy64000 is attacking me throughout Wikipedia - whether it be abusing noticeboards to random talk pages. Short version: Hammy64000 objects to me editing an article that he calls his own. For further discussion, see the my response to his attacks on the other noticeboard alert reproduced below:

The article is Miraculous births. Hammy64000 seems to have taken my merging of the articles personally, and across multiple pages he has attempted to attack me with ridiculous claims about a personal conspiracy against him. His main attack against me seems to be that I have edited "his article" and I should cease to edit his article. He has been warned numerous times about ownership. For example:

• "I still have issues with your moving my article to a previously messy and unfinished article--especially in the way you did it--without talking it out.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)" (bold mine)
• "Give me the article back and if you think you can, you can work with me. But you may not have it. You are not suited to such an article--you are big-picture challenged."

Similarly, adding fact request templates and tags seem to offend. After adding the afformentioned tags to uncited content I was attacked by Hammy64000 on the basis of a conspiracy theory he has created. After removing the tags he said: "You think this will work because I told you I returned my library books". This was followed with a number of rants on the talk page including:

• "Ari, you requested citations for the Egyptian article and I provided them. Now you have marked that they need page numbers. That is a bogus way to justify your re-write. Anyone here? Why does this person think he can do this? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)"
• "I told Ari on the article history page that I returned my library books and so he is asking for page numbers to justify changing the article without discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)"

It has been explained to the editor that all content must be verifiable.

I am not quite sure what the 'incident' is; but if there is one I am surely the victim here receiving personal attack after personal attack by the above editor. For more documentation of his confusing behaviour see User:Ari89/Hammy64000 --Ari (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ari (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

personal attack

Some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable:

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

(Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

"I think that it is clear that User:Mladifilozof is nationalist himself and that his "concern" for Serbian nationalism is only cover under which he spread his own nationalism - his surname Pavlica is in fact common among Croats, so it is clear to me who is he and what he doing here.[59]" (User:PANONIAN)

I find this public discussion on my ethnicity very offensive.--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Carau

[60] Where to start, in a few short pithy phrases manages to violate WP:CANVAS and WP:NPA. Note blocked in January 2010 for disruption and his talk page has numerous deletions for either WP:NOTABILITY or WP:OR articles. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 10:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

[61] Notice the inventive use of capitalisation to spell "FAGOT". Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left warnings for both the personal attacks and refactoring other user's talk page comments. Gerardw (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

unindent

[62] Seems unrepentant. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 07:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of homophobia from User:JenAW

User:JenAW and myself are embroiled in a dispute regarding the List of bisexual people. I am of the opinion that living people who do not label themselves bisexual or reject the label do not belong there, and she disagrees with me. She has posted accusations of homophobia on my talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asarelah#Abbey_Lee . She has also speculated that I am self-loathing bisexual in my talk page archives here when we've disagreed about the issue in the past.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asarelah/archive_2#Bresonik Asarelah (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, absolutely unacceptable. Jen, any and all comments or accusations about other user's sexual orientations (or really any other facet of their person) need to stop immediately. We are not here to "stick it" to homophobic people by getting bisexuality "out there". Take a gander at WP:BLP. These terms carry a stigma, and that's regrettable, but we're not activists. It's not in our power to remove it, and it's not in the scope of the project to try. Similarly, imagine adding the descriptor "Obese" to BLPs of obese individuals- to try to remove the stigma. Are we bigots for supporting them in not liking that? I should think not. --King Öomie 16:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Also, this statement - "You are proud to belong to a nation with a terrible record for ethnic cleansing, lynch law and homophobia" - pretty much sums up the entire problem. As far as my straight, non-homophobic, don't-give-a-shit-who-you-sleep-with eyes can see, the issue here isn't homophobia on the part of Asarelah; the issue is with BLP violations, non-neutrality edits, agenda-pushing, and personal attacks by JenAW. Tan | 39 16:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can show JenAW Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Guidelines. The fact that JenAW disagrees is irrelevant. Compliance with BLP policy is mandatory. She has no choice but to accept that people who haven't self-identified as LGBT in a reliable source can't be included in the list. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This isn't the proper forum to try to force people to "accept what they are". In fact, the Foundation could be sued for it. --King Öomie 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dodo19

Anon inserted a modified quote to 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian), presenting it as an exact quotation from the source, it was removed. Dodo19 (talk · contribs) re-inserted the quote - as it came out later, he had no access to the article in question at the time, so I still have no idea why he thought it was accurate.

As the quotation was modified and hence did not came out when I searched the Birn article for it (I've had it as PDF for quite a while), I removed it. I've explained my actions also on the talk page of the article, including the explanation why I couldn't find the quotation - and also provided the actual, unmodified quote.

However, Dodo19 keeps insisting it was some kind of deliberate censorship, calling me repeatedly a liar (falsely accused others of wrongdoing, AND YOU LIED ABOUT THE QUOTE NOT BEING THERE!, subject "LIAR", last time after I had asked him to stop being uncivil.

I hope this can be resolved with just a warning from an administrator, as Dodo19 is otherwise a good contributor, who has just allowed his opinions to get the best of his temper and reason.

--Sander Säde 16:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Willie Sutton Bank President

"New" user Willie Sutton Bank President (talk · contribs) began his first edits in almost a year by restoring bot-archived material to the Barrack Obama Talk page. When I politely asked him why, this was his response: [63]. I have had no previous dealings with this person, but I don't like the idea of a supposedly new user suddenly, out of the blue, making attacks on me. Woogee (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The talk page says material is archived after 14 days. The bot has gone crazy by archiving in 10 days.

Woogee made a legal threat on my talk page. Slander is a legal accusation. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, Willie Sutton has been blocked as a block evading sock. Woogee (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish bullying other editors on PETA article

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – no evidence of incivility presented Gerardw (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NWQA Gerardw (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the way that the current thread Revisiting allegations of evidence fabrication has quickly devolved, as well as how past discussions (notably, the latest archive) show a similar pattern, User:Tryptofish exhibits a lack of respect for opposing viewpoints. He trumpets his own arguments while dismissing others' to the point of bullying and overbearance. I believe that he as a scientist may be too close to the issue of animal research. PrBeacon (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Please remember to notify anyone mentioned at WQA. In those rare instances where that seems unwise, please do be sure to clearly say that you haven't, and why, so that an interested WQA-follower can provide the notice: but really... notify the editors mentioned.- Sinneed 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC) To enable members of the WP:WQA community to assess your complaint please provide relevant diffs. Here is an example: diff. To find out how to prepare a diff see HELP and also WP:D&L. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 05:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I found out about this thread only by chance, which I don't appreciate. This editor is trying to use WQA as a way of pushing an editorial disagreement over content. A careful examination of the threads to which the editor refers will show nothing more on my part than a typical disagreement over content in an area in which POV has always been hotly debated. The wrong way to resolve the debate is to attempt to sidetrack it into a discussion of the editors with whom one disagrees. I have every right to reply to comments by the other editor. Looking back carefully and critically at my own comments, I note that here [64], I refer to this editor as having done something "illogical", when I really should have worded it to make clear that the edit, rather than the editor, was illogical, and I regret that error on my part. But other than that, I really think that it is the other editor, and not me, who has been making a habit in that thread of commenting on the editor (me) rather than on the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) However, since the subject has been raised, I felt a need to look into the other editor's recent history, and I note this [65] and this [66], which, although it does not mention me by name, can be taken in the context of this thread to be a clear attempt to canvass against me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Also: [67] and [68]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Looking through the section, I see the usual disagreement, and not even severe. PB, I look forward to the diffs.- Sinneed 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag

This user has been repeatedly using argumentum ad hominem and threatening to block me when I move them. He has also been calling me derogatory terms including hector, troll, tosser and dick. He has also accused me of being an SPA alternative account, a notion that can easily be dispelled by searching my username and checking when this Wikipedia account was made. --A930913 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

He also has accused me of edit-warring of which he has done himself. (User notified) --A930913 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that A930913 forgot to mention the other side of these events, in which they are a trolling single-purpose account. I will not be responding to, engaging with or reading this discussion, in any way. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 18:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I did include your accusation. And then disproved it. --A930913 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"will lead to a block" is not a threat, but a statement of opinion: a warning. TT cannot block you, and I see no threat. Referring to your posts as hectoring was probably pointless and not as kind as it might have been, but the view was supported by other editors, and simply seems less than kind, rather than inappropriate. The "trolling" and "dick" bits were rude, and TT has been cautioned by several posters at ANI: it is done. I would encourage editor A9 to be less confrontational if the editor is going to be offended by being called on the behaviour. The bit at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling by single-purpose account)is already in front of the community, and it drew the response it merited. A9 was aggressive in pursuing defense of an article, TT was rude, A9 was rude in response, both received guidance from various sources, both should heed that advice, and I recommend moving on. - Sinneed 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight perhaps I should have said threatened to get me blocked. "A9 was rude in response" I beg to disagree, can you please elaborate and/or show examples. --A930913 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very very rare that removing another's edits from a talk page is appropriate, for example. This was not such a case. Offtopic? Maybe. Needed to be deleted? No.- Sinneed 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic comments should only be removed from talkpages in the case of vandalism or spamming (IE 1/2 the page history of WT:SIG for some reason), or in cases of ridiculous, over-the-top outbursts of profanity aimed at other editors. Off-topic posts can be collapsed with {{hat|Off-topic|See WP:TALK}} ~Discussion~ {{hab}}.

I'd also like to point out that an account creation date of 13 months ago does not disprove the possibility of an SPA, particularly when that account has a grand total of 40 edits to its name, 85% of which revolve around Joel Weiner, including this thread. The S and P stand for Single Purpose. --King Öomie 21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)