Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive87

User:Hairhorn

Resolved

 – Anon agreed to closure

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

The following has occurred. Randomly browsing Wikipedia one day I decided to add a tiny bit of trivia to Wikipedia's article List of common misconceptions. Now granted, I did not provide sources. I had read about that literally decades ago and the frequency with which this misconception occurs in popular culture annoys me. Without sources, it was immediately reverted without notification or question by User:Hairhorn. Now I remain convinced (and even Hairhorn seems to agree) that with proper sources and maybe cleaner presentation, this would be an excellent addition to the article. So I contacted Hairhorn about what I felt was brash, unnecessary, un-incremental-improvement-wiki-like.

He told me to provide proper sources and re-add the entry. Hold it - why should I re-add after he removed the entry in its entirety? Why am I responsible for his revert? He reverted the contribution. I even provided him with a source and told him to do it himself, which he refused. So I wrote him an arguably long rant about what he is doing - reverting rather than improving - is wrong and hurts Quality and Wikipedia, with an analysis. Which he immediately reverted. He then reverted announced that he would continue to do so even without reading them.

I find the sheer amount of mean-spiritedness of his conduct is apalling. Apparently my sarcastic remark in the long rant about gaming the system was exactly spot on. I've looked at his edit history and he seems to be determined like a bot to increase his edit count by any means necessary, not caring about Wikiquette or not biting Newcomers or the incremental improvement idea. I would point this out to him myself but, unfortunately he reverts any of my attempts to argue with him.

Someone tell me I'm not entirely in the wrong here! -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you had all the sources, why couldn't you have just done with without causing an uproar, you're both at fault here. FinalRapture - † ☪ 01:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had been asked for help with finding a reliable source on my talk page or something similiar, I probably would have done so. But it was reverted right away. That's his responsibility, I don't want to add the same thing twice - I think that's what you call edit warring. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As a nonparticipant in this controversy, let me add a tidbit that anon 80 has omitted. In this edit summary for his addition of the unsourced information, he wrote "Too lazy for good sources. Look for the challenges WW2 submarine crews faced". That's seems a clear indication to me that he/she never had any intention to find a source and expected others to do it. I'll let others reach their own conclusions. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually knowing about the necessity of sources, I looked at "suffocation" topics. It only ocurred to me later that I should have been looking for "carbon dioxide toxicity", at which point I provided the relevant link. The whole idea of incremental improvement is that you do not need everything at once. At the time of the commit, someone else may have had the idea to look for carbon dioxide toxicity before me. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have no further point, as Hairhorn appears unwilling to discuss or apologize for what I continue to perceive as extremely bad conduct. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise with 80.218.123.36. There are Users on Wikipedia who appear to be very energetic about reverting other User's work, but lazy about actually improving things. I have had a little experience of that, and it is frustrating. Fortunately, there are many more who do good work on Wikipedia. I have had many experiences where Users have contacted me on my User talk page to initiate meaningful discussion on the subject, rather than simply reverting. Usually a genuine dialogue takes place without either party feeling the need to be the winner. As a result, when I see the need to remove one or more edits made in good faith I usually take the opportunity to initiate a discussion first, using the article Talk page or the other party's User talk page. It is not quite so easy to initiate discussion with an IP addressee. I suggest you create a User account and participate fully in Wikipedia - it is free and there are many benefits, both to the User and the remainder of the Wiki community. Dolphin (t) 03:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I tell you, the other way around! Instead of recommending me to get an account, it is you who should edit as an IP instead. There's no better way to experience the various ways Wikipedia is broken than to contribute actual, legitimate content as an IP. Only by understand what's broken one can begin to remedy it. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll let my edit history speak for itself. "Seems to be determined like a bot to increase his edit count by any means necessary" is an odd accusation from somone complaining about a lack of civility. I may have been too quick to revert in this case, but that's long become moot to this anonymous user. Hairhorn (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit history is indeed speaking for itself. Wanting to get an edit count as high as possible is the only explanation as to why someone is so systematically quick to revert. Real contributions take time and are limited in number, as one eventually simply exhausts ones knowledge about a subject. You might have taken 10 or 20 minutes of effort to find a relevant source yourself. But instead you chose the quick way that allowed you to continue increasing your edit counts in the meantime - you reverted. This sort of behavior is very damaging to the encyclopedic effort, and is aggravated by its ubiquity and so is the attribution of merit that is associated communally to a high edit count. I did point this out to you in your talk page in the long rant, trying to make you understand that what you're doing is damaging the foundation of Wikipedia - but rather than trying to engage in meaningful discussion, or just as much as reading my argument, you chose to quietly remove my criticism of your conduct from your talk page, ironically reverting my complaint about you reverting too much. That, I find, is inexcusable and intolerable. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside here, as per WP:TALK Hairhorn can choose to remove anything from his talk page he wishes. Regardless of the rest of the discussion, that shouldn't be an issue. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing the issue. I do not object to how another manages his talk site. To begin removing comments unread in the middle of a discussion his disruptive editing had started, when I had done nothing that had warranted such disrespect, is a WP:Dick issue, not WP:Talk. Same goes with his attitude of "I have 15000 edits, I have no need to take users serious whose contributions I just reverted". -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anon 80, please tell us how you know that Hairhorn "removed comments unread in the middle of a discussion". Did you read his mind, or is this just one of many other erroneous assumptions you have made about this mountain-out-of-a-molehill that you have climbed the Reichstag to keep stirred up? 65.41.234.70 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, to you this may seem like mind reading, but in actuality, I just read what he actually had posted. Furthermore, he removed my long rant after too short a time to be able to have read, much less contemplated it. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That comment by Hairhorn was only made after you repeatedly harrassed him over a matter that should never have been brought to this discussion board and that should have ended long ago. You clearly seem to be getting some sort of bizarre thrill out of dragging on this conflict endlessly, despite the fact that others have told you again and again to drop it, and after Hairhorn acknowledged he may have been too quick to revert. This has expanded from a fairly insignificant content dispute into a major vendetta by you against Hairhorn. Please do all of Wikipedia a favor and drop it. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And how do I do that? I feel this posting here is legitimate. I'm willing to "drop it" but the question is how? Should I remove this WQAlert section? That would appear vandalistic to me. I already announced that I don't care anymore. However because I am obsessive-compulsive like that, I will respond to anyone writing something here or on my talk page. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How's this for "mind-reading": "Anon 80", who were you before your IP? Edit summaries such as these demonstrate an intimate knowledge of WP... Doc9871 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I've been around since late 2002 / early 2003, I had a number of accounts, no one you'd know, and prefer to edit as an anonymous IP these days. Make of that what you want. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No one I'd know? You sure about that? Create a user account, and be proud of your contributions here... Doc9871 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read my long rant, otherwise you'd know that I believe the whole "Proud of your contributions" part with the edit count is a mechanism that I believe, is very, very damaging to the encyclopedic effort. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can't be an established editor, and instead rely on an apparent IP sock: you are damaging to the encyclopedic effort. Own up to your past like real editors do - or vanish (IMHO)... Doc9871 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What? I contributed. And was thwarted in my attempt. How is that damaging the encyclopedic effort? You'll have to explain this one. -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Register as an editor. It's very easy, and most have us have done it. You know far too much about WP to be a new user, so you should stop hiding behind IP's... Doc9871 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How about, you edit as an IP instead? Go ahead. Fix some stuff. Contribute. What exactly is keeping you from contributing as an IP? -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well yes, technically you did contribute. But the way you did it was a bit WP:POINTY in that you submitted the info without a citation, something that as an experienced user you knew ahead of time is not very popular here. Then you submitted the citation but did not want to add it yourself, which as an experienced user you could well do, etc. etc. Sounds a bit like playing games to me. But maybe I'm wrong. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@ "Anon 80" - What keeps me from editing as an IP is: contributing as a registered editor. I don't need to IP sock - it's useless and (in my opinion) "cowardly". I'll fix some stuff under my own name (thank you very much)... Doc9871 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not maliciously fail to supply a proper source to elicit a negative response by Wikipedia. I simply didn't find one that said exactly what I wanted on short notice. And I don't have to. I know, many people used to POV-warring are used to the modus operandi that any addition without a good source gets removed immediately. But that's because those people are POV warriors and are not interested in improving the Wikipedia. For all they care, the article could be complete shit, as long as it says (or doesn't say) what they want. I don't have to provide a source, if I can't find one, as long as I know in good faith someone will find a good source. That's the Wiki method of doing stuff: Incremental increase. I supply an idea, someone else formulates it better than me, a third guy can't believe the thing and googles for sources until he finds it. That should be good practice even in a POV dispute. That Hairhorns practice of "revert always, contribute nothing" is very damaging to not just the encyclopedic effort, and symptomatic of continuously waged POV warring. Same goes with the whole practice of trying to acquire a huge edit count.

@Doc9871 Why is it cowardly to contribute to Wikipedia, ever? -- 80.218.123.36 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@"Anon 80" - It is cowardly to hide behind IP's when you have clearly edited WP for years. Register. Stop being ashamed of your past (which is probably not too good, from what I'm gathering)... Doc9871 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By supplying highly technical stuff without citations makes it impossible to verify the info immediately. So it is better to hide the info rather than risk someone laughing at Wikipedia for technically wrong information. Until we find a source the info cannot stay in the article. This has nothing to do with POV. Just proper verifiability. The wiki model you are referring to, although noble, has been superseded. And you do sound like an old-timer if I judge from your idealistic sense of the wiki. And I mean this with respect. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this really isn't about me. Is there any point allowing this thread to continue? I see no actual dispute to resolve, and this looks increasingly like a platform for an anonymous user to launch hilariously ill-founded personal attacks against me; that doesn't seem like a proper use of this forum. And given this user's comments about putting my talk page on their watch list it's pretty clear to me that they have a current account, not just previous ones; as far as I know, IPs do not have watch lists. No user should have to tolerate personal attacks from sockpuppets in a forum meant for dispute resolution. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about the personal attacks. Also the point you make about the watchlist smells socky to me. Let's close this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The anon has tried to close this. It is a nice gesture and I second it. Let's close it but properly this time. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:39, 2 June 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.

Highly disrupting editing

In the past few months, I have tolerated User:Digirami and User:MicroX in terms of editing South American football pages. While I understand that no editor owns the page, I know for a fact that wikipedia holds special consideration over those who have edited a page and made major contributions to them. It took me a while to realize it but the two fore mentioned have only serve to regress progress on the pages. Just reading the history on this pages and their sub-pages are evidence of this (1, 2 and 3). Simply put, they are not editors; they just like to disrupt progress for the better with highly outdated ideals. It has surpassed that level of simply "edit warring" for having different views. This has become borderline vandalism.

I have a keen interest in transforming every page in CONMEBOL to have a Featured status...I need help dealing with this problem. I am afraid certain admin have also been involved in this. For example, I have reported this glaring act against wikipedia's policy on civility and nothing was done about it. However, and admin bans Digirami and I for a three-revert rule that never happens, gives him 48 hours and gives me a week. As I have mentioned before in talk pages, I am afraid wikipedia is becoming a club. Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Like his definition of vandalism, Jamen Somasu's definition of disruptive editing is baffling. One little disagreement on an infobox parameter and my edits is called "highly disruptive". Beyond that, I don't see any proof of disruptive editing. If you look at the articles in question, User:MicroX has made one edit in the Copa Libertadores article all year; his Copa Sudamericana edits include reverting vandalism, reverting the deletion of citations, proofreading, etc.; zero edits in the Recopa article. My edits include fine tuning edits made my other users and/or correcting of incorrect data across all three articles. Sure there are disagreement between myself and Jamen over some things, but those are clearly made in good faith and are hardly disruptive.

I would also add that Jamen Somasu should bit his tongue on this issue since he too has come across as disruptive by not engaging in consensus building (very early on, and probably still), sometimes rejecting community input (for example: from the WikiFootball), and refusing to get the point. In addition, he has gone against the policy on civility on numerous occasions. Digirami (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MicroX is curretnly vandalising an important template here. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've pinged the last admin to block Jamen about the recidivism. For now, folks, please don't get drawn into any silly edit warring. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on! This guys are now getting ridiculous with the vandalism and, worse, there are admin trying to cover for them in such a blatant way (the one above being a prime example). Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please notice, Jamen Somasu has been blocked indefinitely for a number of issues. Digirami (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan

This editor has been warned previously about making comments about other editors. This comment is clearly unacceptable. In the past this user backs off after being warned (usually by an admin) but returns after things quieten down again with the same comments and behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Far from being "unacceptable", that comment seems to be a fair assessment of your agenda. Is it your intention to force your pov by having everyone who opposes it banned? Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's behaviour like this that has the community commenting on your behaviour. Do you think its helpful? All it does is shows that you really don't understand WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you actually want to be blocked to give you some time to read core policy? --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "community", just a few malcontents who get bent out of shape when the truth is pointed out to them. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HK, why don't you raise a complaint about User:Bjmullan? See his recent edit summaries! MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you complain about me MBM, you troll me enough. Bjmullan (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't "troll" you, but I do study all of your edits in detail, for obvious reasons. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Shame you don't check your own... Bjmullan (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

An AN/I report was filed yesterday. This can be closed. Thanks for the ... help? --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(the) Ohio State University

User:75.23.202.149 has made multiple reverts of content related to Ohio State University by placing the word "the" in front of "Ohio State University" -- normally, something that could be handled through discussions. To make matters worse, the user may actually be technically right in these reverts even though it appears that consensus may not be supporting such moves.

I first asked the user and other interested parties to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#More "THE" OSU B.S. (which isn't exactly a "neutral point of view" name but the discussion was already started) about the topic. To my knowledge, the user has not approached the discussion.

The user has revereted changes for at least two users, calling them "vandalism" -- one at the article Edwin Sweetland by User:Jweiss11 and another at Paul Bixler by myself.

The user has made mutliple changes in multiple articles around this topic, and it looks like we might need an outside admin to come and take a look to provide some guidance. What's the best approach to take from here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the Wikiquette issue, but have gone to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#More "THE" OSU B.S. and provided a link to WP:THE, which seems to be relevant. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I found a third accusation by the editor at Sam Willaman where the editor accused me of "dangerous vandalism" --Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Grudge over a minor editing dispute, continuing aggression

Following my tagging Sabrina Blond for an A7 speedy deletion, the creator has become incredibly hostile. He had created the page repeatedly today, and it was deleted several times. Perhaps I misunderstood WP:BLANKING, but either way, in practice, I see user talk page blanking of warnings being reverted. However, when I reverted, explaining my view of WP:BLANKING in that it isn't allowed to remove deletion notices before the issue is closed, he started flaming me on both our talk pages, and in his edit summaries.

[1][2].

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Then he started reverting my removal of a red link, without explanation.[8][9]

Eventually, the speedy was declined as he had managed to find a source and footnote it to show that the subject had actually received a notable award. I let it go, unwatched the page, and moved on. And I still got this [10]

I feel that his editing behavior has been completely inappropriate throughout. Non-communicative, bad faith assumptions, flames. --Pstanton (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• User:Pstanton was also reported by User:Rickmer to WP:AIV for "trolling" and "stalking". I declined the AIV and left a notification and comment on the user's talk page, which for the most part sums up rather well my thoughts on Rickmer's reactions to this event. Aside from an edit with a slightly puzzling summary between my initial and followup comments, however, this seems to have diffused, and I have not observed any further altercation. If both parties can agree to let this just peter out, I believe we can consider this Resolved, though I cannot presume to speak for either. - Vianello (Talk) 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was frankly going to let it go as well, and ignore it when he made this final edit[11], which I thought was amazingly petty. And, honestly, I want to take down the image he has up on his talkpage, User_talk:Rickmer. I would do it myself, as I think it violates WP:UP#POLEMIC, but he has made it clear that any attempt to communicate on his talk page from me is "stalking", and so I wanted to at least discuss it first. That is my only real interest in this issue unless he continues in like vein. --Pstanton (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request, I think. In your position, I wouldn't really feel comfortable having it up there either. If User:Rickmer would be all right with burying that visual hatchet I think we can settle this. Does that sound agreeable? - Vianello (Talk) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely. --Pstanton (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, its been 3 days since Rickmer has done anything.... Would someone be willing to remove his picture per WP:UP#POLEMIC? If he is just going to ignore it, I'd like have the picture, or at least the reference and link to my userpage removed from that picture and move on. --Pstanton (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, since there is no objection I have dealt with it myself and consider the matter closed. --Pstanton (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours.  Sandstein  19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind robust discussion, but this individual has overstepped the mark. I left a message on his talk page here asking him to discuss on the talk page before removing material that is the subject of contention. After receiving a dismissive reply, I reminded him again here of the need to discuss. His response here was to tell me to stop my "fucking games". I left him a warning about his offensive language and personal attack here; he responded here by telling me to "grow the fuck up". I think Wikipedia can do without this kind of infantile behavior. BlackCab (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup sounds like some good advice. You can bitch and moan but if you aren't competent enough to read the diffs I odn't know what else to say. You seem to like to hold others accountable for their behavior yet take none of your own. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)\

So now that you want to run to other people and cover for your fuck ups want to explain your comments here?

Hey I though tit was pithy, consider your own reversions.....[[12]], [[13]]. Looks aq little like the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you think? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the diffs you provided above were mine, so whatever point you're trying to make lacks any validity. Unlike you, I have spelt out my reasons for editing the article the way I have. If you're not prepared to discuss changes you make to articles, then don't make them. BlackCab (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit in the diffs supplied by Hell In A Bucket (the more recent version in both diffs is the same version) was made by me, with the simple edit summary, "copyedit, redundancy", and consisted of uncontested edits. The (two different) old versions in both the diffs were by BlackCab, but don't seem to support Hell In A Bucket's point either. If an accusation is being made of my edit as awkwardly implied by these diffs, please explain more clearly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let's move him to the right, all wikilawyering aside how does this explain anything? [[14]] and [[15]]. Does everyone feel like the world makes sense again now that blackcabs comment went from leftside to right? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain who this other Black Cab fellow is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's Break this down. Let's play connect the dots for BlackCab since he's obviously having difficulty telling reality from fantasy.

Diff 1 [[16]] Where I specifically ask him to discuss a change he is making on the Jehovahs witness page.

Diff 2 [[17]] Where BlackCab specifically refused any discussion.

Diff 3 [[18]] <y reversion to the insistence on not discussing on talkpage.

Diff 4 [[19]] Blackcab completely ignores the request for discussion and accuses me of what I'm asking him to do.

Diff 5 See above pasted comments to my requests for clarification and the refusal to answer.

Whatever is happening here you have a SPA that is gaming the system and play victim when he is not even close to being one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And more obscenities here. BlackCab (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I use the word fuck. Get used to it or ignore it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.  Sandstein  19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to this issue, which is still apparently not resolved, Hell in a Bucket still is having issues. In response to complaining about the block on a article talk page[20] a user responded to his talk page[21] to which Hell in a Bucket insisted that it wasn't his fault and the blocking admin was "BLOCK HAPPY", in violation of good faith guidelines.[22] I responded by pointing out that the behavior for which he was blocked was explicitly prohibited by WP:CIVIL here[23]. His response was to blank the entire discussion as "bullshit"[24] and to leave a rant on my talk page telling me that he doesn't care about my opinion, and "posting crap". When I subsequently reverted as vandalism being told that my opinion was "crap", I got this snide remark.[25] Which was then reversed with "fuck it, it aint even worth the time."[26]

--Pstanton (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, did you think this [27] was going to lessen the heat of the situation? If people keep poking at him what do you think is going to happen. Give the guy a little breathing space, jumping at him for the high crime of using the phrase "block happy" is adding drama for no gain.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to give him space, but considering he keeps bringing it up, I'm not sure why you are implying that I am harassing him. I made a single edit on his talk page, disagreeing with him and showing the policy I think he violated in response to his claim that the block was not his fault. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so heated, but he has had the same fact pointed out to him repeatedly by other users and admins. And despite your sarcastic reference to it as "high crime", I actually do think it is completely inappropriate to flame  Sandstein  as editing in bad faith. And my other edit was an apology, some advice and a request that he not use obscenities when editing my talk page. I do not consider this "poking". --Pstanton (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Berean Hunter

Resolved

 – Valkyrie Red has been blocked for another month for disruptive editing, treating Wikipedia as a battleground, personal attacks, and canvassing. Netalarm^talk 18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Before my latest block, I was insulted by user Berean Hunter on the Battle of Gettysburg talk page. You can read his text as follows:

Note the canvassing here, here, here, here...probably more but no need to keep looking. I can't believe this pissant is still bothering the adults. A review of his contribs show that he is at best, trifling. His motivations which are completely incorrect can be seen here. Either get a clue or get out. You are distracting the productive & constructive editors with your trifling. Talk about disruptive.... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Ouch. You better take a look at WP:NPA. Remember to comment on content, not contributor. Also taking a look at Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding would help you cooperate better.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (face palm) I have no interest in seeing you stay around and do not want to cooperate with you. I stated last September that you were a waste of time. You burned up any good faith that you had coming long ago. You need to be indef-blocked or at the very least topic-banned (but I'm in favor of the former). You have a history of edit-warring and the deception you pulled in your lame sockpuppetry attempt means that you are not worthy of respect. Right, Abl3igail? As for NPA, I don't take advice from the one who said of the other editors here..."Wow, you guys are jerks." (12 November 2009 in the archives) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And do you know what happened. I ended up getting banned for "edit warring" while this user just received a warning. How unfair is that? I never insulted him yet all he gets is a warning. I wasn't even really edit warring. Not only that, but this was done by the corrupt Administrator MLauba. If you notice, Mlauba removed Berean Hunter's worst comments just so that I couldn't use that in an unblock request (which he also directly said in this comment: Given the circumstances, I hope you'll forgive me for having taken the necessary steps directly, but I really would hate to have your edits become part of his unblock request. Enjoy the peace while it lasts :) MLauba (Talk) 23:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC) He also apologizes for warning him!

I want justice. I want this user banned, MLauba's administrative powers taken away, and an apology. Yes, I know that I made quite a few mistakes on my own part, but that doesn't mean I have to be the only one punished.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you aren't going to get what you want... the user isn't going to be banned and User:MLauba isn't going to lose administrative access. You've been blocked 5 times, all for disruptive editing and/or edit warring. Just by looking at this, I'd suggest you review your own actions and think if you were reasonable. Now, I've looked at the talk page discussion, and I have to agree with the blocking administrator. Comments such as So you're telling me that you use the NPS whenever it supports you and you don't use it whenever it doesn't help you. Way to remain unbiased--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC) are unnecessary and tend to escalate the situation. The users you are complaining against have much more edits and have been on Wikipedia much longer, so it can be inferred that they know Wikipedia guidelines and policies better than you. However, I understand that you also know the policies, but there's no need to be so pointy with other editors.

Take a look at User:Berean_Hunter's comments on the page, particularly Note the canvassing here, here, here, here...probably more but no need to keep looking. redacted. A review of his contribs show that he is at best, trifling. His motivations which are completely incorrect can be seen here.. He clearly points out your canvassing other editors to join the argument on yourself, which is unacceptable behavior. I'd suggest you drop this and avoid such confrontations in the future. Netalarm^talk 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, why did I even try? Wikipedia is full of corrupt editors. I am so sorry that I even tried. Please forgive me for wasting your time. I'll pull this out.Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sumbuddi

Stale

 – 11:43, 10 June 2010

I have tried suggesting compromises, I have tried arguing the issues, I have even tried invoking as third party to resolve the dispute. Sumbuddi continues, time and time again, to revert any change to the "Nicola_Blackwood" article back to his own first version. he has been warned about the three revision rule, and ignored it. He was specifically warned by the third party not to revert anymore, he ignored it. I have suggested a half dozen compromises, changing phrasing, giving way, including his clearly POV comments at times, in an effort to bring some semblance of impartiality to the article on Miss Blackwood, all have failed and just resulted in him, every time, instantly reverting to the same version. he has even stopped posting in the discussion, or even trying to argue his point. He doesnt like Blackwood, and clearly favours her defeated opponent, and refuses to even consider a more balanced approach. I will readily admit I was getting frustrated and snippy, and made a few insulting comments after WEEKS of this absurd behaviour on his part: my bad, I should not have lowered myself to his level. Hey if its determined I went overboard, I'll take my lumps.

Can someone please step in and tell him his actions are counterproductive, that ignoring the rules of Wiki and third party warnings is not helpful, and that his opinion might NOT be the absolute divine truth he imagines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Non English Wikipedia - Ethics at lt.wikipedia.org

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – meta-wiki.

Can please someone direct me to the right person overlooking non English Wikipedia administrators actions? I have been restricted for 2 weeks for trying to correct, expand articles. I am not truly worried about this particular aspect, just for comparison - vandalism block period is usually 3 days. After further research, I noticed the negativity filled, emotional comments, indicative of admins(some) inability to keep their personal emotions aside when making decisions. For example, for vandalism, user is blocked for few days; whereas, user who is trying to contribute to the article, and who is outspoken, is blocked for 2 weeks. I took an effort to add a comment "please do not delete changes, I will return to further improve the article"

I was blocked. And if you look at the history, among other vandalism accused visitors. Here is the blocked user list, which I hope will provide some insight as to why, prior to becoming administrator, user should pass some standard ethics training.

Recent blocks, bans

Most recently, one of the admins, suggested closing Lithuanian wiki off shoot - Closure_of_Samogitian_Wikipedia I think this stemmed from inner conflicts. And one admin's hatred for such project (as indicated by the use of offensive language by "his roommate"), to which he replied, "it must have been my roommate". Here is the history: abusive language by admin. To summarize, the language includes numerous dirty words.

Comments in regards to the users contributions: "article is full of mistakes, users own interpretations. Such articles hardly have any use. But the main reason for blocking the user, he is the same user, who has been blocked for trolling. (referring to user: Turbo )

My block was explained as:

"Making many mistakes, ignoring notices, such practice is continuing". Instead of marking the article "check needed", my contribs were deleted.

Other admins fight among, with phrases such as:

User:Martynas Patasius 22:06, 9 June, 2010 (EEST)" "I am afraid, that you are just as worth of being a wiki admin as Celestine the forth was worth being a pope. I would advise to consider this decision (which I think was admirable), even though - admin is not a pope, everything is fixable by voting."

I beg you to review my contribs, some deleted, My Contribs. My experience on en.wikipedia was pleasant - if somebody is upset with me editing the content of page too often, I receive a massage in my comment section, urging to act differently. My contribs

I am interested in maintaining Lithuanian language roots, yet, in the comments that explain the deletions of my edits, you can usually find vague, almost personal attacking comments - "explanations" - unsuitable style, errors, attempts to edit the page. One of such pages, I have edited, and left a remark, "please do not delete, it will be reformatted, any possible errors fixed", can be found here: recent attempt to fix errors, expand, and make text more understandable.

Translation is possible via translate.google.com ...

Furthermore, recent users that have been blocked:

User Hugo.arg - blocked for supposed attacks on the members.

user - accused the user of being a clone of similarly named user, although the articles of these users were different in nature - one was strictly focused on biochemistry, other - politics.

Another user, whose contribs are deleted. User Nomad was kind to leave an explanation on the user's page; it said that "if it is not difficult, review random articles (atsitiktiniai straipsniai) and compare the difference. good advise, btw. If this was English wiki, we would have goodhearted volunteers who would be willing to fix new article in five minutes. But this is Lithuanian wiki, not too many people, everyone wants to write their articles, but nobody wants to help fix content of other users, for this reason disorganized and non-wikipedian (articles not adhering to wiki writing standards) are simply deleted."

I wonder if they have any idea who is sponsoring them, and that Wikipedia is supposed to attract members, even if they might lack skills initially, not to distract them. I assure you, recent actions by few admins, are doing just that, at least for me, it appears to be discouraging for new members. If article has errors, there is a comment section, which is not suitable for such insults as "you should at least be able to write cohesively", better yet - "there are doubts about professional competency". - from user Snooker

I am genuinely concerned about the future of the community, and I wish there was some outside review. Whole lt.wiki is becoming a kindergarten-like environment - with some admins, who are either emotionally drained (I hope that's the case), or they just don't bother stopping before going on to express their negative remarks. Even fighting among admins, ex-amins seen in blocks lists for Hugo.org, for example. Hence, my inquiry for the need of some training and some advise for such admins. PS. I wanted to make sure that the rollback abuse is ongoing. Psilocin (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to appeal either at meta-wiki (I do not know the exact page) or to the Arbitration Committee at lt.wikipedia (if any). en.wikipedia has absolutely no authority over other Wikimedia Foundation-run wikis. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rockgenre

Resolved

 – Filing party blocked at AN3.

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

---

This user has been consistently edit warring, and frequently makes spurious accusations of activity that never took place. Recently, he has been edit warring over at list of nu metal bands, repeatedly adding the band Tons, with sources that only refer to Snot, a former name and a different band. This editor has also falsely accused me of breaking 3RR for reverting his vandalism on this article, despite the fact that there are two different edits and I did not violate 3RR on this or any other article, despite the fact that this user claims that I have previously edit warred. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:33, 11 June 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:Viriditas

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

Resolved

 – The reporter recommends closing the thread. Please remove the status change I've made if this is not properly closed (as I am not an administrator)... Doc9871 (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

After having it made abundantly clear that he was no longer welcome on my talk page, he has continued to post there. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't use Rollback for edits like this. It isn't vandalism, and by reverting it instead of "undoing" it with an edit summary, you are risking losing your Rollback privileges. Not what the tool was meant for... no? Doc9871 (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Using rollback in your own user space is explicitly allowed per WP:ROLLBACK. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lest we forget: you don't own your user page, either. Use Rollback judiciously; I've seen it taken away a few times (not from me, mind you ;>) - edit summaries are always encouraged for edits, except in cases of truly blatant vandalism (and these were not)... Doc9871 (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware it can be taken away, but if it is taken away for that then WP:ROLLBACK and WP:REMOVED may need some clarification. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use Rollback for these sorts of edits (wherever they be): you may lose the tool, and the policies on it stand (thanks for the tip ;>). Do what you feel is appropriate. "Undo" is just as easy, and provides a place to leave a comment to justify your revisions. Rollback is really for blatant vandalism only: use it at your peril. Good luck :> ... Doc9871 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If all that's going to come of me filing a report here is a lecture about using rollback, feel free to mark this as resolved. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:35, 10 June 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:133.7.7.240

We're having trouble at Japanese phonology with User:133.7.7.240, who is engaged in repeated personal attacks, slurs, profanity, and generally being a WP:DICK. I would have blocked him for being a troll, but there is something in what he says (though not as much as he seems to think), so there is potential to improve the article. The rants are juvenile, but are starting to get old, and were burying the talk page, so I've deleted long sections of personal attacks and the like. I've warned him on his talk page, but the behavior continues. This is apparently not a noob, and apparently he has an account he's not bothering to use (blocked, perhaps?) — kwami (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you please provide some diffs where the personal attacks have occurred? warrior4321 16:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No diffs from me, however the IP's only contributions have been at Talk:Japanese phonology. Note that I did block the IP, however it was for vandalism, and I unblocked when I realised that the (unsigned) contributions I'd seen had been to the talk page. TFOWR 18:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies

Some time before being reported for a 3RR violation, this editor was generally civil. Very rapidly he has turned to mockery, assumptions of bad faith, refusal to meet the burden of proof for his edits, weak/baseless wikilawyering, creating strawmen of my objections, and general incivility.

This all seems to stem from my rejection of his "solution," wherein he has decided that incorporating all of the proposed assertions from different editors must lead to a satisfactory result, regardless of the objections to possible WP:OR and balance problems.

I'd appreciate assistance in getting back to more productive comments. BigK HeX (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3

I haven't gotten in many edit wars before, so I wasn't sure where to go. This seems appropriate though.

This arose from a concern I originally had discussed at WP:AN#Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Group C about how to properly show that England and the United States are currently tied for 2nd place in Group C of the FIFA World Cup. Right now there's a green line between them that makes it look like one will advance to the quarterfinals of the World Cup and one won't.

That's not why I am here though, I am here because the user PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) has made a constructive consensus edit showing this impossible after multiple incivil or semi-uncivil comments [28],[29],[30],[31], etc.

I readily admit I did not deal with this as well as I should have.[32],[33] but I tried to de-escalate any tension by apologizing for my wording [34].

I'm not sure where to go from here. The United States and England are currently tied for 2nd place. I do not want to continue the back and forth with this other user, but I cannot accept their assertion that putting a dark green line in between England and the US would not give the impression that one team is in 2nd place and another is in 3rd. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think any incivility has been very modest and that the matter should be discussed at project talk towards a resolution of your concern, which I do understand. --John (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing vandalism

I would like to know if others agree that it is uncivil for an administrator (1) to make insinuations of edit-warring against an editor who is trying to remove vandalism and (2) to threaten to block an editor for removing vandalism. You might consider my remarks at User_talk:Pyrrhon8#edit_warring and at Talk:Dignity#Vandalism2. PYRRHON  talk   17:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be, but since what you're reverting doesn't appear to be vandalism as it's defined here, you should consider that you do not have immunity from 3RR and the warnings are simply a courtesy being extended to you. --Onorem♠Dil 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur - the reversions being done by Pyrrhon do not appear to meet the definition of vandalism, and thus a block for 3RR could be forthcoming. Pyrrhon would do well to learn from the gently warnings, and perhaps request mentorship. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"All or significant parts" does not equate to "your pet paragraph". This was not vandalism, that is absolutely unambiguous. Forum shopping this is a really bad idea and will get you more scrutiny not more support. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:WillBildUnion

This user constantly refuses to assume good faith. He has been accusing User:Arthur Rubin ([35], [36] [37]), and me ([38] [39]) of "stalking, vandalizing and terrorizing edits and of trying to dominate Wikipedia." There's this nice combo where, after a multiple requests in other talk pages to assume good faith, he accuses both of us of improper behavior. In retaliation to Arthur Rubin asking him to wait for consensus for his changes, he tag-spammed the article about Arthur. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am all to assume good faith, and my purpose is to make Wikipedia better with other users. However it have been fairly hard, as mentioned user kept constantly deleting my edits, but now he seems to satisfy only over-tagging my edits.

I am to make articles better and contribute a lot to edited articles that been on focus, like Caesarion, Cleopatra VII, donations of Alexandria etc. That being said, I assume it to be assumed, that the input I do is based on sources like Suetonius, Seneca, Pliny younger and elder etc. From ancient to present day sources.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE, you don't require people to assume where you're getting your sources from, you cite them. This has been explained to you before ([40], [41]). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: WillBildUnion continues to tag-spam the Arthur Rubin and nominated it for deletion. Given his editting history, it is clear he has done this is out of spite for User:Arthur Rubin, and is another sign of not assuming good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The deletion was reissued inorder to meet Wikipedia standards, as the article was violating too many tags. The tags was not spam. The article should be moved to Arthur_Rubin_(mathematician) at least. Concerning my time here there's an ongoing discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Caesarion_section

My intension are nothin more than to assume good faith, but I got bitten, hounded, harassed, vandalized, terrorized and dominated by useradmin(s).WillBildUnion (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And it's only a coincidence that you were the one to place those tags after Arthur Rubin corrected some of your edits and tried to explain Wikipedia basics, right? "bitten, hounded, harassed, vandalized, terrorized and dominated" is NOT assuming good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Long time disruptive editor

An anonymous editor has been extremely disruptive and abusive for quite some time and it really is at the last straw. On two occasions I have had to get the page Gospel of the Hebrews protected due to their constant disruptive edits. The editor refuses to use the talk page, and now that they are using it is for the simple reason of personal attacks. They have received a final warning from an admin on their previous IP address here however it appears they have abandoned that to avoid being held responsible. Now it seems they are accusing me of what they have been accused of by admins and other editors (e.g. trolling, use of sockpuppets, personal attacks, etc.) Can something be done about this? I have been an editor on Wikipedia for five years and have never had to deal with such uncivil, dishonest and disruptive behaviour for so long. Their current IP address is: User:207.81.154.64. --Ari (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A table illustration:

User	Issues	Anonymous users reaction
User:Eusebeus	Anonymous editor has been pushing a wp:fringe theory and gives wp:undue weight to fringe theories.	Personally attacked Eusebeus.
User:DustFormsWords	Stated the edits by the anonymous editor show "many of the danger signs of a POV article - subjective language ("the most important"), passive voice ("it is thought"), subjective summarisation ("scholars agree"), and synthesis of published sources ("if this be so")." Reverted POV and non-consensus edits.	Personal attacks against DustFormsWords and accusations of being a sockpuppet and edit warrer.
User:SpigotMap	Noted the anonymous user was a Sockpuppet and that their edits were extremely POV	Attacked SpigotMap calling him a "problem editor."
User:ari89	Noted a POV push of fringe theories, reverted forceful disruptive editing, got page protected on two separate occasions to force discussion	Personal attacks on multiple talk pages, but no discussion on the topic.

A common theme arises. Most obviously, multiple editors have pointed out the disruptive behaviour of the anonymous editor. Whether they be extreme POV pushing, edit warring or personal attacks. --Ari (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

animal abuse used as photo subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Puffed_up_Pufferfish.jpg

The image shows a 'puffed' diodon (holocanthus) out of the watter yet still alive. This kind of fish does not normally imflate unless it's put to a verry high level of stress or life threatening situation that could lead to death. Please reffer also to image source comments where to find massive complains about the picture.

The photo mislead readers to believe that it is natural for the fish to behave like that and it is encouraging to animal stress and abuse. Please remove photo from wikipedia, people should not be encouraged to view abused animals of what so ever.

Thanks.

Regards, Cornel I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.48.217 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the image itself or its global usage that is inconsistent with policy. It illustrates natural behavior. It is natural for the fish to behave that way. It is in a life threatening situation (thanks to a large primate not shown), as are the animals shown in the factory farming and animal testing articles. I suppose many people might think that those images show morally indefensible cruelty and encourage animal stress and abuse but those images and the inflated diodon image are consistent with the image use policy and illustrate the subject matter rather well. Wikipedia has many images of natural behavior and human activities that some people find disturbing but that isn't grounds for removing them if they are policy compliant, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Animal experiences are regulated by some institutions and normally they have a "good" scope which, definetely, is not people entertainment, as it happen with the imflated diodon took out of the water just for amusement and photo shoot. If that photo was taken underwater, where these fishes are living, it may be regarded as showing natural behavoir under some threatening circumstantions but the fish is out of water therefore is no way of it to display a natural behavoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.48.217 (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What you are arguing is ludicrous. We pull crocs out of the water and harass other animals for TV for the purpose of filming them. Some of these animals try to bite because they are stressed. There is absolutely nothing illegal in this picture. Have you ever watched a fizhing or hungting show? Animals get killed in front of camera and the fish are help out of the water for a time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Uh, the image isn't an en.wiki image. It's hosted over at commons. If you're really concerned, I'd suggest raising it at the commons' admins' noticeboard. I have to say, though, I suspect that their response will be broadly similar to the one you've received here. TFOWR 17:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rockgenre

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Not a wikiquette issue. Content issues should be discussed on the article's talk page. Netalarm^talk 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This user is continuing to remove sourced content and edit war. Sources for the band Tons (band) state that it is a punk rock band. User is belligerent and claims that his revision is "correct", despite the fact that it is not backed up by the sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

This isn't a WQA issue. It's more of a content issue. Just a note, the reporting user User:Sugar Bear has been blocked for edit warring (and it's not the first block for that). A discussion should be held on the article's talk page to resolve this dispute. Netalarm^talk 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:SergeWoodzing

Stale

 – 23:12, 14 June 2010

I have also expressed my concern regarding the user here: [[42]], but, being ignorent about how these things are done, I may have placed it in the wrong place. Perhaps it should be here instead? User:SergeWoodzing is generally hard to discuss with, as he repeats the same arguments without listening at others. He has now started an argument about a caricature on Sophia Magdalena of Denmark, usng the exact same argument used in an exact same discussion on the correcponding article on Swedish wp: there, all the arguments was voted down, and now, he uses those very same arguments here, were the attention to the article may be less than at Swedish wp, as that is the country native to the subject. He has generally a quite offensive tone. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment check out WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As a new editor to Wikipedia, I have made it my mission to seek out disputes and solve them. The caricature on the page that you, Paul McDonald, discuss, although at first glance it may look offensive, is not. It is of historical importance and should not be gotten rid of. Wikipedia is not censored. I believe that the reason why he is generally offensive is because he is offended and thinks that you are insulting his country. I am sure that there is a way to settle this. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

You might want to get more experience on Wikipedia first before trying to solve other users' problems. For example, you'll want to sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ Netalarm^talk 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandynewton

I am having a problematic discussion with Sandynewton (talk · contribs · logs · block log) on Talk:Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States, who is exhibiting a hostile attitude sprinkled with discriminatory comments, incivility, and lack of assuming of good faith. As Sandynewton seems a new editor, I have tried to gently inform them of policy and that the hostility is counterproductive to the resolution of the content disputes we are having. These have been met with more hostility and incivility, for example: Also, Mr. Blackworm, stop telling people what to do unless you can come up with one reason they would obey you. Okay! Yes, I am making fun of you, if you're not quite certain. Will you threaten me with some esoteric Wiki WP:1234567890ßDFGHJKLÖ regulation?[43] If others believe it is warranted, I think perhaps a gentle reminder from an uninvolved third party that civility policies are not optional might cause the offending behaviour to finally stop, and help move the content discussion forward. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment to their talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "problematic discussion" is quite accurate. The user Blackworm deletes entire paragraphs with peer-reviewed, published research while adding "reliable" sources like menstuff.org to the article and lecturing me on objectivity. He is arguing that the claims of one Mr. Farrell who believes in an imaginary "danger wage premium" are relevant and "true" although the U.S. Bureau of Labor has shown that there is no such thing as a "danger wage premium." I have been working on this article for a couple of days and I have added about 50 reliable references and sources while this person has been deleting things and started pointless, irrelevant discussions of an "education gap," "astronauts and clerks," and how it is okay for studies about workplace discrimination to ignore actual workplace discrimination. And then the User Blackworm writes a "Wikiquette alert" about me. Perhaps someone should keep an eye on the user Blackworm and his destructive behavior. Good day. Sandynewton (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is to discuss wikiquette. Let's say you are 100% correct and the other editor is 100% wrong: your approach was still not appropriate for Wikipedia and Blackworm did the right thing by mentioning the matter here. Note that many (most?) new users find our procedures baffling, and the fact that this discussion is here is trivial and finished because you are likely to respond to the advice given (to spell that out: do not repeat the attack of describing another editor as destructive). Please stick to the article talk page when discussing content. For information on how to proceed over a content dispute, see WP:Dispute resolution. If you want, feel free to ask my opinion regarding any Wikipedia issues by posting on my talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Cailil has responded to this WQA on Talk:Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States [44] [45]. I agree with Cailil's comments thus far. However, Cailil and I have a history of heated disputes, including accusing me of treating Wikipedia as a battleground,[46] and still to my knowledge bans me from speaking to them on their Talk page.[47] For those reasons, I object to Cailil's responding to this Wikiquette alert I posted and seemingly taking charge of the situation in Cailil's capacity as a Wikipedia administrator. Wikiquette alerts are an opportunity to "Intervene as a neutral third party" (WP:WQA) and Cailil is clearly not neutral as regards to me, with abundant evidence. Although Cailil's comments are appropriate thus far, I believe there is still bias there (for example, Cailil did not address Sandynewton's continued personal attacks on me), and see no validity in Cailil's implicit claim of being an uninvolved, neutral third party in this matter. Cailil, if you read this, please know that I am willing to put the past behind us and work constructively, but also please understand that in the absence of any move toward reconciliation on your part (e.g., a note saying it's okay for me to talk to you?), I am very hesitant to endorse your moderating this dispute. Thank you for understanding. Blackworm (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of this response but I needed to make a number of points.
Blackworm, I do not believe that I have "taken charge of things" here. Indeed I never mentioned being a sysop on the talk page where I made two posts in total[48][49]. Nor have I taken it upon myself to moderate this as such. To be clear WP:WQA responders don't need to be sysops (Johnuniq, who seems to be doing an excellent job of dealing with this here, isn't one - at least to my knowledge) it's got nothing to do with being an admin.
In this case it was very clear that you were dealing with someone new to WP who does not yet grasp the finer points of this project's rules. Johnuniq made posts to Sandynewton's talk page and here re: civility policy that pointed out their inappropriate remarks to you. I attempted to underline the points you made on that page to Sandynewton in order for them to get the message re editing policy so that they could learn how to use the project properly. I did not, and am not, setting myself up as a mediator in this case (or any other). I posted to correct User:Sandynewton on matters of policy, to answer her question re content, and suggest ways for her to move towards being a fully rounded wikipedian in hope that that would resolve the dispute. In other words I gave what I hope was a constructive 2c in response to a dispute which had at its begin some source related questions.
The above post tends to present me as if I were "out to get you" - I'm not. Your actions here were appropriate and proper - if they weren't I would have said so. I hope you and Sandynewton can work together constructively. And as regards the ban/bar from my talk-space I'm happy at this point to lift it.
For the sake of clarity, again I am not setting myself up as a mediator here and any interventions I make, in this or other instances, are as a volunteer working towards a project where everyone works towards consensus. If I were to put my admin hat on it would be prefaced in a comment with an emboldened "administrative note" or by saying "as an admin" etc--Cailil ^talk 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, thank you. Your reply is welcome, but still somewhat unsatisfactory. I thought I was clear that I was more concerned about the "neutral third party" part than the administrator part, and you did not address our history, your neutrality with respect to me (in light of WQA's insistence that only neutral, uninvolved editors respond), nor did you address my claim that you have failed to address continued behavioural issues while saying you were "responding to a WP:WQA report." That seems very unfair to me. Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm I would have thought since I have not made any comment to or about you visa vie your dispute with Sandynewton that the matter of my "neutrality with respect to" you is moot, and should be covered within an assumption of good faith. (I cannot be asked to defend myself against something I have not done.) Secondly as I stated Johnuniq had dealt with the civility aspects and since there were no further comments to you by Sandynewton that I am aware of there is no need to double up the warnings. If Sandynewton returns to the original behaviour I will reassess this position but I'm assuming I wont have to. Finally, when representing what another editor says Blackworm it is best to quote verbatim and provide context. You have presented me as saying i was "responding to a WP:WQA report". The fact is when Sandynewton responded to my advice regarding sourcing she said I should re-source the material she doesn't like. My reply was to recommend she follow WP:WFTE and do that herself as I was "responding to a WQA report more than anything else"[50]. perhaps you don't see it but there is a subtle difference in the manner that you present me and what is recorded in the diff.
At this point Blackworm unless there is new evidence of breaches of wikiquette re: Sandynewton this thread should be closed, and that particular matter should have a line drawn under it--Cailil ^talk 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, I think it completely unreasonable for me or anyone else to assume that you qualify as a neutral, uninvolved third party in disputes I'm involved in, after you have (a) "banned" me from replying to you on your Talk page, even reaffirming it after one post to your Talk page 11 months after the "ban,"[51] and (b) argued my "tendentiousness" and that I treat Wikipedia as a battleground in an official Wikipedia forum. If you belabor this point, or attempt to cast my disagreement with the assertion that you are a neutral uninvolved third party in disputes I'm involved in as a failure on my part to assume good faith, I firmly believe that community consensus will agree with me that you, in fact, are violating policy, specifically WP:CIVIL (WP:BAIT), and WP:NPA. Enough is enough.

Regarding your statement, "since there were no further comments to you by Sandynewton," That is not correct. Johnuniq posted to Sandynewton's talk page 00:12, 11 June 2010.[52] Sandynewton then posted this in a comment to me: "Perhaps someone who defends an imaginary 'danger wage premium' should refrain from lecturing anyone on 'flawed logic.'" (00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC))[53] Immediately following that post is your response to Sandynewton in which you do not address that mild personal attack, or indeed any behaviour.

I don't see any difference, even subtle, between the part from you I quoted (verbatim, as in copy and paste, unlike your "verbatim" quote) as far as the context of my statement. The only relevant context is that you said you were responding to a WQA report, and that you made no statements on etiquette -- indeed, besides the failure to comment on Sandynewton's continued personal attacks, you went so far as to state that Sandynewton's singling out of "men" as problematic editors was merely off-topic and thus inappropriate "rhetoric"[54], citing WP:TALK, rather than pointing to it as the blatantly discriminatory incivility that it was. Contrary to your claim above, that diff shows clearly that you did make a comment related to our behavioural dispute, even if you didn't apparently recognize it as one (another misstep, IMO). I see all of these things together as a huge failure in your supposed WQA response, well worthy of noting here especially since you continue to deny any error in judgment or indeed any problem at all with your involvement in this dispute. Blackworm (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The best course of action now would be to close this thread since I do not see any outstanding wikiquette issues. I notice only one somewhat dubious comment since June 13, and it is best to give everyone space to settle down. I see that there are some robust disagreements at the article, and some form of content dispute resolution may eventually be required, but continuing here will not help. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree Johnuniq re: the dispute on the page. As for your comments Blackworm - take it up at ANI if you wish. This is an inappropriate forum to air your issue with me as it is a thread about Sandynewton's wikiquette violation. For clarity and openness it would best for you to take any issue there. A link to this thread and to the talk page would give others access to history if you so wish to pursue this--Cailil ^talk 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm/personal threat

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

Resolved

 – Simple misunderstanding of the expression "Facepalm", no apparent intent of physical threat or incivility. Dreadstar ☥ 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of poorly performing college football coaches, User:Tarc used something called a "facepalm" which to me came across as a desire to physically strike and cause harm. When I posted that it made me uncomfortable, the user responded by telling me to "thicken up your skin a bit" and accused me of being disruptive for responding to comments in the AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See facepalm. While I can understand someone not recognizing the term, I wouldn't see it as a threat myself. --Onorem♠Dil 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a misunderstanding based on Paul's having never encountered the phrase before. It's a fairly well-trod online meme to indicate frustration with something that someone feels should be obvious. As in, you hit yourself in the forehead with the palm of your hand, V8 (beverage) style. — e. ripley\^talk 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the perfect time to use it would be right here and now in response to this thread. This is like not knowing what a lolcat is. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While I did not understand the term, the editor used the phrase "facepalm anyone" which indicated a direction of smakcing me in the face. A civil editor would have figured that out from my post following and we wouldn't be here now. Instead, the editor become more aggressive and insulting. See also Template talk:Facepalm--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You flipped out and took a common internet meme badly; that is your fault, not mine, I don't have psychic powers that allow me to see what you think and how you interpret things, it had nothing to do with civility. The onus for all of this is squarely on you, and I have nothing more to say on this topic. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* You have to be kidding here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. Paul, Tarc used some mildly intemperate language out of frustration, and hasn't made much of an attempt to soothe you about it, but you also played a role in inciting things when you nominated Template:Facepalm for speedy deletion as G10, a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity. Clearly inappropriate for a speedy candidate in any case, but particularly inappropriate for G10. Anyway, this is getting silly. Paul, Tarc clearly didn't intend any sort of attack, so it would probably be best to drop this line of inquiry. Tarc, Paul clearly didn't understand what you meant, so try not to badger him. Now we all know what it means, and people have been appropriately chastised, so let's move on. — e. ripley\^talk 16:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While we're being clear, I gave it the G10 in good faith under my understanding\interpretation at the time. It was quickly handled.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

They didn't say they would "facepalm anyone" in their comment. They said they would "facepalm any attempt to add..." Your not knowing what facepalm means, I can understand the misunderstanding. --Onorem♠Dil

Facepalm Facepalm is a self-act or expression generally used to show embarrassment or disbelief, it is not a physical action upon anyone else. Right now, I'm sure several people are sitting at their keyboards facepalming over this thread. Simple misunderstanding, not a threat of violence. Doesn't even rise to the level of being whacked with a wet trout. Dreadstar ☥ 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hate speech

Resolved

 – Wikipedia is not censored. The user's only compaint is about the content, not about the edits of any editor. Netalarm^talk 23:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing more than hate speech. I can't imagine that this is not against wikipedia's policies. Please advise or remove this entry. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNSAP (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how this is an etiquette issue and why it should be addressed here. Ignoring that, as far as I can see, this is a well-sourced article that does not violate Wikipedia's policies (which includes not censoring offensive material). Please expand this report. Thank you. --13² 04:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved. The user's only complaint is about the content of the page, not about any editor. Regarding the article, it does not violate any Wikipedia policies, since Wikipedia is not censored. Netalarm^talk 23:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Bradsp

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Proceed to WP:ANI if need be.

The above is a comparatively new editor who has become involved in material relating to the Bible Student movement, the precursor to the organization now called Jehovah's Witnesses. He has specifically repeatedly commented to the effect that people other than Charles Taze Russell had to play important roles in the movement, despite not producing any sourcing to that effect. He has also begun discussion about how content can and should be changed to better reflect this unsourced contention. He has been told, repeatedly, that sources are required for such changes, but has not provided any such sources and continues in the same vein anyway. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Bradsp (also signs off occasionally as "BACnet" and as anonymous IP addresses 24.60.x.x [55], 207.76.105.235[56] and 76.19.x.x) has been requested many times to provide sources for his views about the development of the Bible Student movement, or sources indicating that the accepted history is disputed, but has failed to do so. See most sections currently at Talk:Watch_Tower_Bible_and_Tract_Society_of_Pennsylvania and Talk:William Henry Conley; also User_talk:Jeffro77#Our_new_"friend", Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#How important is William Henry Conley.3F, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Redirect proposal on Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, User_talk:Bradsp#Conley.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made clear to Jeff and John that inclusion of prominent 19th century families of Western PA should not be done in a way where Charles Taze Russell is their cult leader or part of his movement without proof. The Bible Student Movement (defined from autobiographical sources) needs to be used carefully becasue they are claims by Charles Russell. Charles Taze Russell rubbed elbows with many people since he was a teenager (the time in which his self described movement began) so editors must be careful when including people into his sphere of influence.

I think we could find consensus on these issues if this was not being personalized like Johns has framed the disagreement above and in the less than polite subject line. The issue is not about me providing sources of information in the discussion area. The problem is the lack of sources for the articles we are editing and the way in which John and Jeff believe we should fill in the blanks with autobiographical information by Charles Russell.

A few issues I am seeing-

1. Irresponsible usage of autobiographical references to prove a point.

2. Usage of the term Bible Student Movement when describing the president of the Zion’s Watch Tower B. T. Society and others who were in contact with Russell since he was a teenager.

3. Exaggerated and presumptuous usage of primary sourced information

This Wikiquette alert was proposed by Jeff and John Carters talk Page.here Jeffro77 wanted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Nathaniel Henry Peters-- an article I created. Members have decided in favor of keeping the article. Fortunately other members looked closely at the issues.

John you stated that you believe a puppet presidency occurred and we should refer to Russell. You stated this in a personal experience where you were in charge and an attractive president was controlled by you. Your experience is irrelevant and you should provide sources. As it stands without sources you must accept the generally defined definition of a president.

Russell does not mention who the original Bible Students were. Because Russell stated the Bible student movement was created in 1870 he could be referring to anyone. Primary autobiographical sources extracted from Russell’s self published hate letters where he condemns everyone around him including his own board directors and partners is completely inappropriate. You need to stop citing this material and where you do cite this material you should not exaggerate what was said. BradSp (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bradsp clearly does not seem to understand WP:BURDEN.

Intervention regarding Bradsp was actually suggested by JohnCarter, at my Talk page[57]. I initially suggested it might still be possible to work with Brad[58], but after continued issues, I returned to JohnCarter's original suggestion.[59] (this third link is where Brad claims I first proposed this alert.)

Before I intervened to improve the George Nathaniel Henry Peters stub, it consisted of "George Nathanial Henry Peters was a first generation fundamentalist in America. Peters great was the Theocratic Kingdom." with an irrelevant quote from one of his books. It was genuinely of poor quality with no citations. I fixed the grammar and improved the layout by adding a stub tag and an {{expand}} tag, and left the article for three weeks before suggesting deletion because no one else had bothered to improve it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Jeffro. And it seems to me that what is happening here is that Bradsp is saying that the sources available to us do not meet his personal criteria for reliability. That is fine. However, they are the only sources which have been provided to date. Bradsp has produced a very few primary sources, and argued that on the basis of those sources unfounded conclusions he has personally drawn have to be considered the default. This is clearly a contravention of wikipedia guidelines and policies. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this issue is centered on an article's content, not incivility itself, this isn't really a matter for WQA to sort out. I would recommend that if you feel Bradsp's behavior becomes disruptive to the article, proceed to ANI. Swarm^Talk 09:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of Personal Attacks by Nineteen Nightmares

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

Resolved

 – Matter was resolved at AN/I and discussion closed at that location. --GregJackP (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A section has been opened at AN/I here - please add any other comments at that location. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At the suggestion of another user I have moved the discussion to AN/I. This note can serve as a redirect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:07, 19 June 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:Tbrittreid

Resolved

 – handle on article's talk page

I seem to be involved with a bit of a brouhaha over an issue regarding the article The Green Hornet (TV series). I hadn't checked in with the article in awhile; I'd greatly expanded the section on the "Black Beauty" car some time ago. I noticed an erroneous statement regarding the car used in the series which had been added by this user. He asserts that the car is a "Chrysler Imperial" when there is no such thing as a 1966 Chrysler Imperial. In fact, earlier edits had wikis to both "Chrysler" and the article on the Imperial auto brand. Two other anons gently corrected the problem which in turn was reverted by this user with some rather unwelcome remarks in the edit summaries. I have reverted the error for about the third time and still this user is incorrectly citing the rule regarding "verifiability, not accuracy" and his edit summaries continue to be hostile. "Verifiability" in this case is not a problem either here on Wikipedia or via a simple Google search of "1966 Imperial Crown." Our own article at Imperial (automobile) correctly asserts that Imperial was a separate make and not a model in 1966, e.g., the "Black Beauty" was a 1966 Imperial Crown, not a 1966 Chrysler Imperial Crown. I speak as a lifelong auto enthusiast, contributor and creator of three automotive-related featured articles and personal experience with a 1969 Imperial LeBaron. I don't want to play "rouge administrator" and start dishing out blocks to this user, but he clearly has his facts wrong and refuses to recognize the fact that Wikipedia itself backs my claim regarding the car. Might someone please have a word with him? I don't wish to overstep my administrative bounds. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: There are any number of sites which incorrectly identify the car as a "Chrysler Imperial," including George Barris's own site. It's a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It would be like saying "Ford Lincoln" or "General Motors Cadillac." --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• An annoying problem. I feel for you. I wonder whether there might not be a better way to address it than on this page, though. Here's a suggestion. Raise it on the article talk page. Post to the most appropriate article/wikiproject talk pages, indicating in short what the issue is and where discussion is being had, and soliciting input on that article talk page. With luck, thoughtful experienced editors will respond, and provide a good consensus sense as to how the issue should be addressed. Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll do that. I'll drop you a thank-you over on your talk page as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of other user's comments on Talk:Park Geun-hye

Resolved

 – Irrelevant content removed from talk page and Hkwon (talk · contribs) blocked for 12 hours for 3RR violation by B (talk · contribs) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi has deleted User Rinkaym's comments on this talk page 3 times in the last 3 days, claiming the comments are irrelevant. I explained in length why the comments were relevant for the talk page and why such deletion was a violation of WP:TALKO on the talk page and reverted the deletions. I would like a neutral administrator to make a judgement on who is right. Hkwon (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Sennen goroshi's actions here were justified for the reasons (s)he explained; talk pages are not a chat room or a forum for personal messages, and should only be used for discussion of how to improve the article. I am not an administrator, but I don't think that this needs administrator attention. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Giftiger_wunsch: I respect your opinion although I don't agree to it. But you shouldn't have deleted my comments and User Rinkaym's comments from the talk page according to your personal opinion, violating WP:TALKO once again, when we are waiting for a decision by a neutral administrator. Hkwon (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that I did not do this according to my personal opinion; I did so according to policy: talk pages are for discussing how the article may be improved, not for personal discussion or as a forum. Please do not revert my change again unless it is overturned by WP:CONSENSUS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Important additional note: you are already in violation of in danger of violating the three-revert rule here and may be blocked by an administrator. Please stop immediately or this is likely to be the result. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How is three reverts in 3 days a breach of WP:3RR? That rule is about three reverts in 24 hours. Varsovian (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologise to Hwkon, I misread one of the dates, it was only two reverts in 24 hours. It was still appropriate to warn the user, however. He is now in violation of WP:3RR having made 4 edits in 24-hours and I have reported the matter to the edit-warring noticeboard. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Giftiger_wunsch: Apologies accepted. The page is waiting for a dispute resolution by a neutral, qualified administrator. Do not disrupt the page till a decision is made. You violated WP:TALKO by deleting others' comments from a talk page. Maybe you can block me when you become a real administrator. Hkwon (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hkwon, you are demonstrating a serious misunderstanding of policy here which is resulting in significant disruption. WP:TALKO does recommend "refactoring" irrelevant comments rather than deleting them, but deleting them is not a violation. You also seem to be misunderstanding what is relevant to a talk page. Please note also that I used a warning template to warn you about violating the 3RR, and I was perfectly within the rights of any editor in doing so. To better comply (note the qualifier better), I will now collapse the comment rather than removing it again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Giftiger_wunsch: Much better than deleting others' comments on a talk page. By the way, when did I say it was wrong for you to use a warning template? Read my comments again. And WP:TALKO states "the basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Hkwon (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice the same page also carefully states that the practice of removing irrelevant comments "has fallen into disuse"; that is, it's not a violation but other action is recommended; I have now remedied that.

As to the comment about warning templates, you said "why don't you make those warnings when you become a real administrator?" which to me demonstrates that you are misunderstanding (or ignoring) policy: I don't need to be an administrator, real or otherwise, to template you for potentially violating the three revert rule. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 21 June 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:Gauge00

User:Gauge00 is a relatively new user who showed bad-tempered and uncivil behaviour towards several editors at Talk:Householder's method. Following this especially abusive post directed at me, I warned him that this behaviour is not tolerated at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, my warning had no effect, and his abuse has continued in this post (which he subsequently blanked) and these edit summaries: [60], [61]. He is clearly not going to listen to any further advice from me. If an uninvolved editor would have a word with him about appropriate standards of behaviour on Wikipedia, perhaps he may be persuaded to contribute more constructively in future. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am gauge00, the defendant. Above Gandalf61 said that He is clearly not going to listen to any further advice from me. At this, I'd like to emphasize that Gandalf61 had contributed nothing to the Householder's method, so he is not the author or contributor of that page, and I again emphasize that he did not add a single line of sentence at that page. Then how on earth, I, the gauge00, who tried hard to contribute something on this page, by makeing that article more clearer, more intuitive, by adding more expanation, and by adding another derivation, should consider nausea like advices of this User:Gandalf61, an unknown deleter, annoying deleter? Why should I bother this deleter, noisy deleter? Why should I listen his advice? He is just a deleter of my additions. Let's focus his explanations of his deletion, he said 'gauge00 seems to forget, so I deleted', he said 'he did nothing, so I deleted'. he said "there is more clearer explanations, so I deleted'. This type behaviour of this Gandalf61 makes me angry. Do not come here to this Householder's method Gandalf61, then I will not make abusive sentences any more to you. Take this advice of mine. (Gauge00 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

I am gauge00, the defendant. I do NOT know I have right to write at this accusation page, but anyway, I'd like to add my comment. Gandalf61 said above that If an uninvolved editor would have a word with him about appropriate standards of behaviour on Wikipedia, then at his words, I'd like to tell that Gandalf61 have no right to say about the appropriate standards of behaviour on Wikipedia, I'd like to say that Gandalf61 is just an annoying, noisy, mites-like, tick-like, storker like person to me. Gandalf61, instead of complaining about others behaviour, you should pay attention on your behavour at that Householder's method!! Why you act as if you were a referee, or umpire? And it is extremely annoying to hear wiki etiquette from you. I mean you are the first who should follow the wiki etiquette. If there exists an wiki etiquette, the etiquette is maybe, probably like this, if you are not apt person to delete, then do not delete. Pay attention that there are lots of more apt deleters than you in wiki. The fact that you are a specialist on something does not mean that you are a specialist on others also. The fact that you are a specialist on something does not mean that other wiki users should respect you and that you are apt persion to judge others edition. Do not visit easy articles to boast your speciality, your knowledges and your degree. Do not visit easy articles to ridicule or to laugh at less knowledgable novice-like people. (Gauge00 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

"...just an annoying, noisy, mites-like, tick-like, storker like person..". Wiki etiquette? Just sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Directed Directly warned the user of that on his user talk page. You really need to stop attacking other editors. Netalarm^talk 23:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling users sexists, saying that they should die, etc

Please see this comment by an IP. I don't wish to be harassed by him/her anymore. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a level 1 NPA warning to the user as no warnings were previously given. Note that as it is your talk page (and even if it wasn't, given the offensive nature of the comments), you are entitled to remove the comments from the page. If you have any further difficulty report it here and I'll see if I can help to resolve the situation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the IP deserved a punishment, not a warning. "You have no life" and "I'm just glad sexists like you are dying off" are quite serious personal attacks. Anyway, thank you for quick reaction. Cordially, Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that we're not in the business of "punishing" editors, and the purpose of a block, for example, is to prevent disruption by disabling the ability of disruptive users to edit. All users must receive sufficient warning to stop before further action is appropriate. I don't believe that "dying off" was meant literally (it certainly didn't sound like a death threat), but I agree that accusing an individual of sexism is serious, so I chose to warn the user. In the case of a very serious attack (by which I mean a racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comment) or a threat of harm I may have used a single warning template, but unless it persists I believe the warning I delivered will suffice. As I said, I am available to help resolve any further problems if necessary, and I note that two other editors will also be keeping watch. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that level 1 warnings generally involve assumption of good faith, perhaps I should have simply issued a level 2 or 3, but in any case a warning is certainly necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll watchlist your talk page also. — e. ripley\^talk 23:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll also watchlist, as this type of attack is indeed serious. I'm not an admin but I'm on IRC. Jusdafax 23:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Isn't it about time that this children's playpit was shut down? So someone said something that upset you. So what? Life's like that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Please keep your comments on-topic and civil, Malleus. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion but that comment was unconstructive and completely uncalled for. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Fully agree w/Giftiger. Jusdafax 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC) My comment was honest, unlike so many others here. Why not just grow up and take it on the chin? Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I certainly haven't seen any evidence of dishonest comments here. I believe you may be mistaking dishonesty for not agreeing with your point of view. In any case, this is irrelevant and unhelpful so let's end it here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC) There are no doubt many things that you don't see. One of them is that this is a children's playpit. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hemant Karkare

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

The article was under regular editing when 3 suspected sockpuppets and an anonymous IP (117.194.193.101 probably infdef banned user Hkelkar) began edit-warring. I was one of the regular registered contributors to enhance the article.

The article is now blocked, and I can't add material to it. Now that the IP and sockpppets are signalled, I would like the article to be writable again so that regular users can discuss and edit it. It does not seem useful to infdef block an article for the misconduct of few socpuppets. See also:

• User_talk:RegentsPark#Hemant_Karkare_2
• User_talk:Jayjg#Hemant_Karkare_and_anti-Israel_Conspiracy_Theories

- TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the correct forum for your request? You may wish to consider contacting the sysop who blocked the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Smokefoot

I added some imformation to the article Iron(III) acetate. The editor User:Smokefoot has been undoing these edits, removing references, and generally being impolite. I contacted them on their talk page and I have found them argumentative and arrogant and insulting.

See User_talk:Smokefoot#Iron_acetate and User_talk:Smokefoot#Iron_(III)_acetate

In particular they stated that researchers had "published in a garbage journal catering to faculty desperate to inflate their publication lists in English-speaking journals" the journal is "Transition metal chemistry" - the editorial board is here http://www.springer.com/chemistry/journal/11243?detailsPage=editorialBoard I have no connection with them.

They have been sarcastic, condescending and ignorant towards me in their responses. There attitude towards the scientific researchers mentioned in the paper (quote: published in a garbage journal catering to faculty desperate to inflate their publication lists in English-speaking journals) is not acceptable for any contributor to the encyclopedia. I have left a message for them about this complaint.

What they are doing is not collaborative - they are reverting reasonable encyclopedic additions, 'bad-mouthing' researchers, and by extension the editorial board of a journal, as well as making editing this encyclopedia an unpleasent experience for me. Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading the to-and-fro at User_talk:Smokefoot, I really can't see where Smokefoot has been sarcastic, condescending or ignorant in their replies. Rather, they seem to me to have been polite, patient and helpful. This looks like a run of the mill minor disagreement over content and sources, not an issue for WQA at all. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this looks like a content dispute that became heated, but I don't see any serious issues of incivility. Swarm^Talk 09:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Greg L

Resolved

 – OnePt618 has decided to drop the action and move on. Jubilee♫clipman 08:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A few days ago I was sweeping articles with AutoEd (an editor tool, not a bot), and I was careful to always double-check its changes before accepting them and saving. One of these articles was Cobalt (CAD program). The author had used HTML headers rather than wikitext headers, which is frowned upon in H:HTML. (My original diff is here: [62]) The author subsequently left me a note on my talk page complaining that he wants me to protect his page against the "bot". I responded in good faith and explained about AutoEd, added that wikitext headers are preferable (per H:HTML) and that no one owns a particular article (per WP:OWN). I reverted the changes on the article back to wikified headers. I logged in today to see three separate posts ([63], [64], and [65]) lambasting me for being insincere, making "God-damned rude accusations", along with threats of taking me to ANI if I edit his page again. I readily admit that I am a newbie editor (been here ~20 days) but I think I have a lot to offer and that I have been making productive additions to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, when I see vitriol like this, it sours me on the experience. Since he stated that he did not want me to post on his talk page ("If I want a dose of you, I’ll seek it out"), I have little choice but to post here to solicit advice and/or commentary from the community, which I would sincerely appreciate.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you seek to engage him on the article talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• I suggest an apology to dispose of this matter, Greg. Tony (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  This latest snipe at me ([66]) is not helpful towards achieving that.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 07:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why Greg is very upset, although it would be preferable if he played the "civility game" with the right language. I wonder whether the bot can avoid this article, which has special requirements. The interaction all started nicely, and then seems to have led to a brick wall. This is a pity, yet should be smoothed over easily. Tony (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I will post on his talk page on the matter regarding editable sections. Airplaneman ✈ 17:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

After more testing, I have concluded at __NODEITSECTION__ applies to the entire article, so my suggestion won't help. Airplaneman ✈ 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@OnePt: saw your post to PrincessofLlyr's talk page and have spent the last half hour or so reviewing this. Greg's initial post here was entirely civil, and your response didn't help. In his message, I did not pick up a single hint that he was trying to discourage you from editing; the explanation of why he used it was actually civil and informative. The "Thanks and have a great day!" also sounded less than sincere. That being said, Greg should not have "fed the fire" in a sense and responded the way he did, either. It does look like it has been resolved, though. For future reference, Greg, you may want to insert a hidden comment about why there are big letters instead of headings so people know what you're trying to do. You may also want to consider combining everything into a paragraph so it's less choppy to read; then you can avoid sections of any kind; usually if the section's too small to be editable, it is probably not required (or needs expansion). Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 17:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I find that to be wise and helpful counsel, Airplaneman, that hits the nail on the head on all counts. Thanks. I will take you up on your suggestion. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The technical issue is not my concern here. My post here was in regards to Greg L's behavior, not the wikitext-vs-headers issue. Please re-review the three diffs with the offensive comments. This is the issue I brought to WQA, not the wikitext issue; I apologize if that was unclear. With regards to the "Have a nice day" comment, it was intended sincerely, per WP:LOVE. I sincerely apologize if it was perceived as sarcastic; I genuinely did not intend it that way. Finally, you should be aware that Greg L is spreading misinformation about me on his talk page. In an effort to discredit me, he claims I have only 20 edits (it's actually 1,436.)-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 19:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Had you only made 20 edits, that would be in your favor. We have special gentle kid gloves reserved for newbies. That said, I wonder whether, for an editor with over 1,400 edits, whom I've already suggested explore this issue first with the other editor on the article talk page, its not a bit of an overreaction possibly and unnecessary heightening of the matter to make this noticeboard his first stop. This is the same point, you will note, that I have already made in the issues posted immediately above and below this one, so it's not as though you are the only one who I think has chosen the sub-optimal forum in coming to this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  The main page of ANI states: "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." I have done so. I'm not sure why following the directions offered is bad faith, especially when Greg states that he had no interest in discussing anything with me further ("If I want a dose of you, I’ll seek it out").-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 20:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your protestations, OnePt618, that you had *Love* in your heart isn’t credible given the rest of your post. *Assume good faith* does not equate to “abandon common sense.” As for your having a cow (my talk page ∆ here), over my saying you have 20 edits, oh… well… just pardon me all over the place for employing a straightforward parsing of simple English when you wrote above as follows: …lambasting me for being insincere, making "God-damned rude accusations", along with threats of taking me to ANI if I edit his page again. I readily admit that I am a newbie editor (been here ~20 days) but I think I have a lot to offer… I am disinclined to further reward you by adding to this wikidrama; I have real life to attend to. Goodbye, and thanks to all those here who applied common sense to this matter and weighed in with thoughtful responses. Greg L (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Nice, Greg. You put notices on your talkpage saying you want the discussion to take place here, and say here that you're not going to discuss it anyway. Well played, sir. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a smooth move, SarekOfVulcan; you efforts here to demonstrate how others should take the *high road* in matters of civility and good manners on Wikipedia by beginning your post with a dismissive “LOL” (which tends to disparage and belittle others and make them feel defensive) comes up, uhmm… *short*. In my last post (∆ here), I wrote that I wasn’t going to discuss this issue in two separate venues. That post reads

“ NOTICE I will not engage editors in multiple venues on this matter. Further posts on anything related to this issue can be made on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts where editors’ posts can be inspected and sanitized by the sunshine of more thorough public inspection. ”

So, thank you for observing that request and for making your post available for all to see where it can be sanitized by the sunshine of public inspection Greg L (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg, I don't know how I can say it any plainer than this -- I apologize for the "Have a nice day" comment. It was not intentionally hurtful. I've apologized above, and I'm doing it again. I only ask for the same amount of respect in return, and I don't consider this matter closed until the root cause -- the incivility behind your three diffs -- is addressed.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 20:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I have to go. I see that you want to get beyond this. I had multiple issues with your post, as you can see from my post. Please reflect on those other points I took issue with. I’ll give some thought to this and will respond later. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, for those who want to focus on the technical matters that brought about what I considered to be rude behavior by you-know-who, here is a technical explanation for what is going on (since looking at historical versions won’t show the difference):

---

You won’t see a difference when looking at historical versions because the [edit] tags disappear in historical views. You can’t even see the [edit] tags while previewing article content in edit mode. To see how there was a perfusion of [edits] all crowded up against the photos at right in the article, go to an older version, go to edit mode, copy the text, paste it into a blank sandbox page in your userspace and hit save. Go ahead and try it; I’ll wait. Then come back to this page…

♬♩ (*sound of elevator music*)  ♬♩

Now do you see what I mean? Page layout should look cleaner than that. There is no compelling need to be able to edit such short sections. I had originally wanted to keep those subsections in the table of contents. But, given the brouhaha over HTML-based sub-sections, which puts the sub-sections in the table of contents but doesn’t produce all those [edit] tags smashed together, I decided there isn’t even a need to have the subsections in the table of contents. Thus, the matter is easily resolvable by making those sub-section titles simply bolded non-hyperlinked, regular text. No crowded [edit] links for me, and no HTML sub-sections for OnePt618. Problem solved. Wikidrama moves on to another stage. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---

• What problem has been solved? Not the one brought up in this thread, that's for sure. I have just looked at OnePt618's talkpage and can see why he is upset at Greg L. Although Greg's original post was quite civil and OnePt618's explanation might have been better worded (and he does seem to have misunderstood Greg's meaning), he has every right to expect an apology for the following posts from Greg. I would certainly expect an apology if someone wrote that on my talkpage. I see no apology has yet been made even though OnePt618 has apologied for his minor infraction. I am also rather dismayed at Greg for posting such language to the talkpage of an editor barely three weeks old. At four years old, Greg should know better than that: newbies make mistakes and some take ages to learn from them. Newbies also often think they now everything: I know I did! I destroyed Pink Floyd on my first efforts! But no one shouted blue murder at me for doing so. They helped me and made constuctive suggestions like finding an adopter. Rather than posting a load of unhelpful comments about some slightly thoughtless offhand comment made by OnePt618, Greg should have tried to explain his way of editing more clearly, engaged OnePt618 in discussion and tried to come to a compromise. Instead he posts such things as "I find your conclusionary ““Thanks and have a great day!” to be patronizing wikipleasantry that wasn’t sincere... Have a nice day!! No actually, that wasn’t a sincere last sentence, just like yours wasn’t. I don’t appreciate God-damned rude accusations masquerading as being civil—they aren’t civil... If I want a dose of you, I’ll seek it out. Goodbye... . I see that after you dished out your metric butt-load of rudeness [Greg still talking here, BTW]... Since dealing with you is such a profoundly distasteful experience... [etc]" Then when informed quite civilly by OnePt618 of this discussion he writes: "Being first to whine to mommy does not make your rudeness and any less rude. Have a nice day." How does any of that help anything? It doesn't and Greg has clearly been extremely uncivil towards OnePt618. Instead of apologising, Greg is yet again explaining why he uses a particular sytem on a particular page none of which is germane or relevent to this Wikiquette discussion --Jubilee♫clipman 02:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do concur; this escalated unnecessarily, starting with the second post on OnePt618's talk page (made by him). The way Greg responded made me feel a bit sick as well; I do not think I made that clear in my previous post. Where both OnePt618 and Greg slipped up were in the realm of AGF. Instead of looking at the other person's side of things and trying to resolve the issue civilly, they blasted each other, making false accusations (see the quotes in Jubilee's post, for instance). Both people are at fault, but I do hope they will take something from this. Airplaneman ✈ 03:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If this report were justified by being from a newbie, we could politely explain that editing should not be undertaken by the faint-at-heart, and further explain that it is not helpful to rely on a help page to enforce a style point of view, particularly without responding to the very civil and reasonable statements made by Greg L. As it is, I suggest this issue be dropped as it is simply misguided because Greg was initially perfectly civil, and was either ignored or misunderstood by OnePt618. OnePt618 gave a completely off-topic reply (see user's talk), complete with patronizing "Hi!" and "Thanks and have a great day!" commentary (suggestion: read before responding, and do not talk down to any editor, let alone one as experienced as Greg L). I do not see any further response by OnePt618 other than to repeat the edit with the dismissive edit summary "Cleaned up using AutoEd", as if that is sufficient when an editor has politely explained their reasoning on your talk page. There is no justification for this WQA report since the hope that editors will always be massively polite completely misunderstands WP:CIVIL: Greg was civil, and only became impassioned after receiving recipe replies that ignored the issuest raised. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i think I understand the community feedback now, at least w.r.t. my own behavior. I wasn't aware that H:HTML isn't binding, and from looking at the history of that Cobalt article, I saw a huge quantity of edits from Greg (including the initial creation) so I suggested that he follow WP:OWN when attempting to force a certain style on what I perceived as 'his' page. Mea culpa. The only remaining issue is Greg's three replies to me thereafter, which I believe this community agrees broke WP:CIVIL, judging from commentary. If Greg apologizes and promises to be civil to other editors in the future, I will happily consider this matter closed.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reply is encouraging – thank you for not reacting defensively, although I see zero signs of WP:OWN and I think that you have misinterpreted the situation. A very large range of views are expressed here, and it is easy for two people to not see each other's position, so disagreements are common. I have no idea who, if anyone, should apologize in this case, but that is usually not a good approach (an apology is good, but wanting an apology is often unhelpful). I'm sure Greg will take on board the comments made here, and I suggest that if you want to do anything other than let this report close that you should precisely address the points in my previous message, then briefly say what Greg should have done (bearing in mind that we do not require perfection). Perhaps the whole thing was an unfortunate misunderstanding that arose when you did not fully appreciate the content of Greg's first message. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your premise. My viewpoint aligns with that of Jubilee above. Greg's three rude comments are simply unacceptable. I've already apologized twice for my (relatively minor) misperceptions and I do not feel I need to do so a third time. My primary concern is the uncivil and offensive behavior that Greg exhibited in his three replies, which you have not addressed at all. Greg already has had an ANI and RFC opened on him, so there is precedent for this misbehavior. If future editors new to Wikipedia get the vitriol that I got, it will effectively reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not run by bullies.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was trying to say: us regulars should lead by example. Greg's example of dealing with apparently sarcastic comments by posting comments that are not only clearly sarcastic but indeed more so is a pretty poor one, IMO. I must say that I did not realise that OnePt618's comments in response to Greg initial post could be read as sarcastic until I read the posts above. The sarcasm, if it is such, is actually pretty subtle. When I read Greg's comments, OTOH, I was astounded that a regular should take to posting such stuff on the talkpage of a new editor. Three weeks and a few thousand edits is not a massive amount compared with Greg's four years and 20,000 edits. I am not sure that Johnuniq is reading the same talkpage if he honestly thinks that Greg's actions were merely "impassioned after receiving recipe replies". On the contrary, those comments were down right rude and uncalled for. All Greg had to do in response to OnePt618's posts and bold but uncommented second edit was to say: "I disagree with you because of [x, y and z]. Also, could you please explain your edits more clearly in the summary box and/or explain on the talkpage why you reverted me again? Finally, please lay off the niceties as I don't find them helpful. I hope we can work this out together." A few lines and no sarcasm. Greg: you have still failed to apologise: does this mean that you do not even accept that you have done wrong by OnePt618? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• The "newbie" status of our colleague does bear on the treatment to be accorded him. If a duck test is applied, I for one believe it is manifestly clear that our "new" editor is anything but. But rather than only apply the duck test, I'll ask him, as it encourages open-ness on the part of editors, and provides them with an opportunity to enhance their credibility in such a discussion. @OnePt618 -- have you perhaps previously edited wp, either as one or more IPs, and/or under one or more user names?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I despair of this forum: there is obviously no point in pursuing this if no one else here is interested in addressing Greg's clear breach of WP:CIVIL (which is why we are here, IIRC) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche: Please, I implore you and others to read the first line of OnePt's userpage and enlighten yourselves: First time caller, long time listener. I've enjoyed reading Wikipedia for many years now…. First and foremost, we should AGF. Second, we should note that he has been adopted by an experienced user. As for the dispute, my previous comments sum up my views and suggestions: both users were at fault for this misunderstanding, and I hope they take something from this so nothing like this happens again. Although we aren't perfect, there's no need for incivility. Airplaneman ✈ 02:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Airplaneman. No worries. I've read it. I've also read his edit history, from the beginning, which makes for good reading. I implore you to read it. As an experienced editor, I expect the same loud quacking will be apparent to you--well before any experienced user adoption. Not at all the sign of a "listener", but rather of an experienced contributor. One doesn't learn those things by reading, without opening up the "edit" function, and doing. It's sort of like saying "of course the fellow was able to fly the plane, he had been an airpane passenger for years". That doesn't lead to such a fast learning curve on handling all those dials and switches in the cockpit. As far as AgF is concerned, it is a presumption, but a rebuttable one. It does not require one to abandon all common sense in the face of quacking. Just the opposite -- when circumstances suggest that the assumption has been rebutted, it is appropriate to act accordingly ("This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence"). For some reason, as with many wiki guidelines, editors often quote then as though all that is of moment is the title, and not the actual words of the guideline. (Other guidelines that suffer that treatment frequently are "otherstuffexists" and "oneevent", both of which are cited often -- incorrectly -- at AfDs, as though the editors never read more than the title). Oh, btw, I note that Jubilee did not answer my query. As you may know, if one misrepresents matters, that leads to more onerous treatment after a checkuser is performed, and his failure to respond did little to stop the quacking in my ears. All of this just my opinion, of course, but the quacking is notable, and neither your nor his response have allayed my concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Most people might be offended at the subtle suggestion that i'm a sock. I'm actually take it as an extreme compliment. It means I'm not completely screwing up, which makes me happy.  :) If you feel you need to do a CU on me, feel free. If I had to deal with all the random crazies that operate in bad faith, I would be suspicious of me, too! As I say on my talk page, I've always been fascinated with Wikipedia and I wanted to jump in to give something back. Thus my dismay when I find such rude comments directed at me. Frankly, I'm leaning towards dropping this whole thing -- not because of the comments suspecting me of being something I'm not -- but just because I'm getting tired of trying to squeeze water out of this rock. The most depressing thing to me is the seeming unwillingness of this community to see the point of my original call for help, and that bums me out a bit.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that I did not clearly answer Epeefleche's direct question to me. No, I have not edited Wikipedia in the past, either as an anonymous IP nor under a registered user name.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the direct response. I'm flabbergasted. I reviewed your initial edits, and your familiarity with all manner of non-intuitive wiki procedure that one could only know by editing -- not by observing unopened articles -- is astounding. I'm a member of Mensa, but you, my colleague, leave me so far in the dust with your fabulous first-edits learning curve, I'm thinking of turning in my card as clearly I'm not worthy.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What a kind thing to say. Thank you!! I'm unworthy of that, as I still consider myself a learner around here. I have installed MediaWiki on private sites before, which may explain why I'm comfy with wikisyntax. What I'm not expert at, however, are the interpersonal aspects here and I truly appreciate all the feedback. Cheers!-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Adopt me! Thanks for your pleasant response. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokie, this has gone on long enough. Although I'm disappointed that Greg hasn't shown remorse for his edits, in the interests of WikiPeace I'm letting this go. I've learned a lot from this discussion and in a weird way I'm grateful to Greg for the opportunity for me to learn a thing or two. Greg, my talk page is open anytime you want to chat. Mi casa es su casa, etc. I hope you continue the stellar editing work that I've seen in your history; you're an awesome editor and I hope you take to heart some of the comments in here. A volunteer can close this discussion now. Look forward to working with you all in the future. Have a grea... Hmm, better not finish that... =)-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 06:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

user:minderbinder-de

Resolved

 – --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fossa likes to cultivate an image of anti-everything and thrives on attention, so you might want to consider whether he is interested in being your advocate purely for your good, or for other reasons. I consider this a personal slant on my character. Not sure, how to respond. Fossa_?! 15:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Try discussing the issue with the user, and politely point out WP:NPA or WP:AGF if you feel the user's comments were inappropriate. I think this is somewhat borderline, and perhaps an AGF issue, though at most a minor one, so I'd rather not get involved, you should sort this out with the user directly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry folks, this petty stuff does not even belong here. In the meantime, I have removed the section about Fossa, as it has become irrelevant to my discussion with the user LiberalFascist. I could explain the reasoning for bringing up Fossa's standing and presumed motives in the first place over here, but I feel that this would needlessly add fuel to the fire. Fossa is blocked for another six hours on de:WP, then we can sort it out in the right venue. --Minderbinder-de (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

the edit in question has been modified by the user along the guideline and the whole story is a german wikipedia affair (adminnotes). so i agree with Giftiger wunsch, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream (talk)

Resolved

 – Letting it drop for now. Swarm^Talk 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had a number of scuffles with the above editor (who is also, disturbingly, an adminstrator). The lastest took place in the past few days. Our work overlaps in a few specific areas. He tends to stray far from content, and has been disagreeable to the point of being disruptive. In previous cases, as in the latest, my edits have prevailed either because the references have supported them or third parties have agreed to them. An earlier sockputtery case against me gave him no satisfaction and there might be sour grapes on his part. He seems to believe that if he has issues with my work I should stop doing it until he gives his approval. While making accusations of uncivility he himself tends to be extemely snide and quite often sloppy. He has threatened to attempt to have me banned, though I'm not sure of his inention since it has become clear he has made a lot of seriously inompetent moves lately to which he likely would not wish to draw attention or have scrutinized. Though I can respect some of his contributions, the recent bragging about how he got someone else and the threat that it didn't look good for me are a harrassment and disruption of my work on Wikipedia. While I don't feel there is per se any action needed at this time I would like report so as me make it clear that this uncivil adminstrator has expressed a vengelful interest that he is öut to get me.Djflem (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide specific diffs of inappropriate comments the individual has made? Off hand, I don't see which comments you're referring to in that quite lengthy thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"I just finished in April the process of getting an editor banned for this type of behavior. But if you really think you can beat the system by telling others that they have to find references for the unsourced material you you insist on adding to articles, or that the article will form according to your whims by ignoring others, you are mistaken. I've tried to be polite in collaborating with you, the hope that your past uncivil behavior and lack of respect for the rules on collaboration was perhaps an aberration. It's clear now that it's not. I will be alerting others to the discussion on both of these points, as well as alerting other administrators as to your policy violations. Given the last time you tried to skirt the rules by a combination of anonymous IP editing and ignoring my attempts to discuss things politely, I wouldn't count on it going well for you." Nightscream (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Djflem (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this statement could be interpreted as either "bragging" or a "threat", it was a somewhat annoyed but clearly still polite message informing you that you are violating policy. Please do not waste this board's time by taking personal grudges here; this certainly doesn't appear to be a wikiquette issue, and I would suggest you resolve your issues with this user through civilised discussion with that user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is bragging when someone says "I just finished...getting an editor banned....." and a threat when someone says "I wouldn't count on it going well for you." But as I said I didn't feel this needed any attention at this time, but thank you for yours. I have written to Nightsccream to inform him of this notification, and expressed my willingness to have content-based discussions with him.Djflem (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No Djflem, it simply is not. The user informed you that he has recently been involved the blocking a user who has performed actions similar to yours. That is a warning that your behaviour has been unacceptable. I cannot comment on whether or not that was a fair statement as I have not seen evidence of your behaviour, but Nightscream's behaviour on this comment was perfectly civil. As for a "threat": he was simply advising you that you are unlikely to be successful, and I see no way this could be interpreted as anything else. For this reason, I am closing this discussion as resolved as I have advised you as to the correct course of action. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Djflem, but from our standpoint, we simply don't have enough context or evidence to support your claim that Nightscream is acting uncivilly. If their statement seemed unprovoked, that would be a different story, but based on the quote you gave us, it seems as if you were adding unsourced content and their attempts at polite collaboration with you were unsuccessful. Their tone may be a little edgy, but this is understandable if they were frustrated during a dispute. If there's more to this issue, please provide some diffs and we'll be happy to open this discussion back up. Regards, Swarm^Talk 09:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

While I do greatly appreciate your attention to this matter, as I first mentioned I didn't feel it necessary go into it at length. That may become necessary as Nightscream has informed he intends to pursue it. Though I don't don't necessarily agree with the interpretations made here, I think your time is better spent on serious cases. I trust, or hope, that Nightscream has done the research (which would seem the first step if wishing to collaborate) and agrees that the edit as it now stands is noncontroversial, neutral, factually correct, and well referenced. (ie removed of contentious material). I would suggest that the whole thing is moot, in that his intial addition would have qualified for a automatic reversion since he was trying to slip in information (regarding the Munsee language) from one source under the cover of pre-existing references. That seems sneaky, if not outright unacceptable by policy. (as seen here:[[67]]). FYI this is the current version written in five separate contiguous edits [[68]] (sloppy, I admit, but required alot of sorting out.) I'm sorry to have brought this up and bothered you and just hope this doesn't rear its ugly head again because what I like to do on Wikipedia to write history and geography articles.Djflem (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Djflem. If you have any further issues with civility, feel free to come back, and if you need advice or outside opinions in a dispute, remember that there are third opinions, requests for comment, and many other noticeboards that may be able to help. Regards, Swarm^Talk 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mad Hatter

I believe this user continues to use explicit language in editing summaries or towards other users. Here is proof: [69], the less severe: [70]. The response to the 2nd link [71]Carmaker1 (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the user of this report on their talk page. Thank you. --13² 20:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Notified the user being reported, but User:Mad Hatter hasn't edited since May 12, 2010, so we might not get a fast reply regarding this issue. There have been previous WQA and ANI threads regarding this user's actions. Netalarm^talk 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The user was also previously blocked due to his personal attacks. warrior4321 04:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally am not a fan of that language. But "fuck" is more accepted on wiki that I would prefer, and I defer to consensus. "you fucked up" is a bit short of a personal attack, as it is an attack on the edit, not the person. That's my quick take. I don't think a block is in order, therefore, though some sysop might suggest to the young lad he could tone it down. My two cents.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean June 12, but your point still stands. They've been inactive for almost two weeks, so I don't see the purpose of a discussion now. Swarm^Talk 10:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is a bit late; I'm also wondering why I can't see any discussion regarding the use of vulgarities or requests to tone down his language on his talk page; the only thing I can see is a request from User:BrightBlackHeaven to avoid provocative expressions like "how old are you? jeez..." Has anyone actually requested that the user stop using these profanities which have been reported here? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, June 12. Actually, there have been previous ANI and WQA threads regarding this user's etiquette on Wikipedia. But apparently he doesn't get the point. I'll leave a more detailed warning on his user talk page later. There's really nothing else that can be done now, since this is too old. Netalarm^talk 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well w/the points made by Giftiger and others as to staleness.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumble Strip - Removal NPOV Banner and NZ promotional reference

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

I was wondering if the Wiki editor would remove the frivolous NPOV that was installed by Alex Sims (Feb 2010) as it appears it was posted purely on speculation as opposed to any specific sentence, paragraph or technical reference within the article. I have taken it down a few times but he keeps putting it back up so I am requesting intervention.

I can only assume that Alex Sims wishes to have my entire contribution removed and the article reverted back to a version prior to my involvement.

A twist in this is that Alex Sims' New Zealand reference appears to be promotional material. There are several indicators and these are outlined in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rumble_strip. Further to this the NZ reference is an obscure reference. If one does a simple Google search for "rumble strip" there is a wealth of refenences but the NZ is way down the list (if its there at all).

It appears Alex is trying to thwart the development of this article but preserve the NZ reference. Why is it that he is fixated on this reference (despite the wealth of info available on the net)and as this is an obsure reference (a contractor magazine) there is reason to believe it was provided to him by a thrid party (e.g. a rumble strip contractor) to insert into the article. I believe Wiki frowns upon this practice.

Finally, Alex has made a series of incorrect complaints about me that appear to be an effort to cast doubts upon my credibility and confuse the discussion (typos; article too long; the personal harassment and Conflict of Interest complain, etc.). Also, he was the one that placed the NPOV banner up but has been relucant to debate the matter on the Talk Page.

--Albertoarmstrong (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for incivility. Handle this issue on the article's talk page. You may want to see WP:RFC for outside opinions. Swarm^Talk 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:141.76.179.247 and mechanical translation at Rudolf-Harbig-Stadion

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit comment associated with this [72]. I resent being called some kind of Egyptian cat goddess and I think that verges on a personal attack! Nor am I cotton fibers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The diff you posted contains no edit comment. Swarm^Talk 15:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Say what? I'm referring to " (Undid revision 369917636 by bast Wtshymanski (talk)) ". Oh the shame of it; I've been compared to a cat by an anonymous IP using his school account.

More seriously, the text the anon wishes to stand looks like a mechanical translation; I haven't checked everything but I haven't yet found three consecutive sentences that are acceptable English. WP:TRANSLATION says " Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." Since an earlier version of the article is in acceptable English, there's no need to put up with the robot translation. I've asked the anon editor to contribute good text to the article, but instead he calls "vandal" and "bast" (whatever that is supposed to mean...). --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO comparisons to cats, pups, and pandas are fine. Comparisons to certain other animals -- including asses and bitches -- perhaps less so.  ;) --Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that edit comment, now I see. Strange. There's two ways I see it. One, it's nonsense. Two, you're being called a goddess. Either way, their edits to the article are quite strange. :| Swarm^Talk 20:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agree that the edits being constantly reinstated by this IP address are causing serious damage to the article, some of the English is so unclear that it'd be very difficult to correct it. In addition, the IP has now made 4 reverts in 24-hours, so I would suggest it be reported to the edit war noticeboard. I would do so myself but I don't have a lot of free time tonight. I will comment if a report is filed if appropriate, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped them a warning about 3RR, if it continues any more I'll report them. Swarm^Talk 20:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a bit of a blunder here, it seems they're using multiple IP addresses in the same range (probably to avoid 3RR). I warned one user, and was half way through filing a 3RR report with all the diffs from the range when I realised this. I think a range-block or semi protection is in order here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that either. Anyway, a temp semi protection sounds good. As of this timestamp, they're still edit warring, so I think that would be the best solution for now. Swarm^Talk 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I filed one using twinkle; a range block may be more appropriate, but I'll leave that to the discretion of the closing admin at the semi-protect request board. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the text they're replacing the current version with is an older but still recent version of the article, and is a match of the audio version of the article. They probably have a legitimate reason for their actions, so it's too bad they're being so difficult about it. Swarm^Talk 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, they've completely ignored explanations for reverting their edits, claimed vandalism, and refused to discuss it. That and the fact that multiple IPs being used makes this automatically pretty fishy. In any case, it's now been semi-protected. A request has been made for a user fluent in both German and English to properly translate this rather than the machine-translated version consistently readded by the user; I think I probably qualify so I'll have a look at it soon, hopefully while the semi-protect is still in place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Stemonitis

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – --Swarm^Talk 03:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to announce behaviour of administrator(!) User:Stemonitis. He intentionally alter everything based on his own. For example at he was questioning what is wrong Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Template:TaxonIds. He received an answer, but instead of joining the discussion he continued using of the template proposed for deletion in articles. Nobody challenged the issue for 6 days although it was informed on nearly all zoological and botanicl aprojects. When there were these 15 tranclusions of the template today removed (by me) from the articles for various multiple reasons, he twice reverted my edits although he was informed at his talk page. He even answered User talk:Stemonitis#Info with mockery, that he wants rational "rational discourse" athough he was completelly ignoring the discussion for 6 days and he though that nothing will happen. --Snek01 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using a template that is proposed for deletion. Especially in this case, where the deletion discussion appears to be unanimous for "keep". The community is in favor of using this template, and continual removal of the template is your fault, not Stemonitis'. As for the "mockery", his response was not mockery at all; he is completely correct. All he was trying to tell you was that you should try and reach a solution by "talking" about it, rather than constantly reverting anyone who uses the template. Such could be considered disruption to make a point. I strongly suggest you take his advice, rather than continuing to revert him.

That aside, this is not a WQA issue, as no incivility appears to have taken place. Swarm^Talk 03:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus

Resolved

 – Claritas is willing to let this discussion close. Swarm^Talk 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to contact this user about a particular AFD debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Building, and a comment the user made there which I felt would be more suitable to reply to on their talk page. When I left the comment, Dream Focus immediately removed it without replying to me with the edit summary "stay off my page please. I don't like bothering with people like you". When, a few hours later, I replied with a comment concerning civility guidelines, this also was removed without reply, with the edit summary " said I didn't want you on my talk page. Follow the rules about talk pages. I can remove whatever I don't want to see." This is not a constructive approach to consensus building or the discussion of anything - I realise that it is within the rights of Dream Focus per WP:TALK to remove read comments from his/her talk, but it's a violation of WP:CIVIL to simply remove civil, good faith comments concerning a matter of mutual interest without replying to the user in question. I also don't like the implication that Dream Focus believes that there's something wrong with "people like me". I've brought this here relatively early, because I doubt that Dream Focus will reply to any other comments which I leave on his/her talk. User notified. Claritas § 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the big question is, what would you like us to do about it? There's no policy violation here, all you can do is rise above it and respect the user's wish not to be contacted on his talk page. My recommendation would simply be avoid interacting with this user where possible. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not so much with the fact that Dream Focus removed my comments, but with the edit summaries she/he used, which I think are clearly incivil. Claritas § 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well with regards to civility issues, all we can really do is give advice on dispute resolution; my advice is simply avoid contact with the user if you feel that they are not being civil. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw your comments on Dream Focus' page (I am including the original). Could you tell me if you have had previous contact with Dream Focus? Vyeh (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Only very briefly through AFD discussions - it was a reply to a comment he made on the AFD above - " If you aren't interested in this sort of article, then you aren't likely to ever find your way here, so why so obsessed with destroying it? Is it simply because you don't like it?", which I felt wasn't completely relevant to the AFD. I probably should have continued the discussion on the AFD talk - as it is, I'm quite happy to let this close. Thanks to all those who participated. Claritas § 19:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Claritas, your original post was quite polite and I agree with you that the edit comment was rather impolite. That said, DreamFocus is perfectly entitled to remove comments from their User Talk page, and in hindsight the AfD itself (or its Talk page) might have been a better venue to discuss what the two of you had said there. I hope that you can let that remark slide, and continue to remain polite yourself. Full disclosure: I just closed the above AfD. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to second SheffieldSteel, as they are spot on: DreamFocus' comment was impolite, but they were entitled to remove your comments, and the AfD would have been a better place to discuss this. Unfortunately, they appear uninterested in polite collaboration. If this behavior continues over a long period of time, it might be seen as disruptive, but for now, we'll just close this, if it suits you. Swarm^Talk 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User:58.96.94.12

Unresolved

 – IP user does not show intent of resolving this complaint. Since these discussions have to work both ways, there's nothing further WQA can accomplish.--Swarm^Talk 07:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

58.96.94.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has called me a "crackpot" and an "idiot" on his Talk page: [73] (see his paragraph at the bottom of the page).

This user has also repeatedly engaged in the behavior described in WP:Disruptive Editing, including "Is tendentious", "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability", and "Does not engage in consensus building". This user has been repeatedly warned (on his Talk page and on the article Talk page) that his edits violate WP:Truth, WP:NPOV, and contradict the many WP:Reliable Sources which the article has. The user refuses to discuss how his edits are not a violation of Wikipedia policy and continues to engage in such edits.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the putative purpose of this project. While it's true that the unregistered user being complained about in the title of this thread has not always followed etiquette guidelines, the problematic contributions of User:Jamiemichelle and his alternate accounts have already led to blocks. Jamiemichelle is primarily a single-purpose user who has an extensive history of fanaticism regarding the ideas of Frank J. Tipler, both in wikipedia and several other places. What the unregistered user has correctly identified is that encyclopedic content has been manipulated and cheapened. The best way forward, as I stated here, is to get the attention of some of the many editors knowledgeable about physics, cosmology, and fringe in general. Up to now there has been virtually no collaboration or sanity checks on the personal spin of Jamiemichelle, and content has suffered for it. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your charge of "fanaticism" against me is factually incorrect and violates Wikipedia policy of WP:Civility and WP:Assume Good Faith. You're the one who for some strange reason followed me onto this Wikiquette board when this matter doesn't concern you, so you need to look in the mirror regarding your charge of "fanaticism". I don't have "alternate accounts": I've edited under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigned me without my input, but I've always been honest about them.

The "Omega Point (Tipler)" article has been pretty much as it is now for years. I recently added the "Criticisms" section, which details the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory, and which also gives quotations from a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory. Hence, I'm hardly biased or unreasonable, unlike how you to date have been.

Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who upon hearing of it take an extreme visceral dislike to it. Because of this, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and other disruptive behavior, with one such vandal being banned, but not before leaving the message "You know what fuck off [...]. I want to see how much you can take before you crack." on the article's Talk page.

In your own posts on the article's Talk page, you refuse to state what you believe is specifically wrong with the article vis-à-vis Wikipedia policy. I pointed out in response to you that your claims violate WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. To this you replied "...blah blah blah. [...]", while still refusing to state what you believe is specifically wrong with the article vis-à-vis Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP has recently been blocked for disruptive editing. If it continues, it should be reported to Administrators so further action can be taken, but it is not an issue for WQA. As for his name calling, it is inappropriate, but is a WQA discussion necessary yet? Is there a problem with incivility outside this incident, and if so, has there been an attempt to resolve the issue of incivility? Based on this one incident alone, I don't see the need for a WQA thread. Swarm^Talk 09:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

58.96.94.12 has repeatedly called me nasty names such as "crackpot", "nutter", "nut", and "crank", on his own Talk page [74], and in a discussion with User:TeleComNasSprVen on his Talk page where 58.96.94.12 engaged in an attempted outing of me: [75]. 58.96.94.12 has continued with such attacks upon me even after he has been repeatedly told by administrators not to enage in personal attacks (as his own Talk page shows).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we've heard it all before. I simply ask of you, Jamiemichelle, to stop posting comments where they don't belong. Talk to the IP on his talk page, not open up some WQA. It gets tiring for everybody when you do nonsense such as this. Your charge to Tim Shuba that he's "the one who for some strange reason followed me onto this Wikiquette board when this matter doesn't concern you", is rather illogical, in that not only is the Wikiquette board public (do you even understand what public means?) and open to commenting by any user, including him and regardless of whether he followed you or not, but also that you have similarly replied to my "general summary" where it doesn't concern you; that "general summary" only addressing the rest of the audience. Also, your drivel about whether you are a sockpuppet or not belongs on the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle page, that I've pointed out numerous times, and that you've refused to comment on, except on a WQA where it's not appreciated.

Lastly, this statement "This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who upon hearing of it take an extreme visceral dislike to it." and the accusation above to Tim Shuba is yet another violation of AGF on a Wikiquette board, no less. In all due respect, though I have accused you of sockpuppetry, I ask that you maintain your dignity nonetheless with me even as a fellow contributor, and that you don't drag me into your conversations and rants elsewhere. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You engaged in a tête-à-tête with User:58.96.94.12 on your own Talk page about how I'm a "nutter" (in 58.96.94.12's words) and how a name that 58.96.94.12 tried to connect with me in an attempted outing "seems to be hanging on the deep end" (your words): [76].

From your user page, I see that you appear to be an antitheist: [77], with a section entitled "Creationism in America", which has an image with the caption of "Views on human evolution in various countries. Haha... God bless America! Land of the free! BTW, u shud see this 4 moar laffs!" According to the edit history of this page, that was added by you.

In the same section, you have this: "Issues (yes, it appears I have them): Talk:Existence of God#Atheism Bias", admitting that you have an "Atheism Bias", which according to the edit history was also added by you.

In your tête-à-tête with 58.96.94.12, you didn't therein tell him that he was violating Wikipedia policy with his personal attack against me of "nutter", and when the attempted outing matter was suppressed you said that you didn't know of the policy. It's quite interesting that when people you agree with seriously violate Wikipedia policy, you don't notice it. But when it comes to me, someone whom you believe yourself to be in ideological disagreement with, you thow out lame and bizarre claims.

Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who upon hearing of it take an extreme visceral dislike to it. Because of this, that article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and other disruptive behavior, with one such vandal being banned, but not before leaving the message "You know what fuck off [...]. I want to see how much you can take before you crack." on the article's Talk page. The I.P. address that made that comment was actually blocked for his abusive behavior, and so I'm certainly not violating WP:Assume Good Faith in pointing out these facts.--Jamie Michelle (talk)

That's nice. I know how to copy and paste too. Here's proof of it (from the sockpuppet investigations page):

Please, Jamiemichelle, listen to reason. Again, resorting to ad hominem attacks, including the tu quoque above my previous reply, will not help you. If you've actually bothered to read the section about "Atheism Bias", you'll see that I was discouraged that the only ones working on the article "Existence of God" were atheists. I've never attempted to slander you (as is already stated in the comments that you pointed out); whatever ideology or agenda I have is not of your concern; and we're trying to discuss the conflict between you and the IP, not how pretty my userpage is. And I'll assume good faith by pointing out that, perhaps unintentionally, you appear to be "playing the victim", which nearly passes into paranoia, by claiming that ip address 58.96.94.12 and I are conspiring against you in some ideological rivalry.

Yet again not only did you fail completely to address the points I've made above (about you posting comments where they don't belong) but you also failed to adhere to the principles of AGF as well as AAGF by engaging in personal attacks against me and the IP address at the top of this section, whereby you implied that we were ideologically motivated antitheists and claimed that I had an atheism bias. Regardless of whether it's true or not or whether I've said such things or not, you should not make such remarks. I don't care about this Tipler guy, and as a minor thats less than 20 years of age, I don't read or watch the news that much; all I care about is your out-of-control behavior. If sockpuppetry, edit warring, name-calling and all that crap bothers you that much, I suggest you get off Wikipedia and stop causing disruption if and when the investigation rules in your favor, which I doubt; simply take a vacation and get back to Wikipedia after a week or two. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that the Wikiquette Alerts board is a discussion forum for you to carry on with your unhealthy obsessions with me.

As WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims states:

If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry.

My pointing out that you have an obvious ideologically-driven agenda in making the fallacious claim of sockpuppetry is quite in keeping with Wikipedia policy.

You engaged in a tête-à-tête with User:58.96.94.12 on your own Talk page about how I'm a "nutter" (in 58.96.94.12's words) and how a name that 58.96.94.12 tried to connect with me in an attempted outing "seems to be hanging on the deep end" (your words): [78].

From your user page, I see that you appear to be an antitheist: [79], with a section entitled "Creationism in America", which has an image with the caption of "Views on human evolution in various countries. Haha... God bless America! Land of the free! BTW, u shud see this 4 moar laffs!" According to the edit history of this page, that was added by you.

In the same section, you have this: "Issues (yes, it appears I have them): Talk:Existence of God#Atheism Bias", admitting that you have an "Atheism Bias", which according to the edit history was also added by you.

In your tête-à-tête with 58.96.94.12, you didn't therein tell him that he was violating Wikipedia policy with his personal attack against me of "nutter", and when the attempted outing matter was suppressed you said that you didn't know of the policy. It's quite interesting that when people you agree with seriously violate Wikipedia policy, you don't notice it. But when it comes to me, someone whom you believe yourself to be in ideological disagreement with, you thow out lame and bizarre claims.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the Wikiquette board, not the SPI case. So you can't claim that policy here. All you have is yet more personal attacks about me having a discussion forum here and having ideologically motivated antitheism and atheism biases to boot; when are you going to properly defend yourself? Copying and pasting, playing the victim, and going on some tangent rather than addressing the points I've made is tantamount to breaking several policies already. Your post is as nonsensical (and "fallacious") as me pointing out that you misspelled "throw" in your last sentence to defend myself against your "bad faith" claims. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up your false sockpuppet accusation against me in your above 03:11, 26 June 2010 UTC post. You have been going onto numerous Wikipedia pages disparaging me in irrelevant contexts such as this Wikiquette Alerts board, but when the target of your obsessions points out that your claims are fallacious and ideologically driven, you falsely pretend that it was I who brought up the matter.

I have never engaged in a personal attack against you. I have followed WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims in pointing out that your sockpuppetry accusation against me is ideologically driven.

You are the one who followed me onto this board and inserted yourself into a matter that didn't concern you while going on about irrelevant matters, and who then proceeded to engage in a personal attack against me by calling my posts "rants".

And yet again, you seem to think that the Wikiquette Alerts board is a discussion forum for you to carry on with your unhealthy obsessions with me. In fact, it is not.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? My sockpuppetry accusations don't matter on a Wikiquette board. That's a separate issue. If you want to comment on it, do so on the SPI case. The sockpuppetry guideline you mentioned above doesn't apply to the Wikiquette board. When did I pretend that you brought up the matter? Isn't calling me an antitheist against NPA policy? And since when is calling your posts rants against NPA policy? You have called my posts and claims "fallacious" dozens of times; you have also said, "Your charge of "fanaticism" against me is factually incorrect" against Tim Shuba. Yet again you resort to personal attacks by commenting on my "unhealthy obsessions".

Finally, it was you who brought me into this case by mention of my name. If you didn't wish me on here, then simply don't slander me. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're quite correct that your false sockpuppet allegation doesn't matter on this Wikiquette Alerts board, and yet you're the one who brought it up here, not me. I brought up your TeleComNasSprVen name in my above 14:47, 25 June 2010 UTC post, but I didn't say anything negative about you, so there was nothing said about you for you to come here to defend yourself against. All I said there was that in a conversation with you, 58.96.94.12 violated Wikipedia policy in an attempted outing. So you're imagining something that never happened in saying "If you didn't wish me on here, then simply don't slander me."

You came on here being extremely rude to me, bizarrely saying "your drivel about whether you are a sockpuppet or not belongs on the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle page, that I've pointed out numerous times, and that you've refused to comment on, except on a WQA where it's not appreciated" when I hadn't even mentioned anything about sockpuppetry on this board, nor had anyone else mentioned anything about sockpuppetry in this section. So again, you have a real problem in imagining events that never took place.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What? If it doesn't matter why do you keep citing the guideline to "defending yourself against claims"? And you accused me of conspiring with the above IP address with connecting you to the attempted outing; that's how you brought me up.

What is this then, at the top of the page against Tim Shuba?

I don't have "alternate accounts": I've edited under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigned me without my input, but I've always been honest about them.

You've obviously brought up the SPI case. And like I've said, "on a WQA [where] it's not appreciated", meaning your citing the guideline doesn't matter. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a serious problem with imagining events that never took place.

My above post in response to Tim Shuba, wherein I mention, in response to something he said in his post, that I "edited under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigned me without my input, but I've always been honest about them" was made on 03:56, 20 June 2010 UTC.

Your sockpuppet accusation was filed on 02:44, 21 June 2010 UTC [80].

Yet you quote my said statement from my 03:56, 20 June 2010 UTC post and respond to it, "You've obviously brought up the SPI case." Though of course I didn't bring up the SPI case, since it didn't even exist yet.

I brought up your TeleComNasSprVen name in my above 14:47, 25 June 2010 UTC post, but I didn't say anything negative about you, so there was nothing said about you for you to come here to defend yourself against. All I said there was that in a conversation with you, 58.96.94.12 violated Wikipedia policy in an attempted outing. So you're imagining something that never happened in saying "If you didn't wish me on here, then simply don't slander me." Below is the entire sentence where I mentioned your name:

58.96.94.12 has repeatedly called me nasty names such as "crackpot", "nutter", "nut", and "crank", on his own Talk page [81], and in a discussion with User:TeleComNasSprVen on his Talk page where 58.96.94.12 engaged in an attempted outing of me: [82].

As you can see, I therein said nothing negative about you. So I certainly didn't accuse you "of conspiring with the above IP address with connecting you to the attempted outing; that's how you brought me up", contrary to your habits of phantasmagorical imaginings.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh? It doesn't say 02:44, 21 June 2010 UTC or whatever. And you implied that I condoned the IPs actions, since they were on my talkpage. And again you refuse to respond to any of the points that I made regarding your accusations against Tim Shuba's following you onto the WQA. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

: This discussion is getting run into the ground here. Let's take it to WP:RFCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs)

Do I need to do that, does James, or does someone else? Is it still about me? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This WQA was about personal attacks by 58.96.94.12. They were warned by User:NativeForeigner here and myself here about policies they may be violating. They make it clear here that they apparently disagree with the concept of WP:NPA entirely, even if it meant being blocked ("You can block me if that makes you happy but I'm not going to censor myself just to save the feelings of this guy from well deserved criticism.")

Based on this, I'm going to mark this as unresolved, as it is extremely unlikely that it will accomplish anything further. If so needed, move to another level of dispute resolution, as this entry-level method has failed. Regards, Swarm^Talk 07:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)