Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive107

User:Anthonyhcole


User's behavior is extremely uncivil and has repeatedly made personal attacks.


 * User accuses me of being bigoted, calls me "childish", characterizes my contributions as "blather"
 * User refactors comment: no longer am I "bigoted", but "one-eyed"
 * User attacks my capability for "rational thought," attempts to exclude me from article discussion with justification that my attitude "just doesn't belong here"
 * In response to a uw-npa3, user accuses me of "making rational argument difficult for the normal editors", tells me to "fuck off", and characterizes me as "disruptive".
 * In response to a uw-npa4, user reiterates that I was told to "fuck off", and commands me to "start being polite and respectful, if you know how".

Please also note user has a history of being blocked for personal attacks and harassment. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I consider this issue to be ✅ by User:TreasuryTag's comment below. Other editors seem intent on making this about me. I have no intention in participating in that, as it's degenerated into a witch-hunt for previous IP addresses I may or may not have used, which may or may not have been blocked. Gotten pretty silly, really. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment in particular seems to be way out of line. would be advised not to use that sort of language again. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 22:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * comment in reply to the creator of the report and their assertion that Anthonycole has according to the IP24. 177... "a history of being blocked for personal attacks and harassment"... - actually although Anthonycole's block log looks like repeated issues its not. The user has one block in April 2010 for 24 hours which was more or less commented as mistaken and unblocked by User:Zen after thirty minutes. The second block was in June 2010 for 24 hours (likely because the first was not countable for an increase) - this second block was increased by Sarek and then unblocked at ANI as not really blockable,(comment from unblocking admin was - "not really block-able") so on investigation of the block log there is little at all, nothing significant and the last unblock was from twelve months ago. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I have seen, this user IP24. 177 seems to be battle-fielding its way around from article to article, as if wikipedia is an online game to be won at all costs. The users asserts they have ten thousand contributions but as yet has not linked up to any of them. The user already has a block on this IP and I find myself wondering what is in the history of the user that we can not see. I also note, this is the IP addresses third report here in the last week - one against me and another against Stephen Walling a Wikipedia Foundation contributor. It seems strange t me that a contributor is repeatedly opening reports here, either they are being picked on, why would that be? or there is some other issue perhaps with the reporter themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this Wikiquette alert is to discuss the incivility exhibited by User:Anthonyhcole, not for you to cast spurious aspersions at me. Please take it elsewhere. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All contributors to the thread are open for discussion and evaluation including reporter. As I have commented - I see more problems and disruption from your IP address than the user you are reporting. note the IP has deleted/refused my request to attach any of its claimed ten thousand constructive contributions to the project to its current IP address. All I see from a good look through this users contributions under this IP address is general battlefield mentality and disruption, little or nothing in the way of project constructive content contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, you're implying malfeasance on my part with absolutely zero evidence, just suspicion. If you have a comment to make on my contributions, please feel free. If you're just seeking to discredit me with baseless innuendo, you need to stop. Nothing you've asserted (or even implied) justifies User:Anthonyhcole's incivility and personal attacks. Note: I'm not obligated to participate in your fishing expedition, and I'm free to remove your implied accusations from my talk page per WP:OWNTALK. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO - Looking through your contributions and seeing your battle mentality at multiple locations and multiple users getting close to the end of their tether with you, it is you that is the common denominator. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Because the common denominator I'm seeing is a block log filled with controversial blocks. Pot, kettle. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the only one with the recent block in this discussion and that is without you allowing access to your previous claimed contributions. Also I and all the others can point to long term constrictive contributions in our editing history which you are unable to do. From your battle attitude under this IP address and your recent block on it and your claim to have thousands of contributions under other IP addresses it is clearly good faith to assume you have other editing restrictions in your history that you are restricting access to.Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is clearly good faith to assume" that I'm violating a block? Hardly. Onus is on you to prove it, buddy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP has a track record of provocative/disruptive behavior. Here, the IP placed a spurious template on another user's talk page, got the response he was hoping for, and therefore is complaining. When a five year-old pokes a sleeping dog with a sharp stick and gets nipped, you work on controlling the behavior of the five-year-old. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe 20 years ago. These days, you put down the dog. PS: characterizing me as a 5-year-old is a personal attack; watch it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the template was not spurious. It was in response to the comment that User:TreasuryTag, above, described as "way out of line." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither my metaphor nor AHC's description of your inappropriate editing practices is a personal attack. AHC may have been uncivil, but that's hardly the same thing, especially given the deliverate provocation involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, prior to being called "one-eyed" and "bigoted", I'd never even interacted with the dude. Check the chronology, you're wrong on the facts. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd care to disclose the other IPs/accounts you've edited from so I can fully check the chronology. That was, after all, your proposal, and it's clearly necessary so I can do a proper job of it.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have as you asserted on your userpage User:24.177.120.138 - a userbox claiming over twelve thousand edits and a master service award claiming 42,000 edits and 6 years of service - please link to some of them - an article where you have edited and got on with users and added content without any disruption? Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Amused look at where the IP says: I don't give a flying fuck ... and then manages to complain about civility. The very first edit is clearly from an established editor of some sort, and I suggest that this exercise is one from a person who may well have had other IP addresses or names. Collect (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The anon has made a series of similar WQAs here (which have been dismissed). Perhaps the disruption it is causing is outweighing the benefits of its continued participation on this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At least one of them was held to have merit. I missed the closing of the other. But if you really feel that way, allow me to suggest you take your concerns to a more appropriate forum. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is very much the appropriate venue when you are the party who is filing these claims and causing much of the disruption alleged by several users. As to your previous WQAS, I closed one of them relatively recently (which is why I remember it), and the other one did not seem to have merit as you suggest. You will be blocked for disruption if something does not change rapidly in your approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, the threats start. This WQA has already been handled to my satisfaction. I'd marked it resolved, until Rob reverted. Frankly, I don't care; I'll not be participating further. If you'd like to discuss my behavior, please start your own WQA or whatever. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP24. 177... has attempted to close this thread three times now and I have reverted and requested they stop closing a thread that is discussing their contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread is resolved. Your fishing expedition and edit warring might not be over, but you should take it to somewhere more appropriate than a thread entitled User:Anthonyhcole. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Dispute resolution examines the behavior of the filing party as well as the subject; that you failed to appreciate what you are being told and repeatedly edit-warred only compounds the concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, despite the template you dropped on me, it's worth noting that you've violated 3RR on this article, and I have not. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So make a report. Stop closing a thread that has issues regarding your contributions under discussion. These wiquette threads stay open until resolved, which this is clearly not, or no one comments for three days it gets archived. Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, I don't deny having had previous IP addresses. I'm sure, if you look hard enough, you can find some of them. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note This was escalated to admin noticeboards where the anon was appropriately blocked for disruptive editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this thread still active? Perhaps someone cares to archive it. If IP24 still intends to keep it open, I'll add my opinion: Anthonyhcole, while they have used strong language (and in the debate they are, of course, completely wrong, since I'm on the opposing team!), needs not be reprimanded. Basta. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. You may have missed the part where it was decided that my intentions had no bearing on whether this thread remains open, and, in fact, it became legitimate to block me from editing for asserting them. Ah, Wikipedia: where IPs are humans too, until they disagree with you. Basta. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cambalachero


here, Cambalachero call me "troll" and "harasser". When Cambalachero was expelled from Spanish Wikipedia, he lied about his puppets (he said he had never used their puppets to evade blocks, and I proved that this was a lie). For this reason, he hates me (anyway, I'm not the only user of Wikipedia in Spanish that he often insulting, but always he is careful to insult in Spanish language, either in Commons and in Wikipedia in English). He has transformed a license request for a "case of harassment". I request that Cambalachero delete these comments offensive to me. Ferbr1 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is spurious. With one exception, the only edits  has made this year are his complaints about Cambalachero.  Clearly the only reason Ferbr1 is here is to harass Cambalachero.  Whatever has happened on Spanish Wikipedia is irrelevant here. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is fallacious: I acted because I have been insulted. If I had not been insulted, I would not have acted. What should I do to not be "harasser? allow insult me without doing anything? Ferbr1 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that Looie's reasoning appears entirely correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I hope this is closed before Ferbr1 pushes the point and gets themselves into trouble for making false accusations and hounding across territories. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont see anything insulting in the translations and frankly what happens on Spanish Wikipedia doesn't apply here.--v/r - TP 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

TheLongTone


TheLongTone seems to be adamant to continue a dispute with me. An IP (he himself), added content to the article Bristol Bagshot, and I must agree the content was added in good faith. But as the content was added without any references, I reverted the edits and warned the user using Huggle. But after I reverted the edits, he clarified that the edits were added with a reference to the external links present in the article. I later told him that "You never leaved an edit summary saying added content with abc in bibliography as ref. Considering that you had, all this fuss would never have happened. Because if you check the revisions, no refs or no edit summary specifying that content was added from ext. link was present. Do learn to leave an edit summary." (diff). But after I replied to him he answeres back to me, and (according to this diff), he calls me (in his own words) "[...] wrong,rude,pedantic,Illiterate (Leaved?),a Stalinist,Ignorant,The cause of any fuss [...]". Further he states (diff) that he is "surprised your page has only been vandalised twice if this is how you generally behave". After le I told him to withdraw ( strike out ) his last comment diff, he asks "which item on the list offends you?" and "advise[s] you to watch 'to Have and Have Not' especially the scene in which Bogart meets the character played by Lauren Bacall. It's fabulous." (diff). I believe that anyone would find himself offended after such name-calling. GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There seem to be three points here, that I did an edit without leaving a note, that my edits were unreferenced, and that I am being offensive to the user who made the complaint. The edit in question is clearly (if typo'd)statement of what was done & clearly stated that everything I had done was in a standard reference work on the subject of the article. This may have popped up briefly as anonymous because I am prone to browser crashes which log me off. In any case I was back in the article polishing things (such as editing references)when this precipitate undo was perpetrated upon me. I left a polite notice pointing all the above out, only to meet a stream of denial. the.  .Storm in a teacup.TheLongTone (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there seem to be 3 issues: You did not do an edit without leaving a note specifying that the edits you made were from an external link that too from an IP, that your edits were unreferenced, that you are being offensive to the user who made the complaint, And also you failed to compromise. GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referencing a book. For some reason totally unknownn to me you waded in and when politely challenged refused to discuss anything, merely reiterating inaccurate claims.Now you have thoroughly lost your temper over this entirely trivial matter. I can make neither head nor tail of your previous post.I have loads and loads of adjectives I could use should i wish to insult you. This was not my intentionTheLongTone (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ALERT: Completely uninvolved editor chiming in. I have recently had an "encounter" with TheLongTone, and have found him polite, patient and well-intentioned, as well as having a solid background in research and academic writing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Uninvolved editor here: I'm not sure what you want done, GaneshBhakt. Yes, TheLongTone did insult you intentionally. But his actions haven't exactly been ban-worthy. As there isn't much that can be done, I'd suggest just moving on. This is such a minor disagreement that was handled poorly on TheLongTone's part, agreed, but hardly worth going further than just ignoring him. TheLongTime, try to use edit summaries more and I'd suggest your refamilarize yourself with WP:CIVIL if you haven't already.--v/r - TP 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to conduct a dialogue with this person but all he would do was to rant on about edit summaries and references. I left an edit summary. It was about references. Sometimes sorting references properly takes more than one edit session. I have said all this before. Complainant did not take any noticable heed of my answers. I do not consider myself at fault.TheLongTone (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, starting a dialog with "if you had bothered to read" [] isn't likely result in the most cordial interchange. Gerardw (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about the validity of warning(s) from Adamrce


I got a warning from Adamrce for making edits, relating to a discussion on the talk page. I have tried to explain the situation of the discussion about what dispute or consensus there was or wasn't, and what policy guidelines that I felt have not been upheld when given me a new warning and reverting my edits here. I think that the warning and reverts have not had enough validity and would like to get this examined, because this has happened before. Davidelah (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also been involved in disputes with AdamRce, and am sick of him, leaving warnings on my page when he is in a dispute with me, like here. This maybe against wikipedia policy, per WP: Avoiding Civility, check out my user page, i have deleted about 4 or 5 warnings from him on my user page, but have kept some. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that a wikipedia Admin Intervention Notice was issued against this user (created by me), since i felt he was whitewashing controversial Islam related articles here (not many admins bothered replaying to that notice). Me and him also got banned for 24 hours for edit warring on the controversial Jihad article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I think I've explained enough on the claimer's talkpage, while I'll be happy to provide further details (if needed). --Adamrce    ~ AdvertAdam   talk  01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am notifying all users who have been involved and i think have been victims of his fake warnings. I hope this does not constitute as canvassing. The users have edited the articles that AdamRce/AdvertAdam, has had disputes with. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find A's behaviour in this area irritating. Firstly, this warning is spurious and should not have been given (any experienced user will recognise it as spurious and ignore it. Inexperienced users may well be intimidated, which is bad). Second, his use of funny little symbols appears to be designed to give a spurious air of authority (it looks to me as though he is mimicking ANI-type "resolved" stuff). He should stop both practices William M. Connolley (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also believe that the user is trying to get all sorts of rights e.g Reviewer rights, rollback rights e.t.c (you can see the symbols on top of his page), for the wrong reasons. I think he is trying to do this to get some kind of authority on wikipedia, so people recognise him as an experienced user, who can just revert peoples edits without question (and when he does revert, no one can really undo him, because he reverted for the right reason...because he is experienced you know :)). So arguing against him becomes harder. Personally, i believe the user is becoming arrogant (because of all those symbols he has on top of his user page), and is exaggerating himself against other users. Evidence of this is in his constant warnings against users he is in dispute with --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Imagine how a new user will feel when in a dispute with him. His warnings (which mention banning users), will make new users feel he is some "admin", so they will be less inclined to argue with him, fearing a ban (even if he is the one who did something wrong).There should be a BIG message on his page saying '''I am not an admin, even if i pretend to be one. I dont have any powers to ban you'''. And when i say big, i mean like the size of an Elephant. Since he uses to many warnings which mention banning users. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight comment: The second box of the "about me" sanbox says that I do not want to be an admin. Anyways, I never claimed to be one, nor does anyone have the right to tell me what to put on my userpage (don't visit it if you don't like it, as our communication is between talkpages).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Any comments by Admins would be helpful?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be appreciated. Davidelah (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello DavidEloah. i think you should consider moving this to the admin notices or incidents section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The process does seem to have gotten a little stuck here, but I would prefer if an admin, in this forum, would approve if this being done first, since I don't know whether there is someone looking into this case. Also I'm not sure how to do such a moving properly but I guess that's just a technicality. Davidelah (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its just a cut and paste. i dont think admins realise that no admins have responded?
 * Don't escalate this to ANI. It will be rejected-no-action because no action is required, and it is stale. It looks to me as though A is going to just stonewall on this one (just like Al-A did earlier). That isn't good, but OTOH he hasn't repeated his heinous crimes, so maybe he has taken the concern on board without being prepared to admit it - that isn't uncommon William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * William. I really appreciate your opinions and experience, but please avoid accusations ("heinous crimes"). Everyone gave his side of the story, and that's what is required here. Thanks...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * heinous crimes was a joke. It is far too over the top to be believable. I'm sorry if that didn't come over correctly. Consider it withdrawn. Everyone gave his side of the story, and that's what is required here - no, this isn't a story-telling game. What people are trying to tell you is that your behaviour is wrong. What is needed for this to be closed in a satisfactory manner, instead of just closed-stale, is for you to acknowledge the problem instead of stonewalling William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks William. I didn't take it seriously, but I know that others will (from my experience during previous discussions). It should be solved now :).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, i dont think he changed his ways. If anything, its temporary? if the admins wont help, what the hell can we do. Now 3 cases have been opened against him or related to him, and no admins will respond, as usual --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC) --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it's because Adamrce's signature and symbols looks like an admin's no admins have commented. Davidelah (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want help from an admin, this is probably not the place (ANI is the place) but given the issue is stale, there's little point as WMC has correctly told you already. Adam is very much incorrect if he believes a discussion should be put on hold due to a WQA being open. The very idea of WQA is for uninvolved users (not necessarily admins) to comment and provide perspective for disputes which lack resolution, but if users can resolve their disputes in the meantime (which means continuing any necessary discussion), that's even better. There is a danger in any party waiting for perspective here because the outcome may be something that one of the parties will not like (or both parties will not like), so it's better to try to resolve the disputes yourselves as a first point of call.
 * This has been here for far too long, so I'm going to suggest the following: Adamrce, can you please withdraw your most recent warning from Davidelah's talk page by striking it and take into account some of the things that have been said in this discussion? I'd rather see this happen voluntarily from you. Davidelah, I expect that by this warning being removed, you are willing to continue to discuss this with Adamrce and take into account the concerns he has with your editing (which was presumably what prompted the warnings in the first place). If there are continued issues of this sort in the future (eg; Adamrce gave Davidelah another warning or Davidelah has done/said something which makes Adamrce want to issue a warning), you can either take it to ANI for admin intervention or the next step in dispute resolution so that more uninvolved users can comment. Are the parties amenable to this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to take part in any discussion that can sorted out or reach some compromise. However, in the last exchange about Zakat I had with Adam, he gave the impression that there was no reason to discuss the material I had brought forth any further and directed me to take it up in the WP:CCN, again claiming that consensus was on his side. I have already tried to explain what problem I had with that claim. Davidelah (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your polite suggestion. Sorry about the "on hold", as I just don't have anything else to add. The only thing I can do is copy a previous statement as an answer there; however, I didn't stop replying to the discussions with the editor on the articles. I reply whenever I have a chance. I will strike the warning from his talkpage, but it doesn't mean that it was in-error. My usual style with the warning templates is to explain the certain policy to the editor personally a couple of times, instead of giving the first warning. When he repeats the same thing, I give the second warning with a custom message, based on the Warning Project instructions. Then came the third warning, when the editor insisted on adding the exact same disputed content while the discussion is open and three editors were against his point. I continually explained to him to not take it personally and consider them a reminder to restudy the policy. Thanks for your involvement btw, as we're all a family here for the sake of Wikipedia and the readers.
 * Regarding the Zakat article, the discussion is going in a closed cycle, so I suggested for him to take it to WP:CNN if he still disagrees with the explanation of three editors. Again, the only thing I can add there, too, is copying my same comments, as I've explained the same points many times with many angles.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say that I find Adam's comments here not very constructive. This is the same arguments that I have really tried to explain is problematic, and my answers is on my talk page but to repeat a short objection; two of my edits was not disputed by the other users and one user actually agreed with my original edits - that Adam changed and gave me the second warning.
 * Regarding why the discussion is going close cycled, maybe because I have brought references from a dictionary, from a notable online academy about Islamic jurisprudence and a guide to zakat from the biggest bank in Pakistan by a respected scholar, and still no compromise of the other's POV, by holding to a reference from practical examples in modern Southeast Asia. Davidelah (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@DavidElah, AdamRce is now in dispute with another user. see ...sigh (he used same arguments as with you) --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Stho002 and Identity, Four-dimensionalism
There is at the core a content dispute here, I realize this isn't the forum for that. But there is a discussion brewing at Talk:Identity that is borderline incivil. User:Stho002 added a long, (imo) rambling section to the lede of the article; I removed it citing MOS/LEDE. Another editor, User:Philogo has engaged Stho002. I admit I could have been a little clearer in voicing my criticism, and maybe I'm guilty of biting a newcomer (Though since October 2010 one would hope. . .) and perhaps failing to assume good faith, but I feel that Stho002's response has been out of proportion, and unnecessarily sarcastic and combatitive. Prior to my change at Identity I tagged a similar section in the Four-dimensionalism article as essay-like, but stopped short of removing it. Perhaps he could be gently reminded by an uninvolved editor that WP works by consensus and that discussions must remain civil. Thanks in advance for your attention to this issue.

Diffs
BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The text that I removed.
 * Stho002's response adding a note in the article text.
 * the span of diffs showing the Talk page discussion to date., in particular see ,
 * Stho002 notified of this report.


 * this is a trifle OTT, as I wasn't trying to be uncivil (though I may have come across that way, I don't know). It was just very frustrating to be told that a lede should 'establish the significance [of the topic], include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more', when they reverted my lede, which did all these things, back to one that did none of these things! It seems that some editors have difficulty in recognising a good lede when they read one. We have a problem here if WP policy can be used to justify a reversion from something that is in line with that policy, to one that is not. That makes me suspect that editors are just using policy to wield some kind of spurious authority, for the sake of it, and the quality of WP articles is the victim. Sort yourselves out, please ... Stho002 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The walls of text you inserted at the head of both articles were  in no way in line with the policy, specifically about article ledes by any stretch of the imagination and you further refused to even consider the possibility that this was the case. This isn't about wielding policy as a bludgeon, this is about you refusing to participate in the usual process of article revision towards consensus. But we'll continue that discussion (or not) on the respective article talk pages. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * consensus = pipe dream. No, what this is about is the sheer rudeness of reverting a contributed block of text, just because it may not have been perfect as a lede in every way, back to a lede that is totally useless Stho002 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Invalid argument in the wrong place. Gerardw (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an argument, just two statements of fact Stho002 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right argument, wrong place. Gerardw (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * >unnecessarily sarcastic and combatitive< sarcastic, maybe a little ... combatitive, no way! Stho002 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a level of incivility that merits anything except ignoring it. Gerardw (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's belligerent with the express intent of circumventing policy. Certainly not something that can be ignored, but as it's not potty-mouthed, it would appear this is the wrong place.—Machine Elf 1735  15:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Need someone to advise another user in my place due to my limitations


My chronic illness is acting up at the moment, so I've had to pose more questions on talk pages than I'd like, because I don't have the energy, etc., to do more than the lightest edits right now. For example, see Talk:Little_Red-Haired_Girl#Donna_Mae.3F.

In the same article, I've run into a different user (User_talk:66.108.233.96) whose edits changed the girl's name to the Orange-Haired Girl. Similar edits were reverted before by someone else and then this user repeated them (I think I saw this, but I might be mistaken). I reverted them again, but I can't advise him or keep an eye on the article. I glanced at the user's contribution page, and noticed patterns of edits on similar pages dating back to January 2011. I also can't compare these potential problems with the ones already mentioned on his talk page to see if any were missed, even just the latest ones.

So, I'm doing the best I can by letting you all know about these potentially problematic patterns, and then I will leave it to you to decide if anything should be done. Thanks for your help and sorry I can't do more, but this alone was pushing it for me. Geekdiva (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted a couple of changes. Beyond that, I think it's a childish mentality the editor holds, but it doesn't deserve a one-warning block. I have warned the editor. Will watch. Will block if the situation demands — but I don't think it will be required.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyberia23 and a newbie
Last night a new editor,, added an unreferenced sentence to Ancient Aliens.. At that point Cotton16 had a userpage but no talk page. reverted it with no edit summary and marked it minor - at least from my perspective, and I posted to his talk page saying "Would you please be more careful about the use of this tick box, as your removal of a sentence at Ancient Aliens was not a minor edit. You also need to start using edit summaries please.". I didn't mention at that time that it might be a pov edit and had forgotten who he was. His response was to say "I'm not a newbie editor Doug, I know what constitutes a major and minor edit, so kindly babysit someone else. If you want an explanation for it, I most likely hit "rollback" on that guy's statement which I believe automatically marks it a minor edit. The statement is a personal opinion not backed up any cited facts - what you have there is what I call a one-hit wonder vandal, (so-called because 90% it's their one and only edit ever on Wikipedia) who added his/her 2-cent take on the series and it doesn't belong there at all - not even with a "citation needed" tag. It clearly violates NPOV, and even if they did find a reference then it needs to be placed in a properly labeled "criticism" or "reviews" section. So if they do happen to find a reliable, credible source worth citing, then they put their comment there. Until then, I consider such edits vandalism - plain and simple - because it's put there only to cause problems. These one-hit wonder editors are suspicious to begin with which is another reason I call it vandalism. They have an agenda. I also know you don't like this particular series - I've read your comments on it before, and if it were up to you you'd delete the article or else significantly mar it with negative commentary. Since I spent a lot of time on that article I'm not tolerating BS like that.".

Ignoring the nonsense about me, this is not the way to treat new editors. Everyone starts with only one edit, and from Cotton16's userpage I see no reason to assume he's a vandal from the getgo, or that he even has an agenda. Cyberia23 later commented on Cotton16's talk page where he got a response from another editor saying "Ease up on the hammers! The only thing Cotton16 did not do was cite an expert source." It's no surprise that new editors often don't add sources, the appropriate thing to do would have been to add a fact tag. (I think the NPOV thing is a red herring and a lack of understanding on Cyberia23's part, and that would be for another venue). Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're taking this a bit far there Doug. You have an agenda (which you haven't denied) to tear up Ancient Aliens and any theory of Ancient Astronauts - both pages are hotbeds of controversy and vandalism and I think negative comments like that by especially anon users who come out of nowhere need to be removed unless they are properly sourced. They're a dime a dozen. Now you wanna throw me under the bus without even offering a compromise. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but who are a dime a dozen? This seems to me to be basically an issue of failing to assume good faith. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By "dime a dozen" I mean all the various anon/newbie edits that are negative to an article's subject, especially when there is no citation given, and you see those all the time at places of heavy controversy like Ancient Aliens pretty much on a weekly basis. Usually they can be deleted and no one cares, but this time Dougweller feels this one by Cotton16 should stay - adding more negative bias to the article which pretty much lacks any positive commentary at this point. Besides, the article is about the television show, not the subject of ancient astronauts - that's what the article ancient astronauts is for. As afar as I'm concerned all Cotton16 is basically saying with his comment that a bunch of people hate the show, and I really don't care. I don't like Jersey Shore but I don't go to that article and state that in various ways. That's why I consider it a useless statement that doesn't need to be there period - I'm not dissing newbies and anons as Dougweller is claiming - but they are the source of many of these uncited claims and opinions. I also find it especially suspicious when I see that many of these edits are the ONLY edits these anon/newbies tend to make here at Wikipedia - tells me that someone is going out of their way to push a personal agenda to discredit such topics as ancient astronaut theory. So forgive me if I think it smells fishy at the same time. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to explain, Ancient Aliens is a TV series. Before my edit last night I edited it 4 times, twice replacing 'see also's that were removed by IPs with no explanation, one trying to make the content reflect the source, and one changing what I thought was pov. I've clearly never tried to tear it up or even edit it heavily. I'm not clear why one anon user is complaining that another user is also anonymous. In any case, my concern is not to do with Cyberia23's edits of the article (and at the time I made the 2 edits that dealt with content Cyberia23 had bigger problems than me), but with treatment of a newbie.
 * And carrying on after the edit conflict, this is about treatment of a newbie no matter what spin Cyberia23 is putting on it (and there seem to be several). Note that the 2 IPs whose edits were reverted were taking out links to [{Pseudoarchaeology]] and Pseudohistory, so it isn't all 'anons' trying to discredit the topic. And the sentence that was rolled back was not 'I don't like', it was " Since the show has aired it has received heavy criticism from archaeologists, historians, anthropologists, and astronomers." In other words, unsourced but directly relevant to the television show, it did not refer to the topic of ancient aliens in general. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My take: (1) Cyberia23 should not revert anything except vandalism (which this was not) with no edit summary and with the revert marked as a minor edit. (2) I am skeptical of this editor, who seems too familiar with Wikipedia methods to be so unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Looie496 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rollback should certainly not be used this way. Back to the newbie, if anyone else shares Cyberia23's suspicions a look at his response on his talk page should dispell them. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur it would be better for Cyberia23 WP:AGF a little more -- understanding that's frequently difficult in certain contexts. Yes, usually a WP:DUCK is a duck but sometimes it's a Guinea Hen. It appears Cyberia23 has apologized to Cotton16 on 16's talk page, so I don't think any further action is needed. Gerardw (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I apologized to Cotton16 here for deleting his edit and going off on him. I explained why I deleted his edit and suggested another way to provide such information. I don't specifically recall using Rollback to delete his edit or not, I'm just indicated that I might have. It may explain why a "minor edit" was showing on it - I thought that had I used Rollback, the page history would indicate such like "revert edits using rollback" and it doesn't - at least it's not showing up for me. maybe an admin can verify. If I did, I apologize. I explained to Cotton that with all the vandalism Ancient Aliens has been getting lately, his edit appeared suspicious and I considered it was bad faith. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the major/minor edit thing used what I would consider incorrectly so often I just don't think it's worth worrying about. Gerardw (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a big deal either - maybe in the future we'll have a smarter Wikipedia system that would automatically recognize a major/minor edit on its own and tag it for us. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add that I would have marked it resolved myself at this point after Cyberia23's last post to the new editor. And confirm that Rollback edits aren't marked Rollback. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Grazing Rights Paragraph in Abyei Article


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 98.212.188.129 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC) I have tried several times to add a paragraph about the Grazing rights at the Abyei land in the Abyei article, however the paragraph was removed several times and finally the editor has removed the paragraph and locked the page for editing, the appears to be a non neutral decision as the editor has locked the page only after removing the paragraph, the paragraph is supported by academic references including a PhD desertion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.188.129 (talk • contribs)
 * You don't know what you are doing and you are just making a mess of the article. Since you have now added your material to the talk page (in addition to adding it to the article three times in different places), please allow it to be discussed there before taking other actions. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

dubyus and IP over woods coffee


Background: There appears to be a issue of an IP editor and a SPA editor going at each other over the content at Woods Coffee. Dubyas makes himself out to be a enthusiastic customer, whilst the IP may or not be part of a boycott movement against the establishment. I'm not certain of the full scale of the situation, but recently personal attacks have been launched, most recent being on a company representative's account:. Phearson (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not make myself out to be an enthusiastic customer. I reported being a satisfied customer, and one who appreciates the products and people at Woods Coffee. As stated on several occasions, my intention in editing the various pages is to have the Woods Coffee information accurately represented without personal and inaccurate attacks on one of the owners...which information has nothing whatsoever to do with the business of Woods Coffee.
 * I have also provided links to edits from a specific range of IP addresses originating at Western Washington University that explicitly state an anonymous user's intention to damage Woods Coffee. Dubyus (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what you are, it appears that you have returned attacks either in an equal, or greater fashion. From your edit history, I can see WP:OVERSIGHT actions this regard as well. Plus, your behavior can be seen as a negative effect in regards to Woods Coffee. Since wikipedia exists in real life, people looking on their favorite search engines can see everything you have typed in regards to the establishment. See it this way; If I was browsing one day and heard about Woods Coffee, and looked it up on wikipedia, and decided to look through the talk pages, and saw that someone who frequents Woods Coffee likes to attack people on-line, why would I want to go if the possibility exists that I may encounter such a person that may do the same thing in real life? Do see where I am getting at?
 * As for the IP editor(s), if you encounter them doing something the grain of how we do things on wikipedia, ignore and report if it violates the rules. At this point, its covered by the editors attracted to the page by the conduct of both parties. Phearson (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens


The following exchange from Articles for deletion/Learning Perl is pretty self-explanatory:

As you can see, Jclemens got two warnings, the first just a gentle reminder and the second unequivocal, that incivility is inappropriate. Even after a clear request to stop, he's still at it.

Normally, I would simply let it pass. But Jclemens is an admin and should be held to a higher standard. He should know better. Msnicki (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Frivolous complaint. Jclemens was absolutely correct in telling you that you seem to have a very unique view on what constitutes a personal attack. The question was quite simple and straightforward, so if you are unwilling to indicate just how much you know about the subject in question, that raises alarm bells about your judgement as an editor. It was a good thing you withdrew the nomination yourself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "no one cares about yours" comment wasn't the most civil reply I've ever seen. Why not call it a wash and move on? -- Avanu (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A question that remarks on my "clued-in-ness" and his suspicion that I don't know anything does not strike me as "simple and straightforward". And given that it's a second warning and in response to his remarks about being "informed by, oh, being in the IT field for a decade or two" (again, implying that he has experience and I don't), I think my reminder that personal experience is irrelevant is reasonable.  Certainly, I don't think it justifies more personal remarks about my "mighty thin skin" or that I'm "prone to hyperbole".  Finally, I have no idea why it was a "good thing" I withdrew my nomination myself.  Were you going to beat me up otherwise?  I changed my position because new sources were offered; I often change my WP:!VOTEs when that happens.  Isn't that what we're supposed to do?  Msnicki (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A question that remarks on my "clued-in-ness" 
 * It is the sort of question that naturally arises. Your past record (from just what little I've seen of it) has plenty of cases where (in a phrase that's quite nicely put and certainly civil),  'you have no personal experience with or about this book, and are just looking at it through the sterile lens of policy, rather than a view of its encyclopedic value' . I rather like the 'sterile lens of policy' part, it well-describes a number of editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, that's a completely unjustified (and unjustifiable) blanket slam about my "past record". Like many here, I'm anonymous.  You have no idea what personal experience I might have and neither is it relevant.  I think my record is just fine.  And that particular comment by Jclemens was particularly incorrect:  I do have a copy of the book.  (Actually, I have two copies, the first and third editions.)   Msnicki (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You presumably came here to receive input from others and reflect on it; if you came here with the idea that either everyone agrees with you or everyone is wrong, we are probably wasting our time when giving you the apparent input you were requesting. I think experience can greatly shape whether you know what you are talking about or not, and it can be very relevant in assessing how much you need to be told so you can understand why this article was being kept. You should have answered the question; when your response lacks an answer, it is not helpful. Still, he suggested an answer to you and your response only corrected a small part of that answer. I think his response to your accusation was reasonable in the circumstances. So the first question here is whether your concerns were justified - they weren't, and that's probably a reflection that you were being oversensitive (and this impression is furthered by you frivolously stating that there was some sort of inappropriate incivility). Jclemens probably put it much more eloquently than I have (or would have) to be honest. And by the way, I said it was a good thing you withdrew the nomination yourself so no further time or resources were wasted on a nomination which was, from what I can see, going to fail anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your position seems to be that it's okay to be rude and uncivil just so long as you disagree strongly enough with the other editor's opinions. I don't think that's in the guidelines.  Msnicki (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep asserting that Jclemens was "rude and uncivil" as if it were some kind of fact - when in fact it's only your opinion. A minority one, it seems. As others have said, you do seem to have a unique view on what constitutes a personal attack. The question Jclemens asked of you was simple and straightforward - just deal with it and move on. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You may indeed have relevant outside experience of topics, but I've never seen you make use of any of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we've encountered each other on only one occasion, Articles for deletion/2N3055, and you appear to be carrying a grudge over a warning I gave you. Perhaps you're not quite as unbiased as you should be to weigh in on this matter.  Msnicki (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I recall you at two AfDs, in both of which you claimed that IEEE publications weren't acceptable sources. One of these I dragged off to AN/I, and I also had to warn you over your "tick tock!" comments that it if wasn't improved rapidly (something you showed no inclination to do yourself) it would be deleted. The only indication I've seen of your outside knowledge is when you were vocal about deleting a C shell, then admitted that you had a COI involvement with one of the competitors. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, this isn't helpful. Msnicki (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing to see here but the standard level of XfD cattiness. Clemens is becoming more and more like me. :) Tarc (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to let the rest of this proceed without comment (since everyone seems to have gotten the gist of what I was saying anyways), except to note that this statement is probably a much more serious personal attack than the one which prompted this thread. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. is one of Wikipedia's five pillars Msnicki's personal history isn't really relevant to any discussion. That said, JClemens comment, while off base, doesn't really merit any reaction beyond ignoring it. Gerardw (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While further comment is obviously unnecessary, I will add my suggestion that the OP take on board the advice offered above. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where rules are blindly followed and editors operate like automata—it may be worth bearing that in mind when forming opinions. At no point in the reported conversation above did anyone come anywhere near breaching CIVIL, and reporting the case here indicates a need for some self reflection. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Away for a bit and this sort of "incident report" gets made. Unfortuneately, it is a non-incident. Collect (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Treats of bans and failure to AGF
We had discussions at the last Chapters meeting in Berlin regarding biting new comers. Wikipedia is complicated even for someone who has made tens of thousands of edits. While trying to address what I considered a legitimate question I received what I consider to be a less than friendly note from User:J Greb. Now we are all here to try to write an encyclopedia. If ANI was not the proper place for me to pose my question I would be happy to be informed off a better place but rolling back my question and threatening to ban me from editing is NOT smart / good for the project. Now if we have admins routinely treating people like this (either old or new) we have a serious problem on our hands ( our falling editor numbers are a concern ). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - the "legitemate question" was over at ANI, and was this. GiantSnowman 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I agree I posted with insufficient details and to the wrong venue. My point however is it would be nice if people where friendlier. A concern that has been raised before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, in that note there was no talk of "bans" but there was talk of a "block" - quite a major difference. GiantSnowman 22:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree re wrong venue etc, but the response from JGreb seems completely over the top to me at first sight. Is there some underlying issue going on here? What's the context?Fainites barley scribs 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Never interacted with that editor before. Nor User:KFP. My comments have to do with a topic ban seen here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we haven't. And as suggested over on ANI, I'll take a Trout for snapping. Sorry about that Jmh649.
 * But the underlying issue was solid: starting a policy debate, or an ethics/POV debate, cold on ANI is a non-starter. Fighting to get it is going to be seen as disruptive and eventually blockable to preserve the "smooth" running of ANI. (We've got enough Wiki generated drama there just with the normal level of incidents posted.) If ArbComm wants the issue taken up at ANI regarding a specific case, then the background needs to go up and it needs to be clear what aspect of that case (incident) is being resolved.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is unacceptable. As an isolated bad move it would not support a ban, but systemic behavior of this sort would. I'm not sure that User:J Greb is being fair to himself with that trout slap. However, to assume good faith, you must have thought it would lead to a productive discussion. The other way of looking at it, of course, is as classic trolling, throwing out bait to see if you can start a unproductive row. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I guess WP:VP/P may be where this sort of discussion should take place. I am still unsure why what I posted was out of line. The discussion occurred before at ANI . The difficulty was that most of the comments where by sockpuppets/currently banned users. Thus I was trying to clarify consensus as supposedly per here it is that abortion is not part of human sexuality.
 * I still think this is a legitimate question and assumed it would lead to productive discussion. But the more important issue IMO is why was the initial responses I received there so negative? Being labeled either a troll as per Fred above or accused of soap boxing is not assuming good faith. One would expect that people would provide constructive feedback on admin boards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it does make sense in the context of User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert; perhaps if you had included that context? User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I do agree that I phrased things poorly. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mains electricity by country
Do we normally deal with other editors by ultimatum> Do we normally have one author doing the final edit to an article?  Signed, Curious.--Wtshymanski (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Such behavior is normal, but not optimal, this revert appears to accomplish little in terms of delivering information to readers. There are issues for international travelers, especially for North Americans. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I obviously meant the last revert about this specific issue, not the last edit ever. (Note that I didn't even use the words final edit.) It also wasn't an order or anything, just something I hope. I don't have any authority at all, so it can't even be perceived as an abuse of authority.
 * The problem: different countries have different standards regarding wall plugs. This article was written from a North-America centric point of view: it specifically stated that North America has "standardised", while the rest of the world differs widely. This is obviously not the case: different regions have different standards, and the North American standard is just one of them. I tried to correct it by taking away the reference to North America, and just leave it saying "vary widely across the world". Note that I don't have any issue with North America appearing on the page! If there was a balanced section about the different standards in different regions, I would more than welcome it. But the way it was now, just seems incorrect to me.
 * I clearly stated my reasons on the talk page. I specifically challenged a claim that he made earlier on that talk page, that he thinks "it's notable that I can draw a 3000 km radius around my home city and be highly confident that for any hotel I stay at within that radius, my appliances will fit the wall plug". I told him why I think it's not that notable (see the discussion there).
 * In response, only this ad hominem: "I think it's sweet that the Europeans can all agree on using the same currency and *still* can't agree on a wall plug." And a revert.
 * I restated the same argument. Now, a more or less to the point response, but containing factual inaccuracies (like "European[s] ... can't travel 1000 km without changing plugs"). That is the only proper response I ever received from him. After my reply, he ignored the main argument, instead picking one detail of something I said, and finding a minor flaw in it. And another ad hominem, bordering on name-calling.
 * After I restated my original argument, to which he still hadn't responded, yet again (why is 3000 km especially notable, more than 2000 or 4000 km, a large population, a lot of countries, ...), he just ignored my comment and reverted my edit. At that point I could have reverted him back immediately, but instead I gave him what he calls "an ultimatum": give an actual explanation for your edit, or I'll revert it. I obviously respect that he doesn't always have time for Wikipedia, but when there's a discussion going on about an edit on the talk page, he shouldn't just change the main article and let other editors wait multiple hours for an explanation for his edit. He should leave the article as it is, and only change it after he had time to explain his reasons.
 * He eventually responded by reverting the article yet again, and settling the matter by declaring "he has nothing new to say". When I still dared question his judgement, apparently he opened this alert, grossly misrepresenting my actions.
 * Link to full discussion after my last comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country&oldid=436271572#Standardization
 * --FrederikVds (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This looks like the sort of dispute that could be avoided if we all remembered some key principles.
 * All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. If there's a reliable source that says that electric plugs in North America are standardised and that the rest of the world isn't, then that assertion can be considered for inclusion.  Until then, it's original research or synthesis.
 * Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. Discussions about whether North Americans or Europeans did, could, should or might have the same plugs are not germane to the question of how best to write this specific article.
 * So I suggest that all parties assess their comments in the light of the five pillars and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Sergeant Cribb, but I wish to note that Wtshymanski ends up at these pages far too often. If he's ending up here this often he is doing something wrong, other people are not really the problem, he is creating problems with his edit style. Looking at this, I find it hard to consider that FrederikVds is really making a bad edit, and Wtshymanski is being unwise to revert it, and even if he disagrees, doubly unwise to escalate to the point where it should be at wikiquette. Even if he disagrees it really isn't that important. -Rememberway (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fessenden oscillator


This is uncalled for. What is the issue with this user? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is your very long stream of non-constructive edits. In particular a blinkered view that you are some sort of expert on electrical technology, and that if you haven't heard of something, that makes it immediately non-notable.
 * To quote my post and save some linkage re your merge proposal, "Another crap suggestion by User:Wtshymanski to delete an article because he has never heard of it, and if he can't manage that, to merge it so that it goes away quietly."  Now if this merge is so valuable, why did you yourself withdraw it only minutes later?, with a grudging admittance that the thing was indeed covered by sources, as we ask.
 * This isn't about Fessenden, it's about the totality of your edits and their profoundly unconstructive bias (there's a nice essay page link for that, if anyone remembers it). Go back to the infamous 2N3055 where you were bounced around WQA & ANI by a number of editors. You complain incessantly about articles, you do little to fix the issues (you do some copyedit & anti-vandal stuff for which I'm obviously grateful) but your continual erosion of articles and article content makes a toxic environment for anyone else to work on them.
 * Ages back, I wrote single-board microcontroller, an article that I thought did a fair job (albeit weak on refs) of explaining the origins of them and mostly how they're distinct from single-board computers. It sat there for ages without controversy, until you did a hatchet job on it. First of all you started querying the small points (again, if you've never heard of it, it didn't happen), such as denying the use of PL/M - it's a version of the big-iron language PL/1 for Microprocessors. Bit of a hint there. Now you've left it as a screwed-up mess that seems to be comparing single-board microcontrollers to microprocessor development boards, which just isn't the issue at all. It's a mess and we'd be better rid of it.
 * Last week there was an issue with Magneto where it was proposed to rename the primary topic to be a comic book character named after the device, probably because the Magneto article was so poor that no-one really read it. As had been noted on its talk: some years ago, it wanted rewriting entirely and to reflect the structure at Commons (which I did the legwork for, not you) to represent the three main areas that magnetos had been significant for. As it is, the article only discusses one of them (ignition magneto) and doesn't even mention that the other exist. So, because you were nowhere to be seen in fixing this, I started doing it. I from-scratched a new article on Magneto (electrical generator) (their obscure but notable use for high-power generation) so that we could start a clear one main + three subs structure and get a decent encyclopedia out of it all. What did you do? Minutes after I'd finished it, you tagged it for a merge back into the unreadable morass of the existing article. Now there's constructive. There's collegial for you.
 * There's a comment up this page, applied to the only editor who took your side on the transistor debacle, where their edits are described as you have no personal experience with or about this book, and are just looking at it through the sterile lens of policy, rather than a view of its encyclopedic value. Well to borrow a phrase, I saw that and thought of you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Over at Talk:Burglar_alarm you're doing it again. You see a section you don't like, so you repeatedly blank it because you've never heard of it, so it doesn't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just...wow. You must be under a lot of stress. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty well all of this is, to coin a phrase, un-called for. I can't understand the rationale for the Fessenden oscillator merger proposal, and have just given my reasons at the talk page in question.  AD's comment was exasperated and W's comment was not calculated to reduce the stress levels.  Cup of tea time all round.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits like and  indicate that W is, as he puts it, "under a lot of stress". Probably he should just back off somewhat until he has calmed down William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In my personal opinion, I don't think there is any stress involved at all. I rather suspect that he enjoys himself. Wtshymanski is an interesting case. Like many other disruptive Wikipedia editors, he is pushing an agenda that is clearly against consensus (attempting to delete pretty much any engineering article he doesn't like) but that's the only way he resembles the average disruptive Wikipedia editor. Most disruptive Wikipedia editor are actually quite dimwitted, making it easy for admins to identify and block them. Wtshymanski. on the other hand, is highly intelligent and resourceful, and has become quite the expert on Wikipedia policies and procedures. He pushes the boundaries wherever he can, and backs down whenever there is a realistic chance of an admin dealing with the issue.  Thus you see him being very sarcastic and insulting until someone makes an issue of it, then he plays nice until the attention passes.  If he thinks no one is paying attention, he will push for a merge as a way of nuking an article without the attention am AfD generates, but when the out-of-policy merge proposals draw attention, he backs off and waits.  One of his favorite tactics is button pushing - long-term low-grade annoyance in the apparent hope that his target will explode with an edit or comment -- which is exactly what Andy Dingley did.  I am not going to suggest that "Another crap suggestion by User:Wtshymanski" is appropriate behavior, but it certainly is understandable.  There are several editors who are experts on engineering topics and who work together in a mostly collegial atmosphere.  Dealing with these editors is a pleasure, because even when one of my edits is shot down it is done using evidence and reason, leaving me feeling glad to have lost that particular battle and learned something.  Dealing with Wtshymanski isn't like that. He creates a toxic environment because he is absolutely certain that the opinions of other editors are worthless. The result is that I find myself discouraged from trying to improve any article that is currently in his gunsights. It is not fun having to deal with his behavior.  Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Silvershrek


Today, Silvershrek made an edit with an insulting summary - 'what are you, deaf?', so I warned him with a level-3 warning, noting that he had deleted other warnings from his talk page already. He immediately shot back with an attack against other editors 'another admin with a Napoleon complex' and 'whines about it to an admin, like a baby', so I warned him again, and I investigated. This editor has been increasingly insulting in his edit summaries and interactions with others. 'Look you "knob"' 'wow, you're annoying' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Big_Snooze&diff=prev&oldid=389605713 'Cut it out! You crazy idgit!' - can't tell whether this is a joke.] While many of this editor's contributions are constructive, he seems to be getting hot under the collar and running afoul of WP:CIVIL these days. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you notify him about your complaint? Obviously there is a problem, but I'd like to hear from him too. Maybe other people are doing stuff that bothers him a lot. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Lizzie McGuire fan, but actually this edit doesn't make a lot of sense when the show is called Lizzie McGuire. Silvershrek seems to think that one brief note from him ought to settle the matter. If it doesn't the ip editor is "deaf", not listening. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

BurgererSF


Some days ago User:BurgererSF added some info to the lead section of Jeremias Falck. As per WP:LEAD this section should (only) give an overview of the main article, thus I moved the info to the main body and maid some minor changes. Today BurgererSF returned and undid my changes with a short comment ("rv edits by HerkusMonte - POVpushing, Kulturkampf propaganda see sources!!!" ). I changed it back and explained my reasons at his talk page. He removed my message (as he does regularly any kind of "opposition" e.g. ) and restored "his" version, summarizing his reasons as "Censorship and propaganda of the German Kulturkampf + vandalism, see sources, please discuss your changes". Furthermore he found it necessary to "warn" readers about the article ("ATTENTION!!! SOURCES ON THIS TOPIC PUBLISHED BEFORE 1945, ESPECIALLY IN GERMAN, ARE NOT RELIABLE - LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE GERMAN KULTURKAMPF (GERMANIZATION OF THE POLISH POPULATION").

I don't want to editwar about a simple question of article structure, but BurgererSF's comments ("Kulturkampf propaganda, censorship, vandalism") and "warning" show a strange kind of bad faith and incivility, I think he should be warned to use a proper language and to consider WP:LEAD and WP:AGF. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any comments by BurgererSF directed against HerkusMonte. His concern regarding usage of German Empire's or Nazi Germany sources on Poland(and we have to remember that German Empire was formed by a man openly writing about exterminating Polish people, Nazi Germany is self explanatory) is understandable. It might be done of course without caps lock.I sincerely hope that Herkus Monte doesn't argue for inclusion of German Empire's sources or Nazi ones as reliable source of information regarding Poland.Or any Nazi Germany's sources used in that article or ones from the repressive German Empire?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * COMMENT:Please don't take MyMoloboaccount's statement as an uninvolved view. We have a long history of more or less productive cooperation, coined by an "opposition in principle" in almost every question. However, I'm talking about BurgererSF "style" not about content (which, in fact, was just moved within the article). HerkusMonte (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's so curious for me, if Jeremias Falck signed his works as Polonus (Pole in Latin), why it cannot be diplayed in the article's lead section, my editions supported by reliable sources and quotes (eg., )  had been reverted and "censored" (meaning in Latin removed), is it some kind of discrimination? BurgererSF (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with reliable sources used to source articles. Deleting such information isn't encouraged-although I am must say I am not surprised to see it happen, sadly.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeremias Falck played no role in modern German-Polish cultural conflict. Bringing it into the article, and discussion about the article is anachronistic. He identified himself as a Pole from Gdansk, but worked in Hamburg. I would leave the way he styled himself in the introduction, but lose all the nasty talk about GERMAN KULTURKAMPF (GERMANIZATION OF THE POLISH POPULATION, nothing to do with Flack, and probably little to do with other Wikipedia editors; although we should guard against such prejudice toward Polish people and culture. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As this is the Wikiquette noticeboard, I didn't try to discuss content but behaviour (Wikiquette) and I'd like to stress (once more) that I only moved content from one place to the other. Is BurgererSF's way of "discussion" (he continues BTW, now calling it "rv discriminating editions" ) acceptable or not. Thank you.HerkusMonte (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

EncyMind


I recently reverted the additions of a great number of unnecessary images from a few articles added by EncyMind, a relatively new contributor. This editor apparently took that to mean that there's some kind of "sexist control of Wikipedia", and that I was part of some group determined to suppress content in articles about female authors. Her talk page contributions have gotten more passive aggressive, as have her edit summaries. After I removed a completely superfluous quote box (not referenced or mentioned in the text) from Anne Rice today, she reverted it with the following summary - "suspected misogynist vandalism - cockblocker needed". This is completely unacceptable. I've warned her for that, but I'm afraid more eyes on this may be needed. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * She followed that up with "suspected illiterate misogynist vandalism; cockblocker needed" over a minor formatting change. I think we're into WP:OWN territory her as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Filed by BelloWello


User repeatedly refers to me as "Little IP" whenever I ask for verification of his claims. The condescending attitude is not appreciated, but it is only to accumulation of multiple issues that forces me to believe that I am not being treated with good faith, forcing me to bring this here. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And this IP repeatedly harasses me because I'm trying to get sources up. As soon as I said "I'm getting sources" the IP pops up with "waiting", next to every place I'm trying to put sources in. The IP has also engaged in calling me "not smart" and other insults. It's quite a bit of back and forth. Additionally, this IP has editing and discussion behaviors very similar to other IP/users. Finally this IP was warned for edit warring on Generation of Youth for Christ.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Says the guy with this substantial block log... 50.72.159.224 (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit I edit warred in the past. That is why I am not doing so now. I have gotten help as well in the form of mentors. There is no reason for you to try and report me, except maybe a personal wiki grudge or something. I could argue you haven't been treating me with good faith, but I can live with it. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUCK. the IP seems to be operated by ==. The forum shopping, concentration on conservative vs progressive issues in Seventh Day Adventism, the blanking of sections in Southern Adventist University and other articles, the references to a little known blog of a teenager, the breakneck editing patterns and the targeting of Fountainviewkid all point to that user. As an editor he is indistinguishable from BelloWello. Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you going to file WP:SSP? Gerardw (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The checkuser Brandon seems to be following these accounts. He recently blocked Letsgocrazytogether for sockpuppetry and the edits of that account are related to BelloWello. For the moment the IP has ceased editing. Mathsci (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If sock puppetry and account abuse is suspected, probably best to leave it until CU has sorted things out. This is not the place to discuss that sort of thing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence of socking IMO is beyond a reasonable doubt, and several editors are in agreement. I have filed a report at WP:SPI. – Lionel (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for two weeks per the SPI. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous Canadian user
For over the past year, this anonymous Bell-Canada user has been leaving abusive edit summaries in many video game-related articles (usually Contra-related) and has even vandalized the userpage of Edwin Herdman. I've tried to report his behavior as vandalism, but no action was taken. I still want this user to be taken care of. Jonny2x4 (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To begin to contemplate criticisms of another User's behavior, like this one, it is essential for us to see some hard evidence of the misdemeanours. This is done by providing diffs to take us to the scene(s) of the crime.  To find out how to harvest a diff and post it on this page, see WP:D&L.  Dolphin  ( t ) 08:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a request for admin intervention; it probably should be moved to ANI or something seeing we don't impose any binding (or admin) measures here. Maybe a CU could also help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility Issues with Editor


''First let me say, I am an involved editor in this situation, and like most people I haven't been perfect. My goal in filing this Wikiquette alert is to encourage a change in editor behavior to foster civility and productive discussion.''

Editor User:Dream Focus has been a very vocal proponent of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. My typical experience with DreamFocus has been a situation where he will belabor a conversation with personal attacks and emotional baggage, to the point where the entire conversation becomes a battle about personalities, rather than whatever the actual issue was.

Most recently, we have had an IP editor propose some changes to the WP:Article Rescue Squadron page, along with an explanation in the Talk page of their actions. The changes were reverted by DreamFocus and he then proceeded to attack the IP editor in the Talk page saying "Log in to show who you really are. Don't hide behind an IP address."

Other editors have asked DreamFocus to avoid personal attacks and stay on topic, and I personally have hatted the off-topic discussion twice now, only to be reverted by DreamFocus with the statements:
 * "Don't try to collapse something because the discussion didn't go your way and you don't want people to see it." and
 * "stop trying to hide an argument because things didn't go your way. its very disruptive".

I realize that there have been many debates on these pages, and at times we've seen the 'heat level' rise in the Talk pages, but I'd really like to see Dream Focus begin to focus on the legitimate arguments being made in the page and tone it down and make efforts to communicate more civilly. Thanks all. -- Avanu (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nine minutes after protection of the page ended, an IP address with almost no other edits, edits the page. Obviously it was someone who had been involved in the previous discussion, and was trying to edit without logging in.  Me telling them to stop hiding who they were, is perfectly reasonable.  Also, you shouldn't collapse part of a talk page and hide what people say.  That discussion was most likely at an end, but there is still no possible reason to do that.  That is rude, and it is disruptive, and I doubt you would have done it if the argument went in a direction where people agreed with your point of view.  And I would like to see Avanu actually work with the articles tagged for Rescue, instead of spending insane long amounts of time arguing about it.  The only article he ever edited which had a rescue tag, was one that he had replaced with a redirect twice during the AFD, and then removed the Rescue tag from four times during that same AFD.  He then came to change the Rescue guidelines, and has been arguing nonstop, and repeatedly accusing me of nonsense.  I have stated before, if you want to change something, write it out, and get comment, forming a consensus on changes.   D r e a m Focus  01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, all this began with the changes on the other Rescue pages. The argument has stretched to fill all four archived pages of Template_talk:Rescue as well as its current page if anyone wants to really get into it.   D r e a m Focus  01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assumptions of bad faith come so naturally to you, that I don't think you even realize it most times. Obviously it was someone who had been involved in the previous discussion, and was trying to edit without logging in.  Obviously?  What evidence do you have for this accusation, which if true would be a blockable offense?  If it is so obvious, then get a checkuser and start a sockpuppet investigation.  That's the right way to do it, as opposed to instantly reverting them because the voices in your head tell you that it's a sockpuppet.  There's at least one ARS member who has checkuser rights, and I'm sure he'd be glad to use them if there was enough evidence (if he hasn't checked privately already).  IP's are just as allowed to edit as you are, and just because an IP has no other contributions doesn't prove anything because some people have dynamic IP's which change often.  The fact that you've been here as long as you have and you don't understand this yet is amazing.  &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 15:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: "you shouldn't collapse part of a talk page and hide what people say", do you have a Wikipedia policy or Guideline to back up this assertion? Guy Macon (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I didn't like what you were saying, could I hide it by doing that to you?  D r e a m Focus  10:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Um. The "collapse" revert is, if anyone else was wondering. I'm all for removing off-topic discussion, but in this case A had already participated in the discussion, so isn't really in a position to say it was off topic. Closing discussions like that can be contentious, especially when done by a clearly involved party. Re-doing the same close in those circumstances wasn't a good idea. And It's a given that Dream Focus will react stridently to...  wasn't exactly helpful for calming things down William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Also Assumptions of bad faith come so naturally to you... reverting them because the voices in your head tell you that it's a sockpuppet... isn't helpful either William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I echo what William M. Connolley has said. Avanu and Snottywong, this was poorly handled by the both of you and you ought to have known better by now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a continuing problem however. The initial editor was an IP.  Dream Focus immediately declared they were editing in bad faith, and this set the tone for the next few comments, until people decided to actually focus on the question at hand.  After the conversation had begun to focus on the real issues rather than personalities, I hatted it so that we could get on with life.  Dream Focus turned that into an argument as well.  His comment "stop trying to hide an argument because things didn't go your way" makes no sense because there was nothing to be won or lost in the comments that were off-topic and hatted.  Your right in saying my comment and Snottywong's comment were unhelpful, but of all the editors in the page, it is almost 100% a guarantee that Dream Focus will take the conversation off topic.  He is immediately defensive and critical of any modification to the ARS pages or anything related to the point of acting as if he is the person allowed to decide what goes there.  He behaves in a very partisan manner, referring to people who disagree as 'deletionists'.


 * Conversation in these places has finally reached a level of reasonable discussion, and mostly it has come from simply trying to ignore the noise that gets introduced by Dream Focus. As I said in intro, I'm not perfect either, but I think I'm not alone in asking for people to simply be reasonable.  The outcome of this latest situation was that many editors came together to discuss and for the first time, I think we have a vibrant discussion going where people are going to participate more.  Dream Focus has opposed every single proposed change to the pages except for one *VERY* minor change that he himself proposed and I implemented. (changing 'flagged' to 'tagged')


 * I have tried to have a reasonable discussion on Dream Focus' talk page, and that went bad very quickly. As far as the goal here, I guess I would just like a committment from Dream Focus to try and deal with other editors in a more collaborative fashion and work under the impression of good faith more often. He seems to have a lot of offer, but his approach when dealing with opposing ideas is less than awesome. -- Avanu (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just looked again at the discussion you hatted. DF has provided an explanation of why he distrusted the IP, and that explanation is plausible at least. I don't think you have challenged it. The discussion under the hat gets derailed, I'd say, when SW says This revert seems very vindictive, and accusing someone of "hiding behind an IP address" is probably the definition of assuming bad faith. You've all but accused this editor of being an "enemy" and you follow up with It's a given that Dream Focus will react stridently to any attempt to change anything about or related to ARS. I'd react badly to those. What I'm trying to say is that if you want to provide a WQA for DF's bad behaviour, you really need to provide an example where your behaviour was *better*.
 * You also say you tried to discuss at DF's talk. Did you mean User_talk:Dream_Focus? That started badly with some kind of malformed 3RR report later withdrawn. It doesn't look like it was a good place to start from William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not malformed. It was filed by me on 4 editors at once, including myself being one of the 4. Off2Riorob suggested that we trying talking first, and withdrew the report.  There was edit-warring, and I was also guilty of it.  William, you are focused on a very solitary set of things without reviewing the overall discussion.  If you are simply going to tit-for-tat this, that will not solve the underlying civility issues.  I'm not here to debate the minutiae of each and every encounter, but to solve a problem. The idea that I need to present myself as having perfect behavior in order to somehow 'one up' Dream Focus is silly. There is an issue with civility and it involves all of us, and yes, I am putting a specific focus on Dream Focus because that is where the most strident conflict arises.  Other editors in the debate have been much more willing to give and take. -- Avanu (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't actually read the report, I relied on O2RR's Dude, I have deleted your report, its malformed and, just not required, boomerang might get ya if ya insist on going down that windy road. I'm not asking for perfect behaviour from you. But I've said my piece here and it doesn't look like it is helping, so I'm backing off. Feel free to contact me on my talk page should you wish William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Onikiri


This user added information which was unsourced, which I removed. The user restored the information with an incivil edit summary . 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read and follow the instructions at the top of the page, particularly Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith. if you have already done this, please provide diffs to the place where you have done so. -  Nick Thorne  talk  08:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

AnnihilatorHeli


Could somebody with more tact than I have a word with new user AnnihilatorHeli. All edits made on articles have been undone. Wanting to delete pages and they way he communicates on other editor's talk pages are inappropriate. Bgwhite (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

]]
 * 1) REDIRECT [[
 * 2) REDIRECT Target page name

Orangemarlin
Orangemarlin curses at this editor who had posted a civil comment on Orangemarlin's talk page. I belive Orangemarlin has been previously asked not to do this. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is terrible. Next thing you know, he'll accuse editors of having Asperger's. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuck. I swear?????  And dammit Boris, I had the diff for the asperger's accusation from Cla69 all ready to go.  You beat me to it.  Do you notice how Cla69 continually stalks my page?  I think he's got a hard on for me.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? Not that it's an ideal reaction, but even here at WQA you will have trouble finding anyone interested in such a trifle nowadays. I would like to ask you not to waste other editors' time with frivolous reports against your enemies. Just as a precaution in case later on someone wants to mention that you have been asked not to do it. Hans Adler 01:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm gobsmacked.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome in a Technicolor world. ;) Hans Adler 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is how some Wikipedians and admins continue to handle "minor" incivility by an editor who is continuously disrespectful and it will continue to escalate because the editor feels more and more free to push the limits. Swearing is about reaction, and when you dont get reaction from "minor" swearing it will continue to escalate to further namecalling and insults. And as an editor with Asperger's I find it insulting and extremely saddening to find someone like Hans Adler whom I respect to be using it as a joke. I respectfully would request an apology.Camelbinky (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Addendum- Sorry, did not see that it was someone commenting prior to Hans joining, but still saddened by Hans' calling this frivolous. Would still like an apology from Short Brigade, but I wont hold my breath.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You may know that I am not exactly a friend of OM. It is frivolous in the sense that (1) the infraction is very minor compared to some of the things OM has got away with in the past, and (2) the report is clearly motivated by some recent negative interaction between Cla68 and OM, rather than Cla68's desire to help the project. More importantly, for me, as far as I can tell OM has been on his best behaviour recently (yes, it's relative), so I am not going to watch while some clown is trying to poke him with a stick. Hans Adler 02:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your grasp of sarcasm and irony means I might have to retract my comment about the lack of sense of humor amongst Germans. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is frivolous. And you obviously wasted no time in reading the link.  Oh, you didn't.  It was Cla69, who has been wanted to bang me for years, who accused editors of having Aspergers.  Wait, let me get that accurate, only editors who disagree with Cla69 have Aspergers.  In other words, get your facts right. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you click the link? I was quoting Cla68's words back to him.  For the record I was appalled that Cla68 considered accusing someone of having Asperger's to be a way to lob an insult. (Admittedly my sensitivity to this issue may be affected by the fact that I have a cousin who is toward the high-functioning end of ASD.) I do apologize and assure you no offense was intended. I wonder if Cla68 will apologize as well for the original jab; he so far has declined to do so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see some attacking the messenger going on here, but the most important take away is that an uninvolved editor, Camelbinky, has confirmed that Orangemarlin's edit summary was out of line. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And do you have the decency to apologize for your implied slur against those with Asperger's? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) And when are you going to apologize for accusing people of having Asperger's? You don't have the guts to do so.  And no, I will not fuck  you, despite your continued obsession with me.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept Short's apology for the manner in which his link was placed in this discussion and I in turn apologize for not clicking it in the haste of being upset. However for Orangmarlin, you have proven your manner is that of an ass and rude and disrespectful for how you responded to me and your continual "no I will not fuck you" to other editors. Cla68- dont use me to justify what you do or say, Hans Adler is right about Orangemarlin's continued ass-iness (Orange–I too can swear) and eventually something will be done, you have to pick your battles, let him stick Orange foot in his mouth some more. And yes you should make a public apology for the asperger's comment.Camelbinky (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll explain to you what I meant by the comment on your user page. As for Orangemarlin, the behavior needs to stop.  He has been encouraged to do so numerous times by several editors.  I will be following up to make sure that it stops.  If you would like to follow what takes place, please put his and my user talk page on your watch list. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You Binky. Wow, I'm impressed you can swear.  Hopefully, your mommy doesn't wash out your mouth.  LOL.  Seriously dude, I don't care what you think.  Kiss kiss.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I missed Cla69's childish threats. You really can't fuck me dude.  I'm not into you.  Your stalking me is creepy.  Very creepy.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never seen an editor so eager to increase the number of people watching his talk page.   Will Beback    talk    05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OM doesn't have a history of making up stuff like what is currently on his talk page, and it's entirely consistent with his editing. I would consider it extremely inappropriate to continue this thread under the circumstances. Basic human decency requires that we cut him a lot of slack now. Hans Adler 10:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a second Hans, I was once blocked for stating on an editor's talk page that User:__ "stalks me too, I find his stalking to be creepy, he is a stalker". And yet here is Orangemarlin stating the same thing and nothing happens to him? His continued assiness is ok? Really?! "You really cant fuck me dude", come on! That is UNACCEPTABLE!Camelbinky (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky, have you looked at Orangemarlin's talk page? Under the circumstances, do you actually think anything we do is going to achieve anything useful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did just read it, but given that he flamed out and was even more irrational with hatred and rudeness, I think a watchful eye should be given to see if he returns after a short while even more disgruntled or resorts to sockpuppetry. I frankly dont believe he warrents AGF anymore after the way he "retired".Camelbinky (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ImDisk


Reverting good faith edits as alleged vandalism is not helpful. Removing a user talk section answering a question is not helpful. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing talk page messages is a moot point here.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 01:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I copied the content to the talk page. And I added the announced but actually missing "deletion sorting" tags to the relevant pages. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good faith edit? You damaged the article and only reason you gave for doing so is that "it is notable" which is not true, per Notability. That fits the bill for vandalism. As for not responding to article talk page messages, Deny recognition. After all, Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform. Fleet Command (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, when he claimed notability, I also told him about Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion: A lot of google hits. He just used the famous fallacious statement of "That's only a guideline or essay!"


 * Finally, I have nominated ImDisk for deletion but 89.204.137.229 has used this WQA case to comment on me in the AfD. (See ). So, what happened to Comment on content, not on the contributor? Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If these are the edits in question then clearly it's not vandalism. They may diminish the article in your eyes, but that doesn't make it vandalism. DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was the alleged vandalism. I proposed the removal of the stub tags days before on the talk page.  FleetCommand edited this very short talk page after my proposal, therefore he can't have missed it.  For a fresh case of dubious edit comments see, a neutral info related to an AfD is no "personal attack" in my book. As an unregistered user I'm not supposed to know how to fix announced but actually missing "deletion sorting" tags, or how to add missing AfD notes on the talk pages of three main editors for ImDisk, or how to report false accusations in edit histories short before an AfD.  If FleetCommand ever tried a similar approach with users who don't know how to fight it things could get ugly. –89.204.137.160 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you brought up these issues directly with FleetCommand directly? IP or registered new users are not expected to know how things work, but new editors do not generally find their way to AFD and noticeboard discussions, either. Are you claiming to be new around here, or have you been around a while? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See above, he removed an answer from his talk page, and I put the WP:WQA note on his page. Obviously I'm no new user: I picked right to vanish five years ago after a deletion not following deletion policy of a bunch of icons created and uploaded by me (later restored, but I intentionally randomized my en:w:+m:+ mediazilla: passwords beyond repair). That is actually my point, a new user would never find that FleetCommand now managed to accuse an innocent registered user of being my WP:SOCK master, resulting in a week long block for a dynamic IP I didn't get today. –89.204.137.160 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, needed more coffee. I think that DeCausa is correct that the edit was not vandalism. But given this, I'm not sure we need to do anything further at this time. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't block him. I do not have such power. I merely reported him; though the case against him was quite clear-cut. Furthermore, if he has used the right to vanish, then he has no right to edit Wikipedia again. As for his edit not being vandalism, I am ready to forfeit my position on it, but his edit was not a good-faith attempt of a constructive edit too. He simply refuses to acknowledge Notability. Fleet Command (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said you blocked him. In regard to VANISH, it's a guideline, and if you want to pursue that angle, and I think that suggests bringing the issue up with arbcom. This has been to SPI, you've recently been advised regarding edit summaries, the AFD is proceeding, and I appreciate your willingness to forfeit the characterization in the edit summary, so I just think we're done here, that's all. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ACK, I had my venting, and "told" (edit history) the innocent user that it wasn't his fault. And if you ever figure out who "invented" the most used MediaWiki template... –89.204.153.230 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and "outing" threats continue after debate has ended
The following one time or new users have all launched and continue to launch personal attacks on me and other users for having edited the article mentioned below. There is a legal sounding notice on LegalEagleUSA user page threatening those who will edit or reverse any of their contributions on Wikipedia and he/she has attacked me and another user in a long rant on this page here

Also, the following users joined in the Ad Hominem attacks on the proposed deletion page and followed me around to other debates to continue the harassment:

Mr. Brown

Alteran1

66.65.66.144, now known as ElizabethCB123,

These and MANY other new users have only contributed to the same one article and have personally attacked me even after being warned by several editors to stop. There is currently a threat to expose my identity (which they believe they know) on Wikipedia. I would appreciate an experienced editor or administrator looking into these users behavior and history of abuse towards me and others since the abuse shows no signs of stopping even after I had moved on from the debate, stopped responding to them, and moved on from the article in question. These accusations are here.

Thank you!Aa1232011 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I told LegalEagleUSA not to threaten to out, and that it was a personal attack. I have not looked for other potential harassment. Jesanj (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I took Jesanj (talk) advisement to strike a comment and apologized to you on the noted page. However, please be thoughtful before deleting entire sections of articles and/or removing a single person's name from numerous articles without attempts of improving their inclusion. I suspect this (at least in my case despite knowing who you are) is the red flag others have noticed from your edit history. As for new users, anyone can be an editor. No need to finger point as you are also new to Wikipedia and began your edit history with Marisol Deluna. Not to worry, I will not "out" you on WP and remain civil. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your threats of "outing" whoever you have in mind are not only slander but also breaking Wikipedias rules, which I've notcied you don't mind doing. I began my editing history with several other articles at least two months before editing Deluna's article. When I signed on for an account (which I did because I was about to do major edits as opposed to a series of minor ones) all my previous edits did not register in my history. Second, I'm not about to go on a wild goose chase for citations on an obscure personality when their inclusion in other articles is blatatly undue, incorrect, or can't be proven anywhere because it is untrue. Such as Deluna's inclusion in articles saying she was an Argentine and French amongst MANY other inaccuracies. You say "anyone can be an editor" but then attack me for doing just that? You say "no need to finger point" and then you point your finger at me and accuse me of blatant nonsense like you knowing my identity? You say in your page that personal attacks against you will be reported and then go on to canvas several other editors with your conspiracy theories, personal attacks on me, write a long rambling accusation against me and another editor in Deluna's talk page, and then pretend it's personal because you "know" who I am? Sorry, you crossed civility many, many, contributions ago!Aa1232011 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, when I made the comment not to "Finger point", it was in reference to "new users" on Wikipedia- As your edit history shows that you are also a "new user". Please do not take this out of context. You have asked editors to review your history. If so, to make a fully determined discovery- Under what user name or IP Address other than Aa1232011 (talk) did you edit from before Aa1232011 (talk) as this would show your fully claimed history?

Additionally, I understand after it was pointed out to me that I had not followed Wikipedia rules on "Outing" as previously mentioned. However "Slander" by definition has not been committed. This is a common misuse of a legal term. Being "Libel" would apply if I were to post your name and I had mistaken your identity which caused you harm. I promised not to expose anyone on Wikipedia, so this is not an issue.

Question: Who is the other editor that I went on a long ramble "accusation" about? I responded to an editor and later took his advise. Please do not misrepresent my postings here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna

One last comment- I looked at the edit history about Ms. Deluna in reference to being American. She is. Under the article about "French people" she was noted as an "Expat" not as a naturalized citizen. She has been an expat. The same in Argentina and may have her papers in order for dual citizenship. I do not know, yet another editor might. Citations would have been helpful instead of complete removal of her from articles and whole sections of the article about her. I am not accusing you of being wrong. Simply it would have been helpful to seek citations first. I am proposing a truce as it is counter productive to quarrel. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As a reminder, Wikipedias policy for living persons is: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." so there was no need to delay the process where there are no originating sources. The mention in a "notable expatriates" section alongside household names of a much more renowned caliber and who can be easily verified to have been living in France for years through many published reports was (with all due respect) undue since there are no third party citations for her at all and even now, her notability is in question due to lack of coverage from enough varied independent sources not related to her. As for Argentina: their law states That's why first you find reference articles, THEN you add the information on Wikipedia. Otherwise every article would be full of incorrect information for years. But if you or anyone else can find third party PUBLISHED reports BEFORE you add info (the way Wikipedia works) I don't see why not do that instead. Finally, your accusations here have not been striked through, deleted, or completely recanted even after three editors have told you they are in the wrong place, against Wikipedia's policy, and uncourteous. I would appreciate some action from your part on this matter. Thank you.Aa1232011 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ and unnecessarily impolite measures to make a point

 * and
 * and

User Δ resolves to unnecessarily impolite measures to make his point in Wikipedia. In Windows Home Server 2011, a user removed File:Windows Home Server logo.svg from the article; I contested the removal and immediately fixed the issue. However, Δ sent me a level 3 warning and begun an edit warring in the article over a non-existent issue! This is very impolite. What happened to WP:BRD, WP:AGF and WP:DTTR?

This is not his only instance of unnecessary impertinence. A day before, I contested the removal of images in List of Rozen Maiden characters‎, he resolved to edit warring. Even when three other editors objected, he kept reverting to the limit of WP:3RR. Someone please tell me, what makes this guy the law and the rest of Wikipedia criminals? Why he does not assume good faith? Why he does not enter discussion? What makes him the owner of Wikipedia? Fleet Command (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, Fleetcommand. You re-insert the image, but the image still does not have a FUR.  You may be working on it, but that is not what you indicate  (your initial re-insertion comment is "I cannot spot any NFCC 10 violation. Removal by mistake", which clearly does not show that you are working on it).  Also, you do not ask for clarification for the first removal (you just assumed it was a mistake, which is already bordering on not assuming good faith).
 * I find however 'Sometimes, it won't hurt if you assume good faith.' lacking good faith - there was something wrong, they remove the image as it does not have a fair-use rationale, neither removals are in bad faith: something was wrong, you did not understand what was wrong and thereby just re-inserted the violation, you did not bother to ask what was wrong, and when you get warned you go here?
 * Next time, when Delta, Hammersoft, I (or others who remove images because they fail WP:NFCC, please assume that something is wrong, and if you do not see what is wrong, or do not understand what is wrong, ask first. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a good-faith check, then I reverted. I did not asked because I immediately discovered on my own on a second check and immediately fixed on my own. (You even provided evidence to that effect.) Are you telling me that simply because of my slightly flawed first check (inspite of a second complementary check and voluntary fixing of the issue), I do not merit receiving a friendly notice? Being exempt from not just AGF, DTTR and BRD but also Civility? Fleet Command (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) And by the way, why should only I ask first. Why shouldn't Delta? (WP:BRD says he should.) And why should only I assume good faith, not Delta. (Right now, it seem I did assume good faith and Delta didn't. -- I did a second check after all, didn't I?) And how comes that you reprimand me for my mild edit summary and not Delta for his DTTR-violating level three warning? Why do think I should have less rights than a normal Wikipedian or Delta? Fleet Command (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, FleetCommand, the message was sent in response to a re-insertion where you, in good faith, did not see the mistake. And that is already where the problem begins.  People revert violations back in because they do not see or understand the problem.  Sure, there is a possibility that the editor does see the problem later, but the 'I cannot spot any NFCC 10 violation. Removal by mistake' does not suggest that, it assumes the remover made a mistake.  If such an image then gets reinserted, a thread should be opened on the user talkpage.  That could be a custom message, or a warning template.  Here, the warning template that is made for warning editors about NFCC use, is a sinlge-level warning: uw-nonfree; uw-nonfree1-uw-nonfree4 do not exist.  Moreover, since you were here already earlier pointed towards the WP:NFCC-policy, I think that it is actually a fair warning that repeated violations of policy can result in a block.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)No .. but that does not give you the right to violate policy, or to keep things in place which violate policy. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you quote WP:DTR I can just as easily quote WP:TTR, which states the exact opposite. BRD does not apply to NFC issues, just like it doesnt apply to BLP issues or copyright violations. AGF is a strawman, I make no assumptions.
 * Ha! Ha! Ha! Well, well! I am overjoyed to hear all this. These statements are the worst vengeance that you could inflict upon yourself. (Dirk's second message helped too.) A brutal punishment too, if I may say so. If at any time you wanted to apologize and take them back... Ah, what am I saying! Please never apologize! Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't see an incivility here. (Putting a standard template on a user's talk page isn't incivil.) Gerardw (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that this user is insolent and aloof and further action should be taken!  Puffin  ''Let's talk! 15:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Diffs? Opinions don't count for much when you're talking about "further action". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You realise that that is a personal attack, Puffin? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There seem to be persistent problems with this Delta fellow. Why? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 15:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He does have a curt manner dealing with others and is very resolved in what he's doing. Those aren't wrong by themselves but add in that he is working in the area of NFC - which numerous editors already struggle with accepting - and that there's a short fuse if discussion becomes heating. Perfect storm combination of elements to make Delta a constant target for admonition from others. --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, back off! I have not personally attacked anyone because this person has been very rude and unethical to me. I believe that your contributions have been unethical, corrupt and unconstitutional as well as hurtful and untrue because I have been warned for an inappropriate reason for doing nothing because on the subatomic molecular levels of the particles of time and space, your ergo in incorrect.  Puffin  ''Let's talk! 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs for your baseless claims or redact them as personal attacks. ΔT The only constant 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Puffin: Umm, unconstitutional? Care to explain? No constitution has bearing here on Wikipedia except Policies and guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The constitution is the policies and guidelines which this user has broken and destroyed.  Puffin  ''Let's talk! 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed, that this user gets a fair trial for his or her so called "personal attacks." or maybe even impolite replies. But me? No, I get a warning straight away. The user who sent me a warning has not given me the same treatment as another user treating them better than me which can be classified as a personal attack as well.  Puffin  ''Let's talk! 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make a claim that he violated any given policy or guideline, you're going to need to provide diffs to support that assertion. Just saying it has happened is insufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it me or is Puffin's tongue located near their cheek? Gerardw (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way: TV and visual media are most adept in creating inapplicable extreme examples that do not apply to Wikipedia. For instance, in a film, I saw a man in front of a court shouting for justice because the murderer of his wife and children was not found guilty; a police officer was holding a gun towards him and reminding him that "shouting is illegal". That extremely stupid example is completely inapplicable, especially in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, we do not have court, law, guns, wives, kids and murder. We just have simple issues: Delta openly condemns and violates Civility and Civility. Puffin only violates Civility. Delta is a hero. Puffin is reprimanded. Another person who did none of these is also offended and reprimanded. Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Puffin and FleetCommand. Let me be clear, there is never a reason to be incivil, not to assume good faith, or to issue personal attacks.  You may very well be right that you think that an editor is violating that.  What you then do, is either tell that person, or you warn that person, or you bring it to another board.  What you do not do is issue a personal attack in return, or be incivil in return, or not to assume bad faith in return.
 * Now, let me also be clear about something else. Someone thinks that something is violating policy.  That may have been inserted, boldly, in good faith originally, it may even have had a consensus that it was to be that way, whatever the reason.  Someone else 'reverts' that situation, also that is in good faith, as he finds that it violates policy (the editor inserting it may boldly not have been aware of policy, Delta may be wrong, consensus may have changed, whatever.  That removal gets reverted.  And it gets re-reverted.  Clearly, there is no consensus there.  Now, editors disagree, fine - bring it to a decent discussion in whichever state it is, if it is there, Wikipedia will not die, if it is out for a couple of days, Wikipedia will not die.  Sure, the remover should not go into an edit war, but neither the editors who want to insert it.  All of you should be wiser than that.  But what happens, the removers get shouted at, even when they show input towards a solution, that gets simply ignored, because the state that it is in is fine, there is simply no discussion possible showing that there actually is no violation or if there actually is a violation.
 * What Puffin should have done is, if they found that Delta was rude towards them, is remark on that, warn on that, or bring it to the attention of others (and notify Delta that they did). What I saw here, was a (albeit mildly) uncivil remark towards Delta.  You may very well be right that Delta did the same, but yes, I warned Puffin to take care.  Issuing that type of remarks never helps the situation.
 * And FleetCommand - this is plainly rude, uncivil and chilling. Moreover, reverting my first removal as 'edit warring' is plainly untrue, and calling my first edit to a page a case of WP:OWN ...  I, also in good faith, thought (and still think), that that page overuses non-free material.  Removing that violation is not vandalism.  You have not tried to discuss the issue, you just claim consensus, you just warn (>24 hours after my edit).  And similar for Island Monkey - this is rude, uncivil and chilling the situation (not to mention that I am not even close to 3RR after a first removal in more than 28 hours ..).  And after you warn me for my first revert, you go on and revert 4 times.  You have all been uncivil here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:141.165.199.134


On June 27, this anonymous user vandalized the Triple H article with this change. I reverted his vandalism and left him a warning. 10 days later, he responded by vandalizing the article again, with a personal attack against me. I reverted his vandalism once again and left another warning on his talk page. I refrained from attacking or even commenting on his attacks. Today, the user returned and not only vandalized my own talk page but also vandalized the Paramus High School article, which I had recently edited, with more personal attacks directed at me. Another editor has placed a 24 hour block on the user after the vandalism on the Paramus High School article but I'm of the opinion that the incivility need to be addressed. NJZombie (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just a budding young troll. Hopefully nipped in the bud. What about the incivility do you want addressed? Doc   talk  07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not asking for a ban necessarily. It just seems odd that if the user bothered to create an actual account, instead of using an anonymous IP, there would be no hesitation in doing so for personal attacks. I agree that it's some kid trolling and while I can take it for what it is and not get into a war with the user, no legit users looking to make actual contributions should have to just deal with it. Incivility is incivility. I don't know that there really needs to be specifics. The posts pretty much speak for themselves. NJZombie (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Trolls both old and young switch IP addresses and named accounts. Keep an eye on them and they'll be dealt with eventually. From what you've presented, this is not an editor that plays well with others. Maybe they'll learn and maybe they won't. Keep watching for the disruption and report it. Doc   talk  07:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like it's coming from summer camp at GSU. It will probably go away when the session ends. You have my sympathies. Joja  lozzo  14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz


I am having a disagreement with this editor over dramatic, large scale removal and replacement of cited and referenced content in the Socialist Party of America article. However, I feel that I cannot even begin to reach a reasonable accommodation or even discussion with this editor because the incivility of this editor has been so extreme. My first encounter with this editor was an alert accusing me of disruptive editing for changes to the Socialist Party of America I made 5 years ago and warning of a block for my "disruptive editing". After placing an "NPOV" tag on the replacement section of the article, this users language has become more heated, and he is now calling my earlier edits "plagiarism". This editors strong language around this topic and wholesale dismissal of entire sources can also be seen here:.

I would like to settle this content dispute amicably, but do not feel this is possible given the behavior of this editor at this time. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOMERANG? Kiefer has some proof of plagiarism here.  In addition he has been very civil, so I don't even understand where your statement of incivility comes from.  I checked the edit summaries and there are no problems there. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You should be careful with that tool, Ryan. It is the nature of brief histories that substantial overlap must occur. The talk page of the article contains the selected and tell-tail matchings that I found, which were in the cited but improperly paraphrased "history". Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ARE YOU KIDDING! First, the "plagiarized" lines shown ARE NOT EVEN MY EDITS. Second, your match detection software is showing things like use of the same personal names as "plagiarism". By that standard, *any* summary of a prior source is "plagiarism". Peter G Werner (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I actually found the link on Kiefer's talk page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ryan, but it is at least plausible that my edits crossed a line of incivility.
 * EC
 * Werner did violate WP:copyright policy by plagiarizing the following pamphlet, which is not a reliable source to begin with.
 * The tool http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ matches the following strings, the important ones being already listed on the talk page of the article by me:
 * Automated comparison
 * Then he added multiple references to Draper Drucker's book, without page references, to support claims based entirely on the SPUSA history, as noted on the page. (He also added 2 1/2 items that I could find supported by Drucker, which I have listed with page numbers on the talk page of the article. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC))
 * There were BLP violations about the persons in the organization, who are still alive also.
 * Finally, Werner tagged the SPUSA article as violating WP:NPOV, without stating any specific problems. Even when prompted to list problems, he made attacks on my good faith and alleged political motivations.


 * I asked Fetchcomms earlier to check whether I was out of line, btw, since I've seen him fix copyright violations quickly. He'll be travelling for some weeks, however. I noted that there may be a difference between the indignation endorsed by Aristotelian and Christian ethics and the standards of WP: I invited Fetchcomms to block me if I was overzealous in describing the plagiarism.
 * On the other hand, you can see instances where I commend Werner for other good editing and note that this seems to have been an isolated case ( Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC), so that my criticisms were specifically about 4 behaviors and not personal attacks, clearly, imho 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)).
 * Regardless, we'll have to take this up more in a few days. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please show me where it's a WP Manual of Style requirement to show page numbers. And that removal of entire content is warranted for lack of page references. The level of changes you demand based on mere nitpicks is incredible. You have basically removed all mention of the disagreements between different factions over the Vietnam War. That's a key piece of history you've thrown out. And all because you're miffed about Hal Draper's take on SPA history, a partisan argument I'm not even privy to, but something you've attacked my motivations for using as a source nevertheless. In any event, WP:NPOV would commend that neither the SPUSA or Draper version of events is favored over the other, but both reported in a neutral manner. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read "Drucker" rather than "Draper", last night's mistake by both of us.
 * The SPUSA document is not a reliable source, per WP:RS, WP:Primary, etc: It is also wrong on the facts. Just read Harrington's memoirs and biography (and Harrington was leader of the minority), or the New York Times, or Drucker (who is a Trotskyssant socialist, so has no axe to grind, certainly not one favoring the most centrist organization, SDUSA). The "Debs caucus" was very small (2/33 NEC votes in '72), apparently, and so it is ignored in most accounts, even by those mentioning McReynolds. (Only Busky's book seems to discuss it, and Busky discloses that he was a SPUSA officer since 1978; maybe SPUSA national officer Eric Chester's book discusses it.)
 * For comparison: User:TheFourDeuces just removed my addition of material from Solidarity (U.S.) from American left, because it lacked secondary reliable references—while I devoted a good hour on Google Scholar and Google Books looking for references—and finding only references that cannot in good conscience be used, because ALL of the authors are members or very close associates of Solidarity. I fear that the Debs Caucus and SPUSA are in the same boat. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 05:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Update: I added a very short description of Solidarity, based on a publicly available footnote in Nelson L.'s book on the CIO in WWII (2nd ed.) I wouldn't use an account by him, or Buhle, etc., for more, because they seem to be associated with Against the Current more than WP:Secondary likes.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can use secondary sources published by the academic press regardless of the views of the writers because the nature of the publishing process requires accuracy. We use them as sources of facts not opinions.  As you found however, few sources are available on-line.  However, the article American Left was well-sourced, using academic publications with news sources only used for current events, so adding unsourced material clearly was noticeable.  TFD (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD, I had hoped that my having (by 10 a.m.) referenced Lichtenstein for a brief Solidarity description clearly had been noticeable too! ;) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a policy requirement to show page numbers where material may be challenged, not just a guideline. WP:VERIFY says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since there's some difficulty in establishing the accuracy of the accusations that form a significant part of this WQ alert, I've asked for feedback here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed material that was based on a SPUSA pamphlet, most of which was nonsense, certainly violated numerous WP policies.
 * Nonetheless, I preserved the beating heart cadaver with life support: I provided the page numbers to exactly 3 assertions, exactly those that could be said to be based on Drucker's book; I suggested "IMHO" that one could be added (judgement call), one was okay but uninformative (and therefore could be replaced with an expanded description of the conflict rather than an uninformative statement of conflict), and that one was more relevant to biographies of Shachtman/Harrington rather to an article on the SPUSA. Werner has not commented on these suggestions.
 * Werner still hasn't dealt with the issues raised on the article page, but has renewed personal attacks and AGF violations. I wrote a self-criticism and a defense of Werner on my talk page, suggesting that Ryan relax and consider things from Werner's side: Werner would do better to cut and paste that material, free under the WP license, in his complaint, imho! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I redacted my comments on the article's talk page (which had not been replied to there) to improve compliance with WP:AGF and WP:Civility.
 * On second thought, I think that Werner naively thought that SPUSA, with its tolerant and idealistic history, could be trusted to produce a pamphlet that (at least) got the facts right, and (in a moment of extremely poor judgment) overlooked the alarming turns of phrase (especially "Stalinist democratic centralism" or calling Harrington Shachtman's lieutenant). I also believe that Werner cited Drucker intentionally (apart from 2 1/2 cases) as a reliable reference for further reading (rather than intentionally as pseudoscholarship  duplicitously adding weight to the SPUSA falsehoods), although this was a serious error because those WP:BLP-violating sections were obviously contentious.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 03:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Out of courtesy, one should avoid templating established editors, merely explain to them what policy we believe they have violated.  In any case, one should not template someone for an edit made five years ago.  One should also assume good faith that another editor may be adding information he believes to be accurate even if it may be worded in a non-neutral way.  Just explain what your position is and await the response.  A lot of articles about the Left in the U.S. were written years ago and are poorly sourced or may not otherwise measure up to standards that would be acceptable today.  We should work cooperatively to improve that.  Also, there are procedures for resolving content disputes, but one should try to resolve them with other editors of the article first.  TFD (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. In retrospect, I was probably reacting to the "democratic centralism" slander as well as a concern that nobody had caught the undue weight/NPOV/Reliable/BLP/Secondary problems with these articles in 5 years, despite them being edited by officers and activists in the SPUSA and similarly sophisticated and intelligent editors outside the SPUSA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 03:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:65.93.15.213


I have never seen anything like this before, so I don't know where to report it. This anonymous editor is adding various (and sometimes irrelevant) WikiProject templates to the Talk pages on a wide variety of articles (and not rarely AfD). He never leaves an edit summary about it, so it kind of easily goes unnoticed. The Stars_in_astrology article suddenly has been added to the WikiProjects Astronomy, History of Science, and even Agriculture. Diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stars_in_astrology&diff=prev&oldid=438861338 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stars_in_astrology&diff=prev&oldid=438861579 Looking at this editor's history I see he has recently started doing this on the Talk pages of all kind of articles. I wonder, how can this editor be working on so many different Projects? And are the other members on those Projects aware that completely unrelated topics are silently being put under the scope of their Project? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This sounds like simple vandalism. Surprisingly, there are no warnings on the user's talk page. Looking into this further I can see logic behind the contributions (e.g. stars in astrology have been and still are used by some to time agricultural activities). Perhaps you could post a message on their talk page asking for clarification. Joja  lozzo  14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to clarify. I was not sure myself. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes the additions appear very far fetched to me. But I see the templates have been removed already, so maybe it is considered vandalism. I also raised the question on the WikiProjects Council because this is something I have never seen before, and they may want to look into it. Why are articles of minor importance suddenly being added to 3-4 different WikiProjects? It's puzzling. I searched the guidelines for maybe 1 hour and found nothing about this kind of practice. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See here: WikiProject Council/Guide. That guide calls it "spamming" when minor articles are added to projects. When the motivation is a good faith desire to get attention for an article that needs work it's not comparable to adding links to an external web site. However if the article is for a commercial enterprise (which is not the case here) then the spamming label fits. Joja  lozzo  15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not overtagging, since the study of the cycles of the stars in ancient times is the basis on which astronomy grew from. And the cycles were studied to determine the correct time to plant. So, it would fall under history of science, astronomy and farming.65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but consider that it is a very minor article with very few other articles linking in to it. I am sure the stars were also used for navigation in ancient times (and still), so should we then also add it to the Projects that deals with navigation? The Project Ships and Project Transport among others? Birds also navigate by the stars, so let's add Project Birds..
 * Where will it stop?
 * The imperfect rule of thumb is to go to the main article(s) related to the WikiProject and check what LinksHere. If an article is not linking to it then it is probably not under the scope of the Project. Of course that can change if an article gets more developped. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This specific article covers the relationship between the stars and the equinox and solstices, which I would think, is where astronomy and astrology meet. And it deals with it in a historical context. I do see the point you're getting at. And that's why I only added these particular tags, instead of all possible WPPs. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We're also discussing this on 65.93.15.213's talk page and the article talk page. I suggest we close out this and the one on 65.93.15.213's talk page and continue, if necessary, on the article talk page. Joja lozzo  13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. No need to discuss this in 3 different places. 65.93.15.213 is responding to questions, and we still have to give the benefit of doubt that the edits were done in good faith, because the motivation he gives is not completely unreasonable. Continue on his Talk. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of bias
I am being accused of "sickening bias and double standards" by on an increasing basis, notably here at Talk:Jenson Button. This editor's problem is not that I added biased statements, but that I did not remove supposedly biased statements written by others. Elsewhere, there is this kind of thing, accusations of bad faith and bias against foreigners and similar accusations a while ago at his IP talk page (he does not always log in) here: User talk:66.190.31.229. On more than one occasion he has used his IP to help his named account in an edit war,. Do I have to defend myself against this kind of abuse, or can somebody do something about it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I don't "edit war" with my IP. I forget to log in sometimes. And sometimes I just don't want to bother to log in. Secondly, YOU are the one biased against foreigners with your easily demonstrable bias against non-british drivers, not me. You are merely upset I completely destroyed your claims of being ubiased in the jenson button wiki talk page, and are trying to save face with these absurd claims.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The accusations of bad faith and bias are thus reproduced here, first hand by this editor. He has yet to produce a single piece of biased information that I have added to any article. If it's so easily demonstrable, then he should produce something here which I have added, that is biased - NOT somebody else's work which I have left in place. This accusation of bias against foreigners is deeply offensive. I edit articles on Formula One drivers of all nationalities and utterly refute all accusations of racial or xenophobic bias, and I request that this be retracted as completely unfounded. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit history shows a distinct double standard for british formula one drivers and non-british ones. It's a simple fact I've detailed several times now. Whether ir's "xenophobic" or not is non of my concern. I intend to crush it whenever I see it. Wikipedia should be an unbiased source of information, period. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it shows such a thing, prove it. You haven't, and can't, because it does not exist. This is unacceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * you edit war for the inclusion of NPOV edits here for Jenson Button http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenson_Button&diff=prev&oldid=438725819, then you have no problem with similar edits when it involves sebastian vettel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Monaco_Grand_Prix&diff=prev&oldid=431640701 . This isn't an isolate incident either, but a pattern of behavior. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If an editor exhibits a pattern of biased behavior, the correct thing to do is to address this in the form of dispute resolution preferably showing through cogent arguments that the editors edits are not in line with NPOV - not by engaging in accusations or personal attacks. Whatziname has not demonstrated any bias here but has engaged in quite a few borderline personal attacks, ad hominem arguments and accusations of bad faith. This reflects badly on you and frankly does not make anyone look more kindly on your case. You have to stop that and instead discuss strategies for improving to articles rationally and with arguments based in sources. That is the only way to move forward. Any further repetition of accusations against other editors that are not backed by solid evidence will make it likely that some kind of sanction will have to be carried out against you (whatzinaname) regardless of the merits of your arguments. I urge you to step back and adopt a more collaborative and less conflictive editing behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * i find it interesting you mention things like bad faith and borderline personal attacks, ad hominems, etc. when Bretonbanquet does the exact same thing. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to Whatzinaname - those diffs are so weak, I'm surprised you brought them here. The first diff shows me reverting your addition of unsourced information - you used an existing reference to appear to be backing up your addition. Two other editors also reverted you when you kept re-adding it. The second diff appears to show no bias whatsoever, either in my edit, or in the existing text. Thanks to Maunus for his comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to you it's wrong to state the 100% FACT that jenson button was advantaged by the safety cars, at the same time it's perfectly ok to claim that vetel was "majorly advantaged by a late race safety car(technically a red flag)" which is 100% SPECULATION. The only difference being the drivers nationality. If that doesn't prove a biased editorial outlook, then nothing doesWhatzinaname (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The racing incidents and their effects are your opinion, as I and several others have said before. Back them up with sources. The statement that Vettel was "majorly advantaged" was written by somebody else, not me. You appear to be attacking me for what someone else has written. Again, you repeat your baseless accusation of bias on the grounds of nationality. How many more times are you going to be allowed to do that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You directly edited the biased sentence for gramma. How can you edit something for grammar without reading it? You read it, you knew about it, and you had no problem with it, not even asking for a cite. You jumped headlong into an edit war between me and some anon IP editors who wanted to delete my write up of tghe race and replace it with their own. Their write up had nothing to do with the reference supplied, You tried to hide behind your jumping into the edit war claiming the material was sourced. The "sourcing" wasn't an issue, which you well knew. It was a blatant attempt to remove a fair, unbiased NPOV description of what happened in the race, and replace it with a grossly biased one. You simply saw your chance to edit war with me and jumped on it with the anon IP editors because you are annoyed I won't cave in to you on the vettel wiki page.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So my crime is leaving someone else's bias in the article? Is that the best you can do? "You read it, you knew about it..." You are taking an assumption of bad faith to outrageous levels, and I'm amazed that you're still doing it, here of all places. You've just accused me again of "gross bias", again of premeditated bad faith, now also of looking for opportunities to harrass you along with some IP editors. Still with no evidence. Anything else? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are able to edit a sentence for grammar without even reading the sentence? Impressive. I'm sure that would stand up in a court of law. I'm not playing any wiki games with you or anyone else.I've got better things to do. I will not allow grossly biased wikipedia articles/edits to exist when I come across them. The end. Whatzinaname (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted at ANI with a link to this discussion. This has gone far enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ending this
Whatzinaname needs to provide diffs exemplifying the supposed bias or cease such accusations per WP:NPA. WP:DR is not optional. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:222.127.231.29 starting to get personal - please head this off

 * and other talk pages
 * and other talk pages

Did I do anything wrong... nothing I know of. Editor 222.127.231.29 seems to have a particular problem with me. Maybe under a previous IP? I don't know. I reverted blanking he did to the Talk:Burma page and put the appropriate general note on his talk page. He erased it. He has also soapboxed the Burma talk page. I deal with this stuff all the time so no big deal but now he is constantly slipping in personal notes on others peoples talk pages,, and after asking him to be civil he posted the following,. I could have removed that last post on talk:Burma but thought it would simply inflame the situation more, so I'm bringing it here first. He's only popped up recently looking at his few posts so I'm thinking maybe a past banned user I have reported in the recent past? Anyway he is now starting to carry things a bit far for my liking and I was hoping that someone would tell him so and keep this a pleasant place to edit. Obviously he will not listen to me. This editor has also vandalized the following page. I do not edit that particular article but I include it for perspective. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope, "user" Fyunck(click) is satisfied then after my notification. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:NickCT


I never know if this is the right place to bring issues of this nature (the new message at the top isn't really helpful), but here goes:


 * 1) 12 July, 06:11 - I initiate a discussion with an Admin on his Talk page.
 * 2) 12 July, 16:10 - replies with a comment attacking me as, among other things, "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." He supplies no evidence of any kind.
 * 3) 13 July, 06:41 - I remove the "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" remark from User:NickCT's comment, per WP:NPA, 4th bullet.
 * 4) 13 July, 06:48 - I leave a comment on NickCT's Talk page requesting that he not make accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence and advise him that, should he have grievances regarding an editor's behavior, he make sure to accompany them with evidence.
 * 5) 13 July, 11:46 - NickCT demands evidence from me that I'm not a POV warrior.
 * 6) 13 July, 11:57 - NickCT restores "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" to his comment with an edit summary encouraging me to pursue the matter further via arbitration.

I note the comments of two Admins in an unrelated discussion above this one:
 * If an editor exhibits a pattern of biased behavior, the correct thing to do is to address this in the form of dispute resolution preferably showing through cogent arguments that the editors edits are not in line with NPOV - not by engaging in accusations or personal attacks.
 * Whatzinaname needs to provide diffs exemplifying the supposed bias or cease such accusations per WP:NPA.

I shouldn't have to prove my neutrality with diffs to every Tom, Dick and Harry that dislikes my contributions to the Project. But since the issue has been raised now anyway, I may as well point out that my record as an editor is flawless, which one could say is astonishing considering where I edit a lot of the time. NickCT, on the other hand, has been formally warned and blocked in the past for making personal attacks. I don't think it unreasonable to insist that, rather than him demanding I be the one to demonstrate that I am a neutral contributor, he be the one to demonstrate the opposite, or else withdraw his accusation.—Biosketch (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also has some minor problems with NickCT. I had not planned on escalating it anywhere, and am only doing it because I saw this on his talk page, and it seems like it is a consistent problem.  NickCT asked me if I'd ever edited under another account.  Fair enough.  But then when I told him in unequivocal terms "No. Never", he responded by in effect calling me a liar.  That's hardly a civil way of behaving towards other editors.   -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to Biosketch's comments - Bio, you've posted this kind of bullet point list of how you think others have been offensive twice in the past several days. I think most people reading through the lists will recognize the alledged "violations" is the kind of thin gruel that would only upset the most die hard adherents of WP:NPA.  The kind of "drop-of-the-hat" complaints about personal attacks you're lodging have the distinct odor of wikilawyering.  The WP Israel-Palestine POV wars do not need any more wikilawyers.  What it needs is some wikilove.  Please stop the lawyering.  Additionally, your removal of my comments (i.e. point 3) is pretty likely in violation of WP's talk page guidelines.  In future, you ought to request editors redact or remove their comments before taking it on yourself to do so.  re Your "record as an editor" being "flawless" - Note that I have edited under a single account since I got here several years ago.  You on the other hand "appeared" on Feb 1, 2011 making suspiciously experienced looking edits.  New account?  If so, why?  Previous account not so flawless?
 * On another note Bio, thanks for post here and not ANI. This is definately a better place to go for discussions of behavior of this nature.
 * Responding to Bob drobbs' comments - Bob in this comment to your talk page, I actually said " I'm not calling you a liar. All I'm saying is that the editing pattern looks extremely suspisous". I recognize it's not fun when people question whether you're a sock (I've been there before), but unfortunately socking happens, and I think anyone who reviews the SPI in this case will recognize that I'm not throwing these accusations around for the fun of it.  As I've also said to you before "If I did get this wrong and the odd editing pattern is just a coincidence, I'm sure you'll WP:AGF and recognize that I'm not doing this to try and persecute innocent people".  Frankly, I think I've handled this SPI about as politely as can be expected. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior isn't a cool thing to say, and it would be nice if you redact it.
 * Regarding the sock thing, yes, you're repeatedly questioning drobbs veracity. Once the question was asked and answer you should just take it to WP:SPI if you think the editor might be a sock. Gerardw (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * , your comment isn't a response to mine. It's a reply maybe, but not a response. You still have failed to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of your accusation that I am a "committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." Moreover, instead of working towards a resolution of this matter, you've now compounded it by baselessly suggesting I may be a sockpuppet. There is a time and place for you to explore that possibility – but this is not it.—Biosketch (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * re You still have failed to produce any evidence  - Wow. Bold face type.  Your complaint seems so much more legitimate now.  As I'd previously mentioned here, all the "evidence" needed is a quick review of your contrib history.  Are you upset that my comment is inaccurate or just that I didn't provide evidence to support it?
 * re suggesting I may be a sockpuppet - Wrong.  Suggested you might have a previous account.  Important difference.
 * re time and place for you to explore that possibility  - Hey, you raised the point by citing your "flawless" record. NickCT (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but linking to a contributor's edit history isn't admissible evidence of anything. Solid evidence means diffs that compellingly establish a pattern. The fact therefore remains that you continue to abide by a serious accusation made against me with no evidence at all to back it up.
 * And your last remark doesn't make any sense, frankly. I mentioned that my record was flawless because even if you tried, you would not be able to make a case against me that I edit in violation of WP:NPOV. I am a regular contributor in an area where "committed POV-warriors," to paraphrase your expression, seldom survive for longer than a handful of edits. Yet never has a case been brought against me for violating NPOV since I started contributing to this Project. I don't mean to wave my reputation in anyone's face, but I do value it and do not appreciate when it is dishonestly misrepresented, as you have been doing.—Biosketch (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, do you think using language like "Yet never has a case been brought against me for violating NPOV since I started contributing to this Project." makes you clever b/c it so craftily avoids admitting that you've had cases brought against you for lots of other stuff while holding previous accounts? If you do think language like that makes you clever, believe me when I say it does not.  Talk about dishonesty....
 * Look, frankly, I don't think you're really up to a constructive conversation here. Best would probably be to quit sniping and let third parties weigh in. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:EastBelfastBoy


Uncivil and unconstructive edits/edit summaries such as, at times bordering on WP:OWN. Favours repeated reversions over discussion. I considered wikiquette was the best place to take this, as although I have issued the user with a final warning recently I do not see the latest offences (at Ceallach Spellman) as warranting a block. U-Mos (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Me and U-Mos have now come to an agreement on Ceallach Spellman however an agreement has not yet been made on the Waterloo Road section Future Episodes. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Obhave: personal attacks


Obhave has been warned twice about personal attacks and has continued to attack editors:
 * accusations of frivolous warnings, accusation of personal/ulterior motives, failure to AGF
 * calling editors "unscrupulous", accusations of sockpuppetry
 * assorted accusations and personal attacks
 * accusation of lying, accusation of meatpuppetry. Note: they were already warning about accusing editors of lying.

Even though this is a new editor, due to the 2 previous warnings, they have had ample time to read WP:NPA. Additionally they completely ignored the warning about accusing editors of lying. It seems readily apparrent that they have no intention of even making the slightest effort to AGF and refrain from personal attacks. Now that I have written this report, the seriousness of the offences and the brazenness of the perpetrator really stand out and I wonder if WP:ANI is a better venue. – Lionel (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After seeing some requests to respond to a content RfC question, I've been quietly looking from time to time at Militant atheism, and I think that Lionelt is correct that Obhave needs to do a lot better in terms of civility. At this point, I'd rather see Obhave get some serious advice and be given the opportunity to improve, rather than to go to AN/I in search of a block, which I think is still a little premature, but won't remain so for long. I would also observe, however, that the page has become very much of a POV battleground, with multiple editors engaging in tl;dr back-and-forths about who should not have reverted whom, and too little serious attention to reporting objectively what the sources say. I think that it would be helpful to have more eyes on that page, especially from editors who do not have a dog in the content fight. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've already spoken with Obhave on the matter. It's being looked after. m.o.p  20:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)