Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive111

Long term Personal attacks by User:Mountainwhiskey

 * Users




 * Articles




 * Initial comment

This user is often involved in Edit wars and personal attacks since many months. There are several warnings issued against that user, by many other users. The user has been blocked previously for same reasons. Still the user is making personal attacks.

The latest one is here: User_talk:Mountainwhiskey

Before to this incident, user:Mountainwhiskey dropped a message in my talk page using IP 14.96.184.149. When I checked the contributions of that IP, I found that is none other than User:Mountainwhiskey : PROOF. Hence I replied to the message in my talk page to user:Mountainwhiskey.

His reply was very much abusing me personally. Some exerts from his message : "
 * are u exposing the weaknesses of what could be a narrow stereotyped mind
 * DO NOT vent any frustration here that you have been carrying since birth.
 * Or have you lost your marbles? Try to be more productive on Wikipedia rather - always a good idea for people without sense of direction in life.
 * You should wish you were born once more. "

Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

False edit summary by User:Epeefleche
User:Epeefleche has lied in his edit summary.

In revision 451131034 he has supplied this edit summary: per MOS:LEDE ... this summarizes what is in the body; deletion was inappropriate However, lets look at the revision and see if it is true. His edit adds the following to the article: "The company was founded in 1997, and is based in Or Yehuda, Israel. With 100 million users in 2011, Babylon holds the record for the highest number of downloads of a language solution software."

Guinness judges arrived in Israel in July 2011 to crown Babylon for breaking the Guiness World Record for downloads for language solutions. Babylon's CEO said it had also reached the 100 million level in terms of users of its products, and joined the Alexa list of the top 100 websites. The first paragraph is perhaps "summary", perhaps not. (See The company section in the same revision.) But the second paragraph contains original information which does not appear anywhere in the article at all and even has a source! In fact, I had previously deleted these because not only they violate WP:DUE but also violate WP:RS because the source merely reiterates what company CEO has said.

If he has problem with my removal, I am completely okay with going through dispute resolution. But lying? Correct me if I am wrong: At best, lying is a violation of Civility, a pillar of Wikipedia, not to mention that it is an evil vice.

Fleet Command (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has a "download records" section that covers this topic; its content simply does not go into enough detail. All the details in the second paragraph should simply be added to that section, and summarized with maybe a sentence in the lead. With this in mind, I don't think Epeeflece was deliberately lying. Swarm  u /  t 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Swarm. A somewhat odd accusation, as the complained-about language relates to language added to the article by FleetCommand.  In any event, some of Fleet's deletions seem to be against policy -- if anyone wishes to explore them per wp:boomerang, feel free.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, go ahead. Fleet Command (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FleetCommand, you're mistaken. Lying is intentionally deceiving; given the presence of an easily checked page history, no deception has taken place. Note also the WP:AGF is an important part of the WP culture, so if an edit summary is incorrect, the best interpretation is the editor made a mistake. Epeefleche, if there is an issue with FleetCommand's deletions the appropriate article talk page is the best forum to reach consensus. Gerardw (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it so? I don't know. Adding novel information back to lead section and saying that it is done per WP:LEAD look like a lie to me. But perhaps, as w/Swarm suggests, it was careless revert. Still, it seems Epeefleche loves the revert button better than dispute resolution because he has reinstated his edits again despite knowing that it was contested before and there is no consensus. (See this diff.) Fleet Command (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I might be not correct but I strongly believe that this instance is a violation of etiquette: User Epeefleche has hijacked another person's ANI case to win a content dispute in Babylon (program) is his own favor. He uses untrue statements that I think you guys will have trouble attributing to good faith mistakes, rather than lies: He has said that a consensus is established (I really like to see the diff), that a fifth person in this page has completely condemned me. (Correct me but I count four people in this discussion and no one has really commented on our content dispute.) Fleet Command (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: FYI, for those who may be awaiting further comment from Fleet -- he has just been blocked for 36 hours for edit-warring at the article in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Yopie


I complain on the user Yopie because of the following:

Case 1: Impolite or rude behaviour
He has two times and in two different places called me 'Mr. Montagu'. See case 1 (contribution of 19 September 2011, 12:44) and case 2.

I believe that my engagement against gossip and slander in the article Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester has made this person believe that I am the person concerned, and this despite that both my profile page and my contributions of the latest year – and not to forget my obviously foreign English – strongly indicate that I am not the suggested.

I do not know whether this person often presents such speculations, but I am probably not the first victim in this regard.

Case 2: Disputed reversions
Both I and other users, among others Runehelmet (see Yopie's talk page of today), complain about this person's obviously irrational reversions. The tendency is that he reverts legal contributions and re-adds illegal contributions. Like Runehelmet wrote: “It seems that you are more reverting than editing. Even when I show you the sources, you still revert.”

Already in April 2011, in the article Norwegian nobility, he reverted a whole contribution – much information – because he saw that the source's name contained the word 'wiki'. He did not even ask or try to investigate. If he had done that, he would have gotten to know that the information on the website concerned (Lokalhistoriewiki.no) is not an user-edited wiki, but unedited information directly from one of Norway's most respected and serious encyclopædias.

Also today, he has in the Manchester article several times re-added a defamatory or potentially libellous sentence added by an IP user (who before has added exactly the same pre-written sentence).

It may also be interesting to study the following: While this person obviously does not care much about defamatory or potentially libellous information about other living persons, he was exceptionally quick to remove my criticism on his talk page and thereafter to write the following on my wall: (...) your recent edits to User talk:Yopie have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. This is hypocritical, and in my eyes, it says very much about the person that one here is dealing with. There does not seem to be any coherence in his thoughts and actions as a user on Wikipedia.

It would be too drastic to block him, but as you will see by studying his patterns, he has for months demonstrated the same behaviour in which unlogical reversions and rude/senseless speculations are prominent, but not exclusive, factors. I believe that something should be done to make this better.

– – – The section below was added on 22 September. – – –

Case 3: Possible abuse of functions
This user misuses warnings, block function and similar 1.) as a remedy against his opponents and 2.) as a primary way of or instead of communication with his opponents. (As known, he reverts opponents' posts on his talk page, often marking them as 'vandalism'.)

On 20 September, the day after this complaint was presented, this user reported me here for edit warring. In this process, he 1.) provided incorrect/false information and 2.) without mentioning for the decision-taker relevant information that the user just had received a complaint from the user he was reporting.

From the report:


 * User Yopie: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussed on talk pages of Aemn784, me and in edit summaries


 * Comments:


 * User Nmate: In my opinion, Yopie has failed to discuss edits, nevertheless, he engaged in edit warring. He told that there were discussions on the talkpages of him and Aaemn784...but, if I click on Aaemn784's talk page [X], I do not find any vestige of a debate about content, and if I click on the talk page of Yopie's edit history [X] Aaemn784's edits were reverted there with an edit summary of "identified as vandalism to last revision by Yopie"--Nmate (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User Yopie: Are you admin or editor of disputed article? With your edits like this [X] or this [X] is better if you stay silent. --Yopie (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing was 'discussed' on my talk page. Nothing was 'discussed' on his talk page. Nothing was 'discussed' in the edit summaries. That makes me wonder why he wrote that the case had been, quote, discussed on talk pages of Aemn784, me and in edit summaries.

This user's behaviour is obviously dishonest, coward-like, and, regarding Wikipedia's internal system, abusive. 'Abusive' is when functions intended for use against vandals and conflict-makers are misused as a weapon against serious contributors who even, in this particular case, claim to support themselves on the BLP guidelines.

Quote from the BLP guidelines: 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.

I believe that case no. 1 is solved, as this user somehow has apologised (although not to me, and that is not necessary, as this is not a case about my person, but about wikiquette and system abuse). No. 2 and 3, however, require, as far as I see it, a closer examination by administrators so that it is possible to see whether this user has patterns of behaviour as described above and which may be considered as abusive, deconstructive or in other ways not good for Wikipedia. I am not a person on whom attacks like this have any effect, but I fear that other and less experienced/secure users, who are here with good intentions and behaving well and honest, but who are so unlucky be confronted by users as described, may resign. It is in Wikipedia's interest to take a look at this. Thanks for the attention.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

– – – The section above was added on 22 September. – – –

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick note, users are permitted to remove messages from their talk page (with a very limited number of exceptions not applicable here), if a user removes a message/warning you have left them, you should consider it read and not re-add it. Monty  845  15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears Yopie is not participating here. I've left a request on his talk page that he stop calling Aaemn785 "Mr. Montagu." Gerardw (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is probably because this person 'hits and hides', id est, he hides when confronted, and hits when he gets the possibility. See for example my user talk, edit of 20 September 2011, 10:55 (today). He appears to be one who uses dishonest tricks, like these warning messages, e.g. to attack, to stop or to frighten other users and opponents. I strongly advise that Wikipedia investigates his history and his patterns of behaviour, as it is obvious that he is making much trouble around the site.


 * --- Aaemn784 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is his response okay for now? Swarm  u /  t 16:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am afraid not, as the cases 2 and 3 remain standing – and are far more serious than he calling me names.


 * --- Aaemn784 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your case 2 and 3 issues are beyond the scope of what this board is intended to handle. I note that Yopie's edit warring report was upheld by an administrator and an unblock request denied.[] While you could start WP:RFC/U, I strongly recommend dropping the WP:STICK and moving on. Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that giving me this stick is like giving a wrought iron to a baker, i.e. the wrong receiver. You should instead, be it, initiate a talk with Yopie and ask him whether there is any way that he perhaps may contribute to solve the reported problems. I see on your user page that you are very devoted to anti-conflict, and that is good. I am myself one who, be it, does not hesitate to apologise if he has, be it, overreacted or done something wrong. However, one must not be so 'flying in the skyes' that one ignores system abuse and other serious issues. A problem has to be solved, as it otherwise will remain and even escalate. The price for ignoring a problem causing conflict, might become even more conflict.


 * I hope that you actually have read and understood what I have written, and I allow myself to quote it: (...) this is not a case about my person, but about wikiquette and system abuse (...) This is not about my person, but about a user demonstrating problematic behaviour. This lack of Wikiquette is indeed relevant on Wikiquette assitance.


 * If this is not the correct forum, I would be glad if someone could inform me where to send a report. The user Yopie has long enough been making trouble for other users, and it has to end.


 * --- Aaemn784 (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I understand why the user all the time is emptying his talk page. The list of protesting people is longer than a bad year. The present white talk page, where he though has made sure to keep the post where he says 'sorry for it', makes him appear as the most innocent angel.

Quote: “Yopie, you removed sources that meet Wikipedia's References policy. The issue has been discussed for over 10 days in the Talk, but you have not been an active participant in the discussion, yet you reverted my edits in less than an hour. Furthermore, you violated Wikipedia's policy of Good Faith. Please be more considerate to others' contributions --Hatesediting (talk) 07:34, 05 August 2011 (BST)”

This is from August 2011.

The user has also been reported for edit warring: Link

Quotes: 1.) “Both editors were already blocked in connection with the same article on 21 September, 2010 on the ground that they did not want to discuss content changes.” 2.) “(...) the edit warring has been going on for more than six months without having started a discussion between the two users on the talk page (...)”

This is from February 2011.

An example of a particular case which may be relevant, is the article Invasion, where the user has performed several reversions of other users' contributions. For example when a user added an illustrative photo, it was reverted with the explanation 'ugly pic'.


 * 14:30, 22 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (50,857 bytes) (Undid revision 449561758 by Runehelmet (talk) this picture is without additional informational value)
 * 10:57, 10 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (51,012 bytes) (Undid revision 449517223 by Runehelmet (talk)- ugly pic)
 * 06:06, 5 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Somaliweyn10 (talk): Still no sources for significance.
 * 10:23, 3 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (Undid revision 448070598 by Runehelmet (talk) use talk page)
 * 18:30, 1 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 86.80.208.136 (talk): Please, use talk page of the article! (TW))
 * 12:50, 1 September 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (→Other examples of historically significant invasions: per talk)
 * 15:56, 31 August 2011 Yopie (talk | contribs) (49,757 bytes) (Undid revision 445994090 by Runehelmet (talk) sorry, but generally insignificant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaemn784 (talk • contribs)

Reverts legitime edits. Refuses being more considerate to other users' contributions. Does not want to discuss content changes. Yopie's behaviour does not seem to have changed much since 2010. It is perhaps about time.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest WP:RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Jaimesaid


Plese see note of User Jaimesaid. Nerêo (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment
This seems to involve a long-standing dispute that should probably be posted on the Dispute resolution noticeboard rather than here. There you can explain and discuss the disputed edits. Also please notify User:Jaimesaid of this and any further discussion of the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Another set of eyes, please


User:ManicPoet863 is a recently created, 100%-of-existing-edits-are-vandalism, user. I have warned the user on his/her talk page, and then both my Talk page and my User page were vandalized. There have not been multiple warnings so cannot elevate the situation to Administrator attention.

I would appreciate it if another editor would put a set of eyes on this user, and warn (or whatever) is appropriate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really no need -- if they make any further vandalism edits, take them to WP:AIV. Gerardw (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Could be. But since the editor definitely did a second batch of vandalism, on my user page and talk page, and has only been warned once, I continue to think that the best course of action would be for some disinterested editor to review the three occurences of  vandalism, and issue User:ManicPoet863 a "second" warning.  YMMV.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack and abusive language and vandalism by User:Kwamikagami
Please make a note of this abuse by User:Kwamikagami here. He is saying "STOP BEATING YOUR MOTHER WITH A PIPE!!!". Sir, what is this nonsense. Please request a topic ban for this very low quality editor. Foodie 377 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Personal attack? I was illustrating the level of rationality Nagarjuna was displaying in his(?) arguments, when he demanded that I "introduce my socks". (Usually people ask "have you stopped beating your wife?", but I don't know if he's a married man.)
 * Also, you got the quote wrong. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While kwami's comment may have not been the most judicious, in the context in which is was made it was far below the threshold which requires intervention. Gerardw (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have been better and clearer if Kwamikagami had asked:
 * Have you stopped beating your mother with a pipe?
 * Because Kwamikagami made a mistake and phrased it wrongly, Foodie377 misunderstood his point, and put in a complaint here.


 * The phrase is to some extent idiomatic. However, I would have thought that people from far away lands should be able to understand it.  The phrase does not mean what it literally says.  Instead it means: please do not accuse me of things that I am not doing.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes or to be precise it's an illustration of a loaded question in the classic phrase 'have you stopped beating your wife' to which saying both yes and no accepts the premise.Straw Cat (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack, false accusation and edit warring by Kwamikagami
Kwamikagami has engaged in an edit war with me and accused me of all sorts such as "racism" and "bigotry". This person has not been penalised for this. I thought it was reasonable to expect a higher level of standard from an Administrator like Kwami. Here he is referring to me as a racist and bigot: Here  and here.

He deleted my edits which have been sourced with notable sources and replaced them with his own as in here:  and in the Serer people article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsier (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He is referring to your contributions, such as I will not have the language and history of my people poisoned as it has been done for centuries.[]. This is not considered incivil. Gerardw (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (Sorry this comment was made at the same time as Gerardw's.)


 * Let us start with User:Tamsier's behaviour:
 * and where he used the words 'poisoned' and 'desecrated' to refer to mentioning 'Fula' in the Serer language page or mentioning 'Serer' in the Fula language page.
 * he refers to "scholars whose comments... are far less than noble mainly influenced by the Muslim Mafias of Senegal".
 * where he referred to another editor (User:Halaqah) who appeared to agree with Kwamikagami on some points as Kwamikagami's 'fellow Muslim'
 * where he accused Kwamikagami of distorting the Serer language to promote a Fula agenda.
 * where he admits that he does not assume good faith when dealing with Kwamikagami, and where he appears to be suggesting that Kwamikagami is abusing of his privileges as an Admin, of seriously disrupting Wikipedia, and of consistently exercising poor judgment. In it he threatens to have Kwamikagami's Admin status revoked.


 * I wish that Kwamikagami had not called Tamsier a paranoid bigot in reply to Tamsier's abusive remarks. But his comment about Tamsier making racist comments about the Fula and bigoted comments about Muslims was probably justified.


 * Tamsier, if you go up to Mike Tyson and start hitting him, you have only yourself to blame if he hits you back.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification Kwami's comments, while arguably not the epitome of civility, are well within the range of reasonable behavior given the provocation with which they were faced, and personally I don't feel any criticism or action against them is warranted. As well documented by Toddy1 above, Tamsiers' behavior is in need of improvement. Gerardw (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that both Toddy1 and Kwamikagami just read my statements and assumed a lot. I challenge anyone to prove where I have directly said "the Fula language is a desecration or a poison". Such remarks where made in reference to the edit warring Kwami was doing and now Halaqah which is still going on and has now escalated to the Serer people and Serer Religion articles. As evident in the links, I have mentioned couple of times the relatedness of the Serer and Fula languages. I cannot be held accountable when when people take statements out of context and read what they want to read. My remarks where directed at what Kwami was doing to the articles and the kind of game he was playing between the Serer language and Fula language articles. The Muslim Mafia of Senegal is the Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal. They are among the most powerful in Senegal and control information. Since there is a big problem between them and those who adhere to Serer Religion for nearly 150 years, it is vital that they are mention. Sources:


 * Elisa Daggs. All Africa: All its political entities of independent or other status. Hasting House, 1970. ISBN 0803803362
 * Issa Laye Thiaw. "La Religiosité de Seereer, Avant et Pendant leur Islamisation". Éthiopiques no: 54, Revue semestrielle de Culture Négro-Africaine. Nouvelle série, volume 7, 2e Semestre 1991

Toddy1 also made another error regarding the "good faith" comment. Here is my direct quote:



This demonstrates that, I initially assumed good faith. However, according to Wiki's policy, you can seaze to assume good faith when it becomes apparent that a person(s) is not acting accordingly. In light of the fact that, Kwami was and still is engage in edit wars with me in reference to all Serer related articles, and Halaqah's own account and edits, who started with the Serer people article after the incident and then moved to the Serer Religion article and is making his way down to all Serer related articles - adding "dubious dicuss" and other templates and disregarding the sources cited in the article. Here,  and. I can perhaps understand an editor engaging in edit war but not from an administrator regardless of whether they are acting in the capacity of administrator or not. Once they have the administrator tag on their talk page, one expects a higher level of standard. I do not have the time to be engaged in edit wars especially with an Administrator who has the power to call the troops to his aid. Personally, I'm not bothered by it and just edit as much as I can. I have learned that fast. However, what I am worried about is the damage being done to the articles for not apparent reason other than to engage in war with me. Further, I find it hard to believe that an Adminstrator with all their status can use such language on Wiki and is allowed to get away with it. Very strange. Tamsier (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Tamsier, two uninvolved editors have reviewed the situation, and independently concluded that your behaviour was at fault.


 * The best thing to do, would be to say that you are sorry, that you feel very deeply about the issues... then try to work with the other editors as best you can. Try to resolve issues with them on the talk page, and accept that some of the time the consensus will not be as you wish it.  The use of good sources helps a lot.  Some of the time, you need to accept defeat.  (The rest of us have to put up with these annoyances too.)


 * Please read Just drop it. Good luck.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, nobody invited me a Muslim to this. Nice to know Kwamikagami is Muslim and we are apparent in some editing conspiracy. Elisa Daggs not even in print. Edit the article not the chip on your shoulder. Or the Islamic fear. I have issued with this Tamsier editor and am on the verge of reporting him/her for Advocacy and an agenda of anti-Islamic racist propaganda and copy editing across multiply pages. racist edits and POV pushing is evident from most edits.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Halaqah - Never ever used that tone again when addressing me. Indeed you are the one with a chip on your shoulder and your Islamic propagander that you have been pushing for long enough is evident for all to see.  If you lack the brain cells or intellect to refer to cited sources that is your problem not mine.  Never again use such arrogance when referring to me.  I careless who your friends are in Wiki.  I hope that is clear.


 * It is shocking that everyone saw Halaqah's tone which has been here since yesterday yet not a single person Administrator or Editor intervened and told this person such language is uncall for. I now await anyone who dare to try and tell me off about my tone above.


 * @ Toddy1 - Not in a million years. If the fault was mine, I would have, but since certain people have friends here and can do whatever they wish without repercussions, never. Kwami didn't even have to defend himself, you did all the work for him. Tamsier (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tamsier, two editors have given you their advice. You're welcome to take it or not but in my opinion it's unlikely that further posting here will having any positive effect. Gerardw (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Halaqah's behaviour and edit war is unacceptable.
It is unlikely any action will be taken against this Halaqah after my previous report experience on this page but I shall report it anyway. This person has persued all my edits including removing my sources and edits as well as templates I've placed on articles and will not stop until made to stop.

Tamsier (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Under religion, islam and Serer religion - deleted my edits which has been thoroughly sourced as well as the actual citation of the author “Fatou Camara” which she referred to as my opinion.
 * Deleted the citation and references from authors regarding Islam which she referred to as pure Islamophobia.
 * – Removed sourced *Almoravid Islamisation content and expressed their own opinion without sources.
 * This appears to be editorial disagreement, not a wikiquette issue. You've taken a good first step in discussing on the talk page. If you're unable to come to consensus, consider WP:RFC, WP:3RD, or WP:DRN. Gerardw (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This editor is all over the place doing this with other editors as well, not just me. As evidence take a quick look at their contribution to wikipedia. Just a quick look and see what they have been busy doing, who they have attacked,. The rest of us edit the articles, based on policy. We try our best. We make mistakes, but usually we fight over the quality. This crusade against me and other editors has to stop and i will soon request the user be blocked for a series of disruptive editing (see their log and talk page) which is just interrupting our ability to do our job as seasoned wiki editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User "Wee Curry Monster" refuses to talk


Hello. This is one of my first contributions in this Wikipedia (though I have, some time ago, contributed to a different Wikipedia), so, even though I read the policies about disputes solving, I apologise in advance if there were better places to present this one.

I did one edition in the article Falkland Islands and the user above-mentioned deleted it, leaving but a link to a Wiki policy as explanation. After analysing it, and with the knowledge I had from my previous experience, I concluded his "arguments", if I may call a link to a policy so, were inadequate. I tried, thus, reaching this user by posting on his talk page a message I deemed polite and concise.

Shortly after, I checked the article Criticism of the UN, were I had also contributed, and found that the same user had deleted my contribution there too leaving this time two links to wiki policies. Again, I read these policies, but concluded my contributions were respecting their principles.

I went back to his user talk page to check for an answer before leaving a new meessage, but he had deleted my first commentary there too, this time without even a monosyllabic or cryptic reason... which I didn't miss, anyway.

I don't know how to use a template, so I will be leaving now a personal message to this user warning him about this post.

Thank you very much. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We have ways of making him talk. Though that was a reasonable message you left on his page. I would say it is rather rude to ignore and delete it like that. Let me check the edits first though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 28 Elul 5771 23:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but calling the reign of Peron a dictatorship is a bit POV I'm afraid. Even if it is the truth. It's kind of like how we don't call Osama a terrorist, helps maintain NPOV. As for the second, well, I don't mean to offend, but it's not very notable that the Argentine delegation concurred (not saying Argentina's not a major force, but all the same not a notable event); I don't think it goes against NPOV, but it is a bit newsy given that it's something recent that probably won't have lasting impact. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 29 Elul 5771 00:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * XD, if everything else fails I'll use the suggested technics. XD.
 * Now, seriously. I certainly agree that, aside from the fact that we may or may not consider Peron or his government a dictatorship, it would not be appropriate to call it that way, simply because he was elected democratically.
 * The point is that he died in 1973, few years, or months, can't remember, after his third term in presidency began. And what followed for seven years in Argentina was a dictatorship known as National Reorganisation Process, during which Leopoldo Galtieri was named de facto president, in 1982. It is a dictatorship by all means, but if you feel like investigating a bit, well, it is very interesting, and terrible too, that's for sure.
 * Now regarding the other article, well, I disagree with you. Not because I think Argentinian's participation is more important than that of other countries, but because the criticism of a memeber of the UN towards the existance of permanent Council members, should be regarded as relevant in the context of UN criticism, regardless of a member's size, population, etc.
 * On the other hand, I admit it is new information, but we are talking about the statement of a UN member's delegation in the General Assembly of the UN, so I don't think it should be regarded as temporary news, at least that's not what reading the policy section suggests. You can also see a statement by a Canadian embassador being cited in the same section of that article.
 * Well, thank you very much for your answer. What do you say about my contributions. And about this user, shall we make him talk? Haha, peace 190.195.39.223 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC) PS: Some data is wrong, I said the dictatorship began in 1973, but it was 1976, the idea is the same, though. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a bit of a content discussion, but it might help. You can only refer to it as the leadership of Peron or something else very neutral. Let's take a look at the article of one of the least likable swine in history (none of that Godwin nonsense). See how neutral that lede is in the first paragraph? (I know dictatorship is used later, but that's the kind of NPOV you want). Thankfully you don't have to worry about BLP with regard to Peron as his corpse is rotting in the ground (or w/e became of him), but you want to maintain neutrality as best as possible.
 * Apologies, I guess I should say it's really more about the recentism now that I think about it. I guess that Canada's delegation;'s reaction had more lasting impact (apologies about the not notable business as that was a misrepresentation of the cited policy), though I don't really know why; truth be told.
 * Well he can really only come here if he wants to. Cannot force him as far as I know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 29 Elul 5771 01:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I understand this is turning into a content discussion, which I should be having with this user, and not with you, I appreciate your time and help.
 * But I think you didn't understand me. I never mentioned Peron in my edition in Falkland Islands. I never refered in the article to him, nor his presidency, which ended in 1973, or 1974, when he died, nor did I refer in the article to his vicepresident's government, which lasted for 2 more years until 1976, when a military coup established a 7-year dictatorship, including among its dictators Leopoldo Galtieri, who ruled in 1982, which is the character I mentioned in the article. You can see in Leopoldo Galtieri that he is described as a de facto president, id est, not chosen democratically, and that he ruled during a dictatorship. You can also see that Argentina, from 1976 to 1983 was under a dictatorship in several articles with sources, including, but not limited to: Dirty War, National Reorganisation Process, Argentina, Politics of Argentina, and many more articles.
 * Isn't there anything we can do to make this user discuss instead of just deleting my contributions? Thanks for your help. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. Apologies. I didn't read closely enough (I don't know why I keep doing that). I thought dictatorship, Peron (which shows how limited my knowledge of Argentina is). Hmmm, let's see in this case, you could say, "In April 1982, a few months before the end of a seven-year period of military-rule in Argentina, and four months after Leopoldo Galtieri became the de facto President of Argentina, Argentine military forces invaded the islands leading to the Falklands War." See? Can't be denied that it's military rule then and it's a bit more neutral. I question if using the term junta might be okay, it is a very common term in the English speaking world these days.
 * Well, if you keep editing and the edits are okay, and he keeps reverting them, it could be considered hounding, which is another term for harassment, but don't go off accusing him of it, because that could violate WP:NPA. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 29 Elul 5771 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All right! Apologies accepted, it happens all the time. I agree to your suggestions and will edit the article now. I'll post here if anything happens. Thank you very much pal! 190.195.39.223 (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bound to happen when the internet is filled with people from the US. :p Alrighty, I hope this helps resolve the issue. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 29 Elul 5771 02:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While simply reverting a message without commenting would be rude in other contexts, it's considered acceptable practice on Wikipedia and considered to be acknowledgement the message has been read.
 * While it was good that you started a conversation about the edit, discussion about a particular article best belongs on the article talk page, not another editor's page. Gerardw (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you check my talk page, for about 2 years I've had a message that I routinely delete messages after reading.
 * I gave an informative edit summary and a link to policy. On the one hand he knows enough about wikipedia to bring this to WQA (as he's edited on other wikipedias) but not enough about policy to have taken this to the article talk page.
 * diff of an editor, bringing issues to WQA in an effort to gain an advantage in imposing content he desired rather than for any real problem. He is now blocked for disruptive editing and for using a variety of IP socks to do so, safe in the knowledge you can't link IP to an account.   Do I hear the sound of quacking per WP:DUCK? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no quacking in WQA. The issue at hand is whether there was incivility on the part of Wee Curry Monster (I think not). There are other forums for Ornithology. Gerardw (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SPI check initiated. Thanks for noting there was no incivility on my part. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello.
 * Flinders: Thank you again!
 * Gerardw: Thank you. I will, as you ask, open a thread on the article talk page and try to peacefully discuss there. I appologise for not having done this before. I will from now on.
 * Wes: I think you're doing a big fuss over a small issue. We didn't have a good start, but we still can get along well. I didn't feel like reading that essay about a duck, but I don't think bringing that kind of element to the discussion helps. I don't wish you any harm, nor I wish, as you just said, to impose content through this board, or by any other means, as I have stated more than once, since I opened this thread. My aim is to be able to talk, discuss, and, eventually add what I think is valuable and relevant information to the article, but not without consensus, something we would only achieve if we can communicate in a respectful manner.
 * Finally, two things, I have responded to your accusation of puppetry. And I will now leave a message in the article talk page as suggested by Gerardw. Best regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This was an unfounded complaint, no incivility on my part, so would someone mind closing please. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the section with Sjö and me?. I have been away and now I can't find it.
RPSM (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was also being careful not to write things without thinking them thoroughly through first, and I was on the verge of writing something conciliatory, but now the thread has disappeared. Sjö wrote:


 * You ask if a friend could add some text to the Swedish Shechita article. Maybe I'm not the best person to ask, but my take on it is that if the person is comfortable with making the edit as his or her own, and if he or she is upfront about your involvement, then it will be no big problem. The best thing to do is to ask at the Swedish article's talk page or maybe at the Village Pump sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen.Sjö (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Sjö's suggestion is that I am permanently blocked forever from editing anything on Swedish WP. I cannot even compose a defence against the blocking I am subjected to on Swedish WP RPSM (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My problems on Swedish WP do not centre around Sjö and he throughout has been civil and, as I see it, acted in good faith. If he thinks it would help for me to respond to anything that is unclear, I am willing to do so at any time. RPSM (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Lionelt -- Wikihounding and canvassing to attack me
I find this type of behavior completely inappropriate. User:Lionelt is on the opposite side of a disagreement with me on Talk:Militant atheism, and I, along with several others, have raised concerns about him and another user canvassing for support at the RfC on that page - see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Now it appears he is digging through my edit history (see WP:HOUND) to find other people I may have had disagreements with in the past, and canvassing for support against me, as shown int he first diff I posted above. Can someone please explain to him that this is unacceptable. I am hesitant to take this to AN/I because I don't think its at that level but if anyone thinks it belongs there instead please let me know.Griswaldo (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. It is clearly not "wikihounding" (an attemot to force a person off Wikipedia in any improper manner) so let's take that off the table.  2.  The issue of CANVASS initially raised was ill chosen where the posts were to projects and not to individual editors.  If you wish to rewrite WP:CANVASS that would be needed to make the judgements you seek.  3.  If he CANVASSes in order to make an RfC/U appear to be "frontloaded" as to opinions, then that would, indeed, be a major problem (WP:False consensus). The post you cite, however, is not even close to CANVASS in my opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Collect, what else should I call it? He's not simply posting a relevant topic to Wikiproject in that diff at all. He's posting to a thread in which I am in a disagrement with a user, and saying "hey look this editor is having problems with these other people, hint hint." What does Lionelt's post have to do with the thread he posted to? Indeed what does it have to do with Wikiproject:Judaism at all? OK so maybe I chose poorly when it comes to describing what he did, but can you please consider what he did instead of nitpicking about what I called it? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (E/C) As an uninvolved party, I don't see how you can call this "digging through edit history"; the disagreement with Orangemike is easily read if somebody decides to scroll up on your talk page, and Lionelt may have come to Nealdowntome123's talk page the exact same way as you did. I'm assuming good faith on Lionelt's part, yes, but I think you need stronger evidence to accuse somebody of harassment. Furthermore, that's not hounding, and the canvassing situation has already been dealt with on ANI (so there's no reason to discuss it here). m.o.p  15:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Please do not call yourself "uninvovled" given our recent history and my vocal disagreements about how you've handled matters specifically relating to this entry and some of these same editors. 2) You "assume good faith" on Lionelt's part when he posts a comment at Wikiproject Judaism that has nothing to do with the scope of the project or the thread he posted in, but consists entirely of a comment about me as an editor. Seriously? Not to mention that this is a project he does not edit. He clearly went there after discovering the disagreement I had with Debresser either on my talk page or in my edit history. Like I said to Collect, I'm fine with the idea that I've mislabeled what he did, but I'm having a really hard time understanding how you think it is appropriate or in "good faith." Please explain that further.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm uninvolved because my role is to mediate, not voice opinions. Whether or not others agree with what I say is not up to me. As for Lionelt's edit, I never said it was acceptable, and I never said it was good faith - I said I was assuming good faith when interpreting his intent and judging that Lionelt is not hounding you. Also, please don't put words in my mouth, because I never said Lionelt's edits were appropriate (and, to the contrary, will take them up with that editor in time). m.o.p  16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You said, and quote, "I'm assuming good faith on Lionelt's part." So what do you consider them if not appropriate? I see no comments about them being inappropriate just this assumption of good faith. So how about you actually comment then on the edits that I raised questions about? Isn't that what one does when a concern is raised?Griswaldo (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See my above reply: "I was assuming good faith when interpreting his intent". I did not say his editing was good faith. m.o.p  16:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be best to continue the discussion regarding ANI behavior at ANI. Gerardw (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no one is objecting I will move the whole conversation to ANI.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo


In this diff an edit I made was restored. I removed "[On Harvard Time]" as it was a TV show, and did not fit "Campus and media publications" as I saw it (a TV show is not published). ElKevbo reverted it, and as I preferred to discuss it rather than revert it out of hand I opened a thread on his talk page. As can be seen, we don't agree, and that's fine, but I will not stand by and have an editor tell me he's going to watch me because of my "limited understanding and laziness". He's gone over the line here, as well as has made an intent to Wikistalk very clear. I believe there have been similar subjective issues with him in the past as well which are also evidenced on his talk page. I would therefore like someone to follow up on this, because there's a pattern. I would also note that a heavy copyedit on the article by a third party (which I didn't see until I had to go get the diff) has more or less negated the entire issue. MSJapan (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was harsh and pointed but I haven't engaged in any activity that steps over any lines. I don't think I even reverted your (second?) edit to the article in question despite disagreeing with it. Accept that people disagree, sometimes harshly, and move on. If I do "Wikistalk" you then by all means take some action. But it's reasonable to keep an eye on other editors - that's why we have public contribution histories - and you need to distinguish between a healthy level of distrust from disapproving editors from actual actions that affect your edits or the larger project. ElKevbo (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This was essentially a content dispute which has now been resolved. The discussion should have taken place on the talk page of the article. Other editors have since intervened to change the name of the section in question to "Publications and media" and rejig this content. Mathsci (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, I'd say MSJapan's comments '' if you think the definition of publication is too narrow because it doesn't include TV shows, then you need to pick up a dictionary.  and You don't know what something means, so I'm discriminating against "new media"?'' et. al. were inflammatory and that rhetorical style is best avoided in the future. As Mathsci has noted, the discussion should have taken place on the article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I came here to post about a different user and just happened to see this. Last month I had a similar incident with ElKevbo in talk page discussions at Windsor University School of Medicine. I'm sure his intentions were good but a few of his comments were a bit harsh and/or impolite, such as this comment of his on August 9, 2011:
 * "I've told you several times why your understanding and application of policies are incorrect and fundamentally flawed. But if you want to be immature and believe that you've "won" an argument because I refuse to continue running around in circles with you then so be it. The encyclopedia is worse off and this is an example of why other experts are reluctant to edit Wikipedia."
 * I know it's very easy for tempers to flare in Wikipedia disputes, but I just felt this was a bit out of line. That is all. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 05:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarc


Hi there. Over the past few days, I have been receiving disrespectful comments from User:Tarc. This began with a good faith edit I made to Campaign for "santorum" neologism on 9/27, which Tarc reverted, referring to it as "cheerleading" in the revert comment. I posted this question on his talk page to find out why he referred to it that way, but it was removed and has gone unanswered. I then created a talk page discussion for my edit and added an rfc tag, which Tarc has referred to in comments as "irrelevant" and "useless." On 9/29 he responded to one of my comments with "Not even close, son. Maybe you're reading what you wish to see rather than what is actually there." I then opened a topic on the dispute resolution noticeboard to get additional outside input, and when I placed the required template of notification on his talk page, he reverted it with the comment "stay off my page". I addressed these comments here, stating (after he left the "stay off my page" comment): "I was required to notify you on your talk page of your involvement on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard; I would remind you to remain polite as per the talk header rules. Thank you." to which Tarc responded "Keep your reminders to yourself, if you will."

I normally would ignore comments like this but we are involved in what is likely to be a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page and I think User:Tarc's comments have been a bit uncivil and disrespectful; I'd rather quell it now than let it keep escalating. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 06:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: when Tarc reverted you with the edit summary of "Pro-Savage cheerleading", did he eventually explain his revert on the talk page? Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. My edit was to the entire lead section. He explained his disapproval of what I wrote for the first sentence, but that's essentially it. If you go to the bottom of this discussion, you can see that my question asking what specifically his concerns were with my edit was ignored. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 13:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like this dispute is currently being handled at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard so closure might be ideal. Not sure what this WQA will achieve if it remains open. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect Viriditas, I don't think that how Tarc handles himself, which is pretty much the same in every dispute I've seen him engage, has to do with this particular content issue -- which I'm in total agreement with him on. It might be helpful for someone who Tarc respects to point out that the way he carries on is not helpful to the project. I'm not such a person, or I would do it myself. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First, how I have dealt with this obviously agenda-pushing user in far, far more measured than I have dealt with similar people in the past. Be grateful for that.  Second, people need to get a reality check develop a far thicker skin if they think anything I have said in the last few days remotely rises to the point of any sort of board report.  Finally, speaking of boards, this will be the last post I will make on this subject.  WQA is a joke, and I will repost the call for deletion I made at its last MfD for your enjoyment;

""Honestly, WQA is like some sort of ghetto'ized AN/I, the petty things people don't want to deal with just get shunted out of sight out of mind. What it is is a tattletale board, an "editor X was mean to me! BAWWWWWWWWWW!" outlet to drag someone to do when an editorial dispute isn't going your way...or it is going your way, and you want to keep your foot on your wiki-opponent's neck. Hell, I was dragged there once because I quoted the "definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result" saying in a post, and someone had a hissy fit because "you called me insane!"""


 * Cheers. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No Tarc. We should not "be grateful" that you're being less acerbic now than you have been in the past. You act like it's your right to be rude to people and it isn't. I'm not a civility stickler, and I have, on occasion been uncivil myself. I can't fault people for getting annoyed and lashing out now and then. But with you it's not an exception, it's the rule, and like I said above, it isn't helpful. Given how you behave, the view you hold about WQA has to be taken with a grain of salt, since it is entirely self serving. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The community consensus was WQA has a role in some contexts. It's entirely true that participation is voluntary, and reviewing the content at the top we don't make that clear. I'll address at some point in the future. Gerardw (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

aqwfyj, your first edit on Tarc's page was ill-advised; as Tarc noted the discussion belongs on the article talk page. Your second edit was fine, as it was a required notification and Tarc doesn't actually own his talk page. While removing it was perfectly fine I agree his edit comment was churlish. It is best ignored. My advice is to stay off his talk page except when required to post notices. To be explicit, I only mean when instructions on a board require you to notify another editor, not warning templates and the like. Gerardw (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My first edit on Tarc's page was immediately after his reversion of my edit; he had made no indication at that point that the discussion belonged only on the article talk page, so why was my first edit on his page ill-advised? In any case, I plan on staying off his talk page anyway since that's what he requested, which is why I didn't make the required notification that he was being discussed here. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 13:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because discussion about an article belongs on the article talk page. And it was fine (perhaps very good) that you didn't post the WQA notice. Gerardw (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This should be closed. There is no way Tarc would ever be uncivil.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See, even my bro Milo agrees.  Look at it like this; I'm like the Patrick Jane of the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have WQA watchlisted for some reason (masochism, probably, given that it's effectively ANI for people who have an issue that would be laughed off ANI) and whilst I haven't read this case, Tarc being brought here is usually someone complaining about being told something in very direct terms that they should have taken notice of the first time they were told. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case again. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the case here. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 18:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, having now actually looked at the issue, you're actually right. It appears to be the other issue that Tarc gets dragged into, which is people complaining about something that is abrupt but not actually uncivil.  Surely it must be time to MfD this board again? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While there's a consensus that folks on WP should be civil, there's no consensus on what that actually means in practice. Some of us feel our fellows editors deserve a more supportive environment than been laughed off on ANI. Gerardw (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Aqwfyj, are you satisified with the community response such that can we close this now? Gerardw (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect

 * 
 * 

In the above section regarding Mathsci, Collect appears to confuse Mathsci and Will Beback. I attempt to clarify this on Collect's talk page, and further attempted to get him to stop engaging in battleground behavior. In response to my attempts, Collect became increasingly hostile - which eventually ended with his request that I leave his talk page. I agreed to do so, but asked that he waive the two-certifier requirement for a user-conduct RFC. He responded by calling my request "trash."

It would be helpful if another user could engage Collect and perhaps convince him that there are some aspects of his recent conduct that require slight modification. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect replied politely to Hippocrite's first request [] and noted that discussion about WQA belongs here, not his talk page. Hipocrite continued to pursue the point on Collect's talk page and ignored his polite request that he leave []. I'd suggest Hipocrite simply stay off Collect's talk page. Gerardw (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest my post:
 * Clarification
 * None of my comments are intended to say, imply or infer in any way that Mathsci and Will are the same person, and I do not really see how anyone could in good faith make such an assertion about my posts, but if anyone really thinks I made that claim, implication or inference, I take this opportunity to say I did not make such a claim, implication or inference at all, that I did not intend for anyone to draw any such inference and that I am sorry if anyone really did think that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC) 

More than adequately address your issues which you iterated on my UT page several times, and which I answered on my UT page several times. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mathsci
Good day! A content RfC about two months ago obtained consensus to trim some of the pejorative material from the LaRouche movement article. Since then, discussion has been ongoing about how to do this. Mathsci joined the discussion recently and focused many of his comments on other editors instead of just on content:. I asked Mathsci not to make any more personal attacks, and suggested that his approach might not be very helpful. He deleted my remarks without comment, then immediately made a comment similar to his previous ones on the talk page, prompting a rebuke from a different editor. In my opinion, Mathsci's comments have concentrated a little too much on attacking other editors and have unhelpfully raised the heat in that talk page discussion, but I'm open to opinions from uninvolved editors since I'm so close to the subject. Thank you in advance. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68 is mis-characterizing the RFC, which simply asked whether a section of the LaRouche movement article should be shorter. He also ignores the personal remarks made by other editor on that page, including his own comments and refusal to engage in discussion. I think this is a bad faith request intended more for strategic or tactical advantage than a sincere desire to improve civility on Wikipedia.    Will Beback    talk    07:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why Cla68 has made this report. To see a string of personal attacks by various users, including Cla68, editors need look no further than this page in Cla68's own userspace which he periodically updates and then blanks, presumably in preparation for an RfC/U on Will Beback. The edits to Talk:LaRouche movement of Cla68 and other users—many of them like-minded participants in the recently closed ArbCom case on Manipulation of BLPs—seem to be tightly related to much of what is in the current incubating version of the RfC/U, the purpose of which remains unclear. Nobody is objecting to the consensus to shorten the article and cutting down on excessive detail, as decided by the article RfC. That RfC, however, is currently being used as a pretext for deleting segments of the article based on spurious claims of BLP violations, a completely separate issue, which has not met with any consensus on wikipedia. At no stage will I be editing any articles remotely related to Lyndon LaRouche or his movement. However, I will comment on the reliability and identification of secondary sources and their use, on the misapplication of wikipedia policies and on other potential problems, such as WP:TAG TEAM and WP:SPA.As for deleting comments on my talk page, that indicates that I might have read them and is normal talk page etiquette.


 * This page in Cla68's user space User:Cla68/threat charges at one stage contained attacks on me inserted by an ipsock of serial puppetmaster (aka A.K.Nole). Cla68 linked that page at one stage to an ArbCom evidence page, which would have been removed by a clerk if Cla68 had not removed it himself. Cla68 was unconcerned about causing offense to me by keeping the trolling edits of this user. Similarly I would have to agree with Will Beback that this report does not appear to have been made in good faith and might be purely pragmatic, since no civility issues seem to be involved. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Cla68/DR draft work page should be deleted rather than just blanked, since the history remains William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, and would add that there is no merit whatever to this complaint. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree (although I'm not firm about it) for reasons of transparency; this establishes a history which may be needed/wanted at some point. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could any of the regulars here please review Mathsci's diffs and comment? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason that you are unable to ask them for clarification yourself, either here or on their talk page? That would seem the sensible first step. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that I had done that by asking him on his talk page not to make personal attacks and suggesting that ad hominem arguments weren't a helpful approach to talk page discussion. When he deleted those comments without responding, then quickly made another such comment on the article talk page, it seemed that outside intervention might be helpful, because I felt that I wasn't getting anywhere. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, your approach was a bit confrontational, don't you think? Far from a polite request for clarification. Second of all, Mathsci has the right to decide whether the discussion occurs on their talk page, or on the article talk page. The fact that they deleted your comments from their own talk page and moved the venue cannot be interpreted as a refusal to discuss or explain. Perhaps if you cool down and formulate your request for clarification a bit more diplomatically without making accusations of making personal attacks or ad hominem remarks, you might get somewhere, and outside intervention would not be needed. You might offer to host the discussion on your own talk page, if Mathsci agrees. The key is for both of you to remain cool, calm and collected. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input Dominus, but I'd really like to get an opinion from one of the regulars on this board. Again, would one of the regulars here please reveiw Mathsci's diffs and tell me what you think? Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The regulars on this page are Cerejota and Gerardw. Meanwhile, since this report was filed, there has been a constructive response to comments on the article talk page from Jayen466, who has succeeded in condensing content in a way that is acceptable to all users. Mathsci (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Off-wikipedia, Cla68 has added comments which indicate that he is not editing here in good faith. He writes, "I assume Mathsci is over 18 years of age and should know better than to use logical fallacies in a debate, especially in a medium requiring collaboration in order to accomplish a goal. If he isn't over 18, then his editing might benefit from some adult supervision." This looks extremely bad. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems disingenuous for an editor to complain about something on-wiki, while engaging in the same conduct he complains about off-wiki. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now here is an interesting question: Does Cla68's behaviour fall under hypocrisy or under double standard? Hans Adler 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Examining the diffs supplied by Cla68, I see nothing wrong from Mathsci. A frivolous or fractious WQA filing, it appears. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Examining the diffs given by Cla68, I find this is not a frivolous complaint, and that the clear consensus on the LaRouche movement article was to reduce the amount of "stuff" which clutters that article with just about every single factoid findable on Proquest.  The accusation that this report was not made in good faith is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies - there is a reasonable background for the complaint, and assertions that this should be ignored because IDONTLIKEIT are invalid. I suggest Will reread the discussions about removing all the Proquest factoids and BLP violations, and act in accord with the clear consensus thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether Mathsci was right on the merits is beside the point. This complaint contends that Mathsci wasn't civil, and that is what is lacking in merit. I have no opinion on the substance of his dispute with Cla68. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect, an editor involved in editing the article and the previous Manipulation of BLPs ArbCom case, seems to be discussing what he imagines to be a content dispute on the article here. This noticeboard, however, concerns wikiquette assistance, so his comments are off-topic. It's also unclear why Collect is making comments here to Will Beback; but see . (Just for the record, even if it is totally irrelevant here, what Collect says about me is incorrect. I have always supported condensing the article, although not by wholesale deletion justified by spurious claims of BLP violations. As I've said above and on the article talk page, Jayen466 now seems to be condensing content in a way that is acceptable to all users.) Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The post was directed to the community at large reading this noticeboard.  And I suggest the clear consensus was to remove the "factoid-itis" present in that article, and I am pleased Mathsci agrees that the factoiditis needs to be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop putting words into my mouth. That is quite rude. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Factoiditis"? What does that have to do with Wikiquette? If there are issues with the reliability of sources then WP:RSN would be the appropriate venue for discussion.   Will Beback    talk    23:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I appreciate everyones' concern, but what I think would be helpful is to get some input from the regulars at this board, who have experience in dealing with NPA concerns from a broad spectrum of Wikipedia. Again, I hope they will review the diffs I presented and give an opinion. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (It had been my intent to recuse myself from commenting here because I've had past interactions with some of the involved parties.) Per Cla68's request, I've reviewed the diffs above. Not seeing significant incivility on Mathsci's part. Removing comments from own talk page is standard WP practice. Gerardw (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
 * None of my comments are intended to say, imply or infer in any way that Mathsci and Will are the same person, and I do not really see how anyone could in good faith make such an assertion about my posts, but if anyone really thinks I made that claim, implication or inferene, I take this opportunity to say I did not make such a claim, implication or inference at all, that I did not intend for anyone to draw any such inference and that I am sorry if anyone really did think that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pease could this discussion now be closed? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:WestwoodMatt



 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) "You are making yourself look even more stupid with every post you make."Curb Chain (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you might be better served reading this essay rather than asking us to examine your interactions with Westwoodmatt. - Nick Thorne  talk  22:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you are assuming I have been uncivil to him? I don't see how this is assistance.Curb Chain (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems I'll have to spell it out then - I was hoping that you would get the hint without this. No, I am not saying that you have been uncivil.  What I am saying is that is is apparent that Westwoodmatt has been responding to your actions which indicate a considerable misunderstanding on your part of how Wikipedia works and what its rules say.  At worst Westwoodmatt has responded in frustration at your inability or unwillingness to follow normal Wikipedia conventions.  He may have been pointy in some of his comments, but that is not an infraction of civility as far as I am concerned given the circumstances. If you don't want to have your actions called stupid then don't act stupidly.  Happy now? -  Nick Thorne  talk  23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Nick -- your contributions at Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics show a pattern of argumentation rather than seeking and accepting consensus. Gerardw (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx guys. --Matt Westwood 05:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I've just read DBAD myself and will (try to) take it on board. --Matt Westwood 05:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've come to the wrong venue as I've only received comments by hypocrites.Curb Chain (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you wish to close the discussion then? Gerardw (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, so when someone else is blunt with you, it's a personal attack, but when you make similarly blunt observations from your (misguided) perspective, that is not a WP:PERSONAL attack? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Septegram
I'd like someone to take a look at this conversation here, and also the original comment that sparked the conversation (linked to in my first comment). I was told to "go away" (because they don't like their conduct commented on) so I came here. — Jean Calleo (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really want to go there? This looks a lot like WP:Boomerang material to me. -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jean Calleo, you have not been civil. My advice is to say sorry for your rudeness, and drop this complaint. You do not want this to escallate, as you are the one who is likely to get blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with the above. Please look at their comment I was commenting on and tell me my message wasn't warranted. And please don't threaten me with blocks, I stopped messaging them because they told me to, I'm not disrupting anything. — Jean Calleo (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I'm looking for a third person's input exactly because it's a boomerang-y situation -- whatever I may have to say now after their last reply may just be because I'm trying to defend myself and not because I want to make a neutral assessment of the situation (which I do, but obviously I'm biased now, so I can't). So I'd appreciate if a neutral person could assess both of our's conduct. I don't mind what you have to say to me, it's still true that they're being uncivil and need to be told so. — Jean Calleo (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC) No, no one's made their point to him, and the three of you haven't helped. I understand you guys love the boomerang irony, but if you can't let go of that and actually drop a neutral message on their talk page, then I still have an issue here. AGF is irrelevant, intention and outcome are different things. — Jean Calleo (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jean, AGF - I think push led to shove out here. Septegram is not right in the choice of words; and so has been the case with your choice of words initially. I do realize that sometimes discussions track themselves off in ways not expected - and this may well be one of those times - but my suggestion would be to agf and move on. You've made your point to Septegram; and Septegram to you. And I hope both learn from the incident and improve the choice of words. In case you had used appropriate words, and Septegram hadn't, my analysis would have been to poke Septegram (but again in good faith and with no offending demeanor). At this point, I feel both of you have one leg in the same boat. In case there's no other diff you'd like to show here, please consider this wikiquette request closed. Wifione  Message 10:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For your (and Septegram's) benefit, I'll leave a note linking to this discussion on Septegram's talk page. Wifione  Message 10:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for a third person to comment on their conduct in a way that might get across to them, no one has done so here or there. I don't see a benefit. — Jean Calleo (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the purpose of this page. The purpose is seek assistance is resolving difficulties; this often comes in the form of suggestions to all involved parties. Sorry we can't help you in the manner you are requesting. Gerardw (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks.
 * I was treated uncivilly and I chose to turn here instead of replying to them (for reasons I gave above). Should I regret that? Furthermore, should I be led to believe that everything they did was fine and it's okay for anyone to act in the same manner? If not, why hasn't a single one of you said anything? — Jean Calleo (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wifione clearly said Septegram is not right in the choice of words. However, four editors have volunteered their time to review the situation and three pointed out that your behavior could be improved also (an opinion I concur with). You're welcome to accept our advice or not. Gerardw (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What advice? Again, is his conduct acceptable or not? Again, should I regret raising the issue here instead of replying myself? — Jean Calleo (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The remarks he made at are just about acceptable to some people but not to others; it is a grey area. If they had been more strongly worded, they would have been clearly uncivil.  I think someone reading English through Google Translate might have found them very offensive - and if such a person had complained, the right thing for Septegram to have done would have been to say that he was sorry and that he did not mean it to be understood the way it was.


 * His remarks at were not civil. But he has a very good defence - that you provoked him.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, if everyone here lacks a proper sense of judgement, then, by me, the case can be closed. Next time someone's year-old opinion on a religious article upsets me, I'll pound them with something hilariously verbose and condescending, knowing that it won't be frowned upon, and if someone dares make a comment, I can be sure they'll be threatened with blocks. Jesus H. Christ. Thank you, I'm done. — Jean Calleo (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fram
Fram has objected to some of my edits to the template Template:Infobox Belgium Municipality and pointed out some faults in my editing. So far so normal, it was neither the first nor the last time that such a thing happened. What made me resort to this board is his completely uncooperative behaviour, his dismissive attitude towards my any proposal or request for some constructive criticism, and his unwillingness to either drop the matter or discuss it properly.

After I altered the template to fix the problems he had noticed he accused me unjustly of violating the BRD cycle (I never reverted), said that something else was wrong, and after fixing these perceived issues too his only further contribution to the discussion was asking that I make my case and convince him to spare my edits. Any requests for criticism more specific than "your changes made the articles worse" were ignored. ("you make changes which are not improvements, so you get reverted.") All he did was sound vexed and annoyed by my requests for further discussion, even though I went to great lengths to remain conciliatory.

All of this was only made worse by his needlessly spiteful tone, as shown by his answers below: After I pointed out that he never actually replied my questions in the other talk page, he resorted to just deleting my messages. Nero the second (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I had written a polite reply, but got edit conflicted with your addition of "I'm still waiting for a reply..."
 * "Please now get off my talk page. Discuss the template at the template talk page, and leave me alone otherwise. I have more interesting things to do than continuing this discussion." []
 * "Get of my talk page and stop sprouting nonsense."

User:Nero the second made some bold changes which I reverted. When he asked what was wrong with them, I replied, to which his initial reaction was "No, there must be some kind of mistake then." In the middle of further discussion about this, Nero the second just implemented his changes (with some improvements) again, which he now claims doesn't go against WP:BRD. Anyway, I again reverted him, and again explained why.

I then made my first request to continue this discussion, about changes to a template, on the talk page of that template. I also copied the discussion so far to that talk page. Nero the second continued posting on my talk page about this template, I replied again and asked again to continue the discussion at the template talk page. Another reply on my talk page, another request to take it to the template talk page. Again, and a fourth request to take this to the template talk page. Nero the second continues posting to my talk page, claiming that I am not willing to discuss it while all I ask is to discuss it at the appropriate page, not at my talk page. So after four requests, I just tell him to get of my talk page. So, if being asked and told five times to take it to the appropriate talk page isn't sufficient, and Nero the second again posts to my talk page, I revert him. And then we end up here...

Note that Nero the second has not made a single post about this at Template talk:Infobox Belgium Municipality, and seems only interested in badgering me on my talk page. The only Wikiquette I see that needs to be enforced is that Nero the second needs to be told that if someone asks them five times to stop posting about a subject to a user talk page, and take it to relevant talk page (in this case the template talk page) instead, that it may be more constructive to do just that. Fram (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nero, please stay off of Fram's talk page. They have been quite patient with you. Gerardw (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna


Left a friendly notice for the user regarding disruptive behaviour in Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna. The user removed my message from User talk:ScottyBerg and disregarded the warning. I left another notice here, but in vain. Please explain to the user that such behaviour (in the AfD discussion) is not appropriate and take any other measures that you deem proper in restoring order in the AfD discussion. Thanks. Fayerman (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "notice" was a non sequitur, because it concerns people reiterating their !votes and responding to other editors, neither of which I was doing. It is commonplace in AfDs for editors to comment further, as I did concerning the neutrality tag and then the canvassing. There is no requirement for editors to place all their comments in one spot. Besides, this is not a Wikiquette issue. Your notice on my talk page made no sense and I have every right to remove posts that make no sense (or posts that make sense, or anything) from my talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you removing messages from your talk page. This is a non-issue. However, the fact that you looked at and removed my message from your talk page meant that you took notice of my message. As to the comment misplacement, there are AfD guidelines that advise strongly against it -- I quoted them for your convenience in my initial message. This is a definite Wikiquette issue, as your comments may be considered disruptive. Especially so when after the second notice, you proceeded to intentionally misplace several more of your comments. Either way, I am not here to make that determination. I am here to report it. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, disruption - your misuse of this noticeboard, raising a non-wikiquette issue about a non-violation of a guideline. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No substance for this use of a noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fayerman, please focus your discussion on the content at AFD and avoid attempting to police other editors' behavior. Gerardw (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sixsmith
The above user has left rude and profane messages on my talk page and on the Big Brother 2011 housemates page:
 * Staring in mainstream films gives Louise a lot more notability than the others, and that is what we have to prove for people to be included. READ THE FUCKING LINKS YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The above user has an attitude problem and this language is unacceptable on this community. I want this behaviour investigated, his aggressive attitude is not becoming to a civil society.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Carl, would you mind removing the word "FUCKING" from the referenced post?
 * 86, Communities have mores and standards, and it's up to the person joining the community to learn them. For example, you were asked multiple times to sign your posts before you started doing so ... this is not a good start. Additionally, you appear to be editing against consensus. Please review WP:Consensus. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gerardw, this IP editor has a very caustic discussion tone in addition to being told the same things over and over only to have them violate the BRD cycle. Carl has gotten exceedingly frustrated (heck, I've gotten frustrated at them by reading their abusive DRN filing and backtracking their "complaint) Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of removing the word 'fucking' from this post. The anon is playing faux offended. This is a user who insist censorship is bad and we should have minutia data about the size of people's penis and their masturbatory practices. I have nothing against this myself but for someone to really push for this and then claim to be offended about the word 'fucking' is frankly laughable. The word is also not used in an insulting tone (e.g. I have not told the user to 'fuck off') it is an expression of frustration about the users complete unwillingness to read links they have been given, (example wp:not, wp:note and wp:blp. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As one of the other editors who got dragged in to this mess, I initially assumed (along with the others, including Carl) that 86 was merely ignorant of the guidelines and standards, so we tried to gently educate him/her, linking to the relevant policies several times. Unfortunately, despite our patience, 86 consistently viewed these attempts to help as "hostile" and thought there was some sort of conspiracy based not on trying to follow policy but because we just didn't like the brilliant edits (that everyone else in the world clearly wanted to read) about the minutiae of the housemates' conversations and descriptions (not taken from secondary sources) of their genitals. With this background, and also noting that 86 only started signing posts after I actually said "sign your fucking posts", I don't think Carl's language in this instance was particularly harsh. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I too am an involved editor, having removed hectares of non-encyclopaedic dross claimed by the IP to be notable and having pointed him at WP policy and content guidelines countless times. I am past the point of assuming good faith with 82 and regard his continued assertions about what is and isn't appropriate for inclusion and his continual accusations of censorship, edit warring etc. as explicit trolling in that they are disrupting the usability of Wikipedia for its editors and readers. Leaky  Caldron  12:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 86 appears to have responded with a couple of WP:NPA violations here and here .  Leaky  Caldron  13:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I say ban them both for being annoying and taking up the 10.0 Kbps of my internet speed that it takes for me to write about this meaningless alert. --97.102.160.62 (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above account was disruption-only and has been blocked for 2 days. In case of doubt see also his last diff and edit summary, just after being blocked and before talk page access was withdrawn.  Mathsci (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He also banned me and closed this discussion at one point. Rather funny in a childish sort of way. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Carl and Marcus, consider this a pre-block warning! I'll give you a few hours to remove the word fuck and any allusions to the same from the relevant talk pages. If your reply to this is the same as it is here (that you will not remove) or if I see that either of you has failed to remove the word from the talk page discussions, you will be blocked initially for a 24 hour period. This does not take away the fact that the ip has made tendentious edits (and you're encouraged to report the ip and the edits to relevant noticeboards; and you have too, to ANI). However, there is no leeway granted to either of you to use the term the way you've used it. And Leaky Caldron, I'll warn the ip on the two edits you showed. If there's one more similar edit against you (or against others) that qualify on NPA, the ip will be blocked too. Thanks. Wifione  Message 10:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wifione, I strongly suggest that you familiarse yourself with blocking policy. It explicitly states "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". The threat you have issued is clearly punitive. I can assure you, you will not be handing out blocks on that basis if you wish to remain an admin. Nev1 (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not remove the comment. If you wish to ban me, go ahead. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nev1, I've understood your viewpoint. However, the proposed block is purely preventative to ensure that Carl and Marcus Hill do not continue using the word fuck in their discussions. The usage of this term clearly goes against productive discussions. In case Carl and Marcus are able to comment here that they will not again use the word fuck, then I have no issues in not blocking them. In case they do not confirm the same (and Carl's and Marcus' comments are important here), I shall be proceeding to block them to encourage a more congenial editing style. I'll await Carl and Marcus' assurance that they will not repeat tendentious terms in their discussions. Wifione  Message 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What utter bollocks, where is the policy against swearing? You are asserting your own view here as policy. Nev1 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Nev1, sign your fucking posts is quite a personal attack; and our policy on No personal attacks clarifies that post this initial warning, if the usage of invectives continues, the block would be put in place. However, I'll really be interested in the responses of Carl and Marcus. Thanks. Wifione  Message 11:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand what a personal attack is. Had Carl said "sign your posts you fuckwit" that would be considered a personal attack; what he said was not personal. Nev1 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to remove my comment. I fail to see anything wrong with it. It was neither an insult nor threatening, merely an expression of frustration. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocking would be excessive. There has not been clear community consensus on what exactly is or is not acceptable. Given Wifione's interpretation the remarks are personal attacks, I've redacted the profanity. Can we all agree to move on? Gerardw (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gerardw, good move. Carl, Marcus, given Gerard's and Nev1's comments too, I'll assume (with a lot of leniency) good faith and close this discussion again with a reminder that in case either of you use the term again, it will be considered an escalating personal attack and you may be blocked. I encourage both of you to not use unproductive words like fuck in the future; whether in reference or in context, the term does lead to such incidents and such Wikiquette reporting. Best. Wifione  Message 11:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved on. []. Swearing however, is not against policy so please either withdraw your threat or initiate a ban if you feel it is. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how telling someone who has been told by Sinebot and human users on a dozen or more occasions to sign posts that they should "sign your fucking posts" is a personal attack, it's merely adding emphasis - as Nev1 points out, the swearing was not used to describe the user. Swearing is not a personal attack, and it isn't against policy - the closest I can find to that is "extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor" in WP:CIVIL, and I hardly think this falls under that umbrella. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with those saying that "sign your fucking posts" is not a personal attack. It is a rather rude way of putting the request, but having been one of the multiple people (not counting Sinebot) to tell the IP editor over and over that posts should be signed and how to do so, I completely understand the frustration that led to using an unpleasant term for emphasis. That usage came only after many, many repeated attempts - on both article and user talk pages - to change the behavior with more polite terminology. Lady  of  Shalott  01:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is vulgar, not an attack. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 02:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree with you LadyofShalott. Our NPA policy clearly mentions that "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". In my judgement, alluding to an ip's posts as "your fucking posts" can be clearly very disparaging, intimidating and harassing to a new ip editor who has just edited here for 20 days - in the same way as it may be to Marcus if anyone were to address his research as "your fucking research" in a public forum. All such usage may achieve is just provoke the ip editor (this WQ report perhaps is evidence of the harassment and provocation). There is, in my opinion, no excuse to allow the talk page of an article to get downgraded into a slanging match where experienced and established editors justify the usage of such terms - even if the same came after much polite usage over 20 days of the ip's editing. If one were to justify such a usage here, one would defeat the very purpose of ensuring that Wikipedia remains a collegial and congenial project. The principles on which our Arbitration Committee operates mention, "Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity." I do appreciate your recognizing that the usage is rude. I agree that the established editors were provoked by the ip. There's much the ip has to learn. In fact, the ip even reverted one of your edits in the past 20 days in the pages concerned. Yet, I'll encourage Carl and Marcus here to take a good faith look at the ArbCom's provocation principle that mentions, "When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user, it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate." I know this is an overkill of an answer, but our Committee also suggests, "Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them." At the same time, I have not disregarded your, KillerChihuahua, Nev1, and Gerardw's advice and I'll obviously go by consensus here. The ip has to improve considerably; and the established editors should take up DR proactively. But I'm convinced there's a huge advantage such a WQ discussion has - and that is to ensure that Carl and Marcus know that there would be editors who like me may consider such usage personal attacks; and like you, who may consider the usage rude and vulgar. And that is the advice to Carl and Marcus that I'll sign off with - as established editors, you're encouraged to use productive language even in the face of provocation; and yes, use DR. Wifione  Message 02:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you think it is threatening language I have used, you are mistaken (as evidenced by every other user who has commented here). I don't care if you think the word fucking is vulgar, there is nothing wrong with vulgar language. I do not appreciate being threatened with punitive punishment based on one single post. a threat you have not yet redacted despite my request to do so (indeed you seem to be ignoring my posts altogether) and my pointing out to you that the argument was over long before you entered it, an apology was given by me to the anon (one he has accepted), and I have removed myself from editing the affected areas. You came into this thread and decided to use your power as an admin to force the issue rather than find out what has actually happened. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to your credit, I do strongly appreciate what you've done at your own behest (though I think withdrawing is not a solution; you are an experienced editor and shouldn't do that). I do believe that due to my verbosity, you may have missed an important line in the above reply of mine, which mentioned that I'll go by consensus here - and there is consensus that this is not a personal attack; the corollary would be that there is no chance of my going against consensus to block you based on this past incident (The word vulgar was used to describe your usage by KillerChihuahua above) - and it is but one incident, I agree. I hope that assuages your issues. Best regards. Wifione  Message 05:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It does. Thank you Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course its vulgar: "1 a : generally used, applied, or accepted " As in the vulgate; the language of the common man. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No one said it wasn't vulgar, I said I don't care if its vulgar. Hence why I didn't accuse him of being mistaken on that point. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Carl, nothing good is going to come out of this place. You and the Dr would be better off working on the article and maintaining a per policy consensus over there. Leaky  Caldron  16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, my post was in response to Wifione; who seemed to stress that it was I who was categorizing the comment as vulgar; I meant to clarify the meaning I was using. Seems we're all on the same page now with that though. :-) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As this matter seems to have been resolved, I move to close this discussion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Screwball23


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Collect (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) This user has often and frequently posted deprecating personal attacks on me - too numerous to count. And previously been reported for such. This particular post, however is an egregious example.
 * Collect, who has contributed nothing to that page except edit wars, is the type of editor who hates me so bad that he argued about her being called a business magnate, agreed to it, lost the argument, gave up, and months later, decided to bring it up again. He regressed the article from covering the Ring Boy Affair and would easily wipe out anything that could possibly be interpreted as negative to her. He's a moron, and he knows it too. The problem is, everytime I prove him wrong, he gets mentally fried, changes the story, and tries to team up with other editors or tries to find some administrative policy that he can weasel into holding his POV. He won't admit to being wrong, and has even written a long-winded essay on why editors shouldn't edit one article in depth because it can indicate undue editing or something like that... Long story short, he won't let it reach GA-status. I personally am a man of principle, and I would rather have an accurate page that readers can learn from, than try to appease the abusive editors of wikipedia to raise it one notch over to GA-status. I promise that anyone who wants to reach success will have to handle his poison, and believe me, even he knows he's a waste of time to talk to. (bolding added so that some of Screwball23's words do not get missed in the mass of invective)

Is beyond the pale. He has been reported here in the past for such personal attacks, and been told not to make them. Including  charges against other editors, bad SPI complaints,  and has has topic bans discussed at AN/I. Also at where he was reported by JustaPunk for similar behaviour again on WWE articles. And, of course, interminable discussiona at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling. So it is not just I who has been attacked by this editor, just that this example is about as clear as one could wish for in a violation. shows one of several warnings by admins to him about his behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone has any doubt see after SB23's harangue ,

Mr. Stradivarius stated '' I recommend that you either provide some serious evidence of Collect's alleged disruptive editing, or you stick to commenting solely on content. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC) ''

has Screwball23saying '' User:Collect is vandalizing the page again. Me and him go back very far and he knows how to game the system very well. I'll be blunt : he's one of the most destructive editors I've ever come across. He has been battling me on Linda McMahon and Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 ever since I started editing them.''

And then (with another editor - so you can be assured this is SBs normal system) SB is unusually argumentative as a rule. Note further that I have had exceedingly limited contact with him, and not made such deprecating remarks as he makes, and have not made SPI accusations as he has done. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quite hard to see who is saying what to whom in your two concatenated posts above. Please edit your posts and put any direct quotes inside "" blocks. -  Nick Thorne  talk  06:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Separated - making clear the quotes from that user, and the insults and attacks made by Screwball23. Collect (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that Screwball23 strike the comments on LionelIt's page, as they constituent a clear personal attack. Gerardw (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, unless Screwball23 agrees to participate in this discussion there is little point in trying to take it further here.  Collect, please note also, that this board does not examine the merits of the content dispute itself, only the civility issues, there is no endorsement for any position on content. -  Nick Thorne  talk  11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I notified Screwball instantly on placing the issue here. There is no reason for him not to discuss this as far as I can tell.  And this is not a "content dispute" - it is a clear and deliberate attack post which is unrelated to any content dispute.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Screwball23 should avoid terms such as moron. However, Collect bears some of the blame for conflict with other editors.  He has a strong political position, which is fine, but writing articles requires neutrality, which means they may not always reflect the viewpoints that we happen to prefer.  TFD (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh -- alas for you I do not attack others and engage in namecalling etc. As for neutrality - I would put my NPOV up against yours seven days a week, and twice on Sundays.   Now can you resist the urge to jump in trying to defend the indefensible attacks?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for "strong political position" - what the hell do you mean? Examine the Johann Hari BLP for such.  Chris Huhne, Alex Sink or any of five hundred BLPs.  Cheers - but ludicrous carges do not really help here. Collect (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
This breakdown between these two editors is very distressing to me. Screw is a member of WPConservatism, and Collect, if we had such a designation, would be an honorary member. Screw is an upcoming editor with much promise, and of course Collect's body of work speaks for itself. WPConservatism is long overdue for a GA, and IMO this dispute is holding up a promising GA for the project: Linda McMahon. I'm going to attempt to get to the root cause of the dispute, and determine a protocol for future interactions between these two. ''I'd appreciate it if uninvolved editors would refrain from commenting in this section. To Screw and Collect, in this section please direct your comments to me and not to each other.'' Thank you.– Lionel (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Screw: what in your opinion is the worst transgression Collect committed against you?


 * Mediation cannot be undertaken solely on your own initiative; it has to be agreed to by both parties involved. If they consent to it, discussion should take place elsewhere. In that case, Collect should close this section as no further input form the WP community at large is required. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. It would be great if Screwball23 are willing to work through their differences with a mediator, but this is not the place. If a structured dispute resolution forum is desired, I'd suggest the parties consider WP:DRN.Gerardw (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As Screwball23 has chosen (as is their prerogative) not to participate here, I've redacted the personal attack and left warning on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Unauthorized edits and false information on public profile

 * Malcolm_Welsford
 * Malcolm_Welsford

User Xxhollsxx has posted false information (this has been undone). No talk page exists for this user. Can this page be locked from malicious attacks?
 * Yes it can. However, with only a single suspect edit, it's unlikely the page would be locked. The place for page lock requests is WP:RPP, but I'd advise waiting to see if any disruption continues. Gerardw (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas


User:Lihaas made this edit. I then reverted it. Then Lihaas made this reversion with "dont change the nom to LIE" as the edit summary. I then posted on Lihaas's talk page trying to figure out what the deal with the edits were, as I was shocked to be accused of lying. Lihaas then replied here, and I responded here. Lihaas then made this subsequent response, which I could not comprehend, so I asked for clarification here. Lihaas has not responded despite making numerous edits to Wikipedia since then. User:Hot Stop came by and offered this response. I don't care about the ITN credit; I've never accused anyone of lying on Wikipedia and I don't want to be accused of being a liar, either. OCNative (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope this isn't some sort of reprisal over Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D Death of Steve Jobs, where I nominated the death of Steve Jobs for "In the News" and Lihaas unsuccessfully opposed the nomination. OCNative (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ip:14.96.177.3


Impolite behaviour. The history page lists out the summaries of the IP.  Secret of success  Talk to me  12:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be educated on what vandalism is not, and that not all those who disagree with him are "Turkish troll(s)" with "third world monuments" or some such. This has been going on since September, with regards to Nicosia and related articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm... seems he quit with another great rant. See how long that lasts, though... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Phoenix_and_Winslow
User:Phoenix_and_Winslow has previously been warned against making personal attacks,, but during an ongoing editing dispute at ugg boots the editor has been attacking User:WLRoss. Two posts in particular are a concern: and. The repeated raising of the "win" over the other editor at an unrelated article is frustrating, However, as I'm part of the editing dispute I don't feel that I can be a neutral commentator on this, so I figured it would be best brought here for people uninvolved to work out if this needs to be tackled and, if so, how. Hopefully it can be handled before it progresses. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be better if Phoenix and Winslow struck out the comments about other editors and strictly focused on content.Gerardw (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked Phoenix and Winslow several times to stop the attacks and concentrate on the article content without success. These personal attacks are just a continuation of Phoenix and Winslow's normal editing style. The main problem with his attacks is that he repeats claims that were discredited on previous notice boards and implies other editors are similarly discredited if they agree with my edits. I feel he is in need of mentoring to improve his behaviour. See here for examples of his previous behaviour. Wayne (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ' are just a continuation of Phoenix and Winslow's normal editing style is itself uncivil. "Comment on content, not contributors."Gerardw (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the history of Phoenix, Mongo and Wayne at Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations should inform anyone attempting to decide whether Phoenix has crossed the line here. Administrators were forced to stub the entire article. Mongo mentioned previous, similar behavior by Wayne on 9/11 articles: he adopts the minority view (as described in WP:FRINGE) and begins pushing to treat it as the majority view. Along the way, Wayne hasn't been very careful about sticking to the truth. Are these personal attacks, or well-founded criticisms? I agree that Phoenix could be more polite in stating his case against Wayne, but I think he has a valid case against Wayne. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * People gloating about "winning" previous disputes are "well founded criticisms"? Every edit should be taken on its own merits and previous decisions/judgements should not be mobalised by editors seeking to belittle/mock/discredit their peers. If someone violates guildelines such as WP:FRINGE, by all means, civilly point this out. What is unhelpful here are the personal attacks and dragging of previous, now irrelevant, disputes into an arena where WP:FRINGE or other guidelines are not in question. For the sake of full disclosure I will point out that both myself and the anon contributor above are also part of this dispute. Mandurahmike (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Mandujrahmike. "Valid case against Wayne" has no meaning in the context of an article talk page. If an editor's behavior is chronically disruptive, there are appropriate forums for to discuss the behavior -- it has no bearing on the whether "ugg" refers to a type of footwear or the specific brand. Gerardw (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite multiple requests to present evidence to support the claims (made above by 63.171.91.193) at the WP:RFC/U that Phoenix and Winslow took out against me, the only evidence ever presented was this single diff and his claims on that board were rejected. Saying the claims are "well-founded criticisms" is itself a personal attack as the anons so called "valid case" was rejected at the RFC/U which the anon is aware of. That Mandurahmike and uninvolved Gerardw has assumed my editing behaviour has not been tested highlights the problem of editors accepting previously discredited claims as truth when repeated. It is rhetoric. Phoenix and Winslow keeps repeating and claiming he proved the claim to discredit editors supporting me. Such claims have no place in an article where Fringe is not an issue. Wayne (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Users Roux and Moxy


A discussion about a change to a template has escalated into a flamewar, between two participants who have a history with one another.  PK T (alk)  21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Anononymous (Street Meat)
Hi all -- please check out the dicussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. If there's something I've done wrong, I apologize and will recuse myself. But I feel that I've been treated unfairly and that people have ganged up on me -- thank you and warm regards -- Mig (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mig. I have gone through the discussion and also the article in question. First of all, may I suggest not to take comments on your edits personally. I think the discussion that you have mentioned has been more or less about the articles and not attacking you as a person (with reference to your "ganged up on me" comment). Regarding the article, I would suggest that you please read carefully What Wikipedai is Not and  Notability (films). As per these guideline, your article should be deleted.


 * Also, I briefly went through your other edits, and on the face of it, it seems that many of them are related personally to you. (e.g. list of Cuban American). May I suggest that if you are indeed notable, your name and your films will find way into wikipedia without your intervention. If this doesn't happen, then may be it shouldn't.


 * Sorry about your article, but I think it should go. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:MikeWazowski and talk pages


MikeWazowski has been repeatedly refusing to repond to editors on user or article talk pages. I first left an unanswered note on his talk page then brought this issue to ANI and was directed to WQA. (Please see the ANI report for comment by other editors.)

I'm concerned both because I believe non-response can be bitey in it's own way and because the need to discuss is basic policy. Editing policy says that "Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." Etiquette asks that we "Do not ignore questions." Also according to Civility "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." (emphasis added)

Two specific examples:
 * MikeWazowski put some tags on an article that User:Thegracekelly had been working on. She asked him about the tags on the article talk page a few times with no talk response from him although he twice put the tags back. (I ended up explaining the tags to her on her talk page and the article talk page.)


 * This diff shows unanswered talk page questions being removed on October 10.

More generally his current talk page shows other questions that were left unanswered or partially answered. (Note: It is difficult to evaluate the situation on his talk page at a glance because he has deleted some unanswered questions on his talk page while allowing older messages to remain visible. To see some of what is happening you need to view the page history.)

I get the impression that he believes edit summaries are all the communication needed. For example in this edit summary he says "removing this - I explained myself in the edit summaries". Similarly in this discussion he seems to feel he has replied to somebody who left an unanswered message on his talk page when he tells a third party that "Star in the Hood was dealt with on the pages in question, as was Brookfield - my edit summaries clearly spelled out my reasons" (To check what he meant by "dealt with on the pages in question" I went to the history of  Star in the Hood's talk page  and Star in the Hood (company) talk page   and found no talk page comments by him there, just 2 page moves).

However since he did not reply to my (deleted) note on his talk page and did not speak at ANI I am not certain of the reasons for his refusal to speak to some editors on talk pages.

My hope is that he will either begin using talk pages to collaborate or will switch to editing areas that require less discussion.

As to what I did wrong in this, my tone on his talk page may have been off putting even though I mentioned some areas of agreement in an attempt to be more positive. Cloveapple (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Amaroks


This is regarding the behaviour of User: Amaroks on article Raj Thackeray. The said article is a biography of a living person who is a politician involved in many controversies. I thought that the article was strongly biased and hence placed a POV tag on the page and started a discussion on the talk page of the article. User: Amaroks removed the tag without discussion. Assuming good faith and ignorance about tags on their part, I replaced the tag and left a message on the user's talk page. His response to this was removing the tag again, deleting the message on his talk page without response, and writing impolite and irrelevant comments on the talk page of the article. Hence, I again messaged him on the talk page explaining the purpose of such tags, urging not to engage in edit warring, and warning not to persist in such unconstructive editting. Then I replaced the tag. But the user has repeated the same sequence of actions as before.

I believe I have been civil and so far have given him the benefit of doubt. Please look into this and provide appropriate assistance. My messages on his page have been removed, but can be found in the history.

Thanks. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Really!! nice!!

It doesn't matter what you feel, This user Geeteshgadkari is placing tags which are not necessary at all. And he only feels that article is completely biased. He is not involved in any discussion whatsoever. I asked him to give valid reasons about his insecure feeling but he is not involved in any discussion. Check  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaroks (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

anonymous (street meat)
Thanks for your entry, Michael. It's true what you said. I'm surprised at the editing reaction this entry engendered, but I'm also surprised that the film has received such positive attention worldwide. Short films don't normally get reviewed nor covered. That's one reason I was surprised at the Wikipedia page (since removed) for "Saturday Night Special," which depicted that particular short (passing itself off for four years as a full length movie on the Wikipedia page) as a "masterpiece." But I know that short films don't get that kind of critical acclaim or press, unless someone famous is involved -- and even then. I believe that perhaps the film festival note received by "anonymous (street meat)" may be because of its subject matter -- bank and corporate abuse presented in a metaphorical manner. Incidentally, the film was also in Cyprus on Oct. 15, 2011, and I wrote to them requesting any Cyprian press coverage available -- the same with Korea and Russia. The problem, I believe, that one can't get here their local press coverage, if any exists, is that such coverage would be in the native tongue of the country and it may not be accessible through a Google search. It's also difficult to contact film festival representatives because they act in anonymity for obvious reasons.

This is a first film, a UCLA student film, made by a screenwriting MFA TFTDM candidate, not a "directing" student per se, for an experimental film class which required that a five-minute film be completed in eleven weeks from start to finish. This is NOT a thesis film, but a class assignment. The short film was screened at UCLA bridges Theater on December 8, (I believe) 2010. Special effects were added thereafter and it was completed on January 21, 2011. So, in reality, the film was "released" in 2011.

Nonetheless, the film and I will also be covered by the Huffington Post (or a very similar on-line publication), as I was interviewed by columnist Daniel Cubias a week ago. The article is scheduled to be published at the end of October or November 1st. It will be tied to the movement "Occupy" of which I play no part.

Thanx again and kind regards, Mig (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that any recognition by a film festival of a film is not minor recognition. A screening is not minor recognition -- this is because film festivals see thousands of films before they decide on a handful of films that will become a part of their festival for their entire year -- they spent a lot of time, money and effort promoting the films selected. Being selected is in and of itself recognition. "anonymous (street meat)" represented the USA in Russia, Korea and Cyprus.

From the Wikipedia page " Film festivalFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_festival ''"A film festival is an organised, extended presentation of films in one or more movie theaters or screening venues, usually in a single locality. More and more often film festivals show part of their films to the public by adding outdoor movie screenings.[1] The films may be of recent date and, depending upon the focus of the individual festival, can include international releases as well as films produced by the organisers' domestic film industry. Sometimes there is a focus on a specific film-maker or genre (e.g., film noir) or subject matter (e.g., horror film festivals). A number of film festivals specialise in short films, each with its defined maximum length. Film festivals are typically annual events."''

The article also goes into how film festivals -- which vary in recognition and prestige -- charge an entry fee. "anonymous (street meat)" has been invited to most of these film festivals and the entry fee has been waived, so that does not apply. Mig (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Mig (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:FFGR79


User FFGR79 (?) took a decent photo of a Mitsubishi Town Box firetruck and is now set on including this photo in as many articles as possible across several languages, and refuses to accept any discussion on the topic. I first reverted one of these uses (while in passing erroneously referring to a postal vehicle as a fire truck in my edit summary) and replaced it with another photo which seemed more illustrative to me. FFGR79 proceeded to revert and make further changes. The user has then continued reverting, all the while refusing to engage in any form of conversation, instead only attacking me for not being fluent in Japanese. I obviously don't want to ban or come down heavy on this person since they are a new user, but would welcome someone else's eyes upon the Kei car talkpage conversation. Thanks,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * FFGR79 is becoming increasingly unpleasant in tone, referring to one reversal of my edits as a "bug fix". Statements such as this one (from the Kei car talkpage) are also rather rude:


 * Grateful for any help, I am.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kgorman-ucb


As discussed in the previous discussion on this subject, it is my view that this user has engaged in aggressive, disrespectful behaviour against other users by threatening them with bans, quoting irrelevant policies, removing edits by users made in good faith, requesting only the use of sources that he personally approves of (while rejecting sources that are used without question elsewhere) and generally trying to make the process of improving the men's rights article much, much harder. I have attempted to communicate with him on this subject but have been met with further such behaviour. As far as I can see, the user has not attempted to contribute anything positive or constructive to the article in question and has demonstrated a general unfamiliarity with the subject in his comments on the talk page. I would ask that he just be reminded to try to be more positive in his contributions and not threaten those who disagree with him. Hermiod (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not threatened anyone. When users' behavior has violated policies that they may have been aware of, I've politely warned them (which is a kind of comical difference from the behavior of the meatpuppets flooding that article.)  I am not the only user to have done so; uninvolved administrators have repeatedly said pretty much the same things I have.  In terms of your complaint about sourcing, WP:RS is not up for negotiation.  Kevin (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour has been far from polite. You've used Wikipedia policies as a stick to beat people with. I tried engaging with you in a friendly manner and was responded to with more stick waving. Hermiod (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hermiod, could you link to diffs of edits in which you feel Kgorman was being impolite? On reading over that talk page, I'm not really seeing anything that strikes me as impolite, threatening, or unconstructive from him. I mostly see kgorman trying to explain policy and why you need to follow it, and you being very offended by that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He threatens a ban here,attempts to censor Wikipedia by moving the article here,and in this discussion he continues to use Wikipedia policies as a stick. There is not one positive contribution from him to Men's Rights as an article or even the talk page to be found. The policies he cites are irrelevant and seem to be being used in an attempt to intimidate someone he thinks isn't already aware of them. There's also the issue of him contacting you directly and making further accusations against me, not limited to irrelevant discussion of my own talk page. I have now spent approximately three times as much time on dealing with his nonsense as I have been able to spend on contributing to the article itself. Hermiod (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not generally considered threatening to say "you are violating policy X, and continuing that may result in you being blocked." That's pretty much what all of our warning templates say, in fact. Kgorman appears to have asked you (and other editors) multiple times to focus on edits, not editors, and then brought up the issue of a block (a block, not a ban, which is a different animal and outside the power of one person, admin or not, to apply) being possible when you continued to focus on editors' motivations rather than their edits. Similarly, his comment on my talk page requested that I, as an uninvolved admin, look at the situation, not that I block you, or that I accept his word for what's going on, or anything else that would have been problematic. Your accusation of censorship strikes me as a bit odd, because I think kgorman was actually trying to give you what you want with that proposal: an article on the men's rights movement, as distinct from the concept of men's rights. Can you explain why you view the splitting or moving of the article as censorship? I'm quite worried by your statement that "the policies he cites are irrelevant." No, policy is never irrelevant. We are bound by WP:V, WP:RS, and all other policies - that's why they're called policies. That you don't find them useful for what you want to do may actually be a feature, not a bug - sometimes when we're deeply entrenched in a dispute, we can lose sight of where the line lies, and policies are useful for giving us a hard stop at that line, whether we see it or not. Our reliable sourcing policy, for example, tells us that blogs are not generally acceptable as sources. So when we come across a blog that we're sure tells The Real Truth and want to add it because we're sure it will finally make people understand, it's good to have that policy there to say "no, no matter how much you think the blog is true, it's not a solid source for an encyclopedia article". I think this really may be the meat of the issue, your belief that policy can be waved off as irrelevant and kgorman's belief that it can't. If that's the case, it's less an issue of wikiquette than of policy interpretation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some answers. I consider the attempts to move the article to be censorship by obscurity. Making the article more difficult to find than its obvious equivalent women's rights makes greater learning about men's rights more difficult. There is a reason why feminism is a separate article to women's rights and that reason can be applied here. Second, I believe the policies quoted to be irrelevant because they did not apply to the discussion at hand and his use of them threatening. I did question the motives of some of the edits and I continue to believe that I have good reason for treating them with suspicion, but I have not taken that issue any further and do not intend to do so. I have not, by the way, used any blogs or other such unreliable sources in any of my edits.Hermiod (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now opened a thread at WP:ANI about this set of issues. Kevin (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Violet Fae


Violet Fae's behavior shows a clear lack of understanding of assume good faith and civil. I'm not going to lose any sleep about this personally, but given that the user has asked that I don't contact them anymore, I feel that it is best for the project if someone drops the user a line. Bold editing in conjunction with an attitude like this doesn't bode well.

An attempt at a quick and clear summary:

1. Violet Fae removes content from the Paula Poundstone article, citing a wp:BLP concern. I disagreed and reverted the user's edits twice. I brought the issue to the talk page to what was a reasonable and civil conversation. I suggested she bring it to dispute resolution.

2. Soon after I leave for a 2.5 week vacation.

3. I come back and out of curiosity, went to see how it was resolved. There was a debate on the BLP noticeboard. A user with multiple IPs got in on the conversation with some heated comments. Apparently the debate was settled and the IPs were blocked.

Of obvious concern to me was that VioletFae strongly suggested in the nb entry that I was the IPs. I actually found this just as funny as bothersome, being that I was halfway around the world on vacation, and that I'm an experienced editor who prides himself on following guidelines, and also I had no interest in the disputed content other than what I thought was a civil dispute about the blpvio.

4. I left a msg on VioletFae's talkpage with the intent of pointing out the humor and also trying to suggest that she should be a little more careful in throwing stuff out like that in the future. . In retrospect, I could've chosen my words better, but it was a pretty tame response to a sockpuppet suggestion.

5. Then VioletFae left this message on my talkpage. The name calling is completely uncalled for, and again - suggestions of sockpuppetry are a serious matter and should not be thrown around lightly.

While I could see that an inexperienced editor finds it suspicious that my edits stopped and the IPs came in, the Signs of sock puppetry essay could be helpful for the user to read.

Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the comment at your talk by Violet Fae was not appropriate and should have been phrased considerably differently. However, a quick look at the article (and the history of Talk:Paula Poundstone plus the BLPN discussion) shows that there was a real issue, and socks were using at least two open proxies (see contribs and contribs). Wikipedia cannot be perfect, and while no one should have been falsely accused of sock puppetry, it is understandable how Violet Fae came to write the inappropriate message, particularly as your message at their talk came a couple of weeks after the incident had been resolved, and might have been perceived as unnecessarily re-opening an incident in which discussion at BLPN had supported Violet Fae's comments and edits). I suggest that nothing helpful would result from taking this report any further. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a "real issue." In what way did the BLPN discussion support Violet Fae's comments? No one agreed that there was a BLP violation! Only one person said "it was very likely" one, and that was because he'd made a wrong assumption. Read that discussion again. It took forever to get others to weigh in, which more than anything showed that there was no "real problem." And when they finally did weigh in, as said, there was no definitive conclusion that there was a BLP violation. One editor said that, in this case, it would be best not to report the lewd act charge since it was dropped. That's all.


 * Violet Fae is someone who thinks she knows it all, and is extremely rude. Nothing more. 83.142.160.103 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:OOODDD


This editor is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia and has made many constructive edits. Much of what he has done to this day is useful and helpful to the project. However, he is mixing in some bad decisions, and our attempts to communicate with him have gone unanswered.

He is removing redlinked articles from terms that should be linked, according to WP:REDLINK. Sometimes he "fixes" redirects that are not broken, per WP:NOTBROKEN. I first noticed these edits when they intersected with WikiProject Catholicism. I reverted these three edits, among others, and left two notes for User:OOODDD on his talk page, hoping we could work it out. His response was to blank his talk and continue editing in the project. So I posted a note in WP Catholicism: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism since this editor's volume was such that I was not sure I could keep up with checking every edit to see whether it was valid or not. The problem was not resolved there, nor did User:OOODDD post a response. Another editor from another WikiProject entered the conversation also here but was also ignored. The edits have continued to the present time, with recent ones here and here (a future film) and here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

comment from Mirokado. I share the concerns about OOODDD's recent edits. Please see my second message mentioned above.
 * It will help if OOODDD can provide edit summaries as the edit form requests. So many unexplained edits either waste a lot of other editors' time or go unchecked, neither of which possibilities are in Wikipedia's interests. The lack of edit summaries also sets a bad example for less experienced editors.
 * OOODDD, like everybody, should seek consensus before making wide-ranging systematic changes which do not implement an already clearly-established Wikipedia guideline or policy. It would be sensible and considerate to post an explanation somewhere relevant in any case if a series of edits will affect many related articles.
 * In the case of non-personal redlinks to potential articles, I bet that no consensus for wholesale removal will be forthcoming. (If it were we could simply let a bot remove all redlinks e basta). Mostly, deciding which of such redlinks can be removed requires human discretion, thus a clear explanation.
 * Although we have not seen any responses to our talk messages, nor here yet, OOODDD has made very few edits since my latest message, mostly unrelated to the issues raised here, so I have no complaint about the current editing pattern. --Mirokado (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiton Magnificus
--Senra (Talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)



Chiton magnificus seems to believe that accusing editors of in his words win the battles not by argument but by persistence is not uncivil. I beg to differ. Further editors who object to his words are suffering from "hypochondriac personal attack infectious disease" or "HPAID", again his words my emphasis. External comments would be welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wee Curry Momster; you forgot to provide the diffs so that everybody can see the context in wich things were said. Chiton magnificus (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not seeing it. Recommend just ignoring the comment. Gerardw (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, now he's convinced that sort of behaviour is acceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiton is now alleging my comments stem from a racist presumption because he is "Argentine" ,. I believe the comments about "win the battles" betray a WP:BATTLE mentality and he appears to be seeking confrontation rather than consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment (Uninvolved editor) It is clear to me (diff) and, it seems, (Langus) (diff) that (WCM) is frustrated. Indeed, in his own words, "Before complaining about the name, see the discussions above. And note no one is interested in further semantic arguments, ...". As a result, (CM)(diff) further raised the temperature with "... and the phrase of 'reprising an old argument' is a very weak argument." after which, the discussion degenerated into a slanging match. It is my opinion that all the parties (in particular but not exclusively WCM and CM) should take time out for a day or so to cool down. I have not looked into all the previous discussion on this topic but I am sure an involved editor can summarise concisely such discussions to further help currently involved editors. I would advise any such summary should avoid extensive quoting of Wikipedia rules and policies as, in this instance anyway, it would only inflame the situation even more. The last resort may be to initiate a move request, where other editors can (again) help in trying to rename this obviously contentious article --Senra (Talk) 10:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a frustrating discussion. Part of the problem is that we have on several occasions had people come to the article and demand that we use the word "invasion" in the title, even though it's factually incorrect and POV.  Such people have generally (though not always) been willing to engage on any other terms or compromise in any way.  Add to that the frustration that comes from several long discussions that have failed to come up with a viable improvement to the current name, which nobody likes.  This has been going on every 8-12 months or so for years.


 * I have listed alternate proposals and their drawbacks at the article talk page. Pfainuk talk 18:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Senra, I'm trying in fact to do as you suggest. Pfainuk, I understand completely the frustration, but as you can see this time is different. I hope we can have a civil interchange and hopefully get somewhere. Regards. --Langus (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your co-operation. I have marked this thread. Good luck with the article --Senra (Talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Tarc
I'm having a bit of an intense discussion over at Talk:Muhammad/images which is bad enough in itself, but is apparently going out of his way to get in my face. I'd appreciate it if someone could review this and maybe clue him in on proper collegial editing?

the problem:
 * His first comment to me - subject line 'bullshit' - is which he accuses me of bad faith, of being biased, calls people who oppose his position 'unreasonably hateful' and implies they are primitives.
 * second post, second accusation of bad faith.
 * calls me biased, accuses me of political correctness, and asserts page ownership by declaring that the page "will not be changed"
 * this post came after I asked an admin to caution him about personal attacks. He reasserts the personal attack and his ownership of the page, and throws out a bunch of dire warnings about the trouble I'm going to get myself into
 * More warnings that I'm going to get myself in trouble, more page ownership issues, and the statement that one of my points is 'extremely retarded'
 * This time he asserts that I should be topic-banned, and tells me I should not bother filing this wikiquette because "we all know how that is going to go". I'm not sure what he was trying to imply with that last…

In short, he made exactly six posts to me on this page, and all of them were filled with attacks, threats and warnings, rude comments, and general hostility. He doesn't seem to want to discuss the topic much at all, since he spends most of his time rebuking me for raising the topic in the first place.

it seems likely that this is a BAITing tactic, but… I mean, am I wrong, or is this guy just a wee bit over the top? -- Ludwigs 2 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc has a point with the OWNership comment--Guerillero &#124; My Talk  16:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's frustrated, certainly, and that shows. Given the provocation, I think he's maintained his cool reasonably well. His belief that you are attempting to twist a foundation resolution aimed at unnecessarily shocking imagery to support your personal view is certainly defensible, if not true. Portraying your attitude as being founded upon political correctness isn't an attack, and, again, is certainly defensible, if not true. The "retarded" quote did go past the realm of politeness, but not really into attack mode, as he was discussing your assertion, not you personally. His last post was fairly accurate: you are being tendentious, and the likely result of pressing this would be action against you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, edits such as this [] make civil responses less likely. C WP:Gray Area contributions frequently result in WP:Gray Area responses. My advice is to make your own contributions excruciatingly civil while engaging in controversial subject area discussions. Gerardw (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Gerard - what precisely is your objection to that post? do you not like the fact that I pointed out a straw man argument, or do you take offense at my suggestion that peace and goodwill should be pursued on project?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I have no choice except to question your competence as an editor" Gerardw (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the comment was certainly a valid point (we have an essay on that issue which I linked to), and I presented it in a properly civil manner. but if it bothers you I'll refactor. -- Ludwigs 2  21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted the last time, I have a generally dismissive disdain for WQA itself; this is a platform from which to whine, it accomplishes nothing and solves nothing. WP:GiveMeSomewhereToVent would be a more apt title . Beyond that, there's really not much I have to say now that hasn't already been said at the article talk page. I punctured Ludwigs' WP:OWN argument quite handily, and the rest is just prevarication from the matter at hand, which is that Ludwigs brings up a perennial (it is even noted at WP:PERENNIAL) topic that has been easily and overwhelmingly rejected in past discussions.  There's a line where consensus can change ends and dead horses begin, and this guy has sailed right over it.


 * We also have a bit of a glass house scenario going on here. Here, Ludwigs seems to relish the idea of a heated bit of rhetoric with an edit summary of r to Tarc - ok, no gloves. I can do that.  Then on his talk page in a discussion with another involved editor, we have, quote, "However, since you encouraged him to be gruff on his talk page, I responded to him in a gruff fashion (just so that he knows I can); he and I will find our own level of discourse.", link here.  So on the one hand, Ludwigs wants to go the proverbial mano-a-mano, but then runs to WQA to complain?  Sorry bud, but you don't get to say "let's fight!" and then go scampering to WQA to scream "he hit me!"  Editors with unclean hands who file complaints really don't have a leg to stand on. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tarc - you do realize that I said those things specifically and solely for you to bring up here, as proof that you were engaged in BAITing, right? You'll notice that I didn't actually follow through on that claim, I just said I did.  I'll also point out that your first line in this post is "It was not a personal attack, I'm afraid, you don't get to hide behind that oft-abused shield" and yet here you are raising that 'oft-abused shield' against much milder statements than your own.  More evidence of BAITing tactics.  perhaps I should bring this to ANI, instead…  -- Ludwigs 2  17:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your response doesn't even make sense, all it looks like now is you furiously backpedaling on your claims in order to save face. You actually did follow through with that claim numerous times, in things said to me and to others, e.g. your "competence" line cited above, the bit about "parrots" to me in Muhammad/images, among others.  You have clearly, and convincingly, lost the image debate.  Sorry that you're mad about that, bro.  I'll say it again; unclean hands doesn't impress people, and if you think forum-shopping this to ANI is going to get any better, I'd caution you to be prepared to duck. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you serious Ludwigs2, "I said those things specifically and solely for you to bring up here, as proof..."? If so, then you did not say them in good faith, YOU were baiting Tarc. Do you wish to retitle this thread to Ludwigs2? Franamax (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Gerardw's suggestion above is the best one I've seen yet. Ludwigs, your initial thread comment appears a bit trollish considering the situation.  Is there any reason not to close this discussion? Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to close this - before that boomerang in the distance makes its way back. But that's just my opinion from watching (on /Images talkpage) what's becoming nearly tenditious with the next stop past that being disruptive. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 09:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are also other clouds on the horizon. Mathsci (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

IP Address being Abusive


The IP adress 163.152.102.45 previously vandalized the article Calabozos. When warned not to repeat vandalism, he/she replied back with uncivilized language.

Following is the conversation between him and me:

Me to 163.152.102.45:
 * "Just posting this message you to remind you that Vandalism is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. You will be reported to the admins."

His reply:
 * I don't give two s@!$s. Now get off wikipedia and go do something more productive with you life.

Request for all the admins to take some action and resolve this matter Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally transient vandalism of this sort is just ignored. If it continues report the IP at WP:AIV. Gerardw (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians


A merger proposal was raised genuinely on two articles (Syrian Malabar Nasrani onto Saint Thomas Christians), since both are on same people and redundancy is very high. Moreover the name Syrian Malabar Nasrani is an artificially formed one. 7 people partcipated in the discussion and noticeably some of them were administrator/Dispute Resolution Board Mediator. 5 of them supported and 2 opposed. From the opposing side, User: Thom100, removed the Merge Tag from both the articles, while the discussion was going on. He assumes some conspiracy in all these matters and sometimes attacks personally. He hasn't created a User Page yet and doesn't see or care Talk Page warnings. I doubt this account as a Socketpuppet. Ashleypt (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind providing diffs of his alleged incivility? It helps us out.-- SKATER  Is Back 16:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Skater, As you suggested, the diffs have been pasted below. (Time line: Bottom to Top) --Ashleypt (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.72.195 (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) - Removed Merge tag
 * 2)  - Removed Merge tag
 * 3) - Factual mistake inserted again and again.
 * 4) - Factual mistake inserted against reputed sources..
 * 5) - Removed relevant tag assuming Error
 * 6) - Factual mistake inserted again and again..
 * 7) - Factual mistake inserted against reputed sources.
 * 8) - Personal Attack
 * I'm just going through these one by one so bare with me. The first two should constitute warnings for removing the merge tags. He should of just left comments in the discussion. He also came close to the Three Revert Rule on the 14th of October, and seems to near POV pushing without consensus of others in the article. The last does seem so be a personal attack and the user shall receive a notice to comment on content, not the contributor. If he insists I would take it to WP:ANI in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skater (talk • contribs)
 * Dear Skater, Thank you very much for your straight-forward observation on the given issue. Now the user seems to be absconded and I don't know when the next attack could be expected. Anyway I'm already consoled by your kind observation. --Ashleypt (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On a lighter note, I had to google what the word "absconded" meant, and it's my pleasure to offer input on a situation. Best of luck with editing, I'm taking the liberty of marking this archive as closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skater (talk • contribs)

Refusal to remove vulgarity


Editor will not remove, or clean up this passage on the talk page: which reads :"If we are measuring the size of our e-penises". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that there has been a lot of aggressive comments from the filer of this request and others at Talk:Occupy Wall Street. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though I would say vigorous and energetic instead. But it all looks likes a Baptist prayer breakfast in comparison. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Penis? That was the vulgarity? Oh come on Artist, I know your intention was good....but penis? As for the mention that there has been "aggressive comments" by the editor....I would agree with his assertion that they were "vigorous and energetic". There have been far too many actual aggressive comments made by others for his to be considered even close to those. My opinion. Surely not shared by all. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally unnecessary and inflammatory replacement for "edit history." That contribution is the kind of pointless macho chest thumping stupidity which drives editors away from Wikipedia. See []. Gerardw (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to that...and you can't speak for him. Don't redact that post again. If he wants to...he will do it. If he doesn't then we will NOT censor him unless administrative action is called for. I will not relent on this.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic that Eraserhead1, an editor who at times appoints himself the wiki-cop of other editors' comments is now the subject of similar treatment . Perhaps this will be a teachable moment. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK....but the that diff didn't show any example from him (edit:or her, as I have no gender information) .--Amadscientist (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not worth arguing over this any further IMO. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is rich, Eraser, as noted above, has played the role of scold, but will not redact. I have just reconsidered the editor's recent admonishment to me, and it has reaffirmed my belief that in regards to editor behavior, the editor's moorings could be better established. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you care if the comment is redacted to "edit history?" Gerardw (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that had already been done hours ago... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now done. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume this discussion is closed and with the redaction made by Eraserhead1 of the statement, that he feels his use of the term was a vulgarity. Striking above comments without removing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to assume anything. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous requested assistance, and Eraserhead1 agreed to redact the comment, resolving the situation. The redaction means Eraserhead1 is being cooperative and civil, not that he feels anything about anything. Gerardw (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

World Series template discussion


In good faith, I nominated what I felt to be a problematic template for deletion, but in response I have received scorn and vilification in what seems to be severe disproportion. Are there other steps I should have taken prior to nomination? Some way to assuage what are obviously some hurt feelings while also redirecting discussion away from knee-jerk reactions and toward the merits of the case? Powers T 14:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior to nomination, I would have discussed this with Wikiproject Baseball. You'd have been able to gauge the view of other editors, and avoided slapping a TfD template in the middle of articles at a crucial time. I would also have waited till the season was over.  It wasn't urgent. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I didn't even think about the timing. But even so, I don't really see the relevance; the template is used to link to World Series articles, so it shouldn't really be used much in the article on the current Series.  Powers T 16:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)